Honest John

User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3231
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Honest John

Postby bigjim » 3 Jun 2009, 9:29pm


User avatar
Coffee
Posts: 395
Joined: 15 Jul 2008, 2:24pm
Location: Huntingdonshire

Re: Honest John

Postby Coffee » 3 Jun 2009, 11:02pm

"If I plead not guilty then I will have to travel 100 miles and may have to pay witnesses that may be called. I wouldn’t mind doing this if I thought I could get away with being found not guilty"

Get away with?

No florescent clothing or helmet, did he look?...I have been wondering when a female cyclist gets hit next time will there will be mention of woman's 'lack of spacial awareness' being to blame...where will it end!!!? :shock:
Rule 63

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white VAN (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable, watch out for Anna Meares elbows.

Romeo Whisky
Posts: 47
Joined: 29 Apr 2009, 2:39pm
Location: East Lothian

Re: Honest John

Postby Romeo Whisky » 3 Jun 2009, 11:09pm

The sad thing is that in many JP courts Honest John might be right, regardless of the rights and wrongs as it were.

User avatar
Swizz69
Posts: 402
Joined: 3 Aug 2008, 12:25am
Location: Hyde

Re: Honest John

Postby Swizz69 » 3 Jun 2009, 11:14pm

Honest John says contact a 'good solicitor'.

Guess 'good' means the guy will get away with it. Never mind that the guy might be guilty. Never mind the cyclist who he injured, he should have been wearing a helmet & flouro jacket :evil:

A good solicitor will probably use the Police's inaccurate statement to get the guy off on a 'technicality'.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30877
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Honest John

Postby thirdcrank » 3 Jun 2009, 11:50pm

Calm down, dear. It's only the motoring column in the Daily Telegraph.

Every Saturday the Daily Telegraph Motoring supplement has the 'Honest John' column and there is a website of the same name. The column covers the sort of stuff that might be of interest to motorists. In the case causing the controversy here, somebody is being prosecuted for a collision involving a cyclist (something widely believed on here never to happen.) The driver doesn't like it and wants advice. He's advised to consult a solicitor - advice I've given on here loads of times. How can anybody take exception to that? Some motoring organisations even provide legal help for members - does it sound familiar? If he's got a defence, a solicitor will help him prepare and present it. If he hasn't, the solicitor will advise on the right plea and prepare mitigation. As an aside, the saving to everybody in time and all the rest of it is huge when a defendant is properly represented at court. The defendant who represents himself when the case is hopeless can condemn witnesses and everybody else to hours wasted.

If the prosecution case has flaws, motorists, like everybody else are entitled to be acquitted - Magna Carta and all that jazz. (If the summons has the name of the road wrong, the prosecution will apply to have the summons amended.)

User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3231
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Honest John

Postby bigjim » 4 Jun 2009, 9:35am

thirdcrank.
You are missing the point. All of Honest John's readership are being given the impression that all cyclists should be wearing a helmet and hi-viz clothing. If they are not and subsequently are involved in an accident then it is the cyclists fault.

Jack
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Feb 2007, 11:22pm

Re: Honest John

Postby Jack » 4 Jun 2009, 10:30am

bigjim wrote:thirdcrank.
You are missing the point. All of Honest John's readership are being given the impression that all cyclists should be wearing a helmet and hi-viz clothing. If they are not and subsequently are involved in an accident then it is the cyclists fault.


Only by the motorist wrigling around to try and get off. "Honest John" didn't metion helmets. He just said:

If you are saying the cyclist wove into your path and caused the collision, then that, combined with him not wearing fluorescent clothing, might lead to a decision in your favour rather than his.

User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3231
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Honest John

Postby bigjim » 4 Jun 2009, 11:20am

OK. slapped wrist on helmet, but Point about motorists viewing and gaining wrong impression stands IMHO. It is not just the motorist that asked the question who is viewing the answer as of course we are.

User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: Honest John

Postby EdinburghFixed » 4 Jun 2009, 12:08pm

Really he says "if the cyclist caused the collision, that might get you off" which is a pretty uncontroversial thing to say.

The high-viz point is interesting though. Clearly there is a perception that responsible cyclists ought to look like dustbin men, I wonder whether this helps encourage the readership to stick to their cars. Pity really.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15188
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Honest John

Postby Si » 4 Jun 2009, 12:22pm

Clearly there is a perception that responsible cyclists ought to look like dustbin men

If you look in the highway code you will notice that hi-viz clothing is a "should" for cyclists.

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Honest John

Postby Edwards » 4 Jun 2009, 12:48pm

This could be seen as a disaster for those claiming hel**** (I can not bring myself to say the word) and hi-vis do not give any protection.
I am puzzled to understand what went wrong so that a mere Mugle could manage to get passed the force provided without the use of those horrible not to mention things.

Where was Harry when needed. I do hope somebody has sent an owl to Dumbledore to inform him of this most concerning development.
Maybe somebody from Hogwarts will be along to explain. Knowing my luck it will be Voldermort.

Seriously I hope the cyclist makes a quick and full recovery.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

Kirst
Posts: 375
Joined: 16 Nov 2007, 7:38pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Honest John

Postby Kirst » 4 Jun 2009, 12:59pm

I'm reading the reply very differently. I think he's just told the motorist he has no chance of getting off.

If you are saying the cyclist wove into your path and caused the collision, then that, combined with him not wearing fluorescent clothing, might lead to a decision in your favour rather than his.


The hi-viz is a red herring.
I can handle bars and cycle paths but I can't handle cars and psychopaths

http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/s/notinmyname

thirdcrank
Posts: 30877
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Honest John

Postby thirdcrank » 4 Jun 2009, 1:04pm

I don't feel I am missing the point at all. On the subject of hi-viz togs, here's rule 59, specifically for cyclists. Seems pretty specific to me.

59
Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark

That section is, of course, only advisory. This is the relevant bit of the HC introduction. Again, it seems pretty clear to me.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

User avatar
Swizz69
Posts: 402
Joined: 3 Aug 2008, 12:25am
Location: Hyde

Re: Honest John

Postby Swizz69 » 4 Jun 2009, 1:36pm

The code says you can wear brightly coloured clothing, not just flourescent.

That could mean a white t shirt, or even stretch to red or blue for example if it stands out, rather than blends in to the background. Shame the HC stipulates wearing a helmet though when legally people have a choice :?

Biscuit
Posts: 412
Joined: 6 Sep 2007, 10:21am
Location: Wiltshire

Re: Honest John

Postby Biscuit » 4 Jun 2009, 5:10pm

Yup the devil is in the detail "...light-coloured or fluorescent clothing " the 'or' is clearly a choice................