This guy seems to think cyclists have to wear helmets and HI-Viz.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/5393979/Honest-John-rejecting-a-car-and-aftermath-of-a-collision-with-a-cyclist.html
Jim
Honest John
Re: Honest John
"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!!!?
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!!!?
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.
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
The sad thing is that in many JP courts Honest John might be right, regardless of the rights and wrongs as it were.
Re: Honest John
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
A good solicitor will probably use the Police's inaccurate statement to get the guy off on a 'technicality'.
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
A good solicitor will probably use the Police's inaccurate statement to get the guy off on a 'technicality'.
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Honest John
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.)
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.)
Re: Honest John
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.
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.
Re: Honest John
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.
Re: Honest John
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.
-
EdinburghFixed
- Posts: 2375
- Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm
Re: Honest John
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.
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.
Re: Honest John
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.
Re: Honest John
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.
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
I do not care about spelling and grammar
Re: Honest John
I'm reading the reply very differently. I think he's just told the motorist he has no chance of getting off.
The hi-viz is a red herring.
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
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/s/notinmyname
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Honest John
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’.
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’.
Re: Honest John
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
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
Re: Honest John
Yup the devil is in the detail "...light-coloured or fluorescent clothing " the 'or' is clearly a choice................