Playing pinball with cyclists

[andyBeaker]

Cougar377

The ‘facts’ you have presented have been examined and raise more questions than answers and as such cannot be relied upon.

You state the surface was ‘gravel and level gradient’.

You have also stated that the cyclist was going at 25 mph although have been unable to supply any evidence to support this.

Professional cyclists at the top level would expect to maintain 25/30 mph on smooth flat tarmac when ‘going for it’ with the assistance of a peloton To share the workload. I put it to you that it is unlikely in the extreme that the cyclist was travelling at 25mph has you claim.

However, let’s assume that the cyclist was travelling at 25mph, ridiculous as that is. You have stated that you made observation of him at 100 yards and 30:yards.At 100 yards That would have given you around 8 seconds to do what a reasonable person would do ie leave space for him to pass. Let’s be realistic and recalculate that on 14mph, that being the high side of the likely speed on a level gravel surface - that would have given you 15 seconds to react.

I put it to you that the ‘facts’ as you express them are wildly off the mark.

Whole it is customary for cyclists to give way to pedestrians do you think it reasonable to deliberately have six people abreast on the track knowingly leaving the cyclist no room to pass on his left as is customary? Is it reasonable to deliberately barge him into the bushes? Is it realistic that if the cyclist was doing 25mph as you claim that you would not have been injured while carrying this out? That is a significant impact speed by any standards.

There is no question that pedestrians have right of way over cyclists.

“All legitimate users have an equal right to use a right of way but, on mixed-use paths, the following rules apply:

• horses give way to pedestrians
• cycles give way to both horses and pedestrians

It is the responsibility of anyone using a public right of way to do so sensibly and with due regard for other users. “

Do you feel that your chosen course of action complied with the final sentence of the above rules? I put it to you that you did not, you took actions that were not sensible and certainly did not have due regard for others. I put it to you that these actions were fuelled by an ingrained hate of cyclists.

As such I find in favour of the cyclist and award him £1.5m in damages.

 

[Duck n Dive]

Appeal is lodged as the judge has erred in considering the balance of weight being given to the lawful requirements.

The two prime requirements in law are defined in the bullet points.

The judge has erred in reaching a decision that gives undue weight to the general statement that follows.

That statement does not remove or modify the two preceeding lawful requirements.

Those requirements give an unqualified obligation for cyclists to give way to both horses and pedestrians.

It is not disputed that the cyclist struck a pedestrian.

It is an absolute offence with no provision for mitigation.

At this point, unless referring the case for consideration to a judge with a black head covering, the cyclist is guilty.

 

[Oldandbald]

Having given due consideration to the evidence presented I'd have still given him a slap. Which is, as I understand it, the minimum sentence for being a knob.

 

[derek kelly]

The Judge is bent, sack the Judge,

 

[Cougar377]

Cougar377

The ‘facts’ you have presented have been examined and raise more questions than answers and as such cannot be relied upon.

You state the surface was ‘gravel and level gradient’.

You have also stated that the cyclist was going at 25 mph although have been unable to supply any evidence to support this.

Professional cyclists at the top level would expect to maintain 25/30 mph on smooth flat tarmac when ‘going for it’ with the assistance of a peloton To share the workload. I put it to you that it is unlikely in the extreme that the cyclist was travelling at 25mph has you claim.

However, let’s assume that the cyclist was travelling at 25mph, ridiculous as that is. You have stated that you made observation of him at 100 yards and 30:yards.At 100 yards That would have given you around 8 seconds to do what a reasonable person would do ie leave space for him to pass. Let’s be realistic and recalculate that on 14mph, that being the high side of the likely speed on a level gravel surface - that would have given you 15 seconds to react.

I put it to you that the ‘facts’ as you express them are wildly off the mark.

Whole it is customary for cyclists to give way to cyclists do you think it reasonable to deliberately have six people abreast on the track knowingly leaving the cyclist no room to pass on his left as is customary? Is it reasonable to deliberately barge him into the bushes? Is it realistic that if the cyclist was doing 25mph as you claim that you would not have been injured while carrying this out? That is a significant impact speed by any standards.

There is no question that pedestrians have right of way over cyclists.

“All legitimate users have an equal right to use a right of way but, on mixed-use paths, the following rules apply:

• horses give way to pedestrians
• cycles give way to both horses and pedestrians

It is the responsibility of anyone using a public right of way to do so sensibly and with due regard for other users. “

Do you feel that your chosen course of action complied with the final sentence of the above rules? I put it to you that you did not, you took actions that were not sensible and certainly did not have due regard for others. I put it to you that these actions were fuelled by an ingrained hate of cyclists.

As such I find in favour of the cyclist and award him £1.5m in damages.

 

[Cougar377]

Cougar377

The ‘facts’ you have presented have been examined and raise more questions than answers and as such cannot be relied upon.

You state the surface was ‘gravel and level gradient’.

You have also stated that the cyclist was going at 25 mph although have been unable to supply any evidence to support this.

Professional cyclists at the top level would expect to maintain 25/30 mph on smooth flat tarmac when ‘going for it’ with the assistance of a peloton To share the workload. I put it to you that it is unlikely in the extreme that the cyclist was travelling at 25mph has you claim.

However, let’s assume that the cyclist was travelling at 25mph, ridiculous as that is. You have stated that you made observation of him at 100 yards and 30:yards.At 100 yards That would have given you around 8 seconds to do what a reasonable person would do ie leave space for him to pass. Let’s be realistic and recalculate that on 14mph, that being the high side of the likely speed on a level gravel surface - that would have given you 15 seconds to react.

I put it to you that the ‘facts’ as you express them are wildly off the mark.

Whole it is customary for cyclists to give way to cyclists do you think it reasonable to deliberately have six people abreast on the track knowingly leaving the cyclist no room to pass on his left as is customary? Is it reasonable to deliberately barge him into the bushes? Is it realistic that if the cyclist was doing 25mph as you claim that you would not have been injured while carrying this out? That is a significant impact speed by any standards.

There is no question that pedestrians have right of way over cyclists.

“All legitimate users have an equal right to use a right of way but, on mixed-use paths, the following rules apply:

• horses give way to pedestrians
• cycles give way to both horses and pedestrians

It is the responsibility of anyone using a public right of way to do so sensibly and with due regard for other users. “

Do you feel that your chosen course of action complied with the final sentence of the above rules? I put it to you that you did not, you took actions that were not sensible and certainly did not have due regard for others. I put it to you that these actions were fuelled by an ingrained hate of cyclists.

As such I find in favour of the cyclist and award him £1.5m in damages.

 

[andyBeaker]

Appeal is lodged as the judge has erred in considering the balance of weight being given to the lawful requirements.

The two prime requirements in law are defined in the bullet points.

The judge has erred in reaching a decision that gives undue weight to the general statement that follows.

That statement does not remove or modify the two preceeding lawful requirements.

Those requirements give an unqualified obligation for cyclists to give way to both horses and pedestrians.

It is not disputed that the cyclist struck a pedestrian.

It is an absolute offence with no provision for mitigation.

At this point, unless referring the case for consideration to a judge with a black head covering, the cyclist is guilty.

Not that it has anything to do with you, none of this is fact in law. Use of footpaths is based on a number of principles, the over riding one being

‘It is the responsibility of anyone using a public right of way to do so sensibly and with due regard for other users’.

 

[andyBeaker]

View attachment 79859

View attachment 79867

Neither of these are admissible as defence.

 

[sr71caspar]

Having given due consideration to the evidence presented I'd have still given him a slap. Which is, as I understand it, the minimum sentence for being a knob.

Never mind about Beaker, how guilty do you find the cyclist.

 

[sr71caspar]

Not that it has anything to do with you, none of this is fact in law. Use of footpaths is based on a number of principles, the over riding one being

‘It is the responsibility of anyone using a public right of way to do so sensibly and with due regard for other users’.

So you do agree the cyclist is at fault.

 

[sr71caspar]

This thread is all the proof needed to show why Beaker will never be asked to do jury service and why his application to become a JP was turned down.

 

[andyBeaker]

This thread is all the proof needed to show why Beaker will never be asked to do jury service and why his application to become a JP was turned down.

Yaaaaawnnnnnn.

 

[Duck n Dive]

Not that it has anything to do with you, none of this is fact in law. Use of footpaths is based on a number of principles, the over riding one being

‘It is the responsibility of anyone using a public right of way to do so sensibly and with due regard for other users’.

Wrong


Fact.

 

[ogr1]

Yaaaaawnnnnnn.

There's more proof, he keeps falling asleep.

 

[Cougar377]

There's more proof, he keeps falling asleep.

Like most judges.

 

[derek kelly]

Like most judges.

I have sat through countless Court cases where the Judge appears asleep, believe me, it’s an act, they don’t miss a thing

 

[andyBeaker]

Cougar377 thank you for depositing the £1.5m in my Swiss bank account.

Rest assured that the injured party will receive the 1% of the settlement that is left after deduction if my fee if they ever come forward.

Now, I believe you may drive a spawn of the devil diesel. Have you ever considered the damage it does to the environment and the health of those around you?

 

[Cougar377]

Cougar377 thank you for depositing the £1.5m in my Swiss bank account.

Rest assured that the injured party will receive the 1% of the settlement that is left after deduction if my fee if they ever come forward.

Now, I believe you may drive a spawn of the devil diesel. Have you ever considered the damage it does to the environment and the health of those around you?

I've never owned an oil burner and I never will.

There's an orange gentleman in the USA who's in need of legal representation. I'll pass your card on to his nurse.

 

[sr71caspar]

I've never owned an oil burner and I never will.

There's an orange gentleman in the USA who's in need of legal representation. I'll pass your card on to his nurse.

I rather think that Beaker is the one in need of a nurse.