|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 3, 2023 11:40:04 GMT
It isn't the police who determine whether is is a shared space or not, it's the County Council. Nope, it's down to the court.
However, as previously stated, without appropriate signage to the contrary it's a footpath.
Obviously not. You can't wait until a court decides what a shared space is. The designation is made, in this case, by the CC. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 3, 2023 12:38:20 GMT
I meant there is no way to remove a fucking idiot from the bench. Also, appeal court standards of proof have in the past been set higher than the standard for the original conviction. Michael Howard was famous for using this as an excuse not to do his job. Ok to the best of my knowledge, yes there is a way to remove idiots from the bench IMHO the Law Society, all convictions require a high standard of evidence to put someone on trial , the CPS evaluate that and will not go to trial unless they think it is strong enough to secure a conviction, as for the Courts of Appeal if an appeal is accepted their job is to look at the strength of the evidence and everything else was done right , including any new additional evidence not known about at the time of the trial. They can either dismiss an application of appeal if they think its not justified , or allow an appeal and rule on it after scrutinising the evidence , either unsafe conviction especially if new evidence has come to light, or the conviction was safe, or that the sentence was too harsh, or not harsh enough . Quality Control It helps to have a wife inside the system www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/judges-and-parliament/Note that the power has not been used once in three hundred and twenty two years in mainland UK despite literally dozens of obvioys dodgy sentences. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Mar 3, 2023 12:42:57 GMT
Nope, it's down to the court.
However, as previously stated, without appropriate signage to the contrary it's a footpath.
Obviously not. You can't wait until a court decides what a shared space is. The designation is made, in this case, by the CC. It depends on perspective. It would be the council's responsibility to designate the path as a shared area or a footpath. On the other hand, if a cyclist were being prosecuted for improper use or, as in the case in the op, an accused individual were mounting a defence on the basis of preventing an offence from being committed, it would be for the court. The court would decide the issue objectively - what the man on the Clapham omnibus would think it was.
A bit like obscured speed limit signs, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 12:48:55 GMT
Ok to the best of my knowledge, yes there is a way to remove idiots from the bench IMHO the Law Society, all convictions require a high standard of evidence to put someone on trial , the CPS evaluate that and will not go to trial unless they think it is strong enough to secure a conviction, as for the Courts of Appeal if an appeal is accepted their job is to look at the strength of the evidence and everything else was done right , including any new additional evidence not known about at the time of the trial. They can either dismiss an application of appeal if they think its not justified , or allow an appeal and rule on it after scrutinising the evidence , either unsafe conviction especially if new evidence has come to light, or the conviction was safe, or that the sentence was too harsh, or not harsh enough . Quality Control It helps to have a wife inside the system www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/judges-and-parliament/Note that the power has not been used once in three hundred and twenty two years in mainland UK despite literally dozens of obvioys dodgy sentences. I did state to the best of my knowledge , as a I am not a Lawyer , what do you mean by Dodgy Sentences ? they can and are challenged by the defendant , and the CPS on a regular basis , as for sentences the Judges are issued with Sentencing Guidelines that Judges are supposed to take heed of. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 3, 2023 12:53:19 GMT
I think the court might have been influenced by the young driver who actually run over and killed this lady, by all accounts her life has fell apart after the accident, it sounds like her relationship with her husband is over, she has anxiety and other mental health issues, it's a very sad case all round, just a moment of madness and so many lives changed for ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 3, 2023 13:13:45 GMT
I've seen the video on YouTube and it seems like a freak scenario with devastating consequences.
If only one of them had stopped to let the other pass.
I'm surprised that a prison sentence was deemed necessary.
Although the defendant probably looked threatening to an old lady probably would not have been threatening to a younger person.
Can't help yet think psychotherapy with a suspended sentence to change the attitude of the defendant instead of the tax payer funded jail time. Psychotherapy should help in changing behaviour in a similar situation that after reflection will not happen again.
Of course the defendant could appeal
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 3, 2023 13:46:30 GMT
Nope, it's down to the court.
However, as previously stated, without appropriate signage to the contrary it's a footpath.
Obviously not. You can't wait until a court decides what a shared space is. The designation is made, in this case, by the CC. Or not, if appropriate signage is not in place. It matters not what a local council deems a place to be - they have to comply with relevant regulations in order for their decision to be enforceable.
Which local councils are notoriously bad at.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 3, 2023 13:50:59 GMT
To be honest, in my view, if the status of the footpath is that unclear even after Police investigation then it cannot be classed as a shared cycle-way. Is the right answer. Many motoring cases have been defended on the basis of inadequate signage. Signs must be present, of the appropriate type and size, repeated at the appropriate intervals and be in good, unobscured condition. Failure to comply with any of the above points makes them unenforceable. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 3, 2023 16:58:30 GMT
I did state to the best of my knowledge , as a I am not a Lawyer , what do you mean by Dodgy Sentences they can and are challenged by the defendant , and the CPS on a regular basis , as for sentences the Judges are issued with Sentencing Guidelines that Judges are supposed to take heed of. Ok. I know the mechanisms exist to challenge both sentence and conviction. I have no problem with that. Although i repeat that a study of any such case from the days of Michael ‘something of the night’ Howard onwards - i pick on him because i heard him say it OPENLY to a news crew - will show you the Home Secretary requires evidence to challenge a sentence or a conviction to carry GREATER weight, not EQUAL weight, not weight sufficient to generate reasonable doubt, GREATER weight, than the evidence that put the convict away before such an appeal will be granted But the problem is three pronged 1) Until recently no mechanism of any kind existed to challenge an overly lenient sentence 2) Once sentenced, or convicted, nothing will be done unless evidence of weight greater than that presented at the original trial is presented, but more of a problem is the fact that 3) NO mechanism has ever been actually USED to REMOVE a judge everyone knows is a fucking idiot. And THAT means until the grim reaper intervenes, people will keep getting off, or getting a slap on the wrist when they deserve far more, or getting far worse than they deserve and NOTHING will be done about the judge respinsible for that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Mar 3, 2023 17:26:19 GMT
Obviously not. You can't wait until a court decides what a shared space is. The designation is made, in this case, by the CC. Or not, if appropriate signage is not in place. It matters not what a local council deems a place to be - they have to comply with relevant regulations in order for their decision to be enforceable.
Which local councils are notoriously bad at.
The problem with that interpretation is that you are then alleging that the cyclist was riding somewhere that she wasn't allowed to, which clearly wasn't the case, regardless of the inadequate signage (which I do agree with). |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Mar 3, 2023 17:44:01 GMT
Unfortunately the lady riding the bicycle wasn't competent or confident enough to ride it, by the looks of the video. She clearly didn't have the capacity to ride the bike off the pavement and onto the road. She should have just
stopped calmly on the pavement and let the pedestrian pass her by. It looked as though she panicked and things happened a little too quick for her once she got a gesture from the pedestrian. The pedestrian could have seen that she
was old, and moved right over onto the pavement for the lady on the pushbike (that is what I would have done), but she wasn't considerate enough to do that.
Manslaughter though, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 3, 2023 17:45:07 GMT
Or not, if appropriate signage is not in place. It matters not what a local council deems a place to be - they have to comply with relevant regulations in order for their decision to be enforceable.
Which local councils are notoriously bad at.
The problem with that interpretation is that you are then alleging that the cyclist was riding somewhere that she wasn't allowed to, which clearly wasn't the case, regardless of the inadequate signage (which I do agree with). Well the Law says that Cycling on the pavement is not allowed unless it is a shared path. Given the lack of signage the pedestrian was quite within her rights to believe that the cyclist was breaking the Law, a danger to pedestrians and to remonstrate with her. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Mar 3, 2023 18:01:45 GMT
The problem with that interpretation is that you are then alleging that the cyclist was riding somewhere that she wasn't allowed to... That's not my interpretation Andrew, if there was inadequate signage, it's the law. If the council had in fact designated it as a "shared path" (whatever that is) then the council should shoulder a large part of the responsibility given the woeful lack of signage. TFL provide some good guidance: "On the public highway, all signs and road markings must be taken from and comply with conditions for application set out in the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions (2002).
...cycle facilities should ideally be physically separate from pedestrian facilities, or at least look different, thereby reducing the need to instruct users about where cycling is and is not permitted..."linkNone of that was present where this incident happened, which makes it a footpath, and the cyclist shouldn't have been there. |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Mar 3, 2023 18:48:27 GMT
Speed was measured for 5421 riders who were observed cycling on shared paths across the 12 locations over the study period. Across all locations, the average cycling speed through the speed measurement stretches was 11.4 miles/hour.
These paths can be used by pedestrians, cyclists, joggers and dog walkers. There are no lanes marked on the path and nobody has the right of way, so all users are equally responsible for their actions.
On Hampstead Heath cyclists must not exceed 4 miles/hour. A cyclist who exceeded this limit was fined £400.
Cyclists on shared use pavements should obviously be required to travel at no more than walking pace ... and should be required to sound their bell when approaching people from behind. I use a 200 yard stretch of narrow pavement leading to my local hospital. Many of the pedestrians are elderly/sick and hence slow moving. When I approach them I check behind me before I pass them ... as I've had several near misses with fast moving cyclists coming from behind me when I moved over without checking it was safe to do so. On several occasions I've seen cyclists riding on the pavement in the hospital grounds. Cyclists should have LICENCE PLATES so that the police can identify them without having to attempt to stop them if they are placing pedestrians at risk. Members of the public should be able to report such cyclists to the police ... if the police receive several reports about a particular cyclist they should be banned from using their cycles until they have undergone training. If they persist their bicycle should be confiscated.
A letter in a local London newspaper described the effect of pavement cyclists coming from behind as "Mind pollution".
A cyclist riding without lights on my local canal path in the gloom of evening ran into me. I wasn't hurt ... but he fell off his bike and then fell 15 feet into the canal lock (which was empty ... but had 3 feet of mud in it). It took him 20 minutes to find his way out! The following day the lock was full ... and covered in ice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 3, 2023 19:10:17 GMT
I did state to the best of my knowledge , as a I am not a Lawyer , what do you mean by Dodgy Sentences they can and are challenged by the defendant , and the CPS on a regular basis , as for sentences the Judges are issued with Sentencing Guidelines that Judges are supposed to take heed of. Ok. I know the mechanisms exist to challenge both sentence and conviction. I have no problem with that. Although i repeat that a study of any such case from the days of Michael ‘something of the night’ Howard onwards - i pick on him because i heard him say it OPENLY to a news crew - will show you the Home Secretary requires evidence to challenge a sentence or a conviction to carry GREATER weight, not EQUAL weight, not weight sufficient to generate reasonable doubt, GREATER weight, than the evidence that put the convict away before such an appeal will be granted But the problem is three pronged 1) Until recently no mechanism of any kind existed to challenge an overly lenient sentence 2) Once sentenced, or convicted, nothing will be done unless evidence of weight greater than that presented at the original trial is presented, but more of a problem is the fact that 3) NO mechanism has ever been actually USED to REMOVE a judge everyone knows is a fucking idiot. And THAT means until the grim reaper intervenes, people will keep getting off, or getting a slap on the wrist when they deserve far more, or getting far worse than they deserve and NOTHING will be done about the judge respinsible for that. No Judicial System is perfect because people Judges included are fallible we make mistakes some Judges pass harsher sentences than others , the Court of Appeal has been in place for many many years they are tasked with dealing with inappropriate sentences, the Legal System works slowly and some that work in it dislike change or being challenged that will always be the case. However I think in comparison to many other countries legal systems some of which are based on our long established system works well , but sometimes the punishment does not fit the crime . |
|
