You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Out of interest steve, did you attempt to contest the Bus Lane FPN in any way?
I can see you might not have wanted to employ a solicitor for the sake of contesting a £60 fine at the supreme court, but did you at least call/email the appropriate department and discuss it? What did they say?
ahem, those quotes are mine, not molly'sI also never attended archery practice on a Sunday.
Of course there are some daft laws - I've no idea how the seatbelt thing you're banging on about works, but [b]I'm sure nobody has ever been done for that theoretical case[/b]. Your argument now appears to be a combo of strawman and slippery slope -
I'm almost sure someone has but that's a bit either irrelevant or the point I'm making???? (and there are plenty of cyclists been done for pedal reflectors)no it doesn't make it reasonable or sensible to ignore all the rules because some are daft and never enforced.I'm not saying ignore all the rules ...I'm saying it means I start obeying them when I might get caught rather than just obeying them because they are sensible. That might be parking illegally for 5 minutes because I don't have the correct change and it's Sunday and the local traffic wardens are not working... or it might be cycling home without pedal reflectors...
What I'm saying is that has changed my perception of WHY I obey...
The way I see it is there are 650 MP's MEANT (paid and elected) to make sure that the Act they vote on is fair and just etc. The overwhelming majority either don't show up or vote on party lines...
Before they vote they should fully understand the Act and it's consequences ... and how it interacts with any other Act..
This all seems to be far too much work/trouble for them.
Largely that is because they have Acts that need rewriting so it's next to impossible toA recent example was some Act that by extension effectively allowed a PSCO to issue an on the spot fine to a kid for riding on the pavement.
Now I very much doubt most of the MP's that voted this Act in did so because they think that is correct... about the same time the Minister for Transport was saying "people should ride on the pavement where they feel unsafe on the road" and the police at the same time were saying they would prosecute people following the Ministers advice... they voted for it because they hadn't READ and UNDERSTOOD it...
The Road Traffic Act (1835) is a particularly crap bit of legislation for the 20C, let alone 21C .. and since then bicycles (carriages) etc. have changed a lot...
Despite the numerous amendments cycles are still carriages... so the new Act was referring to people driving a carriage on the pavement.... not a child riding a bike... but to unravel that is a lot of work and effort.. the sort of thing the CTC legal people might understand but not your MP.http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/1835highwayact/
The policy (not the individuals) is to maximise revenue
Non-tinfoil related citation required!
I dunno about you but when I break the rules, I cough up. I get angry about it on here, but then I realise I was wrong.
I could claim the sign in Liverpool that I missed was not visible (it's not very conspicuous on streetview), but I can't really prove that it wasn't just me not watching well enough.
I presume you always park your car in reverse on a public highway as well or you are contravening the seatbelt law (presuming you aren't driving a emergency services vehicle)? for the seconds you sit down to the seconds you put on a seatbelt...
I understand that you must wear a seatbelt when driving unless you're reversing, but I've never come across anything to suggest that you're expected to teleport into the driver's seat with the seatbelt already fitted. Can you show me anything that would suggest that it applies when stationary / with the engine off? I've had a look and can't find any clarity either way.
It's a while ago, but I'm 99% certain that my driving instructor told me that you didn't need to wear a seatbelt for a manoeuvre that *involved* reverse (eg, a 3-point turn) but recommended leaving it on in case you forget to put it back on afterwards. He could've been wrong of course, he was a driving instructor not a lawyer.
[quote="GrahamS"]Out of interest steve, did you attempt to contest the Bus Lane FPN in any way?
Nope... I already lost a week by the time I got the letter (working away from home) and it was made pretty clear that you either pay up and get a 50% reduction or they are going to screw you over so you lose out even if the appeal is successful.
When I then considered how I could prove the fire engine it just looked simpler to pay than try and appeal.. after all they must have had photo's of the fire engine in the bus lane a minute either side...so it wasn't like this would be news to them. Having seen a documentary the policy is they fight every appeal because they rely on 90% of people not appealing and if people are seen to win then more will appeal... (I guess from their side it's like PPI and they could end up with a huge bill for all the illegal PCN's they paid and i think by paying you have to accept guilt so you can't then go back and challenge it)
If I phoned them up and they then started with the script, refusing to acknowledge the fire engine unless I could provide evidence I'd probably just have upset myself more.... not worth it for £60
Steve - did you get a photo with your bus lane fine as evidence? There were two or three photos attached to mine when I received it IIRC.
Assuming the bus lane was on the nearside and the camera mounted on the pavement there would be a good view of the bus lane and the normal lane and loads of vehicles skewed all over the bus lane as they avoided the fire engine? Mine had time stamps on as well which could have helped demonstrate that you were stationary/moving slowly.
Also - common sense surely dictates that if a smart motorway sign changes from 70-40 immediately that you're not expected to jab the brakes on. I've never stamped on the brake and never received a speeding fine from such a scenario.
Can you show me anything that would suggest that it applies when stationary / with the engine off? I've had a look and can't find any clarity either way.
I had a look Cougar and the only relevant thing I could find was a Pistonheads thread about a guy who was done for removing his seatbelt whilst he was stationary in traffic.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=948453&i=0
I'm 99% certain that my driving instructor told me that you didn't need to wear a seatbelt for a manoeuvre that *involved* reverse (eg, a 3-point turn)
Correct. Legislation is here:
Section 14 (2)(b) ii has the reversing exception.
Easy reader version is here:
https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/when-you-dont-need-to-wear-a-seat-belt
Having seen a documentary the policy is they fight every appeal because they rely on 90% of people not appealing
The "policy" will be dependent on the individual council and / or any third party they've contracted to enforce the restrictions. There is no great national conspiracy, there will be hundreds if not thousands of different organisations involved in the issue of PCNs.
Your argument is essentially that you received an unfair charge, couldn't be arsed to even try to contest it, and are now bitter that you had to pay. You've only yourself to blame here I'm afraid. They might have fought it tooth and nail of course, or they might equally well have gone "fair enough chief, we'll cancel that for you then, sorry for the inconvenience."
I understand that you must wear a seatbelt when driving unless you're reversing, but I've never come across anything to suggest that you're expected to teleport into the driver's seat with the seatbelt already fitted. Can you show me anything that would suggest that it applies when stationary / with the engine off? I've had a look and can't find any clarity either way.It's a while ago, but I'm 99% certain that my driving instructor told me that you didn't need to wear a seatbelt for a manoeuvre that *involved* reverse (eg, a 3-point turn) but recommended leaving it on in case you forget to put it back on afterwards. He could've been wrong of course, he was a driving instructor not a lawyer.
I probably could find it eventually as I've found it before when looking for something else.... I just don't remember EXACTLY where... and the way legislation is written/amended makes it a bit pointless unless you actually got done for it.
Typically it's just badly worded....
An similar (more current) example is using your mobile phone...
There are several sites that suggest IF you have it in a holder and you are using it as a sat nav then that is actually legal.... and the illegal bit is actually "holding the phone" ... but if you read the legislation or simplifed .gov explanation that is far from clear.
https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law
During that time a few legal firms issued "their interpretation" as so many people were confused... but honestly would it have been that hard for the legislation to actually spell this out?
Note also the simplified .gov doesn't actually link to the Act itself....
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/41D
Nope...
When I then considered how I could prove the fire engine it just looked simpler to pay than try and appeal..
..If I phoned them up and they then started with the script, refusing to acknowledge the fire engine unless I could provide evidence I'd probably just have upset myself more.... not worth it for £60
So instead of at least phoning them up for a chat, where for all you know they may well have said something like [i]"Oh yes, I can see the incident photos here Mr Xtc and they clearly show a fire engine. There's no need pay the fine and we'll send you a letter confirming that."[/i] you instead have decided they are all mindless automata conspiring to rob you to swell the council coffers?
Odd.
Your argument is essentially that you received an unfair charge, couldn't be arsed to even try to contest it, and are now bitter that you had to pay. You've only yourself to blame here I'm afraid. They might have fought it tooth and nail of course, or they might equally well have gone "fair enough chief, we'll cancel that for you then, sorry for the inconvenience."
Not really, the problem was opening a can of worms...
It's possible I could have rung them up and they could have said "Oh sorry we have 100 other's and we saw the fire engine...." but it's equally possible they would have simply informed me if I wished to appeal I lose my right for the £60 discount and I then incur time off work etc.
Even assuming these were 50/50 possibilities it is £60 vs potentially £1000+
I'm also guessing the person who answered the phone would be far more likely to have no power to actually change anything there and then... and would instead follow a script.
[quote=stevextc ]and there are plenty of cyclists been done for pedal reflectors
cite
I'm not saying ignore all the rules ...I'm saying it means I start obeying them when I might get caught rather than just obeying them because they are sensible.
Ah - I tend to obey them if they are sensible, because you'd have to be a dick not to, but YMMV
[quote=stevextc ]An similar (more current) example is using your mobile phone...
There are several sites that suggest IF you have it in a holder and you are using it as a sat nav then that is actually legal.... and the illegal bit is actually "holding the phone" ... but if you read the legislation or simplifed .gov explanation that is far from clear.
It's just you, steve. The legislation quite clearly states "hand held" and the guidance quite clearly says that if you're using it hands free (and gives examples, including a holder) that you're OK. Are you trying to find things to get confused by?
[quote="nickewan"]Also - common sense surely dictates that if a smart motorway sign changes from 70-40 immediately that you're not expected to jab the brakes on. I've never stamped on the brake and never received a speeding fine from such a scenario.
Yes, common sense says that but the camera has no common sense.
So far as I understand the new speed limit applies from some exact point where the sign is....and has no "slow down sensibly" (It is a normal speed limit sign in that regard)
Now someone MAY have applied common sense and put a delay for the camera but equally they may not.... how would I know?
If I learned anything from implementing similar stuff through work it's that the simplest/cheapest option to implement is the one that gets implemented not the common sense approach....
Correct. Legislation is here:
Ah, nice find. The preamble to that says,
[i]The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, [b]persons who are driving or riding[/b] in motor vehicles on a road to wear seat belts of such description as may be prescribed.[/i]
So how do we define "driving or riding"? Are you driving if you're sat in the car with the engine off? Seems unlikely. Engine running but parked up with the handbrake on? Dunno. To my mind both "driving" and "riding" would imply motion, if something is "being driven then it's under power and if you put an automatic into Drive then it sets off.
The article on the PH thread is insanity. I wonder if he got the charges dropped? Can't immediately find a follow-up article.
Ah, nice find. The preamble to that says,The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, persons who are driving or riding in motor vehicles on a road to wear seat belts of such description as may be prescribed.
So how do we define "driving or riding"? Are you driving if you're sat in the car with the engine off? Seems unlikely. Engine running but parked up with the handbrake on? Dunno. To my mind both "driving" and "riding" would imply motion, if something is "being driven then it's under power and if you put an automatic into Drive then it sets off.
The article on the PH thread is insanity. I wonder if he got the charges dropped? Can't immediately find a follow-up article.
When this "driving or not" has been applied to people over the alcohol limit sleeping/listening to radio in the driving seat with the keys in their pockets not in the ignition they have said that is "driving" (as I recall)
Anyway, the first point is there are multiple interpretations of what driving/riding mean so why can't they just spell it out? I can understand for seatbelts why not moving might also require a seatbelt (as you may be hit by another car)
You can apply all those arguments you make (which I agree are common sense) to simply getting in/out of the car.
The second point is based on possible interpretations 650 MP's are meant to have reviewed, understood and then voted on this....that then applies to millions of people... I just can't see how it would have killed them to actually get the wording correct and unambiguous?
If you then look at the whole Road Traffic Act ... (written before the modern safety bicycle) and then just amended to .... you can start to see how ambiguous the whole thing is.... cycles are classed as "carriages" ... I don't know about you but I see very few horse drawn carriages and why they law as pertains them applies to a cycle .... but not a car is just layers upon layers of amendments to an Act from the mid 1800's...
When this "driving or not" has been applied to people over the alcohol limit sleeping/listening to radio in the driving seat with the keys in their pockets not in the ignition they have said that is "driving" (as I recall)
Wrong. The alcohol stuff states "Driving or being in charge". The fact you have the keys means you are "in charge".
If you then look at the whole Road Traffic Act ... (written before the modern safety bicycle)
What? 1988? Did you ride a Penny farthing to school?
[url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents ]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents[/url]
.. cycles are classed as "carriages"
No they really aren't. From the 1988 RTA
"cycle” means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle,"
Your rage against the machine is hilarious. 😀
Do you just make shit up? #xtcfact
Has this turned into one of them wordy ****athon threads?
Yes.
Multiquotes! Nitpicking! Froth!
Take it you're not at work today Steve as I reckon you could have rewritten the highway code this afternoon with all the posts you've put on.
There's no way on earth I'd be paying for that bus lane incident and I like others have said would've been straight on the phone.
In fact I sent dominoes an email on Sunday and got a refund today as my food was 50 mins late and cold. I love complaining me 😉