Avatar for markrjohnson

markrjohnson

Member since Nov 2007 • Last active Sep 2015

Most recent activity

  • in General
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    Being the flatulent sort I treat "wheel suckers" to some methane sucking.
    Seems to do the trick, though care must be taken not to follow through.

  • in General
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    Overtake BMW in traffic (deafened by the beats), passed by same BMW, overtake same BMW in traffic, passed by same BMW (tyre squealing and redlining), overtake same BMW in traffic (stereo now off), passed by same BMW (even more squealing and revving).
    Go to pass same BMW in traffic and driver shouts "Get out of the fucking way you cunt, you’re holding me up", as I pass him, yet again in traffic.

  • in Miscellaneous & Meaningless
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    Is C really absolute?

  • in LFGSS Ladies
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    Langster: Cheap, tough, comfy.
    Fixed.

  • in General
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    Simples:
    If its red, its going to go to green.
    If its green its going to go to red.
    Accelerate at red lights, brake at green.

    Now where is my tin foil hat?

  • in General
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    Point accepted about possible damage coming to light later, but the only legal obligation for a driver to give details comes from S172 which states "damage", not suspicion of damage. As previously stated this fine distinction has been argued over at crown court on many occasions. The courts seem to think that unless the damage would be obvious to an ordinary driver then it is reasonable for that driver to assume no damage.
    Crap decision I know, but that's how it appears. Good manners are not a legal obligation.
    As for being forced to give details: the 1988 act States that a driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle must give details. Cycles are not mechanically propelled vehicles. Now I know it's difficult to argue with the 5-O but that's what it says in the act.
    Depends how far you want to stick to a point.

  • in General
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    I accept the point about not knowing whether damage is caused. However, the act does not state "suspect damage caused". So, again, we are back to whether a court would think her actions were reasonable given the circumstances. Which is tantamount to saying that it would never get to court as there was no obvious damage for her to see at the time, so she has no obligation to stop.
    There are numerous stated cases on this and the majority seem to revolve around reason ability.

  • in General
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    I agree that good manners dictate the woman should have given her details, but unless there is damage she is not obliged by law to do so irrespective of the wishes of the other party. Indeed had ExTra attempted to detain her in these circumstance then ExTra would be open to some very serious allegations.
    As cyclist we are all aware that many car drivers (and cyclists) leave much to be desired in the manners department; that's just a fact of life.
    As for reporting her, again, I agree, but without any damage or independent witnesses I doubt it would go even that far.
    The minor tail end has happened to me on a couple of occasions. Once it was a wizened old lady once a yoot in a bangin' hatchback. The first time I took it with stoic good humour the second time I judged to be deliberate and so went ballistic and ended up being warned for public order when said yoot locked himself in his car and dialed 999.
    Life.

  • in General
    Avatar for markrjohnson

    An adjustment, as in straightening a wheel, is not damage. It is an adjustment this has been held on many occasions in relation to criminal damage, however, the principle applies.
    Ok, you don't know if there was any damage, fair point, but whether she should have given you her details is for a court to decide in these circumstances. We are getting into the realms of reasonably help belief.
    "I honestly believed there was no damage", would a court accept that?
    I don't know.
    I suspect that the previous case you allude to was significantly more serious as I really cannot see the CPS going ahead in the circumstances you describe.
    As for your allegation that the contact was deliberate.
    Very difficult to prove, but if it were the case then you are into assault rather than RTC.

Actions