If this has already been posted upstream, then please ignore. Joshua Rozenberg’s piece on the verdict - rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-grey-got-three-years
Thanks for passing that on. As a subscriber to Joshua Rozenberg's substack it was in my Inbox but I was working on another PC.
The Judge's remarks stand on their own and need no additional commentary. They do though confirm that this was a second trial and that, on both occasions, Miss Grey chose not to give evidence.
They also seem to dispose of any suggestion that the deceased did anything silly. There is reference to a witness saying that she had stopped facing Miss Grey before the actual fall.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 07/03/2023 at 15:16
|
|
|
|
Very interesting the views of the judge but questionable in my view.
!) you chose not to give evidence. This would not been the defendants choice but her lawyer perhaps because she does not articulate well. Was also said to have told lies at interview, well the police can be very intimidating to those who have not been there before.
2) The question of the legality of the footpath it is not a shared path
3) The assumption that the defendant was not frightened she might be injured. You have a disabled person with a club foot and a splint on her leg, not walking normally on the video and legally in the centre of the footpath. She has a cyclist coming towards her and a witness saying ""appearing that they both stopped" This is not true, from the CCTV they pass one another without stopping and the accident happens The cyclist has NOT enough room to go past safely as the defendant is in the middle of the pavement where she is entitled to be so is some way responsible shouting or not.
4) Another driver might have anticipated what might happen when they observe a cyclist riding near the kerb. Just because someone is cycling on the pavement does not mean you should not give them due distance.
Yes the Justice System has guidelines but the judge also has discretion. What good does it serve sending the defendant to prison for her actions. Everyday you see reported that people who have committed serious crimes time and time again yes the ""professional Thugs and crooks getting let off with community service or suspended sentence time and time again. You have motorists convicted of serious traffic offences still driving around with 30 points or more a danger to us all.
In the first trial the fact the jury could not reach a verdict speaks volumes
The defendant is not danger to the public, she may have made an error of Judgement but does NOT deserve prison.
This country used to be a compassionate one, it is fast loosing direction.
|
Very interesting the views of the judge but questionable in my view.
1) you chose not to give evidence. This would not been the defendants choice but her lawyer perhaps because she does not articulate well. Was also said to have told lies at interview, well the police can be very intimidating to those who have not been there before.
Almost 100% certain her lawyers said keeping her lip zipped was the only way she might avoid an adverse verdict.
2) The question of the legality of the footpath it is not a shared path
It simply doesn't matter whether it is or is not.
3) The assumption that the defendant was not frightened she might be injured. You have a disabled person with a club foot and a splint on her leg, not walking normally on the video and legally in the centre of the footpath. She has a cyclist coming towards her and a witness saying ""appearing that they both stopped" This is not true, from the CCTV they pass one another without stopping and the accident happens The cyclist has NOT enough room to go past safely as the defendant is in the middle of the pavement where she is entitled to be so is some way responsible shouting or not.
As an aside, where is the splint and club foot mentioned in either the judges remarks or the media. The CCTV shows her walking near normally. The point about fear is related to her being proprietorial about the pavement. It's quite clear from the CCTV that in fact they did not stop. However a witness thought they did. Nothing odd there; have seen the film with the man in a Gorilla suit and students playing frisbee?
The fact that the cyclist had not got room to pass was entirely due to Miss Grey's actions even after the cyclist must have committed to passing on her left. That and the fact that Grey appears to lunge are key to why she's slam dunk guilty.
4) Another driver might have anticipated what might happen when they observe a cyclist riding near the kerb. Just because someone is cycling on the pavement does not mean you should not give them due distance.
Again that's neither here nor there.
Yes the Justice System has guidelines but the judge also has discretion. What good does it serve sending the defendant to prison for her actions. Everyday you see reported that people who have committed serious crimes time and time again yes the ""professional Thugs and crooks getting let off with community service or suspended sentence time and time again. You have motorists convicted of serious traffic offences still driving around with 30 points or more a danger to us all.
The Judge used his discretion in deciding both the extent of Grey's culpability and the harm done. He then decided on the sentence.
In the first trial the fact the jury could not reach a verdict speaks volumes
A retrial is what happens when a Jury cannot agree a verdict. If that is indeed why the first trial failed.
Do you expect the CPS and the relatives of the deceased to treat it as though it were an acquittal?
|
2) The question of the legality of the footpath it is not a shared path
It simply doesn't matter whether it is or is not.
In purely legal terms it may not. But some residents of Huntingdon have reported that while the pavement on the opposite side of this road is marked out as shared for pedestrians and cyclists, the one involved in the accident is not. For some reason the judge decided that they both were, although police and the council would not commit themselves. This 'may not matter' legally, but it makes the judge appear to make an arbitrary decision for which he is probably unqualified.
|
|
By reason of this statement the judge appears to make every pavement in the country a shared footpath and gives credence to the free for all that some cyclists seem to enjoy.
What is missing in the judge's statement is any mention of the cyclists speed or position on the pavement. It would appear by the pedestrians gesturing that they were perhaps heading on a collision course. They do appear to be quite near each other when the waving starts.
Who is going to come off worse if they collide???
""""It simply doesn't matter whether it is or is not."""
Surely this case revolves around this and all the other confrontations that are happening throughout the country between cyclists pedestrians and motorists. i.e. Where cyclists are legally entitled to be and obeying the Highway Code.. In this case the two involved should not have been put in a position of confrontation due to lax authority either by council or police. I wonder why in years gone by the police used to prosecute cyclists on the pavement. Perhaps these days were more enlightened.
|
|
This seems to be signage was makes it ambiguous whether the pavement is a shared use cyclepath. There is an "end" sign but it is not clear to which direction it applies as it is at 90 degrees to the pavement.
maps.app.goo.gl/rJ6JpyDHywriEKie6
It is at the junction of George St. and Walden Rd.
|
|
|
|
2) The question of the legality of the footpath it is not a shared path
It simply doesn't matter whether it is or is not.
I believe it definitely does, because cycling on the footpath is a criminal offence. If you don't believeme, look it up.
|
2) The question of the legality of the footpath it is not a shared path
It simply doesn't matter whether it is or is not.
I believe it definitely does, because cycling on the footpath is a criminal offence. If you don't believeme, look it up.
It doesn't matter because the dead cyclist can't be prosecuted - even if she were cycling illegally, it was the action of the pedestrian that caused her death - hence the conviction for manslaughter.
|
|
|
2) The question of the legality of the footpath it is not a shared path
It simply doesn't matter whether it is or is not.
I believe it definitely does, because cycling on the footpath is a criminal offence. If you don't believeme, look it up.
So is it now OK to kill someone you believe is committing a crime?
|
|
|
|
"... cycling on the footpath is a criminal offence. If you don't believeme, look it up."
Technically, I believe there is a distinction between a "footpath" and a "footway". The former is a route situated away from a road, while the latter is next to, or alongside, a road. Cycling on a footway is a criminal offence; cycling on a footpath is usually treated as a civil matter.
The fact that the cyclist in this case may have been breaking the law (though the judge didn't seem to think so) does not give someone else a free rein to do what they like; the question of proportionality arises.
My view (for what it's worth) is that the judgement in this case was correct, but the punishment excessive.
|
|
"""So is it now OK to kill someone you believe is committing a crime?"""
How on Earth have you come to this conclusion. No body is saying this and the defendant did not kill anyone. It was an accident.
FP the verdict in law may be right but I agree the punishment is just wrong.
|
"""So is it now OK to kill someone you believe is committing a crime?"""
How on Earth have you come to this conclusion. No body is saying this and the defendant did not kill anyone. It was an accident.
FP the verdict in law may be right but I agree the punishment is just wrong.
Because whether cycling on the pavement is or is not illegal is only relevant if that somehow changes whether manslaughter is manslaughter.
The defendant did kill someone; that's what manslaughter is. She has been found guilty, in court, by a jury that has seen all of the evidence not just little snippets they've picked up from the news.
I still agree the sentence seems harsh but, having killed someone, she did then just walk off to do her shopping.
|
|
|
|
"... the defendant did not kill anyone. It was an accident."
The defendant's actions directly led to the cyclist's death. So the defendant DID kill the cyclist, in the eyes of the court. Of course it was not premeditated - that would be murder.
Manslaughter is the crime of killing a human being "without malice aforethought".
|
The defendant's actions directly led to the cyclist's death. So the defendant DID kill the cyclist, in the eyes of the court. Of course it was not premeditated - that would be murder.
This technicality could reach reductio ad absurdum. It is believed or suspected that Grey made some contact with the victim, the result of which was that she fell into the road. Let us imagine as a slight variation that instead of gesturing, Grey had suddenly shouted an obscenity as the victim passed, with the same result. Would she still have 'killed' her ? Killed by shouting ? Same sentence ?
Hmmm. If a cyclist loses balance as easily as that, I don't like the idea of blaming anyone else for the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it definitely does, because cycling on the footpath is a criminal offence. If you don't believe me, look it up.
I've been into utility cycling of one form or another for all but 50 years including a long period as a commuter in Central London.
I know what the law says and agree it's possible that the victim was not, and knew she was not, on a shared use path.
Where I'm struggling is why that has any bearing on either guilt or sentence so far as Manslaughter is concerned.
|
|
""""District Judge Leo Pyle said: "Pavements are for pedestrians and people in wheelchairs or infants in prams. They are supposed to be free of vehicles of any type.
"This mode of transport should not be there. This tragic incident was avoidable.""""
The above is the quote from the trial of a 14 year old on an e-scooter who knocked down and killed a 71 year old grandmother in Rainworth Nottinghamshire which is awaiting sentence.
Another trial different circumstances different Judge, but which judge makes the most sense?
|
|
The point is is that in the UK you are generally not able to mete out justice yourself, so even if the old lady was riding illegally it was not for the pedestrian to intervene in a violent manner. The e-scooter case is of no relevance.
|
|
Update to the 14 year old on the e-scooter for those who may be interested. He was given a 12 months Referral order and a 5 year driving ban. Ok is is young and the incident was not intentional but neither was this other case.
I do not see the logic of a driving ban. . If e-scooters are illegal was he ""driving "" it on the pavement or riding the thing. Why do you need a driving licence to use one if they are illegal? About time the authorities clarified the position of these I am aware of the "legal" trials that appear to be open ended.
|
I do not see the logic of a driving ban.
He was driving an unregistered, uninsured, untaxed motor vehicle, without a driving licence. Let's see him try to get insurance when he does want to drive a car.
I note his parents were also chastised and rightly so.
|
Update to the 14 year old on the e-scooter for those who may be interested. He was given a 12 months Referral order and a 5 year driving ban. Ok is is young and the incident was not intentional but neither was this other case.
Different set of facts though. First of all, the perpetrator/defendant was a minor. No aggression was shown towards the victim who is reported as having stepped out in front of the lad. Guilty pleas were put in and reports say the boy is full of remorse.
If Ms Grey had been honest from the start, hadn't been looking for a scrap and plead guilty asap, and then she might have avoided gaol too.
I do not see the logic of a driving ban. . If e-scooters are illegal was he ""driving "" it on the pavement or riding the thing. Why do you need a driving licence to use one if they are illegal? About time the authorities clarified the position of these I am aware of the "legal" trials that appear to be open ended.
We have them in the centre of Northampton as part of the trial. As they don't meet the exceptions available to pedal bikes with 'battery assist' they're motor vehicles and need a licence and insurance. They're illegal because, except for a concession for those available for hire, there's nothing in the Construction and Use Regs to cover them.
You can be done for riding them while over the prescribed limit and lose your car licence as a result:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-6124...3
|
|
YEs Regardless of all the differences of opinion, how about some comment on the opposite views of the two judges. They cannot both be right and the get out cannot be the shared pavement which it is not.
Also pedal bikes with so called battery assist lets call them E-bikes being exempt as a motor vehicle is a nonsense They are becoming more of a problem than push bikes because they are travelling much faster and yes some are using the pavements.
|
YEs Regardless of all the differences of opinion, how about some comment on the opposite views of the two judges. They cannot both be right and the get out cannot be the shared pavement which it is not.
To me, the facts and locations are so different that you cannot make any meaningful comparison.
If Judge Enright, in the Huntingdon case, was wrong and the footway was not shared use, it makes no material difference to whether Manslaughter was the right charge or whether Miss Grey was guilty. The only relevance might be whether it was mitigation in sentencing but it's not a clincher.
Also pedal bikes with so called battery assist lets call them E-bikes being exempt as a motor vehicle is a nonsense They are becoming more of a problem than push bikes because they are travelling much faster and yes some are using the pavements.
I'm honestly struggling to understand what you mean.
There is legislation that limits what you call an e-bike in terms of max speed while powered and that power stops if the pedals are not turning, If the thing you're riding meets the conditions then it's OK.
Scooters are a different thing. They need, but do not have (with some exceptions for organised hire), legislation to say what they can do in terms of speed, brakes, power/weight ratio etc.
I don't think, at least in terms of what is allowed/banned rather than as it should be, you and I differ much.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 09/03/2023 at 17:29
|
|
Surely the difficulty at root of this discussion is that enough rules (laws if you prefer) already exist relating to where cycles and scooters are permitted to operate. It's just that many riders / users ignore them and the authorities are not interested or numerous enough to enforce them.
|
|
It's not quite the wild west; there is formal guidance not to fine or prosecute people cycling on a pavement if they've got a decent reason to do so.
|
Surely the difficulty at root of this discussion is that enough rules (laws if you prefer) already exist relating to where cycles and scooters are permitted to operate. It's just that many riders / users ignore them and the authorities are not interested or numerous enough to enforce them.
Sounds like this story and debate has a lot of legs left in it. Just yesterday some OAP riding an electric mobility scooter decide to force me aside by 'beeping' (very quiet if was - I didn't know what the noise was until the thing was within 5m of me) and then shouting at me to 'move out of the way' whilst he 'passed' me (I was walking at a decent clip) on the pedestrian-only pathway at well in excess of 4mph, probably nearer to 10.
They appear to be a very similar circumstance to e-scooters, especially as both don't need to be registered road-going 'vehicles' but regularly chop and change riding on both, as he did - and without stopping.
|
Surely the difficulty at root of this discussion is that enough rules (laws if you prefer) already exist relating to where cycles and scooters are permitted to operate. It's just that many riders / users ignore them and the authorities are not interested or numerous enough to enforce them.
Sounds like this story and debate has a lot of legs left in it. Just yesterday some OAP riding an electric mobility scooter decide to force me aside by 'beeping' (very quiet if was - I didn't know what the noise was until the thing was within 5m of me) and then shouting at me to 'move out of the way' whilst he 'passed' me (I was walking at a decent clip) on the pedestrian-only pathway at well in excess of 4mph, probably nearer to 10.
They appear to be a very similar circumstance to e-scooters, especially as both don't need to be registered road-going 'vehicles' but regularly chop and change riding on both, as he did - and without stopping.
The law is clear with mobility scooters - when on pavements or other pedestrian areas they're limited to 4 mph (6 kph) - some are allowed to do 8 mph on roads - I suspect that many riders leave the limit switch at 8mph.
|
|
Yes rules and laws are in place but the e-scooter one has not been put to bed.
With the e-scooter you have limited lawful trials governed by the need to have a driving licence and insurance. You have a ""motorised" vehicle with silly minute wheels that are potentially unstable particularly if say a 20 stone individual uses one. As for stopping well that is something else. They also seem to be used in a mixed pedestrian environment?
The e-bike is also motorised. Just the fact you can you can pedal it and perhaps it is some 5mph? slower. why is it not classified? These should command at the very least insurance and a proper licence. If anything they are a greater risk to pedestrians.
As to mobility scooters I believe these are restricted to 4 mph but anyone can buy one, and are legal as I understand it on the pavement. This doesn't mean that they can be ridden/driven without due care for others but some abuse it
""""Surely the difficulty at root of this discussion is that enough rules (laws if you prefer) already exist relating to where cycles and scooters are permitted to operate. It's just that many riders / users ignore them and the authorities are not interested or numerous enough to enforce them.""""
The above state sums it up for me. It is not too late for the law makers to go back and think again on both. If a lot of users and this applies to push bikes as well continue to ignore the law then more serious punishment is called for.
The Highway code gives "" protection "" to the most vulnerable. At the moment it is not worth the paper it's written on
|
As to mobility scooters I believe these are restricted to 4 mph but anyone can buy one, and are legal as I understand it on the pavement. This doesn't mean that they can be ridden/driven without due care for others but some abuse it
There are two classes of mobility scooter - those physically limited to 4 mph, have no lights and suitable only for use on pavements - those switchable between 4 and 8 mph, have lights and can be used on pavements at 4 mph and roads at 8 mph.
|
Yes rules and laws are in place but the e-scooter one has not been put to bed.
With the e-scooter you have limited lawful trials governed by the need to have a driving licence and insurance. You have a ""motorised" vehicle with silly minute wheels that are potentially unstable particularly if say a 20 stone individual uses one. As for stopping well that is something else. They also seem to be used in a mixed pedestrian environment?
The e-bike is also motorised. Just the fact you can you can pedal it and perhaps it is some 5mph? slower. why is it not classified? These should command at the very least insurance and a proper licence. If anything they are a greater risk to pedestrians.
As to mobility scooters I believe these are restricted to 4 mph but anyone can buy one, and are legal as I understand it on the pavement. This doesn't mean that they can be ridden/driven without due care for others but some abuse it
""""Surely the difficulty at root of this discussion is that enough rules (laws if you prefer) already exist relating to where cycles and scooters are permitted to operate. It's just that many riders / users ignore them and the authorities are not interested or numerous enough to enforce them.""""
The above state sums it up for me. It is not too late for the law makers to go back and think again on both. If a lot of users and this applies to push bikes as well continue to ignore the law then more serious punishment is called for.
The Highway code gives "" protection "" to the most vulnerable. At the moment it is not worth the paper it's written on
I don't know where this pathological fear of e-bikes is coming from. They are like any other bike but with a motor to help you get up to normal bike speed.
|
As to mobility scooters I believe these are restricted to 4 mph but anyone can buy one, and are legal as I understand it on the pavement. This doesn't mean that they can be ridden/driven without due care for others but some abuse it
No, some mobility scooters can do 8mph and be used on the road.
|
Surely the difficulty at root of this discussion is that enough rules (laws if you prefer) already exist relating to where cycles and scooters are permitted to operate. It's just that many riders / users ignore them and the authorities are not interested or numerous enough to enforce them.
Sounds like this story and debate has a lot of legs left in it. Just yesterday some OAP riding an electric mobility scooter decide to force me aside by 'beeping' (very quiet if was - I didn't know what the noise was until the thing was within 5m of me) and then shouting at me to 'move out of the way' whilst he 'passed' me (I was walking at a decent clip) on the pedestrian-only pathway at well in excess of 4mph, probably nearer to 10.
They appear to be a very similar circumstance to e-scooters, especially as both don't need to be registered road-going 'vehicles' but regularly chop and change riding on both, as he did - and without stopping.
In what way? Mobility scooters have clear rules to what makes them legal on pavements and on the road. What is not clear to you?
|
Surely the difficulty at root of this discussion is that enough rules (laws if you prefer) already exist relating to where cycles and scooters are permitted to operate. It's just that many riders / users ignore them and the authorities are not interested or numerous enough to enforce them.
Sounds like this story and debate has a lot of legs left in it. Just yesterday some OAP riding an electric mobility scooter decide to force me aside by 'beeping' (very quiet if was - I didn't know what the noise was until the thing was within 5m of me) and then shouting at me to 'move out of the way' whilst he 'passed' me (I was walking at a decent clip) on the pedestrian-only pathway at well in excess of 4mph, probably nearer to 10.
They appear to be a very similar circumstance to e-scooters, especially as both don't need to be registered road-going 'vehicles' but regularly chop and change riding on both, as he did - and without stopping.
In what way? Mobility scooters have clear rules to what makes them legal on pavements and on the road. What is not clear to you?
I was specifically asking about the differences, other Backroomers kindly explained that. Any reason you just have to keep making snide comments like that? It's not as though I was doing the same to you.
|
They appear to be a very similar circumstance to e-scooters, especially as both don't need to be registered road-going 'vehicles' but regularly chop and change riding on both, as he did - and without stopping.
In what way? Mobility scooters have clear rules to what makes them legal on pavements and on the road. What is not clear to you?
I was specifically asking about the differences, other Backroomers kindly explained that. Any reason you just have to keep making snide comments like that? It's not as though I was doing the same to you.
I know you don't like questions - but me asking you a question does not mean I am being snide with you. As usual though you don't answer the question and make out that you are being dissed in some way. It's very boring now.
|
They appear to be a very similar circumstance to e-scooters, especially as both don't need to be registered road-going 'vehicles' but regularly chop and change riding on both, as he did - and without stopping.
In what way? Mobility scooters have clear rules to what makes them legal on pavements and on the road. What is not clear to you?
I was specifically asking about the differences, other Backroomers kindly explained that. Any reason you just have to keep making snide comments like that? It's not as though I was doing the same to you.
I know you don't like questions - but me asking you a question does not mean I am being snide with you. As usual though you don't answer the question and make out that you are being dissed in some way. It's very boring now.
Not answering questions? I just did - see bold highlighted bit above. rather than constantly gaslighting me and, it appears, quite a few others now as well (seems like you're now doing the same to people normally on the same side on political debates), how about making a positive contribution to the debate? If not, perhaps a period of reflection would be the order of the day.
|
|
<< Not answering questions? I just did - see bold highlighted bit above. rather than constantly gaslighting me and, it appears, quite a few others now as well (seems like you're now doing the same to people normally on the same side ... >>
Please, Andy, give us a break. You are the only one on here who continually accuses others of personal 'gaslighting'. For weeks or months I have tried to work out precisely what these accusations mean, and I have decided that you have only a vague idea yourself - mainly that it is an uncomplimentary political catchword.
At least we have not heard much from the Straw Man lately ... :-)
|
<< Not answering questions? I just did - see bold highlighted bit above. rather than constantly gaslighting me and, it appears, quite a few others now as well (seems like you're now doing the same to people normally on the same side ... >>
Please, Andy, give us a break. You are the only one on here who continually accuses others of personal 'gaslighting'.
What do you call alan's comments? He was even doing similar stuff to others, you included, on this thread. All I did was ask a question, it got answered by someone and then he started laying into me.
I'd say there's something wrong with him, not me, because it sounds like he's got a vendetta carried across any threads against those who deign to disagree with his 'pearls of wisdom' elsewhere in the Backroom.
For weeks or months I have tried to work out precisely what these accusations mean, and I have decided that you have only a vague idea yourself - mainly that it is an uncomplimentary political catchword.
At least we have not heard much from the Straw Man lately ... :-)
Again, I ask what is the benefit of you two trying to constantly start petty arguments, and not just with me? Don't you have anything better to do?
Mods - this is getting beyond a joke - in my view, these guys are doing this malicious trolling this when Backroomers are just asking questions about motoring or in this case, cycling, nothing politicial either. Are they trying to force people with different opinions off the Backroom?
|
|
<< Mods - this is getting beyond a joke - in my view, these guys are doing this malicious trolling this when Backroomers are just asking questions about motoring or in this case, cycling, nothing political either >>
Andy, I'm not getting at the arguments themselves, I'm just trying to find out what (and why) you are accusing so many of GASLIGHTING. You are the only one who regularly bandies this word about. What for ?
And usually we aren't looking for a 'political' discussion, it's you who tries to make it so.
|
<< Mods - this is getting beyond a joke - in my view, these guys are doing this malicious trolling this when Backroomers are just asking questions about motoring or in this case, cycling, nothing political either >>
Andy, I'm not getting at the arguments themselves, I'm just trying to find out what (and why) you are accusing so many of GASLIGHTING. You are the only one who regularly bandies this word about. What for ?
And usually we aren't looking for a 'political' discussion, it's you who tries to make it so.
Why don't you ask alan? He's the one asking the ridiculous questions and making i****ic accusations, then pretending they are supposedly 'genuine'.
Again, I asked a reasonable question of the Backroomers to do with the law as regards mobility scooters (which would surely have similarities to e-scooters), that question was answered (neither by you or alan), then alan sticks his size 10s in with a rather snide 'question' as if I had been speaking about some contentious political issue and having a go at him, which I wasn't or aiming my question at him to start with, let alone with any malice, which is obvious.
What exactly do you both not understand here? I you can't say after reading the above, then I can't help you, if you do, then that sounds like malicious intent from the off. Either way, please be reasonable to myself and other Backroomers who are trying to engage in a reasonable discussion about the issue at hand.
|
|
<< What do you call alan's comments? He was even doing similar stuff to others >>
I don't call anyone's comments Gaslighting, because I am still struggling to work out what you are referring to when you use that word - you are the only one that does, and you haven't yet answered my query directly, only obliquely. Wikipedia tells me it is "the subjective experience of having one's reality repeatedly questioned by another".
That sounds more like a mild form of mental torture. I am surprised if that is how you genuinely see our friendly discussions ?
|
<< What do you call alan's comments? He was even doing similar stuff to others >>
I don't call anyone's comments Gaslighting, because I am still struggling to work out what you are referring to when you use that word - you are the only one that does, and you haven't yet answered my query directly, only obliquely. Wikipedia tells me it is "the subjective experience of having one's reality repeatedly questioned by another".
That sounds more like a mild form of mental torture. I am surprised if that is how you genuinely see our friendly discussions ?
In what way is alan's comment to me 'friendly':
Alan: "In what way? Mobility scooters have clear rules to what makes them legal on pavements and on the road. What is not clear to you?"
How is you saying the above and alan's 'contribution' not exactly the very definition of what wiki describes?
I'm taking this to the Mods.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 11/03/2023 at 19:19
|
|
As a matter of interest, how do you contact the moderators?
Not that I need to but genuinely interested.
|
|
Email at the top of the forum in one of the 'sticky' threads - but here it is: moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Email at the top of the forum in one of the 'sticky' threads - but here it is: moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
Thanks. I found it a few minutes after I posted but couldn't delete my post.
|
<< What do you call alan's comments? He was even doing similar stuff to others >>
I don't call anyone's comments Gaslighting, because I am still struggling to work out what you are referring to when you use that word - you are the only one that does, and you haven't yet answered my query directly, only obliquely. Wikipedia tells me it is "the subjective experience of having one's reality repeatedly questioned by another".
That sounds more like a mild form of mental torture. I am surprised if that is how you genuinely see our friendly discussions ?
In what way is alan's comment to me 'friendly':
Alan: "In what way? Mobility scooters have clear rules to what makes them legal on pavements and on the road. What is not clear to you?"
How is you saying the above and alan's 'contribution' not exactly the very definition of what wiki describes?
I'm taking this to the Mods.
In what way is it not friendly? You said mobility scooters don't' have clear rules. I asked in what way do mobility scooters not have clear rules - I wanted you to clarify what was not clear so I could explain it to you. So I was offering to explain something to you what you did not know - which is in part what the forum is here for you. Do we need to start showing happy emojis when being friendly and angry ones when not being friendly.
Could probably do with some for gaslighting and straw men :-)
|
|
That's enough of this tedium, let's get back to the original subject now. Thanks.
|
That's enough of this tedium, let's get back to the original subject now. Thanks.
Agreed. We aren't going to get any useful answers.
|
|
<< In what way is alan's comment to me 'friendly':
Alan: "In what way? Mobility scooters have clear rules to what makes them legal on pavements and on the road. What is not clear to you?" How is you saying the above and alan's 'contribution' not exactly the very definition of what wiki describes? >>
Well, I don't see anything vicious (perhaps a bit terse) in Alan's question, certainly nothing to get worked up about. But the Wiki definition does say "subjective experience" which implies that it may be a false impression. A repeated sense of being deliberately 'got at' is sometimes called paranoia.
As in the old joke - 'well, you'd be paranoid if people were getting at you all the time'.
|
Also pedal bikes with so called battery assist lets call them E-bikes
That is what they are called...and that's what you called them in your other thread.
|
|
When I looked into mobility scooters for a relative, they were supposed to be registered with the DVLA (DVSA?), although no-one seemed to bother. Does that still apply?
|
When I looked into mobility scooters for a relative, they were supposed to be registered with the DVLA (DVSA?), although no-one seemed to bother. Does that still apply?
The regulations are wierd - the version of mobility scooters capabable of more than 4 mph, ie those limited to 8 mph, CAN be registered with DVLA but aren't obliged to be and CAN display their registration number but aren't obliged to - if registered they HAVE to be "taxed" every year but it's at the zero rate and done automatically - they don't have to be insured
I've registered my mobility scooter, and have received the V5 but I haven't bothered fitting the number plates and DVLA automatically re-tax it, at zero rate, every year and send me notification.
It can be used on any road except motorways, with a requirement that hazard flashers are used on dual-carriageways - lights are required for use on the road.
|
When I looked into mobility scooters for a relative, they were supposed to be registered with the DVLA (DVSA?), although no-one seemed to bother. Does that still apply?
Only the 8mph ones need to be which allows them to be on the road.
|
When I looked into mobility scooters for a relative, they were supposed to be registered with the DVLA (DVSA?), although no-one seemed to bother. Does that still apply?
Only the 8mph ones need to be which allows them to be on the road.
Even the 8 mph ones don't "need" to be registered to be used legally on the road - it's optional.
|
When I looked into mobility scooters for a relative, they were supposed to be registered with the DVLA (DVSA?), although no-one seemed to bother. Does that still apply?
Only the 8mph ones need to be which allows them to be on the road.
Even the 8 mph ones don't "need" to be registered to be used legally on the road - it's optional.
I was from this website:
Mobility scooters and powered wheelchairs: the rules: Overview - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
It says you must register a class 3 8mph scooter
|
Also pedal bikes with so called battery assist lets call them E-bikes
That is what they are called...and that's what you called them in your other thread.
If you care to check back in the thread a bit you will see that someone else used the phrase ""pedal bikes with battery assist"" in another context connected with the law. Why do you persist in NIT picking on trivial things?
|
|
Regarding e-bikes on the road, they are almost akin to mopeds in that they can maintain a legalised speed on the road and some mix it with traffic witness Dan Walker. E-bikes can also do faster than the 15 mph they are regulated to if you pedal harder. Whilst he had enough sense to wear a helmet he is not governed by any rules that apply to motorised bikes which in my view is short sighted. Helmets and High viz should be compulsory at the very least and I would go as far as to suggest that tax insurance and MOTs should be warranted as some treat these bikes as toys.. Near to where I live there is a mountain bike centre where increasing number of e-bikes are used for off road trailing mainly because the unfit cannot get up the mountain under their own steam. These bikes although designed to take some punishment take all sorts of knocks on these trails are then legal to use on the road. The same can be said of ordinary mountain bikes but they are not battery powered. Also it is apparent that children under 14 which is the legal age? for e-bikes are using e-bikes on the roads
|
|
Still not making sense. Other than requiring less effort, in what way is an e-bike any different to a pedal bike?
|
Still not making sense. Other than requiring less effort, in what way is an e-bike any different to a pedal bike?
That.
Exactly.
|
Still not making sense. Other than requiring less effort, in what way is an e-bike any different to a pedal bike?
Difference, well cost of e-bikes, cost to charge them, you cannot go without a charge unless you fancy peddling a 50lb bike, 6hours or so to charge, the batteries decay and need replacing cost some £200 plus depending on bike. .The batteries are not green which may concern some. The electric hub does not last for ever cost upwards of £300 depending on bike plus labour I expect The batteries are made from rare metals as are car batteries. Disposal of batteries. E bikes will only contribute to the crisis the country seems to have with obesity. Still you can get a jab now to combat this A lot of people buy bikes on a whim and hardly use them so an e-bike is a very expensive mistake for some
|
E bikes will only contribute to the crisis the country seems to have with obesity. Still you can get a jab now to combat this A lot of people buy bikes on a whim and hardly use them so an e-bike is a very expensive mistake for some
In what way does encouraging people to go cyclling contribute to obesity? If you are obese then cycling is good for you and eBikes make it easier for you but you still get exercise. I'm assuming you do know eBikes still need pedalling?
|
E bikes will only contribute to the crisis the country seems to have with obesity. Still you can get a jab now to combat this A lot of people buy bikes on a whim and hardly use them so an e-bike is a very expensive mistake for some
In what way does encouraging people to go cyclling contribute to obesity? If you are obese then cycling is good for you and eBikes make it easier for you but you still get exercise. I'm assuming you do know eBikes still need pedalling?
You do see somewhat obese people cycling all you really need is a good set of lungs. Put them on an e-bike and they do not have to work very hard. The same applies to fit young people on e-bikes they are simply a lazy way of cycling. If you are not fit then an ordinary push bike is perfectly OK all you do is train up slowly same as any other fitness regime. The e-bike is over price and technically too complicated for practicality Most do not need an e-bike..
""" I'm assuming you do know eBikes still need pedalling? """
As before if you had bothered to read what I posted you would see that I referred to pedalling e-bikes at least twice before. All you seem to do is embarrass yourself the same as the with the"" battery assist"" comment. All you need to do is read what I write and we might jell along.
|
E bikes will only contribute to the crisis the country seems to have with obesity. Still you can get a jab now to combat this A lot of people buy bikes on a whim and hardly use them so an e-bike is a very expensive mistake for some
In what way does encouraging people to go cyclling contribute to obesity? If you are obese then cycling is good for you and eBikes make it easier for you but you still get exercise. I'm assuming you do know eBikes still need pedalling?
You do see somewhat obese people cycling all you really need is a good set of lungs. Put them on an e-bike and they do not have to work very hard. The same applies to fit young people on e-bikes they are simply a lazy way of cycling. If you are not fit then an ordinary push bike is perfectly OK all you do is train up slowly same as any other fitness regime. The e-bike is over price and technically too complicated for practicality Most do not need an e-bike..
""" I'm assuming you do know eBikes still need pedalling? """
As before if you had bothered to read what I posted you would see that I referred to pedalling e-bikes at least twice before. All you seem to do is embarrass yourself the same as the with the"" battery assist"" comment. All you need to do is read what I write and we might jell along.
If you know you pedal them how can it be bad for an obese person to use one? You said an eBike will contribute towards obesity but can't explain why it would do so. You still need to pedal, which keeps you a lot fitter and helps someone who is obese be less so.
I don't see an eBike as being technically complicated - they are usually just a battery with a basic electric motor - which as you mentioned in a previous post have been about since the 1800's
I thought you would want to encourage people to go out and do something positive rather than sitting on their behinds? I do not understand your negativity towards them.
|
|
The technical term is Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC). There's a page on the .gov website that sets out what's allowed for their use on road including the min age (14).
The ability to go faster than the limited speed if pushed is unsurprising; they're pedal cycles. I remember doing 30+ mph down the Otley end of Yorkgate well before I was 14.
I don't think, given the speeds are broadly comparable with what can be achieved on an ordinary push bike there's any argument for special rules on wearing dayglo or a helmet.
My personal view is that I'll try and make sure I'm visible. On a rural road with no lighting a dayglo gilet with retro reflective stripes would be good. Less so under urban street lights where the colour of the light is radically different to daylight or where there are so many people that dayglo is a form of camouflage.
With the exception of part of the BHF London to Brighton route where the chances of a tumble from touching wheels was high I never wear a helmet. I like the wind in what's left of my hair and I've yet to find a helmet that's comfortable, does not have parts in my peripheral vision and, at least subliminally, interfere with my hearing.
One of the most evocative cycling photos I've ever seen was of the French rider Laurent Fignon on a TdeF descent, in the years before they had to wear helmets, with his trademark pony tail stretched in his slipstream.
He died in his bed with Colo-Rectal cancer and not from falling on his head.
|
The ability to go faster than the limited speed if pushed is unsurprising; they're pedal cycles. I remember doing 30+ mph down the Otley end of Yorkgate well before I was 14.
How did you estimate your speed, Bromp ?
A lad at school, about 1955, allegedly was stopped by a bobby for exceeding the 30 limit down a hill near school. Again, I don't know how the speed was judged, probably the PC just wanted to impose authority.
|
The ability to go faster than the limited speed if pushed is unsurprising; they're pedal cycles. I remember doing 30+ mph down the Otley end of Yorkgate well before I was 14.
How did you estimate your speed, Bromp ?
A lad at school, about 1955, allegedly was stopped by a bobby for exceeding the 30 limit down a hill near school. Again, I don't know how the speed was judged, probably the PC just wanted to impose authority.
You can't technically be done for speeding on a bike because they have no speedo. However, you can be for 'wanton and furious cycling', for which there is no particular limit. Has the Bobby wished to pursue it, that would probably be the charge.
|
The ability to go faster than the limited speed if pushed is unsurprising; they're pedal cycles. I remember doing 30+ mph down the Otley end of Yorkgate well before I was 14.
How did you estimate your speed, Bromp ?
A lad at school, about 1955, allegedly was stopped by a bobby for exceeding the 30 limit down a hill near school. Again, I don't know how the speed was judged, probably the PC just wanted to impose authority.
Back in those days there was little actual measurement of speed - I believe that the evidence from two policemen, based on opinion, was enough to secure conviction.
|
How did you estimate your speed, Bromp ?
The bike had a dial type similar to that on a car. They were quite popular amongst boys my age. A few quid from the local bike shop.
A lad at school, about 1955, allegedly was stopped by a bobby for exceeding the 30 limit down a hill near school. Again, I don't know how the speed was judged, probably the PC just wanted to impose authority.
This has been tested again recently. Speed limits are for motor vehicles.
|
Also pedal bikes with so called battery assist lets call them E-bikes
That is what they are called...and that's what you called them in your other thread.
If you care to check back in the thread a bit you will see that someone else used the phrase ""pedal bikes with battery assist"" in another context connected with the law. Why do you persist in NIT picking on trivial things?
I was not talking about someone else - I was talking about you. What else should I nit pick on?
|
Also pedal bikes with so called battery assist lets call them E-bikes
That is what they are called...and that's what you called them in your other thread.
If you care to check back in the thread a bit you will see that someone else used the phrase ""pedal bikes with battery assist"" in another context connected with the law. Why do you persist in NIT picking on trivial things?
What else should I nit pick on :-) I put a smilie so you know I'm having a joke with you.
|
|
<< Why do you persist in NIT picking on trivial things? >>
If you are sensitive to having nits picked, best not to offer any nits for easy picking ... :-) Rather like the old adage about glass houses ....
|
<< Why do you persist in NIT picking on trivial things? >>
If you are sensitive to having nits picked, best not to offer any nits for easy picking ... :-) Rather like the old adage about glass houses ....
I am only concerned in being quoted correctly. If you care to look back you will see another wrong assumption on ""pedalling e-bikes""
|
|
""""I thought you would want to encourage people to go out and do something positive rather than sitting on their behinds? I do not understand your negativity towards them."""
I am not negative towards e-bikes. If people want to spend their money on an expensive bike they are free to do so. What they will be getting is a more heavy and clumsy machine compared to the traditional bike. The e-bike is less aerodynamic and if you were to caught in a cross wind or draught from a juggernaut you would no all about it The cost of all bikes today means you dare not leave them unattended as they are a target for the criminal element. There are an increasing number of e-bikes travelling around without pedal assistance, These are throttle operated and require no pedal impute. This seems at odds with e-scooters as far as the law is concerned. The only difference I can see is the pedals they are both throttle operated. The throttle e-bike is not much good if you need to get fit.
I expect with a little know how you could easily change you peddle assist e-bike to a throttle one
|
|
For those who may be interested the lady at the heart of this thread is currently being held in the hospital ward of Peterborough Prison while the authorities decide what to do with her pending her appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
