text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76515979811515701472016-05-24T10:41:52.443+01:00The Cycling LawyerThoughts from a 3rd cat and vet racing and commuting cyclist Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-5049884624669095342015-12-12T16:49:00.002+00:002015-12-14T10:36:44.786+00:00Note accompanying my bad driving reports
Given the nature of some of the responses I get to my reports of bad driving I have prepared the following note to go with all future submissions which I hope will be heeded by the police and CPS who determine what action to take.

As requested a pdf link is here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzho2RYpC3VuZ1BST2llVmFTRTQ/view?usp=sharing

Note on riding style and position<o:p></o:p>

Primary and secondary riding positions<o:p></o:p>

My default riding position is 'primary' which is the middle of the lane that is the nearest lane to the nearside which is suitable for my direction of travel. However I will ride further to the left in the 'secondary' position in order to assist following traffic if, but only if, my own safety is not thereby impaired. The secondary position is just to the left of the nearside wheels of the flow of four wheeled traffic. I avoid riding 'in the gutter' i.e. within 0.5 metre of the edge of the road.

This riding is in accordance with my training to national bikeability standards which are approved by the Department of Transport. Details can be found in 'Cyclecraft' by John Franklin (the officially approved guide to cycling in accordance with national training standards. The concept is also explained in this DfT film sent out to all driving instructors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJHXzt7TC2k&feature=youtu.be

Overtaking queues<o:p></o:p>

When encountering a queue of traffic ahead I will use my judgment as to whether to wait in the queue (in primary position) or to overtake the queue (usually on the offside if there is room). This too is in accordance with my training and the national standards.

Using cycling specific infrastructure<o:p></o:p>

I will use cycling specific infrastructure if it has an advantage in terms of safety or convenience over the main lanes.

The National Standard states this:

"In the UK no cycle facilities are compulsory for cyclists to use. Therefore the choice over whether to use any facilities provided should be on the basis of whether or not they will give the cyclist any advantage in terms of safety and/or access. This will be for the individual cyclist to decide. Staying in the normal flow of traffic rather than use a cycle facility is therefore a valid choice."

This is also reflected in the Highway Code:

"Rule 61<o:p></o:p>

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."<o:p></o:p>

Motorists overtaking cyclists

The guidance in the Highway Code is clear:

"Rule 163<o:p></o:p>

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should…<o:p></o:p>

· give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215).<o:p></o:p>

Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre

Rule 163: Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car"

Any ambiguity in 'as much space as you would give a car' is resolved by the clear illustration accompanying rule 163.

The DfT's Transport Note LTN 2/08 has a section at 2.5 dealing with overtaking of cyclists by motor vehicles:

"2.5 Overtaking by motor vehicles

2.5.1 Cyclists often feel uncomfortable when cars overtake, particularly if they do so at high speed. Research from the Netherlands (CROW, 2003) shows that motorists driving at 20 mph will often pass cyclists leaving a clearance of only 0.85 metres. This distance increases to around 1.05 metres when passing at 30 mph.

2.5.2 These clearances are not necessarily sufficient for comfort and have been increased to establish the minimum suggested passing distances in Table 2.2. Even these clearances will be uncomfortable for some cyclists and should be exceeded where possible.

2.5.3 Table 2.3 sets out ideal minimum total widths (not necessarily lane widths) required for vehicles overtaking cyclists."

The 'dynamic envelope' referred to in the above table is 1 metre wide:

Obviously the minimum passing distance increases further with increased speed If the speed is well above 30 mph then the passing distance should be well over 1.5 metres outside the dynamic envelope.

It follows that unless the lane is exceptionally wide the motorist cannot safely pass within the same lane and should be using the adjacent lane (if clear) or wait behind for a better overtaking opportunity. The correct decision is encouraged by the cyclist 'taking the lane' in primary position.
Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-80041441370229875752015-11-06T19:34:00.000+00:002015-11-06T19:34:14.465+00:00Oral Evidence of Police to Transport Select Committee

The first oral evidence session for the Transport Select Committee's Inquiry into Road Traffic Law Enforcement was on Monday 2nd November. I tuned in with anticipation as I am very much in favour of Law Enforcement action particularly against those who endanger cyclists. The Inquiry's terms of reference include the impact of road traffic law enforcement on the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. As indicated in my previous post the Committee has received some powerful written evidence from those who feel that when they cycle they are entirely unprotected by the law.

Two police officers, an Inspector and a Superintendent, nobly traveled up from the Midlands and the West Country to assist. Whether the Metropolitan Police or the ACPO lead for traffic policing were invited or will be attending on a later date, I do not know. It would be good to know that someone of Commissioner or Chief Constable rank who has some responsibility for allocating resources and setting policy takes the subject matter of this Inquiry seriously. After all there are those, like me, who assert that the police are on occasion letting down cyclists in a serious way with their lack of law enforcement against those who endanger, threaten, harm or even kill cyclists on our roads.

What particularly animated the Committee members appeared to be parking and especially the length of time roads were closed following a collision. No doubt important topics but arguably peripheral to the terms of reference which were particularly upon enforcing the law against dangerous and careless drivers (a subject which I believe merits undiluted scrutiny).

The Chair though did bring the discussion around to cyclists in the closing minutes of the police evidence. the evidence went as follows and I have annotated my thoughts thus:

Q39 Chair: I want to ask you about cyclists on the road. Cyclists feel that their safety is not considered sufficiently. What do you do if you think that a motorist is acting in a way that endangers a cyclist? What actions are taken?
Superintendent Keasey: They are subject to the law.
I think he means motorists that endanger cyclists are subject to the law rather than cyclists are subject to the law but both are true and neither quite answers the question.

Q40 Chair: They are subject to the law, but is the law used? Spot on!
Superintendent Keasey: Yes, where we have the evidence and where it is corroborated. The difficulty is often that it is one person's word against another's, just like it would be for one person driving a car against someone driving another car. There is no different standard in the way we approach it and whether we prosecute or not.
Most criminal trials will involve a Court determining whose word is credible and whose is not. A conflict of evidence is not of itself sufficient reason to take no action. This is what was said about bringing prosecutions for sexual offences 20 years ago but nobody in that field would suggest this today. Some accounts are inherently credible some denials are inherently incredible. There is no formal requirement for corroboration and this is too easy a basis to dismiss virtually all complaints of bad driving.
There should be a very different standard depending upon whether the suspect has (nearly) hit a person on a bicycle or whether that suspect has (nearly) hit a Chieftain Tank. It is a serious aggravating feature of a bad driving offence that the suspect has endangered a vulnerable road user and the police ought to recognise that and act accordingly.

Q41 Chair: Cyclists feel that there is not enough concern about their safety. Are you disputing that?
Superintendent Keasey: No; there is concern. If you look at cyclists and pedestrians, they are probably more likely at the moment due to their numbers to be subject to serious injury. They are quite rightly allowed to use the road, and they should be, but it is the education of drivers. If you look abroad to Holland they are very used to it. They are often cyclists and motorists so they are much more aware of the gap you need to give space between a cyclist and a car on a left-hand turn.
If there is concern what then is to be done about it ? Rates of injury are probably not as bad as the Superintendent suggests and are in any event not the point of the question. Perhaps we should be grateful for the expression of view that we should be allowed to use the road but (whatever prescience there might have been of a notorious forthcoming Metro article) nobody in mainstream politics thinks otherwise and it is slightly worrying that a police officer feels the need to state it. Having ruled out banning cyclists from the roads the answer then is not prosecution but 'education of drivers'. Education along the lines of Carlton Reid and Chris Boardman's how to overtake a cyclist film is certainly to be lauded. However this Inquiry is about enforcement and leaving it to cyclists to educate drivers is not enough. We have all experienced aggressive deliberately bad driving that would not have occurred in the presence of the police. The reality is that bad drivers know they can get away with punishment passes, brake testing, tail gating, left hooking, speeding and other deliberate behaviours that endanger cyclists.

Q42 Chair: Inspector Cox, are you concerned about that?
Inspector Cox: From a rural point of view we do not have huge cycle issues. There is a corroboration issue when we get complaints from cyclists, even with cameras potentially. If there is not a corroboration factor it becomes one word against another, so the chance of prosecution is very slim. Certainly if it is detected or witnessed by a police officer, action is always taken, but it is a challenge. Although I represent a rural area, we have Bristol and Swindon in there, some fairly big urban areas, and we do not have an issue with our cyclists getting killed. Perhaps our drivers are more aware because they drive in a rural area a lot of the time, where they have to be a little bit more aware. In places like London, clearly there is a lot more pedestrian and cycle traffic meeting vehicular traffic. We do not get that quite so much in rural areas.
The answer then is 'no' he is not concerned about that at all. A pity as cyclists are being killed and injured in his area and tragically one young man died cycling in his patch the very next day. He added to what the Superintendent said about corroboration by saying that lack of corroboration was an issue even with evidence from cameras. This is quite incomprehensible and proves the point that the police are exhibiting inappropriate reluctance to prosecute offenders even where there is clear evidence.
Apparently the behavior has to be 'detected or witnessed' by a police officer in which event problems with corroboration simply melt away and action is always taken. I would welcome specific evidence of cases where such action has been taken. I have never come across such a case and suspect they are very rare.

Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-11622854317234888342015-10-16T11:22:00.000+01:002015-10-28T12:30:12.084+00:00Evidence to the Commons Transport Select Committee on Road Traffic Law EnforcementMy evidence to the Committee can now be read here

I need to add that Surrey Police read my evidence and have dissociated themselves from, and apologised for, many of the points made to me in the letter of 14.09.15 cited in my evidence. I am happy to acknowledge this, though the fact of course remains that a police employee who has been making decisions on prosecutions held those misguided beliefs. There is clearly a systemic problem as well as having a few rogue decision makers.

Some (not all!) of the other evidence is well worth reading and I particularly commend the evidence of Mary Manning here. This is compelling and accords entirely with my own experiences, and that of many others, and needs to be addressed by the police.

At the moment we have only platitudes and stuff like Policing the Roads in Partnership signed off by a senior police officer who would not commute in London due to the risks on the roads presented by risky motoring behaviour. That was, of course, uncovered in Anna Tatton Brown's excellent film about the investigation into the death of her father, Michael Mason, which can be viewed here and which I hope the transport committee will see.

Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-25981501462588838082015-06-24T12:48:00.001+01:002015-06-24T12:53:28.162+01:00Another case on Contributory Negligence Sinclair v JoynerIn Sinclair v Joyner [2015] EWHC 1800 Mrs Justice Cox found for the claimant cyclist in her claim for damages against the driver of a '4x4' vehicle though with a reduction of 25% to reflect the cyclist's contributory negligence.

On Sunday 3rd July 2011 Mrs Sinclair was cycling along Broadwater Forest Lane, a single carriageway lane in Kent. Coming in the opposite direction was a Volvo XC 90 motor car driven by Mrs Joyner. The two vehicles made contact as a consequence of which Mrs Sinclair fell sustaining a serious head injury.

Liability was disputed (indeed it was even faintly disputed with unsatisfactory expert evidence) that a collision had even occurred.

The Judge had no difficulty finding that the Defendant driver was liable and should have stopped to allow the cyclist to pass in safety. In words that support the view which I have frequently expressed that in England and Wales we have what approximates to a de facto presumption of liability when a motorised vehicle collides with a vulnerable road user the Judge said:

In the section dealing with "Road users requiring extra care" the Highway Code (Revised 2007 edition) draws attention, at paragraph 204, to cyclists as among those who are to be regarded as "the most vulnerable road users." Mr Martin places particular reliance upon the advice given to motorists at paragraph 212, namely "When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room." While there then follows a bracketed reference to earlier rules dealing with overtaking, as Mr Freeman observes, the advice in this paragraph is, in my judgment, not confined to cases of overtaking, set as it is in the section of the Code addressing in general terms the vulnerability of these categories of road users, and the need for extra care.

This advice is particularly pertinent in this case. The Defendant's carriageway was just 2.5 metres wide and the width of the Volvo was 2.1 metres. Even if she were right over to her nearside, and I accept that she was very close to it, that leaves at best 0.4 of a metre between the car and the Claimant who was, on the evidence, riding her bicycle still on her own side of the road but only just. She was very close to the centre as the Volvo approached and then passed her. The Claimant cyclist's close proximity to the centre of the road was noted by the Defendant as soon as she saw her, and in my view, for the reasonable prudent driver in those circumstances, alarm bells would have sounded instantly.

Motorists have to anticipate hazards in the road, particularly from vulnerable road users, and to be ready to react to them. In my judgment the Defendant cannot be relieved of that duty of care by seeking to blame the Claimant, who was obviously in difficulty, for deviating into her side of the road and colliding with the rear offside tyre, after the front of the car had gone past her. The fact that a collision occurred demonstrates that there was not sufficient room for her to pass the Claimant safely, and that the Defendant's assumption to the contrary was in error. She ought to have appreciated that her car was too close to the centre of the road for her to have passed this cyclist safely.

Contributory Negligence

It was accepted on the Claimant's behalf that she should bear some responsibility for her injuries on the basis that 'she should not have been riding her bicycle in a central position in the road'. Mrs Sinclair's injuries did not leave her able to recall or explain her riding leading up to the accident. The matter was dealt with briefly and by concession (with the Judge accepting the Claimant's suggested 25% deduction). It should not, in my view, be taken as any indication that cyclists should not ride in a central position on the road. Indeed on the contrary they often should, though perhaps not at the point where a wide vehicle is actually passing on a country lane.

Of wider application was the further example of the Court refusing to make any finding of contributory negligence in relation to a cyclist not wearing a safety helmet. the Judge said this:

The Defendant also pleads, at paragraph 11 (d) of the Defence, that the Claimant was negligent in failing to wear a cycle helmet. This was not explored in the evidence and Mr Freeman made no submissions upon it in his closing arguments. As Mr Martin observed, no court has yet decided that failing to wear a helmet actually amounts to contributory negligence, although they have come close (see Smith v Finch [2009] EWHC 53 (QB)). In the present case the Claimant was an adult enjoying a bicycle ride in the countryside on a sunny day. There was no medical evidence adduced to show that failing to wear a helmet made the Claimant's injuries worse, and the subject was not addressed in submissions. I therefore reject that allegation of contributory negligence in this case.

As can be seen the Defendant had no confidence in the point although it was pleaded on her behalf. Of interest is the Judge's comment that Mrs Sinclair 'was an adult enjoying a bicycle ride in the countryside on a sunny day'. Since this is plainly irrelevant to causation, this is only worth mentioning in the context of fault strongly implying that Mrs Justice Cox is not convinced that a cyclist who chooses not to wear a helmet is at fault.

Regular readers of my blog will know that Mr Martin QC was not quite right in his observation that no Court has yet decided that failing to wear a helmet amounts to contributory negligence. However Reynolds v Strutt & Parker was a wholly exceptional case for reasons I describe here

Overall an encouraging case though there are throw away comments regarding the oddity of riding central, standing on the pedals and 'proper clothing' for a cyclist that do leave a queasy suspicion that the sum of the knowledge in the Courtroom about cycling was less than it might have been and that Mrs Sinclair was in all probability a far more competent cyclist than she was given credit for.

The full Judgment can be read at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/1800.html
Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-77956070951415641552015-04-15T20:07:00.001+01:002015-04-15T20:07:04.255+01:00Team Townend Challenge 2015

On Saturday I will be repeating the ride I have done for the past two years in memory of Christian and Niggy Townend, who were so tragically killed in December 2010 when a coach drove into them whilst they were out riding in the Lake District.

Since I last did this ride just one year ago I have been dismayed yet again at the number of occasions when appropriate charges have not been brought against those who have killed cyclists or, if brought, have not been successfully prosecuted.

Roadpeace is a brilliant charity founded by bereaved relatives which works hard for road crash victims and campaigns for justice.

I know money is tight and I have already urged many of you to donate to the Cyclist Defence Fund to right some of the more obvious wrongs.

However with the prospect of a new Parliament and some new MPs it is more than ever vital that we support the work of Roadpeace. Politicians are, for the most part, human and will be moved by the approaches made to them on behalf of their bereaved constituents.

Just to ensure that I find the ride challenging enough to merit some support I will ride it twice, once in each direction and once for each of the two brothers we are remembering.

Putting my own money where my mouth is I shall match donations up to £300, so doubling the value of your contribution to Roadpeace.

My fundraising page is here
Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-35620945353409830842015-02-05T17:00:00.000+00:002015-02-05T17:07:19.121+00:00Criminal Prosecutions arising from Road Traffic CollisionsYesterday the 'watchdogs' for both the CPS and the Police produced a report following their joint inspection of the investigation and prosecution of fatal road traffic incidents. I gave a short interview to the BBC about this report which can be seen here:

Having naturally read the report before talking about it, there is more I would have wished to say had time been available.

The report is of course welcome in that it pulls no punches in demanding a better standard of decision making and communication with families following fatal road traffic collisions. Indeed I would add that a better standard is also required in non-fatal collisions and even in non collision incidents too, but it makes sense to start at the top. If that cannot be got right there is little hope for other cases.

Having said that I found the report disappointing in a number of respects. There appeared to be a degree of complacency about the drop in casualty rates without a recognition first that this drop is much lower for cyclists than it is is for other classes of road user and second that the number of people seriously injured is stubbornly high. This suggests that the recorded improvements in fatalities are due far more to high quality NHS trauma teams and less to any improvement in driver behaviour. Given the report's acceptance that the number of fatalities of cyclists 'has attracted much media attention', it is very disappointing that limitations in data are said to have prevented investigating the way in which the deaths of cyclists are treated compared to other road users. This is a great shame and I hope their recommendation about improving monitoring and analysis of data is followed and permits the public and charities, as well as watchdogs, to see what differences there are. After all we are all given every encouragement by the State to cycle and protection from the agencies of the State seems the very least we should be entitled to expect in return.

There is, however, no evidence from the report that the Inspectors felt the status of the victim as a vulnerable road user to be relevant to the way in which investigations and prosecutions should be handled.

As it was, only 2 of the 72 cases investigated in this report involved cyclists. More (21) involved pedestrians but the Inspectors were critical of overcharging (yes, overcharging) in 4 of those cases that involved running down a pedestrian at night because prosecutors and police 'imposed an unrealistic standard of driving on the suspects in these cases'. I do not of course know the details of these cases but the fact that the Inspectors said that of all 4 cases involving pedestrians at night leaves me very uneasy about their approach to vulnerable road users.

Further the Inspectors criticised the CPS prosecutor who oversaw the fatal cases in his area (and so seems to have been the rare example of a specialist) for encouraging the police to submit to him all road traffic cases involving a fatality where there was a surviving third party. As I said in my interview, it seems eminently sensible to have a specialist prosecutor look at cases that the police are inclined to dismiss with 'NFA', at the very least where the victim is a vulnerable road user. The sad case of Michael Mason epitomises what can go wrong if this does not occur. This criticised prosecutor was in my view exhibiting good practice which the Inspectors ought to have recommended be followed elsewhere.

So there is more condemnation of over than of undercharging in the report. Which is odd since of the number of cases investigated (72) it appears from the tables that 60 cases resulted in charges of which (it seems) 49 were taken to trial and there were 44 convictions. These figures are not remotely consistent with overcharging. The DPP was being given a grilling on Radio 4 this morning over the decision to pursue a FGM case. I pass no comment on the wisdom of that decision, but she was right to point out that the test for a prosecution is not the same as a test for a conviction. However in traffic cases (alone) it seems that guilt must be as plain as a pike-staff before a prosecution is ventured.

Ultimately it is outcomes that matter and I fear this report has lost an opportunity to stiffen the resolve of the police and CPS to ensure that dangerous and careless drivers (particularly those that drive dangerously or carelessly in the vicinity of vulnerable road users) are made to account for their conduct.

Conversely I should add that performance is patchy by area. I have encountered traffic officers and CPS prosecutors who really are committed to doing their utmost to make the roads safer for us. I am not sure this report gives those delivering best practice sufficient encouragement.

Finally there is perhaps an irony that this report was produced on the same day that Transport for London approved the N-S and E-W Cycle Super Highways in London. I urge that, great though that victory is, we do not let it detract from the importance of deterring bad driving. We have a very long way to go before we can just not use the roads if we do not like the quality of driving encountered there.Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-68438036608607336112014-12-11T17:19:00.001+00:002014-12-13T10:51:44.233+00:00Inquest into death of Michael MasonI do not normally comment upon cases in which I am involved but this one is exceptional and I shall confine myself to (relatively) neutral observation upon evidence given in a Court open to the public.

Mr Mason was run down from behind by a Nissan car as he rode his bike North up Regent Street, \north of \Oxford Circus and near its junction (on the other side of the road) with Little Portland Street. The collision occurred at around 6.20 pm on 25th February. Sadly Mr Mason died of his injuries on 14th March.

At the outset the Coroner (to his considerable credit) asked his officer to read out a moving tribute to Michael Mason written by his daughter Anna Tatton-Brown. The tribute is set out here on Ross Lydall's blog

The Coroner then asked Mr Mason's daughter to give some evidence about his long experience riding bicycles.

Witness evidence and CCTV evidence was less than entirely clear but left no doubt that no witness aside from the Nissan driver failed to see Mr Mason on his bicycle. The evidence was quite clear that he had the required lights including a brightly flashing rear light fixed above a red reflector which would reflect back light from car headlights. The evidence was also clear that the area (as one might expect) was well lit by street lights. The CCTV footage did not cover the immediate location of the collision.

The scene in daylight and in different traffic conditions is shown on google thus

The fatal collision occurred just south and west of the traffic island in the photograph. you are looking North and you have to imagine the yellow line is not there. The bus stop has apparently moved as it was further North alongside the pedestrian island at the time of the collision.

Although some witnesses queried and offered explanations as to why Mr Mason was riding towards the centre of the road, the police investigator had no difficulty in agreeing that Mr Mason had every right to be there for any number of reasons and there is no possible criticism of his position in the road.

The collision investigator also gave evidence that the physical evidence on the car and the bicycle made it clear that this was a 'linear' collision with the bicycle and the car pointing in the same direction at the moment of impact. This ruled out any swerving immediately before the collision.Further the rear tyre left a mark and dent mid way between the centre line of the car and its offside. That is to say right in front of the position where the driver was seated.

The driver was commuting home in Hertfordshire from her work at a hairdresser's salon in central London. She was driving a 'motability' car owned by a disabled friend. She gave evidence consistent with her accounts to the police that she did not see Mr Mason or his bicycle at any time before the collision. She was travelling at somewhere between 20 and 30 mph and did not brake before impact. She carried on and parked 30 metres up the road before returning to the realisation she had hit a cyclist. In answer to a question which she was warned that she need not answer she accepted that if the cyclist was there (which from the physical evidence he unquestionably was) she should have seen him.

The driver was asked questions about her eye-sight. She passed the police's vision test (reading a numberplate) at the scene at night using her distance vision spectacles. She kept about her person a further pair of spectacles for reading and was adamant that at the time of the collision she was wearing the distance vision spectacles used to demonstrate acceptable vision to the police.

A detective from the Serious Collisions Investigation Unit confirmed to the Coroner that there were no criminal proceedings taken against the driver and that decision had been taken by the Metropolitan Police without reference to the CPS.

The Coroner returned a finding of accidental death and declined an invitation to consider a Prevention of Future Death Report relating to a default 20 mph speed limit. He observed that when the Met Police collision investigator was invited to consider whether a 20 mph speed limit would save lives he regarded such a notion as speculative. He commented that Mr Mason had not been wearing hi-viz or a helmet but did not go so far as to suggest that either would have made any difference. (Indeed he could not have suggested any causal relevance as there was absolutely no evidence of such).

I have only included reference to that which came out in Court and have not covered everything but this should be sufficient to give a reasonable impression of the evidence and the decisions taken.Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-91499544240134028712014-09-19T10:55:00.002+01:002014-09-19T10:55:46.222+01:00Suspension of my twitter accountTo let you all know my twitter account has been suspended at the request of @dragonducatis.
I have asked twitter to reinstate it.Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-21280746094990668652014-09-10T10:47:00.001+01:002015-11-06T14:59:48.401+00:00When is a law not a law? When no-one troubles to bring it into force.Note: I am happy to report that the Coalition Government finally listened to concerns expressed by me and many others over this and section 137 came into force in March 2015 as one of that Government's final actions.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/819/pdfs/uksi_20150819_en.pdf

In July 2006, Kelly Woodward, died when the car in which she was travelling as a rear seat passenger was driven into a tree. The driver, Andrew Burrell, was convicted of causing her death by dangerous driving and of driving over the alcohol limit. He was sentenced so leniently that the Court of Appeal intervened imposing a 4 1/2 year prison sentence and a 5 year driving ban.
Kelly's family were nonetheless dismayed to discover that much of the ban would pass whilst Burrell was behind bars and they campaigned tirelessly for a change in the law so that a driving ban would start when an offender was released from any prison sentence imposed in respect of the same offence. She handed in a petition to Downing Street (then occupied by Tony Blair) and enlisted the support of Jack Straw (then Lord Chancellor/Justice Secretary).
I understand that Kelly's family were invited to the House of Commons Gallery to watch the passage through Parliament of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which received royal assent on 12th November 2009.
Section 137 of that Act provides that Schedule 16 makes provision about the extension of disqualification from driving in certain circumstances. Schedule 16 in turn amends The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by introducing a new "s35A Extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed" which in rather convoluted language provides for the period of disqualification to be increased by (broadly) half the prison term which I take to be the period of imprisonment that the offender could be anticipated to actually serve in prison. (Quite why it does not provide more simply for the period of disqualification to commence on the day of release I do not know but I am not a parliamentary draughtsman, nor even a criminal lawyer).
HOWEVER section 182 of the same Act provides that certain sections come into force when the Act is passed; that certain other provisions come into force 2 months after the passing of the Act; that more other provisions come into force on 1st January 2010; that yet further provisions come into force on such day that the Lord Chancellor may by order appoint and the remaining provisions (including section 137 as it has not been specified elsewhere) come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
A general election intervened in May 2010 when the Secretary of State had still not appointed a date bringing section 137 into force.
Incidentally the term 'the Secretary of State' under the Interpretation Act 1978 means any one of 'Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State' so in practical terms means the Government.
Now five years on, it seems fairly clear that the Government is not going to appoint a date for the coming into force of section 137. This is not self-evidently a party political matter. More likely it is simply a personality matter. Jack Straw backed this law but his influence with government ended in May 2010 and he perhaps had other things on his mind in the dying weeks of the Brown administration.
It does though appear at best unfortunate that a change in the law, hard fought for by Kelly's family, has come to nothing for the want of a Secretary of State's signature on a commencement order.Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-46700666971597611102014-09-02T13:37:00.003+01:002014-09-02T13:37:48.003+01:00Further Court Update: R v Robert PalmerFacts

Yesterday, just days after the Wojcicki case, came the sentencing of Robert Palmer, a lorry driver who had earlier pleaded guilty to causing the deaths by dangerous driving of Andrew McMenigall and Toby Wallace, cyclists who were just 40 miles into their Lands End to John O'Groats ride in support of charity. Palmer ran into them on the A30 near Newquay in Cornwall on 2nd July 2013. Palmer was also sentenced for dangerous driving on a separate occasion when he was on bail for the fatal offences and drove into the back of another HGV.

There are similarities and differences with the Wojcicki case (which formed the subject of my last blog post).

Palmer had the advantage of representation from a barrister of some 40 years experience. He (Palmer) realistically appreciated he had no Defence and pleaded Guilty to all 3 charges. He did not seek to blame Mr McMenigall or Mr Wallace who were (like Owain James) completely blameless. Palmer expressed, through his barrister, remorse at what he had done.

However the mitigation essentially ended there. Palmer had a cynical disregard of road traffic law. He was driving an HGV without the required rest periods and had only had 3 hours rest the previous night. Furthermore he was such a prolific texter at the wheel that "The prosecution observes simply the absence of the phone activity in the period immediately up to the collision as an indication of his fatigue because prior to this collision his phone activity was very persistent." It is likely he fell asleep at the wheel.

The scene is similar. This picture from Google earth appears to be fairly representative of the A30 road at the scene of the impact:

There is a rumble strip set around a metre or so from the grass on the nearside and an eye witness indicated that "the lorry had not moved out of the inside lane at all and stuck very close to the rumble strips."

Result

The sentence was 7 1/2 years on each fatal charge to be served concurrently and a further year on the non-fatal charge to be served consecutively. Palmer was banned from driving for 10 years.

Once again the sentence is significantly greater, particularly the driving ban, than sentences we have seen in the past and once again the prosecution were not deflected from bringing the correct (dangerous driving) charge.

Observation 1: rumble strip

It occurred to me as I typed this that I am yet again describing a scene where impact occurred in the vicinity of a rumble strip. I do wonder at the thought process that goes through a Highway designer's mind to the effect that inattentive dozy drivers require assistance to remain on the road and that a rumble strip is sufficient to deal with that hazard. Plainly it is not if a cyclist is present.

Observation 2: prevention

With such a spectacular disdain for the law it seems a very great tragedy that Palmer's repeated offending was not caught and dealt with before he ended the lives of two good and blameless people.

Observation 3: driving bans

Prompted by a tweet, I have discovered to my surprise that the provision in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 providing that a driving ban starts to take effect on release from any prison sentence (rather than on the day of sentence) has still not been brought into force. I will look further into that when I return from holiday and draw it to the attention to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Road Justice. That provision would and should have applied to both Wojcicki and Palmer.

Families' Statement

Finally I think the dignified statement of both families issued yesterday merits repetition and dissemination:

"There are no words to describe the devastation and loss that we, and both families, feel following the deaths of our husbands. They were exceptional and giant men in every sense of the word," they said.

"It is a tragedy that so many other families are also mourning loved ones who have been killed on Britain's roads, particularly when many of these deaths were completely avoidable.

"So many of these families do not ever see a sentence brought against the person who has killed their husband, their child, their brother, their father.

"UK transport laws are lenient, charges are difficult and onerous to attain, and less and less resource is being dedicated to road traffic collisions.

"Toby and Andrew loved cycling. We believe that the rise in the popularity of the sport must be met by those with the responsibility to improve our transport infrastructure and improve education for drivers.

"We would like to thank everyone who has supported us and been involved in getting us this far."

Read more: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Lorry-driver-Robert-Palmer-jailed-killing/story-22859295-detail/story.html#ixzz3CA3Ytksr
Read more at http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Lorry-driver-Robert-Palmer-jailed-killing/story-22859295-detail/story.html#Rr2VuvWsyijcO0B0.99

Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-91315281465331512252014-08-29T13:41:00.001+01:002014-09-02T13:05:09.284+01:00Case Update: R v Wojcicki. Turning a corner?
The evidence (taken from the reports of WalesOnline who have covered this story in detail)<o:p></o:p>

At around 8pm Mr Wojcicki drove his 3 ton minibus into the rear of Owain James, who was on his bicycle, causing him fatal injuries.<o:p></o:p>

The collision occurred on the west bound carriageway of the A472, a dual carriageway road subject to the national speed limit (70 mph for a light vehicle, 60 mph for a mini-bus), near Newbridge in South Wales. So far as I can tell this is fairly representative of the location. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Google earth suggests that each lane is around 3.75 metres wide. The width of Wojcicki's Mercedes minibus is 2.25 metres wide. That debris strewn strip by the grass looks to be about 1 metre wide.<o:p></o:p>

The prosecution opened the case on the basis that Mr James was riding inside the white rumble strip. <o:p></o:p>

One independent witness driving a Landrover in the same direction gave evidence that "The minibus did not alter its course at all and no brake lights came on. The minibus ploughed into the cyclist". Another independent witness also travelling West said he saw a cyclist in the area between the grass verge and the rumble strip and thought the driver of the mini-bus "must have been distracted by something because the minibus was drifting from the lane to the rumble strip back and forth." <o:p></o:p>

Wojcicki did not stop his minibus for a distance of 125 metres. When he did get out of his van he was seen taking photographs of Mr James with his 'phone. Whether because of this or (as one would like to think) they would have done it anyway the police examined Wojcicki's 'phone and found that a short while earlier he had taken photographs of a vintage car at a set of traffic lights. The last traffic lights passed by Wojcicki were a couple of miles back on the opposite (North) side of Newbridge and I surmise it was here that the photographs were taken.<o:p></o:p>

Wojcicki's accounts following the collision were contradictory. He told witnesses at the scene that he had not seen Mr James prior to the impact. The following day interviewed by police he claimed that he saw Mr James from a distance of 20-30 metres away [My note: the forensic evidence if any has not been reported but lines of sight were obviously far better than that and no explanation appears to have been given as to why he saw him so late –at a closing speed of approximately 35 mph this would have given less than 2 seconds to react]. He claimed he had been happy with his driving and comfortable to stay in his lane where he was doing 55 mph. He added "I did not cross the white line" [My note: I cannot tell if he means the rumble strip or the line dividing the westbound lanes – the evidence of the first independent witness that he did not alter course at all suggests perhaps he did not cross either but the second independent witness gave evidence of drifting to the rumble strip]. He then claimed that Mr James swerved into his path.<o:p></o:p>

When giving evidence Wojcicki accepted that he had taken a photograph when stopped at traffic lights and maintained that he had seen Mr James on 'the hard shoulder' but 'I could see no hazard and was happy to stay in my lane and overtake'. He apparently mentioned that in Poland it is considered acceptable to overtake a cyclist with 1 metre's clearance. He accepted that he was constantly adjusting his position on the road because his van had a tendency to move to the right 'but I did not get close to the white line' [meaning I think the rumble strip].<o:p></o:p>

The result<o:p></o:p>

The charge was causing death by dangerous driving. The prosecution case was that Wojcicki was looking at his recently taken photographs and therefore did not see Mr James and that explained why he did not avoid him and why it took so long for him to stop after the collision. The jury convicted. The Judge made clear when sentencing that he was sure the prosecution case was right. On the evidence I have seen reported I might, as a juror, have felt unpersuaded to the criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Wojcicki was looking at his photographs immediately before impact. However I would have convicted nonetheless because, for whatever reason, he cannot have been paying attention to the road ahead if he did not see Mr James until he was 20 to 30 metres away and worse because of the appalling dangerous complacency that led him not to trouble to move out before passing a cyclist. At the very best, and on Wojcicki's own evidence this was a close pass gone tragically wrong. I can think of sinister explanations other than looking at photographs to explain taking a while, before deciding to stop.<o:p></o:p>

The positive things are that, unlike other recent casesthere is no record of distraction over whether or not the cyclist had traversed the rumble strip or whether the cyclist should have been on that road at all. The rumble strip is intended to mark the limit of the useable carriageway and anybody who is 'comfortable' passing a cyclist close to the rumble strip is driving dangerously (contrast R v Dove). Equally Mr James had every right to cycle on that road (contrast the discussions about alternative routes in R v Petterson) and the concomitant right to expect other roadusers to exercise care when passing him.

Perhaps even more encouragingly there was no reported debate about high-vis or helmets. Maybe this is because it was so obvious that a helmet would have made no difference and because the final defence decided upon was that he DID see him albeit very late rather than the more conventional 'didn't see' Defence.

<o:p></o:p>

It is also refreshing that the charge brought was the appropriate dangerous driving charge not careless contrast these recent cases<o:p></o:p>

Sentence
<o:p></o:p>

Wojcicki is now beginning a 5 year sentence of imprisonment. Unusually in such cases, he has been disqualified for a long period, 10 years. It would be good to think that the tide in these cases is turning. CTC's Road Justice campaign has been energetically targeting this area. Likewise a valuable report last month from the Transport Select Committee highlighted the need to encourage motorists to share the roads responsibly with bicycles and calling for an amendment to the Highway Code which would emphasise the rights of cyclists to share the roads with drivers. The mainstream body of people who cycle will I am sure, want to get behind that call.<o:p></o:p>

I only hope that if this case gets before the Court of Appeal they back the Judge on the sentence and particularly on the 10 year driving ban; contrast these cases.<o:p></o:p>

Postscript<o:p></o:p>

I have followed this case with particular interest because the close pass (often from a white van on a dual carriageway) is for me the most terrifying aspect of my commute. I have on occasions been literally inches from sharing the fate of Mr James. I am sure it must put a lot of people off cycling altogether. Whilst statistically most collisions happen at junctions, it is usually somewhat easier to guard against the idiocy of the road user failing to accord you your right of way than it is to deal with the peculiarly unnerving conduct of a vehicle that comes up fast and close from behind. Always allow yourself plenty of room to your nearside to swerve into if you need it.<o:p></o:p>

A further postscript
I did not mention above the controversy that arose between Judge and Defendant solicitor described here. This was raised by the Judge only after the trial had concluded for the very sound and proper reason that it should not be permitted to prejudice the trial. I do not think anybody doubts Alan Blacker's entitlement to represent clients in the Crown Court, presumably how he dresses is regulated by the Law Society. Equally I would very much like to believe that the nationality of the Defendant had no bearing on the jury's decision. A conviction in not wholly dissimilar circumstances was secured against Ms Katie Hart an English woman in the hands of an English jury. What I suspect is more likely to have made a difference is that the involvement of a mobile telephone probably removed the ever present risk of under charging (with careless rather than dangerous driving). For the reasons I have set out I consider that the charge and the verdict in this case were both plainly right and I trust that neither the nationality of the Defendant nor the identity of his lawyer made a scrap of difference.
Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-48670811122515186672014-06-05T12:08:00.000+01:002014-06-05T12:54:02.067+01:00Disqualifications for bad driving

Last night I was invited by Roadpeace to the inaugural meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Justice on our Roads chaired by Baroness (Jenny) Jones. With the Queen's Speech being debated elsewhere, there were perhaps rival demands on many parliamentarians but a select few MPs and Lords (spiritual and temporal) attended to set up the group and to hear the moving evidence of 3 bereaved families whose husband, son and daughter (all I think pedestrians) had been killed by bad motoring and had all been dismayed at the sentences imposed on those responsible for the collisions which took their loved ones away.
Next week, in my capacity as an 'ambassador' for CTC I will be attending a debate on the same topic - sentencing. Sentencing comes at the very end of a process where the police, prosecution, jury (if applicable) and whole machinery of criminal justice has combined effectively to ensure the guilty party is convicted of at least some offence.

One concern raised both last night and by CTC is over the length of disqualifications from driving that the Courts are handing down. It is now nearly 5 years since I commented by reference to the Court of Appeal cases of Rice and of Hall that you are likely to get the same period of disqualification from driving if you killed somebody with your bicycle as with your car. Very often minimum periods of disqualification as prescribed by Parliament were given on the basis that the offender would otherwise have difficulty working and rehabilitating.

The sentencing guidelines, set in 2008, do not give guidance as to the length of disqualification so this is very much down to the Court of Appeal. It is striking how frequently the Court of Appeal reduces the periods of disqualification set by Judges.

In a pre-guidelines case, R v Cully (2005) which is still referred to and followed by the Court of Appeal, the Court said this when reducing the Defendant's disqualification from 5 years to 2:
"We consider that the purpose of a disqualification from driving is so far as possible to protect the public. Often it may be that drivers come before the sentencing court with an appalling driving record. In such cases an extended period of disqualification may be appropriate since the offence indicates the risk to the public in the individual continuing to drive. Where circumstances do not suggest that there is any such risk, a period of disqualification, though inevitable as it is in a case of dangerous driving, can, and should in our view, be kept to the minimum."
There seems, to me, to be a rather unfortunate assumption that, appalling driving records aside, there is no real risk to the public and Judges should keep disqualifications to the statutory minimum.

In R v Crew (2010) the Court of Appeal dealt with a man who had flown over from San Francisco, got into a hire car and fallen asleep killing a motorist travelling in the opposite direction. He was convicted of causing death by careless driving. The Court of Appeal said this when acknowledging that the driving bordered on dangerous but reducing the disqualification from 5 years to 2 :
"We are however persuaded that the period of disqualification is manifestly excessive. The Definitive Guideline provides no guidance as to the length of disqualification and so it is important to bear in mind, first, the risk represented by the offender is reflected by the level of culpability which attaches to his driving, and secondly, the main purpose of disqualification is forward looking and preventive rather than backward looking. In that regard the applicant's previous unblemished driving record is clearly an important factor as is the absence of aggravating factors such as speed.
"As to the extended driving test, the court's powers to make such a direction are discretionary. But having regard to the extent of the applicant's culpability and to the fact that this offence bordered on an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, we are of the view that such a direction was entirely appropriate.
"We give leave to appeal the order of disqualification. We treat the hearing of the application as the hearing of the appeal. We quash the order of disqualification of 5 years and we substitute for it an order of disqualification for 2 years."

The approaches in R v Cully and in R v Crew have been followed many times since. Essentially if you have not been caught driving badly on other occasions there is an assumption that whatever bad driving brought you before the Court was a one-off and that you do not pose a risk to the public. There is a touching, but wholly misguided, faith that motorists are caught and convicted whenever they endanger anyone and not simply once they have killed or, at best, injured. It does not take much time cycling around our cities to appreciate this assumption is completely unwarranted. The lorry driver who never faced substantive justice after killing Eilidh Cairns went on to kill again and I find it hard to accept that those who have killed once (or have driven in such a way that it is is only a matter of good chance they did not kill) are not more likely to do so again.

A few more recent examples clearly indicate that the Court of Appeal is just not willing to back the few Judges who hand down sentences of disqualification significantly in excess of the minimum.

In R v Farwell (2013) it seems not even the prosecution felt like defending the Judge's imposition of a 2 year ban following the Defendant's conviction of causing death by careless driving:
"In R v Cully the court identified the purpose of disqualification as being the protection of the public. Extended periods of disqualification could be justified where there was an identified risk to the public. In the Crown's response to this appeal it is stated that given the appellant's previous good driving record, a two year disqualification could only be justified if the facts of the offence disclosed a risk to the public from the appellant being permitted to drive. In our view, no such facts are disclosed. Further, an inability to drive directly impacts upon the ability of the appellant to carry out his work. In the particular circumstances of this case any period of disqualification will have a punitive effect. Accordingly, we quash the period of 24 months' disqualification and substitute for it a period of 12 months' disqualification."

Similarly R v Bishop (2013) reducing the disqualification following conviction of causing death by careless driving from 7 years to 4:
"In view of the appellant's youth and the need for rehabilitation after release, we are of the view that the period of disqualification was too long in the circumstances; as was said by this court I R v Crew [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 23, disqualification addresses two considerations: punishment reflecting culpability and the need to look to the period after release.
"We therefore propose to vary the sentence to one of disqualification for a period of 4 years."
Note that it appears this was a case where it could not be said or at least was not said, even by the Court of Appeal, that the Defendant posed no risk to the public.

And finally in a case not involving death but nonetheless one of the worst pieces of dangerous driving the Court of Appeal had seen, R v Charvill (2013):
" [Counsel] has referred us to a number of authorities on the appropriate length of disqualification in such cases, including R v Cully [2005] EWCA Crim 3483, R v Cook [2010] EWCA Crim 121 and R v O'Connor [2012] EWCA 785, which illustrate two principles applicable to such disqualification: first, that the purpose of the disqualification is so far as possible to protect the public against the risk posed by the offender continuing to drive; and secondly, that the disqualification should not normally be imposed for such a period as might have the effect of impeding rehabilitation after serving a sentence of imprisonment.In our judgment, this was one of the worst pieces of driving this court has seen . The Recorder was entitled to pass a severe sentence to deter others from driving in this way. In our judgment, the sentence of 9 months' detention was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.However, as the applicant had no history of driving offences and appeared usually to have been a careful and competent driver, we are prepared to treat the driving on this occasion as a piece of impulsive stupidity and not that of someone who represents a continuing risk to the public. We also accept that it would assist him in getting or retaining employment on his release to be able to drive."

The CTC and Roadpeace are right to call for Sentencing Guidelines to be reviewed. This is apparently awaiting possible changes to substantive law being considered by the Government. In relation to disqualification, driving needs to be seen as a privilege not a right. Those who cannot or will not drive carefully will have to get to work on the bus, train or bicycle like the thousands of other people who through an uninvited medical condition or through choice do not drive.

One concern raised last night was over drivers who simply ignore bans. For these miscreants the law has to come down hard just as it does for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or taking part in a riot. Imprisonment has to be the norm for those who drive whilst disqualified with release perhaps conditional on wearing tracking or other devices to make it much harder for them to flout the law.

<o:p></o:p>

Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-56423210873853101592014-05-27T20:38:00.001+01:002014-05-27T20:38:10.444+01:00Tour of Wessex 25th May 2014

My first really challenging ride since my crash. I find to my consternation that this is the 8th time in 9 years that I have done a day of the Tour of Wessex. I am a full hour slower than at my peak in 2009 but actually not all that much slower than last year. The real difference is that in earlier years I would have chatted to my riding companions in a relatively relaxed manner whereas this year I was hanging on for all my worth and only doing turns at the front (though quite long turns on occasion) when going up hill. Strava can be a cruel tool as it shows my reduced form over virtually every segment. Psychologically as well as physically I am struggling to ride in the wheels; I was either hanging off the back or in the front; my trust of fellow riders has taken a knock which will take some time to restore. I think my performance indicates that for the etape this year I will at least survive and stay ahead of the broom wagon though without doing anything spectacular.

It is a fantastic ride through absolutely stunning countryside. Every year there are more and more participants. It is a truly great day out whether you are in top form or not. Again I am in awe of those who do all three days.

116 miles in 6h41m with 7,054 feet of climbing.Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-23172170110575778742014-05-11T19:39:00.001+01:002014-05-12T07:23:04.816+01:00Thames Velo 30th Anniversary Top ResultsFULL RESULTS NOW HERE:

E/1/2/3

1 Tom Neale
2 Danny Axford
3 Benjamin Luckwell
4 Steve Golla
5 James Notley
6 James Fox
7 Roy Chamberlain
8 Lee Smith
9 Martin Ford
10 Grant Bayton
11 Billy Osmond
12 Justin Belcher

3/4 Race
1 James Waters
2 Michael Burke
3 Philip Pearson
4 Sean Dines
5 James Leach
6 Adam Moore
7 James Archibald
8 Richard Stanton
9 Tim Butt
10 David KingsburyMartin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-81125364748729814572014-04-27T19:32:00.004+01:002014-04-27T19:40:29.370+01:00Team Townend Challenge - My report

Yesterday I took part for the second year running in the Team Townend Challenge held in Cumbria to commemorate the lives of the two brothers, Christian and Niggy Townend who were so tragically killed in December 2010 when they were run down from behind by a coach driver who successfully claimed the winter sun as a defence at his subsequent trial.

The event is fantastically organised by the family and friends of Christian and Niggy with all proceeds going to Roadpeace, a charity which supports victims of road traffic collisions and campaigns for much needed improvements in our criminal justice system.

Far too many further recent examples exist of failures to prosecute and of unsatisfactorily run court cases and inquests. Much needs to be done.

My ride: sponsorship welcomed:

Strava Details. 10,000 ft climbing.

Unlike many sportives a leisurely start is possible which is just as well as the morning was wet and the afternoon glorious sunshine. I rolled off from Loweswater Village Hall just after 1000 into a light drizzle and headed to the first pass, Whinlatter, a reasonably gentle climb but today into a easterly headwind. Over the other side at Braithwaite I started the anticlockwise loop up Newlands Pass, still in the rain. This pass starts gently (by Cumbria standards!) but steepens at the top. During my final lunge for the summit my rear wheel spun round uselessly with my right foot going down so fast my first thought was that I had snapped the chain. I was stationery for an instant whilst I sat down and forced the left foot down weaving to the top precariously from the saddle. The previous day my new rear wheel (to replace my crash damaged one) had arrived but I had not had time to sort it out and found an old training wheel with a much needed 29 sprocket but with a rather cheap tyre. Fortunately I still had my good front wheel with a good tyre on it so at least I had good grip going down the other side. I paid for that good grip later though (see below).

Next up Honister pass from west to east into that headwind, even steeper at the top but luckily it had stopped raining and the sun had come out by the time I got there. I found it hard (potential sponsors please note - I was seriously challenged). With the roads still wet I was worried, though I was able to do it out of the saddle with only minor slippage. With my speed dipping below 4 mph I felt seriously unstable and my lung and shoulder decided to remind me they had been traumatised a few months ago. It was a massive relief to get to the top. then there was a good 'easy' section along the west shore of Derwentwater and back over Whinlatter this time with a welcome tailwind back to Loweswater.

Tea sandwiches and cakes were all laid on by hard working volunteers and I partook greedily before setting off to do it again but this time taking the Honister/Newlands loop in the opposite anticlockwise direction. The sun was shining and the roads were drying so I wanted to get a full day's ride in - besides one circuit for each of the brothers seemed appropriate. So back over Whinlatter, then the left turn to the west shore of Derwentwater via small roads strewn with flints. I soon learnt that good grip = poor puncture resistance as my front wheel got its first flat of the day. After replacing the tube I managed an act of cycling stupidity surely worthy of the back page of Cycling Weekly when I failed to zip up the saddle bag. When I punctured again within a few miles I realised my tyre levers had fallen out and I had to retrace my steps regular reinflating the wheel until I found them strewn across the road. Now with no spare tube left I pressed on thinking the roads would improve and if worst came to worst I had a little pack of self-adhesive patches. This time up Honister I had a tailwind but I really struggled to make it up the lower steep section of the climb even though the now dry roads left me with no friction problems. Equally the last part of Newlands (back into a headwind) seemed very touch and go. After that though it was relatively plain sailing back past the now quiet Loweswater Village Hall to my B&B.

Supper was in the Kirkstile Inn. After rehydrating on a few pints of Loweswater Gold Ale, I decided to cycle the 2 miles back to my accommodation. I was somewhat conscious of the fact that had any motorist charged around a blind bend on the narrow road into me then any subsequent inquiry and inquest would almost certainly not be interested in going beyond recording that I was 'over the limit' and not wearing a helmet or high-viz. Fortunately though my luck held out and the worst that happened was puncture number 3 of the day just as I was reaching my destination.

Much work is needed and Roadpeace are working hard on our behalf. You can sponsor me below. If you do I will match your contribution.

ThanksMartin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-89576728698261312442014-04-09T18:56:00.001+01:002014-04-09T19:32:13.764+01:00Coroners and Cyclists - do they mix?I have had cause on these pages to comment upon a number of Inquests investigating the death of cyclists in Road Traffic Collisions and have also appeared in, but not commented directly upon, Inquests at which I have held a brief for a bereaved family. More often than not the inquest is an unhappy experience for the families involved. The question needs to be asked as to whether it is a useful process and whether it can be further improved.

The strength of the Inquest system is that it may be the only investigation into a death. If a police investigation reveals insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution of any individual for causing the death, and if too there is no civil claim for compensation, then the Inquest may represent the only opportunity to hear evidence of what has happened. Further the prospect of an impending inquest may help incentivise those responsible for investigating the death (in RTC cases the police) to ensure they have done a thorough job which will stand up to public scrutiny. Finally, and importantly, the Coroner has the power to issue a PFD (Prevention of Future Deaths) Report to any person whom she believes has the power to take action to prevent future deaths.

The foremost weakness of the current system is that its scope is somewhat limited. Historically the Coroner's Court used to have the power to point the finger and, indeed, commit a named person to the Criminal Court to stand trial. However this was thought to lead to problems and has been changed. In particular the Coroner's Court is circumscribed by The Coroners and Criminal Justice Act 2009 which provides that:

"5 Matters to be ascertained

(1)The purpose of an investigation under this Part into a person's death is to ascertain—
(a)who the deceased was;
(b)how, when and where the deceased came by his or her death;
(c)the particulars (if any) required by the 1953 Act to be registered concerning the death.
...
(3)Neither the senior coroner conducting an investigation under this Part into a person's death nor the jury (if there is one) may express any opinion on any matter other than—
(a)the questions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b)..;
(b)the particulars mentioned in subsection (1)(c).This is subject to paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 [which deals with PFD Reports]."

Most of this is rather mundane. It cannot possibly be supposed that the panoply of a Court system is required to record who the deceased was or when and where the deceased came by his death. The real question is 'how' which is a question that may be interpreted as widely, or narrowly, as the Coroner thinks fit. The prohibition on the expression of opinion on other matters provides a broad limitation of the scope of the Inquiry and furthermore the Act goes on to provide that:

"10 Determinations and findings to be made

(1)After hearing the evidence at an inquest into a death, the senior coroner (if there is no jury) or the jury (if there is one) must—
(a)make a determination as to the questions mentioned in section 5(1)(a) and (b) .., and
(b)if particulars are required by the 1953 Act to be registered concerning the death, make a finding as to those particulars.
(2)A determination under subsection (1)(a) may not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of—
(a)criminal liability on the part of a named person, or
(b)civil liability."

The trouble then is that following a RTC the Coroner will inevitably rely very heavily on the evidence of the police (who have investigated a collision with a view to finding if there is evidence of a criminal offence). A report will be admitted which may well conclude (say) that the collision occurred as a consequence of the deceased running a red light and no fault has been disclosed on the part of any other person. The Coroner then, mindful of section 5 and 10, will say something like "I find the deceased died as a consequence of running a red traffic light but I must stress that I am not attributing any kind of blame to him". Which is, of course, doublespeak.

Further trouble arises if the deceased's family want to test the evidence of the police investigator that the deceased went through a red traffic light. Maybe there is good reason to doubt the veracity of an account given to the police by a motorist, who ran down the deceased from a conflicting direction, that he (the motorist) went through a green light. Maybe parts of the motorist's account are demonstrably wrong but the police had not picked that up. Maybe the motorist claims always to comply with traffic lights but CCTV shows him going through a red light two minutes earlier. There might even be real grounds to question whether the motorist is a witness of truth. If he is not challenged at the Inquest he will probably never be challenged and quite often, if not usually, the Coroner will come to the end of his questioning of the witness without making an effective challenge himself.

Usually the family will not have a lawyer (another weakness of the system because the motorist will invariably have a lawyer funded by his insurers). If they do have a lawyer, then (certainly if a barrister) she will have a duty fearlessly to protect her client's interests and strive to displace the conclusion that the deceased was solely to blame. She may then be metaphorically kicked around the Court by the Coroner who says nothing may be asked implying that the motorist is to blame and who sabotages the line of questioning. This is not a problem for the lawyer but it is a terrible spectacle to inflict upon the family.

It is open to a Coroner to interpret the scope of his Inquiry widely or narrowly. If narrowly then there is no legitimate purpose to the calling of the police investigator and the finding will simply be death at a certain time and location due to a road traffic collision. This though is something of a lost opportunity - cyclists should not be dying on our streets due to road traffic collisions and the cause of the collision should be investigated, as too should the quality of the police investigation. An impartial investigation does not involve solely dwelling on the responsibility of the deceased but receiving evidence and allowing questions that go to the responsibility of others. The law does not prevent this (as demonstrated at numerous high profile Inquests) what it requires is that the Coroner takes care in the framing of his determination and findings.

I speak generally and nothing should be taken to relate to any particular case or Coroner.

Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-83389587620839658102014-04-04T13:00:00.001+01:002014-04-04T13:58:08.423+01:00Recent casesI have been a little quiet about the law on here recently. Not just because something has to give whilst I regain full health/fitness but also because my increasing professional engagement in cases involving cyclists sometimes limits what I may properly say.
However, I am not a criminal lawyer, and can express my bewilderment at the jury decisions in the cases of R v Petterson and R v Dove. Both were charged with causing death by careless driving.
Petterson drove his van into David Irving on Mountbatten Way, a dual carriageway near Southampton. Details of the evidence given at his trial are available as a consequence of the work of the Southampton Cycling Campaign who took detailed notes. From these it becomes reasonably clear why an apparently open and shut case of a motorist driving into the rear of a cyclist fell apart.
First on day 2, the prosecution expert witness, Mr Smith, suggested to the jury, in response to a question from the prosecution, that Mr Irving should not have been there and the Defence not surprisingly latched onto it:
"Prosecution: What road should Mr Irving have used?
Witness: the designated route would be Millbrook Rd East - Central Station Bridge – Southern Rd – West Quay Rd
Defence: the approved cycle route would take him directly to his place of work."

Then, on day 4, the Police expert collision investigator was called and crumpled in cross-examination by the Defence with:

"Defence: What was effect of sun?

Witness:would have made cyclist virtually impossible to see."

Finally on Day 6, the Judge instructed the jury that:

"Highway Code guidance regarding sun glare (not law but could be used as evidence of without due care and attention, or could be ignored)"

So we are left with a prosecution case that a cyclist was where he should not be, was virtually impossible to see, and that advice in the Highway Code "If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop." could be ignored. Instead of wondering at how there could possibly be an acquittal you are left wondering why the prosecution was even brought. Sadly the lack of understanding of cycling exhibited by police, experts and lawyers probably explains not only the failure of this prosecution but also why some prosecutions do not even happen.

Surely if those present understood cycling at all the trial would have run more as follows:

Day 2

"Prosecution: What roads could Mr Irving have used?
Witness: He was perfectly entitled to use Mountbatten Way. There was also a designated cycle route Millbrook Rd East - Central Station Bridge – Southern Rd – West Quay Rd. Mountbatten Way was the fastest and most direct route to his destination.
Defence: the approved cycle route would take him directly to his place of work."

Day 4

"Defence: What was the effect of sun? Witness:The sun can make it harder to see but every driver should always be able to stop in the distance that they can see to be clear and should slow down or even stop if necessary. No other driver failed to see Mr Irving and his long shadow. Either the Defendant saw Mr Irving and gave insufficient room or he drove into a space without knowing what was there."

Day 6

"The Highway Code specifically recommends that if you are dazzled by strong sunlight you slow down and if necessary stop. Failure to comply with this guidance is not, of itself, an offence but the Highway Code is essential reading for every road user and the law is clear that the guidance may be used as evidence of driving without due care and attention. It is not determinative and you should weigh it with the other evidence in finding whether or not the prosecution has proved its case".

Dove drove an HGV into the back of Christopher Griffiths on the A19, a dual carriageway near Billingham in Teeside. He was defended by a QC at two trials at which juries twice failed to arrive at a verdict. It seems reasonably clear from the reports that the Defence skillfully got everybody else involved to believe that the issue was whether Mr Griffiths was cycling to the left or right of a rumble strip at the side of the road. Surely that was of no relevance, he should have not been run down even (maybe especially) if he was in the lane in front of the HGV (which is where I would have been incidentally).

In the past I have been baffled by perverse jury verdicts. However the more information there is about the way these cases are run in Court, the clearer it becomes that it is not the juries' fault. Nor of course is it the fault of Defence lawyers who are perfectly right, and indeed bound, to capitalise on the weaknesses of the prosecution. It seems to me a pity that the prosecution do not engage the services of an expert in cycling to at least rectify some of the worst misconceptions. Bikeability as part of the National Curriculum or at least part of the driving test would eventually mean that almost all lawyers, experts and even jurors would know something about the subject.

Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-63163732825799269592014-04-04T11:15:00.002+01:002014-04-04T11:17:09.113+01:00Maidenhead DCC 10 mile Time Trial 3rd April 2014: Etape prep.My first competitive event of any description post-crash and my first time trial for 2 years. I always used to do a 27:xx (I was never a good time triallist) and last night managed a 29:xx. Two minutes may not seem very much but it represents only about two-thirds the power. Interestingly my heart rate was just as high and the effort hurt at least as much. My road to recovery and to reinvent myself has a long way to go!
It was a great night for Thames Velo though with a good turnout and 4 riders placing in the top 8, with some cracking times on 'ordinary' bikes.

Yesterday also saw SNCF taking train bookings for the summer. I have tickets from Paris to Lyons for the Marmotte and the sleeper down to Pau for the etape all booked up for July at quite remarkable value. Unfortunately Eurostar's policy towards the carriage of bicycles makes me feel compelled as last year to fly to Paris. An absurd state of affairs that it is so much easier (and cheaper) to carry a bike on a plane than on a train. I assuage my sense of guilt with the thought that I am at least limiting the distance that I fly. As with cycling generally, it really ought to be made so much easier for people to do the right thing.Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-82751861499294230502014-01-29T20:38:00.000+00:002014-01-29T20:58:38.366+00:00My last raceI have been out of action lately and many have been kind enough to enquire after me. It seems simplest to post an update here.
I was racing in the E/1/2/3 Imperial Winter Series event at Hillingdon on 4th January. Something happened in the early laps and my next recollection is being in St Mary's Hospital, Paddington with a kindly Consultant Anaesthetist seeking my consent for the insertion of a spinal epidural. It was necessary as I had a flail chest (multiple rib fractures including a few ribs fractured twice) so without good pain relief there would have been a risk of shallow breathing leading to chest infection. My left lung was punctured and collapsed. Against that the grade III separated shoulder, mangled elbow, battered hip and extensive road rash barely mattered.
The bang to the left side of the head, possibly coupled with copious quantities of morphine, leave me with no real clue what happened but mercifully no head injury. I must have hit the tarmac hard and/or had my chest rode over when on the ground. Apparently an air ambulance was called out but not used.
I got the greatest possible care, all on the NHS, in the Major Trauma Ward at St Mary's from an impressive range of consultants and nurses but I must have made a difficult patient for a week, frustrated at being tethered by numerous tubes and lines whilst the blood was being drained from my chest cavity.
On 11th I was finally out of hospital and immediately celebrated by taking the dog for a slow wheezy walk.
The following weekend I took my daughters for a slow wheezy bike ride in the park.
Yesterday (28th) I took myself for a solo spin in the park.
Tomorrow I start physiotherapy on my shoulder.
I have been back working full time for the past week or so.
My hospital review, by which time I very much hope to be pain free and back properly on the bike, is mid February. I will be in Spain for a week at the end of February with clubmates to kick start getting back into riding.
Obviously I have had to recalibrate my plans. I had hoped to get into a state to compete seriously in the Masters 50+ road race in the summer. I now plan to get myself into a fit state for the Marmotte and the Etape du Tour in July. I have taken the (for me very sad, for others hugely welcome) decision not to race again. I enjoyed it but was not terribly good at it. After many years of incident free racing I have now crashed twice in 15 months and cannot rule out slowing reactions or an increasing inability to bounce off tarmac as affecting my odds. (After my last crash I decided to avoid 4th cats and bunch sprints but that did not suffice). The decision as to whether or not to accept the risks of racing has to be a personal one and I would hate my experience to put anyone else off. On balance and with ordinary luck racing is a good thing. I may get into time-trialling both individual and team.
For the cyclists among you I had better add that my severely damaged bike is at Condor awaiting replacement frame, forks, bars, pedals, rear wheel, saddle and seatpost. Helmet, clothing (save club kit which seems to be hardest) , chest strap and glasses all now replaced. Really though none of that material stuff matters any thing like as much as good health.
To try and take a positive from it I have a heightened appreciation of many things in life and unlike so many passing through that hospital ward, I will be making a full recovery.
I will keep you posted on my preparations for the sportives.Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-16318479256242481392013-11-15T11:44:00.003+00:002013-11-15T11:45:35.001+00:00My letter to Standard re CSH and the Mayor's victim blaming
This is the version of my letter I approved this morning:

THE angle the Mayor took on the radio yesterday, talking about cyclist risk-taking in relation to the recent terrible incidents is very unfortunate. Either he has inside information before it is released to the public or as his own spokeswoman said it is too early to say. It is highly improbable that all the victims were being reckless for their own safety, and highway engineers can and should allow for human error.<o:p></o:p>

Cycle superhighways are designed by people who have not been required to undergo cycle training and do not understand the importance of cyclists positioning themselves where they can best survive mistakes by others. The paint encourages both cyclists and motorists to believe that cyclists should be alongside the kerb. I avoid the superhighways and would recommend other cyclists do the same. <o:p></o:p>

Martin Porter QC<o:p></o:p>

I am told that an editor has used the term 'accidents' and that by the time I was informed of this the print deadline had passed. I very much regret the understandable distress this will cause (and indeed the perplexity amongst my followers.)
Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-24669822441315043522013-10-23T10:44:00.002+01:002013-10-23T10:48:35.938+01:00Cycle Super Highways - My personal views

I write this in a purely personal capacity as a London bike commuter, though naturally I could not fail to be profoundly moved by my experience in representing the family of Brian Dorling who died so tragically and unnecessarily at the Bow Roundabout shortly after the blue paint of CSH 2 was laid in 2011 and furthermore, in following the recent inquest into the death of Philippine De Gerin-Ricard at Aldgate last July.

I agree with the Mayor that Cycle Super Highways have a future. However this is with the important proviso that their designers have a good understanding of how cyclists safely integrate with traffic where segregation is not achievable (or rather not achieved). Current design, typified by a 1.5 m strip of paint of no legal significance, encourages cyclists towards an unsafe position too far to the left. This both conflicts with the 'Bikeability' training that TfL itself rightly seeks to encourage and reinforces the mistaken views held by some motorists as to where cyclists should be.

It is telling, and confirms what I have long suspected, that cycle infrastructure designers, and even those at the top at TfL pushing cycle training for others, do not see the need for Bikeability training for themselves. Their designs demonstrate that they do not understand, for example, that approaching a roundabout to go straight ahead the cyclist is best advised to position herself well to the right of the leftmost lane (especially of course if there is a high volume of left turning traffic). When given advice by a very knowledgeable police officer who understands safe cycle positioning, it is all too easy for the untrained designer to consider this is a matter on which their opinion is as good as anybody else's.

Personally I do not buy the argument that putting down paint is a useful indication to motor traffic that cyclists may be present. Any driver, especially in London but also elsewhere, is criminally negligent if he does not consider the likely presence of cyclists on any highway. Are we implying that where there is no blue paint drivers are not obliged to consider the likely presence of cyclists?

For the encouragement of the broadest possible mix of people the focus has to be on (optional) segregated routes of the highest quality, as recognised in the Mayor's 'Vision for Cycling' published in March. Using paint to lead cyclists directly towards segregated areas without regard to how they integrate most safely with traffic on their way there must be avoided. Indeed there is a very great deal to be said for not marking the road at all where cyclists need to integrate with motorists. Many (indeed the majority) of cyclists crossing the Bow junction do so on the elevated flyover where there is no cycle infrastructure, recognising that it is not only faster but safer than the provision below. It is so easy to make matters worse and the Mayor needs to be held to his word to do cycling infrastructure properly or not at all.

<o:p></o:p>

I do not doubt the Mayor and TfL's sincerity in wishing to make London safer and more attractive for cycling. I applaud them for some good progress towards HGV safety (sadly too often neglected by others). I trust that by the end of the Mayor's second term we will be able to look back and see that he really did take valid criticisms of his project to heart.<o:p></o:p>
Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-71741868394241621382013-10-01T18:34:00.000+01:002013-10-01T18:34:23.338+01:00Why am I hopeful?I am hopeful because the risk, in absolute terms, of my getting killed or seriously injured on my bicycle is low (705 KSI per billion km or once every 1.4 million km). At my current mileage I can reasonably expect to get to 85 without serious incident.
I am hopeful because my chances of getting to 85 without stroke, heart attack, diabetes and other ailments connected to inactivity are substantially increased by my riding.
I am hopeful because a Judge recently said when sentencing a man for dangerous driving, "If he [cyclist] could bang on the side of your van, you were too close".
I am hopeful because the ACPO lead officer for traffic policing rides a bicycle and has bowed to pressure to change police guidelines relating to the enforcement of 20 mph speed limits.
I am hopeful because for the past nearly two years, an influential national newspaper that previously could not have cared much less has been interested in cyclists' safety.
I am hopeful because CTC (of which I am proud to be a member and 'ambassador') together with British Cycling (which I am proud to be a member of and an informal legal adviser to) are working tirelessly on campaigns to improve the safety of cyclists.
I am hopeful because Chris Boardman, Rebecca Romero and Chris Hoy (among other sporting heroes) say such sensible things in support of the safety of cyclists.
I am hopeful because there are many more charities and organisations with a positive view of cycling (I can single out Roadpeace, See Me Save Me, RDRF, CDF) than there are those with negative views.
I am hopeful because there are Parliamentarians across all major political parties with real enthusiasm for cycling. I would be very happy to have Julian Huppert, Ian Austin, Sarah Wollaston, Ben Bradshaw or Steve Brine among others as my constituency MP or, even better, in government. Last month's debate indicated that the proportion of MPs interested in cycling is higher than that of the general population which elects them.
I am hopeful because the Mayor of London has said of cycling infrastructure that it will be done properly or not at all.
I am hopeful because the level of interest in my cycling club has risen steadily in recent years which I take to be a good leading indicator of the growing popularity of cycling.
I am hopeful because many youngsters are taught Cyclecraft at school before they learn how to drive.
I am hopeful that I can continue to do my bit through my profession to assist both individual cyclists and the interests of cyclists collectively.
Above all, I hope to continue to enjoy riding my bicycle for many years to come

Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-53800267316342170512013-09-29T17:38:00.000+01:002013-09-29T17:42:56.392+01:00Why am I angry?I have been quiet on here in recent months. I find it is hard to write about cycling without getting angry. Anger is not generally a constructive or attractive emotion so I have just kept it to myself, until now.
I am angry that I am eleven times more likely to get killed cycling to work as driving to work.
I am angry that were I to get killed on my way to work, the criminal justice system would probably fail those I leave behind by applying 'momentary inattention' to virtually every piece of potentially lethal driving.
I am angry that those who endanger me go unpunished and free to do so again.
I am angry that a senior CPS official asserts (absurdly) that my video evidence does not support my complaint of dangerous driving against an HGV driver who nearly crushed me.
I am angry that the Met Police have no ambitions for 'Roadsafe' beyond a public relations exercise to pacify angry cyclists and will not find the resources to prosecute bad drivers.
I am angry that no police force will 'act' on intelligence of bad driving unless it comes to them in their predetermined bureaucratic format.
I am angry that those who attack cyclists (like me) avoid conviction whereas cyclists who lash out at motorists who endanger them get prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I am angry that when police are eventually compelled to enforce ASLs, they put at least as much effort into prosecuting cyclists who stop ahead of the stop line to get ahead of traffic.
I am angry that two of my sporting heroes have gone in for victim blaming.
I am angry that a leading charity with close links to otherwise commendable law firms goes in for extreme victim blaming fronted by an ex Olympic oarsman.
I am angry at the cynicism of government ministers voting for the APPCG report which they have no intention of implementing.
I am angry that when tailgated by an HGV driver, I get told I am putting myself in danger by riding on the road ahead of him.
I am angry that, whereas Olympic lanes can be built overnight, there has been no spade into the ground to implement the London Mayor's cycling vision, whilst in the meantime more people on bicycles are being killed and injured.
I am angry that by the time action is consulted over and eventually taken, more people on bicycles will have been killed or injured by unsafe HGVs.
I am angry that nobody educates motorists that the way I ride is recommended and not provocative.
I am angry at sloppy, lazy, journalism which incites malevolence towards those of us on bicycles.
I am angry that civil litigation funding changes will make it harder for cyclists who are killed/injured to get the representation they need.
I am angry on behalf of my clients who often struggle to get that to which they are entitled.
I am angry at Eric Pickles.
That, dear reader, is why you have not been hearing much from me lately.

Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-55206401247751886012013-07-29T12:32:00.001+01:002014-05-31T19:38:29.863+01:00Another bad idea from Pickles.I have commented upon Eric Pickles before when this Government was only 8 months old and I compared him unfavourably with Julian Huppert, a new MP who had caught my attention by delivering a stunningly good speech in Parliament. Mr Huppert has gone on to do great work co-Chairing the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group. Mr Pickles has gone on to suggest that "over agressive parking enforcement" is killing off the High Street and this is presumably his excuse for elbowing in on what would seem to be the natural area of responsibility of the DfT and, more specifically, the Roads Minister. The idea is that motorists have a 'period of grace' to ignore parking restrictions for 15 minutes with impunity provided they are not guilty of 'dangerous parking'. (Yeah right, given the difficulties we have with the enforcement of laws against dangerous driving, I cannot see that being effective.)

As a lawyer I find this kind of mucking with the law distasteful. People talk about 'decriminalising' parking and other motoring offences but we should not lose sight of the fact that this is a rather inaccurate reference to the manner of enforcement, not to any principle. You pay a fixed penalty if you break the law and are caught and if you wish to dispute a fixed penaltyyou do so in a criminal court. This is definitely crime not contract. The suggestion seems to me to be, we shall let you break the law provided that you do not park dangerously and if you park dangerously we shall do you for parking on a double yellow line (not parking dangerously). Alice in Wonderland stuff given that it is perfectly possible to permit parking for up to 15 minutes if that is what was thought desirable. Doing it the Pickles way means that no double yellow lines need be respected and local authorities will be powerless to prevent short term parking.Martin Porterhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-32877303540520339592013-06-01T14:43:00.002+01:002013-06-01T14:43:59.413+01:00Marie Vesco Memorial Ride 4th - 5th June 2013

Marie Vesco died 4th June 2008

 I have been asked by Marie's parents to publicise the ride that is being held in Sussex and France to mark the fifth anniversary of Marie's death when she was struck by two cars on the A23 dual carriageway whilst she was taking part in a cycle ride from London to Brighton.

The details of the ride can be found on facebook here. and further details are here.

As I mentioned 3 years ago, Marie's tragic death had a profound effect on me personally. I had been to Leigh Day, solicitors, to talk to them about cycle helmets etc and was shortly thereafter asked by them and Roadpeace to represent Marie's family at the forthcoming inquest. It was at that hearing that the scales from my eyes were truly lifted and I experienced the intense discomfort that every lawyer ought to feel when they see just how inadequate the administration of justice can be.

5 years on, we still have a long way to go. I do wish Marie's family and friends and all other participants well.

Martin Porterhttp://email@example.com


text:
I encourage you all to go to www.somersetkycityguide.com and www.on-line-advertising.com for some great deals!!!
Lucky Dog Rescue is a VERY small dog rescue run soley by me. I am a fourteen year old from Bronston, Ky. I am going to eventually become a vet but for now, the best way I can help animals is by doing this. So I am.
When you decide that you want to adopt one of my dogs, you can start by sending me an e-mail :) If you have any questions then please ask and I will be happy to answer. The general adoption fee is $130, but in some cases this can be negotiated, although it really helps when the whole fee can be given. Thanx.
For directions to Lucky Dog Rescue click here!
Please visit SOMERSET CITY GUIDE by clicking here!
Please Visit ON-LINE-ADVERTISING By clicking here!
You are Visitor Number
But Who's Counting?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
JET 708737C 1 Micron Canister Filter Kit For DC-650
JET 708737C 1 Micron Canister Filter Kit For DC-650
- Canister filter for DC-650 with clear bags
- Catches dust 15 times smaller than conventional filters
- Captures particles as small as 2 microns (standard cloth bags only filter down to 30 microns) for optimal lung health and cleaner work environment
- Reduces air-resistance to provide a 10-20% more CFM than conventional dust collectors
- Transparent disposable bags make it easy to tell when they are full for more economical dust collection
- Designed for the 708640 DC-650A dust collector
For Pre-Sales questions on Jet Tools and Machinery, feel free to contact Customer Service at (888) 804-7129, or for technical issues call (800) 274-6846). For all warranty issues, please call (800) 274-6848.....and don't forget to tell them Lucy sent you!
The 708737C includes:
- 1x DC-CS 2-Micron Canister Filter
- 1x set of clear bags
Overall Rating for JET 708737C 1 Micron Canister Filter Kit For DC-650
|(no reviews)
|Be the first to rate and review this item
Check out the rest of our...
Our Customers Are Saying...