£300 fine plus £1800 costs for "dangerous" rollerblading

[keithhazel]

I think that he got a big fine as he was charged with DANGEROUS use of rollerblades, not excessive speed. The fine was in line with a motorists offence of DANGEROUS driving. The more lenient fines for motorists are for excessive speed. If you drove a car down the road like he was skating you would get a very strict sentence so I think this was dealt with correctly. I think everyone is going soft on him and he has got so much publicity because of his age. That is ludicrous. He was acting dangerously and irresponsibly in my opinion. If some moron was skating around like that in a busy centre I would most definately have words!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

big front page stoty today in the metro where he says he will just go to another city centre.......if his excuse is that he enjoys listeneing to the music they play he is a lier as you dont hear music blaring out of every shop........... i think he is just an exibishanist with a big ego that thinks people adnire him wizzing around,if music and scateing is his love then a set of headphones connected to an i pod and he can scate ti his hearts content somewhere not busy.....watching the video again he was wizzing sharply round objects and stopping often.....to say he will go to another city is shear contempt and stupidity, wont be long befor he cuts a child who runs suddenly...children are ok to do that as its safe in city centre's as long as you dont have some pensioner who thinks he's christopher dean on speed.....
mmmmmmmmmmmm didnt it say he's 72 and isnt there someone on here 72 who is champioing his case.................have we found the elusive Guru ?

 

[flecc]

I'm not championing his cause Keith, he was rightly convicted. As I've clearly said, I just object to the level of penalty and costs which were vindictive.

Read my reply to Grumpy1 above and try telling me it was fair in comparison
.

 

[Grumpy1]

It is in line with the national average Flecc. In fact, it is lower than the national average for 2005-2006 recorded at £411 for dangerous driving. £300 is less than £411. You cannot compare this instance to one case of dangerous driving, as this is not a fair comparison. You need to compare it to the average across the board in the UK. I agree with you Kieth, the guy is just an exhibitionist. There are far more responsible places to skate. He has clearly been told before, and is just being a pain. To be honest, if he was just skating through there once then fair enough, I think that's harsh. But the truth is this guy kept doing it despite complaints so he deserves it in my opinion. He is irresponsible and at his age should know better.

 

[flecc]

It is in line with the national average Flecc. In fact, it is lower than the national average for 2005-2006 recorded at £411 for dangerous driving. £300 is less than £411. You cannot compare this instance to one case of dangerous driving, as this is not a fair comparison.

I think you're proving my point.

So it was still 3/4 of the average for dangerously driving vehicles weighing one ton or more at anything up to 70 mph or more./

This was one slim person's weight at around 12 mph!

So what if he was an exhibitionist? He wasn't charged with that, nor is that against the law as far as I'm aware. I don't approve of what he was doing, I'm just maintaining the penalty and costs were inordinate and vindictive, in just the manner Rooel posted.

I'm going to put this next thing quite bluntly. When Rooel posted this thread in the same vein, nothing was said against him. When I agreed with his sentiments I came under attack from several of you.

What does that say about your judgment of what is fair treatment?
.

 

[John Fleet]

The magistrates set the fine which to many is ridiculously high for the offence. The range of £1 to £500 was open to them, so I do shoot the messenger in this case..

It would appear that he was convicted on two counts in which case it may well have been a fine of £150 per offence. You think that's ridiculously high - fair enough that's your opinion. I, for one don't.

If our magistrates court system (aka police rubber stamp) really is a cornerstone of our democracy, we really are in a mess.
.

Well if you really believe that the Magistrates' courts are a police rubber stamp then it's pointless continuing this debate so I won't!

 

[Grumpy1]

I will put something quite bluntly also then. I haven't read the whole thread. I can't even remember what Rooel said so don't take it personally, I am just stating my opinion not attacking you. Thats why my post contains words and phrases like "I think that.....".

Him being an exhibitionist also has nothing to do with his fine, I was just saying that I agree with Keith. If the law constantly tries to get someone to do the right thing, but they just give them a big F.O then what choice do the authorities have but to hit them with a fine. To be honest if I was the Magistrate I would have given him a larger fine for deliberately wasting everyones time. And I don't think you can compare the size of his vehicle/the speed he is travellig at....... If so when we hand out fines to speeding/dangerous driving/drunk motorists it would be based on the size of their car and the amount of damage they are likely to do, and that simply isn't the case. I think he was acting dangerously, if he hit a child or elderly person at the speed he was travelling at he would have seriously hurt them. That is dangerous. It doesn't matter if you ride a pushbike, motorbike, rollerblades, skateboard, car or articulated truck, if you hit somedody you can cause damage. You have a responsibilty to operate that vehicle (whatever size) safely.

 

[rog_london]

I think you're proving my point.

So it was still 3/4 of the average for dangerously driving vehicles weighing one ton or more at anything up to 70 mph or more./

This was one slim person's weight at around 12 mph!

So what if he was an exhibitionist? He wasn't charged with that, nor is that against the law as far as I'm aware. I don't approve of what he was doing, I'm just maintaining the penalty and costs were inordinate and vindictive, in just the manner Rooel posted.

I'm going to put this next thing quite bluntly. When Rooel posted this thread in the same vein, nothing was said against him. When I agreed with his sentiments I came under attack from several of you.

What does that say about your judgment of what is fair treatment?
.

I'm sure you're entitled to your opinions, Flecc. Equally, however, so are the rest of us. We all believe what we believe, and if you don't agree, so what? Your opinion is your opinion - mine is mine - and so on. Does that make you right or wrong? Neither of those things. Same for me, and same for everyone else. It's all a matter of personal opinion.

Why not just let it go? This is a site about electric bikes, and the pleasures and tribulations of riding them. Where did it become a soapbox for all this anger about things which have absolutely nothing to do with electric bikes?

In many forums I follow (totally unconnected with biking of any kind) off-topic discussions get jumped on heavily, and I'm beginning to see why...

Rog.

 

[flecc]

It wasn't only directed to you Grumpy1, as I said, several of you:

When Rooel posted this thread in the same vein, nothing was said against him. When I agreed with his sentiments I came under attack from several of you.

What does that say about your judgment of what is fair treatment?
.

 

[flecc]

I'm sure you're entitled to your opinions, Flecc. Equally, however, so are the rest of us. We all believe what we believe, and if you don't agree, so what? Your opinion is your opinion - mine is mine - and so on. Does that make you right or wrong?

Rog.

Quite right Rog, so as I pointed out, why do I so often get the flak as I've just pointed out?

I'm defending myself against that more than anything else.
.

 

[The Maestro]

They really should ban HRT, he makes me look like a lazy so and so. I say send him down. Whats wrong with sitting on a park bench feeding the pigeons or driving at 30mph in 1st gear everywhere ignoring all other traffic and signals like most other pensioners?

Sarcasm intended btw. I do think the £300 penalty for a dubious nuisance offence is very harsh.

 

[rog_london]

Quite right Rog, so as I pointed out, why do I so often get the flak as I've just pointed out?

I'm defending myself against that more than anything else.
.

It comes from being the highest profile poster, Flecc! Perhaps one approach which might work would be to do what Kenneth Horne used to do in his famous and wonderful radio comedy shows - he used to be an oasis of calm among all the rudery and filth, without (apparently) being tainted by any of it.

Rog.

 

[Phil the drill]

Just a little aside....

A man wearing roller blades has almost the same momentum (and thus potential for damage in a collision with others) as a man without. I can run at over 12mph (even at my age ). If I were to run through a busy street (regularly?) would I constitute a threat to others and be liable to a fine? Would we all agree with that? It can be pretty hard to stop 14st. of running man at 12 mph and just as difficult to avoid any young or old person wandering about erratically on the pavement.
Incidentally, would the said young or elderly person wandering about in an erratic manner constitute a hazard to a fast walking or running adult, who may be injured by tripping over them?
I'm not advocating anything here by the way and I know nothing of the case you've all been getting so steamed up about, but it just seems that it potentially drags up a whole plethora of other possible scenarios which our 'beloved' PCSO's (in particular) could have all sorts of fun with (at other's expense, naturally).
Discuss ?

Phil.

 

[Tiberius]

Discuss ?

Well clearly the logic emerging here is that large people shouldn't be allowed to run around fast. We nimble lightweights should be able to go at a slight jog, and young kids can weave in and out of the people on the pavement.

The next move would be walking speed limits in city centres. The limits would be set after an evidence based analysis. Probably be set about 4 mph in Europe and a little lower in the USA.

Nick

 

[keithhazel]

Just a little aside....

A man wearing roller blades has almost the same momentum (and thus potential for damage in a collision with others) as a man without. I can run at over 12mph (even at my age ). If I were to run through a busy street (regularly?) would I constitute a threat to others and be liable to a fine? Would we all agree with that? It can be pretty hard to stop 14st. of running man at 12 mph and just as difficult to avoid any young or old person wandering about erratically on the pavement.
Incidentally, would the said young or elderly person wandering about in an erratic manner constitute a hazard to a fast walking or running adult, who may be injured by tripping over them?
I'm not advocating anything here by the way and I know nothing of the case you've all been getting so steamed up about, but it just seems that it potentially drags up a whole plethora of other possible scenarios which our 'beloved' PCSO's (in particular) could have all sorts of fun with (at other's expense, naturally).
Discuss ?

Phil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think if you was to run about at the same speed weaving in and around the same route he did then i think after a while you may have people feeling harrassed,and because he was neither running or waving his arms about he appeared to be glideing quite fast which again to me appears more dangerous..

 

[keithhazel]

I think you're proving my point.



I'm going to put this next thing quite bluntly. When Rooel posted this thread in the same vein, nothing was said against him. When I agreed with his sentiments I came under attack from several of you.

What does that say about your judgment of what is fair treatment?
.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
please Tony im sure if you read the postings you will see its not about "attacking you"...its just a case of maybe more people logged on around that time, its all about each individuals opinion, i think maybe the reason you suddemly feel attacked is that when it comes to what this forum is about and e-bikes,technical data,knowledge ect ect...you genuinely know just about eveything and what you know is always correct so you wont ever get a dissagreement, but this thread...dont know why it was ever posted here....has nothing to do with e-bikes and therefor was about personal opinion ans we are all on a level field ,no one is right, no one is wrong.... and while its the costs that make the fine seem extreme, £300 for his actions are not.. what if they just charged him the court costs, the police costs, the paper work costs ?....that would surely come to thousands as solicitors would come into costing then.... when i was 14 i rode my pusbike on the pavement and got nicked for it, i had to go to a court, a jp's or something and got a £10 fine...37 years ago £10 fine for riding on the pavement....what would that equate to now ?...if my mother tells me to not do something and i keep doing it although she is 80 on monday she would probably still take a wooden spoon to my back side....maybe we should equip all the police on the streets with wooden spoons.....COS IT WORKS WITH ME.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol...
seriously Tony, there was no attack....wait till someone calls you a "thickhead" on here and then you can call it an attack.....

 

[keithhazel]

Well clearly the logic emerging here is that large people shouldn't be allowed to run around fast. We nimble lightweights should be able to go at a slight jog, and young kids can weave in and out of the people on the pavement.

The next move would be walking speed limits in city centres. The limits would be set after an evidence based analysis. Probably be set about 4 mph in Europe and a little lower in the USA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

electric buggies are limited to 4mph i think, town centres and pavements...

 

[flecc]

please Tony im sure if you read the postings you will see its not about "attacking you"...its just a case of maybe more people logged on around that time,

Mmmm. Well you posted just 30 minutes after Rooel posted the thread and made no mention of him expressing the penalty as "ridiculous", but you did object to my briefly agreeing with him by using the same word.

That sort of gives a feeling of being picked on, especially when others then followed your example.
.

 

[flecc]

electric buggies are limited to 4mph i think, town centres and pavements...

Yes, mobility vehicles are limited to 4 mph on pavements and 8 mph on roads.

Pedestrian controlled vehicles 4 mph everywhere, no running with them even on the roads.
.

 

[Phil the drill]

Yes, mobility vehicles are limited to 4 mph on pavements
.

And interestingly, even at that speed there have been fatalities - on the pavements......
I sometimes wonder, (perhaps rather cruelly) how many of the perpetrators leaped out their chairs and attempted to 'leg it'
It surprises me how many of the damn things I see driven into shops, only for the occupant to discharge themselves and pick up a shopping basket .

Phil

 

[keithhazel]

Mmmm. Well you posted just 30 minutes after Rooel posted the thread and made no mention of him expressing the penalty as "ridiculous", but you did object to my briefly agreeing with him by using the same word.

That sort of gives a feeling of being picked on, especially when others then followed your example.
.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
but i posted or quoted on the last posting being you, sometimes i try to avoid trawling up posts befor that,yours was on the same vain as saying it was ridiculous, i expressed my opinion and not a case of naming all the others i disagreed with ...........if i can i follow on the last post to keep flowing, not always but i do try....im very lawful and hate those that mock the law which is what this scater was doing,like it or hate it the law told him to stop...and he wouldnt....