Prev: Gatsos on the motorway
Next: middle-class anti-social behaviour
From: Clive George on 9 Aug 2010 14:59
On 09/08/2010 19:44, Ret. wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Cheshire Classic Road Race is presumably an imaginary event?
>>>
>>> It's down to individual Chief Constables to make the decision. Maybe
>>> the current CC has different views to the one who stopped cycle
>>> races when I was serving.
>>
>> I imagine it started around 1980. When were you serving?
>
> In Cheshire from 1975 to 2001. I cannot remember what year it was when
> the CC stated that he was stopping cycle races. It was following a
> particular race that I was involved in policing (as a traffic constable
> so that would have been around '78). The behaviour of the cyclists was
> appalling, despite them having been given a very clear briefing by the
> Inspector in charge of policing the event. Reports were submitted to the
> Chief by everyone involved - and his decision to prevent any further
> races was based upon that.

Did he perhaps only ban them for one year?


From: Ret. on 9 Aug 2010 16:41
Clive George wrote:
> On 09/08/2010 19:44, Ret. wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Cheshire Classic Road Race is presumably an imaginary event?
>>>>
>>>> It's down to individual Chief Constables to make the decision.
>>>> Maybe the current CC has different views to the one who stopped
>>>> cycle races when I was serving.
>>>
>>> I imagine it started around 1980. When were you serving?
>>
>> In Cheshire from 1975 to 2001. I cannot remember what year it was
>> when the CC stated that he was stopping cycle races. It was
>> following a particular race that I was involved in policing (as a
>> traffic constable so that would have been around '78). The behaviour
>> of the cyclists was appalling, despite them having been given a very
>> clear briefing by the Inspector in charge of policing the event.
>> Reports were submitted to the Chief by everyone involved - and his
>> decision to prevent any further races was based upon that.
>
> Did he perhaps only ban them for one year?

That was not my recollection. I can recall traffic officers breathing a sigh
of relief that they would be spared from any further involvement in these
events. It was a long time ago, however. Certainly there *was* a ban - but
for how long I cannot recall.

--
Kev

From: JNugent on 10 Aug 2010 05:45
Nick Finnigan wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> Derek C wrote:

>>>>>> information about alternative routes, etc. If it was not a closed
>>>>>> road event, then that was even worse, as competitors are expected
>>>>>> to keep to the laws and rules of the road, and to comply with the
>>>>>> highway code.

>>>>> It probably was a (rolling) closed road event:
>>>>> http://www.richmondgp.co.uk/downloads/RaceManual10.pdf 'Road Use'

>>>> Civilians in private unmarked cars are not authorised to act as
>>>> police officers for highway matters.
>>>> Neither are they allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road,
>>>> drive without due consideration for other road users or otherwise
>>>> drive dangerously (you know, things like driving straight at other
>>>> vehicles to force them off the road).
>>>> You already know this.

>>> I have written nothing relevant to that outburst. Have you read the
>>> link?

>> The contents of "the link" are unimportant. The evidence of the
>> witness was clear and would not be undone by a couple of "should
>> haves" in "the link".

> I wrote nothing about the evidence of the witness. "The link" says
> nothing about "should haves".

"The link" can't say anything which seriously militates against the earlier
report of civilians in private vehicles throwing their weight about as though
they had the authority of a police officer in a police vehicle, and driving
aggressively and dangerously to boot.
From: Nick Finnigan on 10 Aug 2010 14:42
JNugent wrote:
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>>> Derek C wrote:
>
>>>>>>> information about alternative routes, etc. If it was not a closed
>>>>>>> road event, then that was even worse, as competitors are expected
>>>>>>> to keep to the laws and rules of the road, and to comply with the
>>>>>>> highway code.
>
>>>>>> It probably was a (rolling) closed road event:
>>>>>> http://www.richmondgp.co.uk/downloads/RaceManual10.pdf 'Road Use'
>
>>>>> Civilians in private unmarked cars are not authorised to act as
>>>>> police officers for highway matters.
>>>>> Neither are they allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road,
>>>>> drive without due consideration for other road users or otherwise
>>>>> drive dangerously (you know, things like driving straight at other
>>>>> vehicles to force them off the road).
>>>>> You already know this.
>
>>>> I have written nothing relevant to that outburst. Have you read the
>>>> link?
>
>>> The contents of "the link" are unimportant. The evidence of the
>>> witness was clear and would not be undone by a couple of "should
>>> haves" in "the link".
>
>> I wrote nothing about the evidence of the witness. "The link" says
>> nothing about "should haves".
>
> "The link" can't say anything which seriously militates against the
> earlier report of civilians in private vehicles throwing their weight
> about as though they had the authority of a police officer in a police
> vehicle, and driving aggressively and dangerously to boot.

I didn't suggest that it did.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Gatsos on the motorway
Next: middle-class anti-social behaviour