What is the URCM moderators' definition of "needlessly inflammatory"

	Myreader.co.uk
	uk news, chat and community
home \| control panel login \| archive \|

net

net

news.announce

news.config

news.management

news.moderation

providers

providers.aaisp

web.authoring

date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:50:46 +0000, group: uk.net.news.moderation back

What is the URCM moderators' definition of "needlessly inflammatory"

The reason I ask is that it is not apparent from the empirical evidence.

- This post[1] got rejected as "needlessly inflammatory"!
- This post[2] got rejected as "needlessly inflammatory"!
- This post[3] got rejected as "needlessly inflammatory"!
- This needlessly inflammatory post[4] (Message-ID: 
) got approved!!

[1]
-----Start post 1-----
D.M. Procida wrote:
 > Matt B  wrote:
 >
 >> According to the local press[1], Oxford police will be dishing out £30
 >> fixed penalty fines throughout November to cyclists who are not
 >> displaying appropriate lights in the dark.  These though will apparently
 >> be cancelled if evidence of the subsequent purchase of new lights is
 >> produced at a police station.
 >>
 >> So, in effect, you don't need to comply with the bicycle lights law
 >> there until after you have been caught breaking it.
 >
 > It's a start, at least. I can't see any other way of doing it that
 > wouldn't be excessively draconian, or that would ensure that lights get
 > purchased.

I agree that it is an enlightened way of ensuring that a law is better
complied with.  A similar system could probably be used in response to
other similarly benign technical offences.  We could start a list. ;-)

 > I got stopped in my car once because a light wasn't working. I was given
 > a notice saying I had to get it fixed and would be prosecuted if I
 > didn't provide evidence within seven days, so it seems to work in a
 > similar way to that.

As I understand it, that is the normal way to deal with such "difficult
to prove intent" offences, and no FPN is actually issued up front.  That
is because, light bulbs, in your case, have a habit of failing
unpredictably, and it would be difficult to disprove the valid defence
of "it was working when I checked it just before I got into the car".

-- 
Matt B
-----End post 1-----

[2]
-----Start post 2-----
Phil W Lee wrote:
 > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Sat, 24
 > Oct 2009 22:42:13 +0100 the perfect time to write:
 >
 >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:00:51 +0100, bod43  wrote:
 >>
 >>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister
 >>> to introduce legislation that all motorists must allow
 >>> a minimum of 3 feet in distance between their
 >>> vehicle and a cyclist that they drive past."
 >> Terrible idea - the distance is insufficient. I think 1.5m is a
 >> distance used in other places, but even that is a bit skimpy
 >> sometimes.  The problem is that drivers will think 3' is sufficient
 >> when passing on a single-carriageway at 60mph.
 >>
 > I'm strongly inclined to agree.
 > A 1.5m would also have the benefit of being seen as a "European
 > harmonisation" measure.
 > Anything less is almost an endorsement of bad driving, as it is
 > considerably less then the currently recommended "at least as much
 > space as for a car".

When you say that a 1.5m law would be seen as a European harmonisation
measure, what do you mean.  Do the whole of rest of Europe have such a
law?  And even if they do, what is the "benefit" of harmonisation do you
think?

-- 
Matt B
2009-10-25 23:18:16 GMT (Sunday)
-----End post 2-----

[3]
-----Start post 3-----
Phil W Lee wrote:
 > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Sat, 24
 > Oct 2009 22:42:13 +0100 the perfect time to write:
 >
 >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:00:51 +0100, bod43  wrote:
 >>
 >>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister
 >>> to introduce legislation that all motorists must allow
 >>> a minimum of 3 feet in distance between their
 >>> vehicle and a cyclist that they drive past."
 >> Terrible idea - the distance is insufficient. I think 1.5m is a
 >> distance used in other places, but even that is a bit skimpy
 >> sometimes.  The problem is that drivers will think 3' is sufficient
 >> when passing on a single-carriageway at 60mph.
 >>
 > I'm strongly inclined to agree.

Me too.  Such a law is unlikely to be enforced and is unlikely to be
respected.

 > A 1.5m would also have the benefit of being seen as a "European
 > harmonisation" measure.

Would you advocate such a law if the minimum gap was set at 1.5m?  What
benefit do you think European harmonisation would bring?

 > Anything less is almost an endorsement of bad driving, as it is
 > considerably less then the currently recommended "at least as much
 > space as for a car".

By "anything less", do you include no law at all, or do you just mean a
law stipulating less of a gap?

-- 
Matt B
2009-10-25 18:33:01 GMT
-----End post 3-----

[4]
-----Start post 4-----
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:24:57 +0000, Matt B 
wrote:

 >> Or, even closer to the mark,
 >> <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/road-traffic/#named2>
 >>
 >> A case where operators of vehicles with defective lighting can be
 >> required to provide proof of rectification within a period of time.
 >
 >I guess it's more difficult to prove that the operator hadn't checked,
 >and found to be OK, the bulb directly before a trip began, than it is to
 >prove that a bike with no lights on it when stopped didn't have any when
 >its journey started.

And the cyclist may have started his journey before dark, when lack of
lights is perfectly legal.

These are vehicle defects, the same rules apply to everybody, the aim
is to remediate the defect.  End of.

Guy
-- 
-----End post 4-----
-- 
Matt B

date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:50:46 +0000 author: Matt B