After I remembered to turn the Garmin on about a lap in, we did 25 miles in a smidgen over an hour. Average 24.7 mph.
Results and report should be here shortly
Imperial Winter Series Race 3
After I remembered to turn the Garmin on about a lap in, we did 25 miles in a smidgen over an hour. Average 24.7 mph.
Results and report should be here shortly
Legal Update R v Beiu; R v Aydogdu
This afternoon two juries in two separate London Crown Courts have delivered their verdicts in cases which have involved Defendants that have been (allegedly) responsible for causing death and very serious injury to two cyclists.
On 4th November 2011 Mary Bowers, a journalist with The Times, was struck down by a left turning lorry at a light controlled junction very close to her workplace in Wapping. The lorry was being driven by Petre Beiu. The evidence placed before the jury included that Ms Bowers was visible to be seen in front of the lorry for many seconds before he overtook her and turned left across her path; that Mr Beiu was talking on a hands free telephone at the time and that in the aftermath of the collision he jumped out of the cab leaving the handbrake off so that the lorry continued to roll over Ms Bowers. Ms Bowers sustained devastating injuries which are seriously underestimated by describing her brain injury as 'significant'.
The jury decided that Mr Beiu was not guilty of dangerous driving. They convicted him instead of careless driving - an offence which he had accepted, though the Judge had still left the jury with the option of acquitting on that charge as well.
Mr Beiu was fined £2,700 and banned from driving for (just!) 8 months.
On 6th August 2011 Sam Harding was riding his bicycle in a bus lane along Holloway Road. As he passed a parked car, Mr Aydogdu, opened the door (wide according to the prosecution and a crack according to the Defendant) into the path of Mr Harding who hit the door and then was struck by a bus. It transpires that Aydogdu had applied some reflective coating to his side windows which blocked 83% of the light. The jury this afternoon decided that Mr Aydogdu was not guilty of the manslaughter of Mr Harding.
Following on from the case of the Townend brothers, these cases must give rise to concerns over how seriously the average jury considers the obligation not to endanger cyclists. A jury reflects the society from which it is drawn and whilst cycling remains stuck at a modal share of 2% of journeys it is going to be an exceptional jury that contains even one regular cyclist. That should change, if and when the proportion of cyclists on the roads increases. However in rather a catch 22, the number of cyclists on the roads is inhibited by the apparently low value that the legal system appears sometimes to place on the value of the life of a human whilst cycling.
I commented at the time that I considered that the decision in the Townend case was perverse (the jury acquitting the Defendant of even causing death by careless driving); the verdict in the Bowers case is astonishing and to be honest the result in the Harding case was, to me, not unexpected.
In the Harding case it appears to me that tragically a combination of factors combined to result in the tragic outcome. First, Aydogdu's daft decision to coat his windows so as to restrict his ability to see out (and that of others to see in). Second, the pressure that cyclists often feel under to ride too close to the left. In February (after Mr Harding's tragedy) The Times, as a part of its campaign published a 'Guide to Safe Cycling' which included advice to cyclists to look in wingmirrors and windscreens of parked cars to see if anyone in the car might be about to open a door. NO! The correct advice is DO NOT RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE. If for some extraordinary reason (narrow road, oncoming bus for example) you have to then slow to a walking pace. At the time I advised discarding the Times guide in favour of British Cycling's 'Effective Traffic Riding'. Nonetheless there is definite pressure remaining on cyclists and encouraged by most cycling 'infrastructure' that deters many of us from adopting the safest riding position in the centre of our lane. Third the opening of the car door which must have been done without careful observation even if the jury determined it was not gross negligence. Fourth the bus driver (though exculpated by the prosecution at Aydogdu's trial) should have been holding well back behind a cyclist or ought to have been giving him a car width's space if overtaking. I do not know the detail of the evidence but it seems to me surprising that a cyclist falling into the road would be run over by a bus if best driving practice was being followed. Sadly my experience commuting in London is that very often buses get much much too close. This tragedy illustrates why they (and others) must not do so.
It is important to recognize that the correct charging decisions were taken in each case. The fact of acquittal does not in any sense indicate that the bringing of the charges was not justified. Far too often I have had cause to complain in these pages that the appropriately serious charge was not pursued and it is only right to acknowledge that the police and CPS have been conscientiously doing the right thing in the cases I refer to above.
On 4th November 2011 Mary Bowers, a journalist with The Times, was struck down by a left turning lorry at a light controlled junction very close to her workplace in Wapping. The lorry was being driven by Petre Beiu. The evidence placed before the jury included that Ms Bowers was visible to be seen in front of the lorry for many seconds before he overtook her and turned left across her path; that Mr Beiu was talking on a hands free telephone at the time and that in the aftermath of the collision he jumped out of the cab leaving the handbrake off so that the lorry continued to roll over Ms Bowers. Ms Bowers sustained devastating injuries which are seriously underestimated by describing her brain injury as 'significant'.
The jury decided that Mr Beiu was not guilty of dangerous driving. They convicted him instead of careless driving - an offence which he had accepted, though the Judge had still left the jury with the option of acquitting on that charge as well.
Mr Beiu was fined £2,700 and banned from driving for (just!) 8 months.
On 6th August 2011 Sam Harding was riding his bicycle in a bus lane along Holloway Road. As he passed a parked car, Mr Aydogdu, opened the door (wide according to the prosecution and a crack according to the Defendant) into the path of Mr Harding who hit the door and then was struck by a bus. It transpires that Aydogdu had applied some reflective coating to his side windows which blocked 83% of the light. The jury this afternoon decided that Mr Aydogdu was not guilty of the manslaughter of Mr Harding.
Following on from the case of the Townend brothers, these cases must give rise to concerns over how seriously the average jury considers the obligation not to endanger cyclists. A jury reflects the society from which it is drawn and whilst cycling remains stuck at a modal share of 2% of journeys it is going to be an exceptional jury that contains even one regular cyclist. That should change, if and when the proportion of cyclists on the roads increases. However in rather a catch 22, the number of cyclists on the roads is inhibited by the apparently low value that the legal system appears sometimes to place on the value of the life of a human whilst cycling.
I commented at the time that I considered that the decision in the Townend case was perverse (the jury acquitting the Defendant of even causing death by careless driving); the verdict in the Bowers case is astonishing and to be honest the result in the Harding case was, to me, not unexpected.
In the Harding case it appears to me that tragically a combination of factors combined to result in the tragic outcome. First, Aydogdu's daft decision to coat his windows so as to restrict his ability to see out (and that of others to see in). Second, the pressure that cyclists often feel under to ride too close to the left. In February (after Mr Harding's tragedy) The Times, as a part of its campaign published a 'Guide to Safe Cycling' which included advice to cyclists to look in wingmirrors and windscreens of parked cars to see if anyone in the car might be about to open a door. NO! The correct advice is DO NOT RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE. If for some extraordinary reason (narrow road, oncoming bus for example) you have to then slow to a walking pace. At the time I advised discarding the Times guide in favour of British Cycling's 'Effective Traffic Riding'. Nonetheless there is definite pressure remaining on cyclists and encouraged by most cycling 'infrastructure' that deters many of us from adopting the safest riding position in the centre of our lane. Third the opening of the car door which must have been done without careful observation even if the jury determined it was not gross negligence. Fourth the bus driver (though exculpated by the prosecution at Aydogdu's trial) should have been holding well back behind a cyclist or ought to have been giving him a car width's space if overtaking. I do not know the detail of the evidence but it seems to me surprising that a cyclist falling into the road would be run over by a bus if best driving practice was being followed. Sadly my experience commuting in London is that very often buses get much much too close. This tragedy illustrates why they (and others) must not do so.
It is important to recognize that the correct charging decisions were taken in each case. The fact of acquittal does not in any sense indicate that the bringing of the charges was not justified. Far too often I have had cause to complain in these pages that the appropriately serious charge was not pursued and it is only right to acknowledge that the police and CPS have been conscientiously doing the right thing in the cases I refer to above.
In the blowing ambiance of the law, to accurate any abridgement of confidence, vulnerability or self-doubt has commonly been admired as weakness. Many women attorneys who were admired as reliable and 100% able al of a sudden acquisition that their charge is challenged (through no accountability of their own) if they alpha a family.
So, what would it yield for you to become the advocate you wish to be?
Refocus on what is absolutely important to you. Build your animation and re-energise.
Action Steps
1. Make a account of aggregate that is important to you about your career. What accept you accomplished over the endure 5 years? What are your strengths and weaknesses? How can you about-face you weaknesses into strengths?
2. What would getting a advocate on your agreement attending like? How would your activity be different? Spend 10 account cerebration and autograph down your goals - short, average and continued appellation
3. Account all the things that are acceptable to block your advance
4. Separate the blocks into those that you can access and those that you cannot
5. Decide to let go of aggregate out of your ascendancy
6. Concentrate and alone use your activity on those things that you can access
7. Commit to demography one baby footfall every day appear your goals
8. Remember to be acknowledged you charge both abstruse and "soft skill" ability
9. Review your advance consistently
10. Enlist the advice of a coach (inside or alfresco your organisation). Use them as a aural lath and cheerleader to activation you on or accord you that added addition if your aplomb dips.
Use these 10 accomplish to become the advocate you wish to be in 2009!
Understanding the Lawyers on Retainer Concept
In this life, humans cannot do after the casework of a acceptable lawyer. Crime happens accustomed about us. Sometimes we acquisition ourselves in attenuate situations that accomplish us ache unfairly. Added claimed affairs such as bankruptcy, absolute estates and mortgage force us to appoint lawyers. In one word, acceptable attorneys are actual imperative. Dealing with attorneys is not a simple thing. Abounding issues apropos hiring attorneys are acute and they appear first. For example, you abounding acquisition yourself hiring attorneys on retainer. These attorneys are not any altered from those you know.
The attorneys alone ask for a accommodation fee so that they can accord you their services. What is a accommodation fee? This blazon of a fee is on alternate basis. It is altered from the accustomed accuse you pay a advocate because of arresting your position in court. They cover the following:
• Consultation fees - Afore you can alpha alive with a accustomed lawyer, you accept to set a few accessories with him or her.
• Analysis plan - After alert to your ancillary of story, your advocate spends some time accomplishing analysis to advice you. You will accept to pay for his or her time.
• Interviews - as the advocate studies your case, you and him or her will attending for accessible witnesses. Then, your advocate has to conduct an account with anniversary witness. Most attorneys wish to accept a pay for their time.
Lawyers on accommodation wish alone to ascertain your calmness in the absolute procedure. That is why they will ask for a specific drop first. When searching for this affectionate of a lawyer, appraise your account first. Most humans admiration to save up money in acknowledged affairs as abundant as possible. You should attending for a cheaper alternate amount lawyer. Some humans do not yield it kindly. However, if you anticipate about it, you put abreast huge amounts of money as down transaction for the assets you love.
If you plan to appoint a advocate about a case accompanying to the aforementioned assets, you should not feel bad if ask to pay a accommodation fee. A accommodation fee is just a baby drop compared to added types you accept paid before. The added you debris to pay the fee, the added you adjournment your justice. Even so, yield your time to baddest a acceptable lawyer. There is a big adventitious that you will array out acceptable attorneys from bad attorneys if you yield your time. When you acquisition a acceptable lawyer, accomplish abiding that all accommodation agreements are in writing.
Then you and your advocate should assurance the document. This is a acceptable way of architecture a accord with the attorney. The certificate should authenticate how the advocate allocates the money through out the acknowledged procedure. You should not plan with any lawyers on retainer if they cannot chase the certificate stipulating your agreements. The best abode to attending for these attorneys is the Internet. Abounding attorneys who could affidavit their ability exist.
Feed Dog Food to All the Lawyers
Have you anytime noticed that Attorneys are not such nice people? It is because they do not reside in the absolute world, but rather a apple of cheat captivated in a façade of absurd words and dribble? Obviously they are not blessed active in this apple and abrading the chrism of association for their own claimed accretion after accouterment any abundance to our blue-blooded acculturation in anyway.
There is apparently not a added dog eat dog apple than the affected apple that advocate reside in. Some say they are the affliction of the affliction and account beneath than a dog turd, while added say that they are alone a all-important angry and allotment of all that is bad with the abuse of the world. I accept a band-aid to acquiesce the attorneys to see the accuracy about who and what they are. Never acquiesce them to eat annihilation but dog aliment during their break actuality on Earth. This is fair as some say they are dogs anyway.
Of advance all the attorneys anticipate they are God? Perhaps they are both appropriate and the attorneys are alone dyslexic and apprehend "Dog" backwards? You apperceive how they accept such a way with words in their alloyed up world. So what alloy of dog aliment should we augment them now that you agree?
Well no faculty in agriculture them science diet or any of the big-ticket being and no allegation to anguish if the meat comes from affliction beasts or those with Mad Cow disease, as we do not allegation them anyhow and may as able-bodied accord them the debris of our society. What do you think? Oh, by the way I am not joking, not one bit and if I were in allegation I would accomplish it law. Trust me! Vote for Lance.
America - By the People, For the Lawyers!
In our founding abstracts it states that the United States of America is a nation congenital by the humans and for the people. Unfortunately a lot of of the laws in our association and acculturation accept been adapted by attorneys and sometimes in a egoistic way. One contemptuous getting in our online anticipate catchbasin stated; "America; By the People, For the Lawyers!"
Of advance anon one of the attorneys in the accumulation labeled him a contemptuous person, which he anon accepted freely. But he said; "just because I'm a carper does not beggarly I am not correct." So the catechism is what do you think? This is an commodity of authentic assessment as you can tell.
Are we still a nation congenital by the humans and for the humans or are we a adapted hybred; getting congenital by the attorneys and for lawyers. If attorneys accomplish our laws and we accept to appoint a advocate to acquaint us what those laws are and again appoint addition advocate if those laws are aback or accidentally torn again who are we absolutely serving; ourselves "The People" or the attorneys to whom we accept to pay money to for admonition on how to reside or run our businesses.
The carper in the accumulation appropriate that in his business, which is a acknowledged architecture firm, he had to alarm his advocate every time he capital to use the aggregation bathroom to accomplish abiding it was okay? Indeed, it has not got that bad yet, but it absolutely could at the present amount in my apprehensive opinion.
I absolutely achievement this commodity is of absorption and that is has propelled thought. The ambition is simple; to advice you in your adventure to be the best in 2007. I acknowledge you for account my abounding online writing on assorted subjects, which absorption you.
Is a Lawyer a Debt Collector, and Should You Sue the Lawyer If You Can When Sued For Debt?
As abounding humans know, aboriginal creditors are advised abnormally than debt collectors. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies, by and large, just to debt collectors and gives aboriginal creditors a almost chargeless ride. So area do attorneys fit in? And should you sue them if you can?
Lawyers Can Be Debt Collectors
Lawyers are not adequate beneath the FDCPA. They can be, and as a applied amount the one suing you apparently is, a debt collector. However, if the advocate is apery an aboriginal creditor and acting in its name, he will be advised as an aboriginal creditor. If you are getting sued by a debt collector, affairs are acceptable that the advocate is aswell a debt collector, you can appealing abundant calculation on it. He can be sued for things he does wrong.
Before you go suing the lawyer, though, there are two things you should know: one has to do with your acknowledged rights, and the added is added of a applied consideration.
Respondeat Superior
There is a abstraction in the law that makes humans amenable for the things humans who are acting as their agents do. This is accepted as "respondeat superior." With a few exceptions, an employer is accountable for the accomplishments of an employee. That agency a applicant is amenable for the accomplishments of his or her lawyer. In general, this agency that a debt beneficiary is amenable for annihilation that its advocate does. Or to put it differently, you don't charge to sue the advocate to advance the debt collector.
Should you do it anyway, though?
Tactical Considerations
Whether or not it makes faculty to sue the advocate is not an simple decision. I apperceive you yield the accusation personally-it represents a ample blackmail to your claimed and banking well-being. Naturally you wish to bang back, personally, at the animal getting you see on the added side. The catechism is, though, is this the accommodation a lot of acceptable to accord you the a lot of benefit? Is it a lot of acceptable to could cause them to bead the case and leave you alone?
I don't know. A lot of of the time, the attorneys suing you attention your case from a absolutely business angle attempting to aerate their accumulation and abbreviate the amount of suing you. And abundant of my access to debt action has been to advance that humans accomplishment this business angle by authoritative your case unprofitable. That is almost simple to do, although of advance this isn't consistently enough. If you sue the lawyer, you change her motivation. Then, instead of it getting a alone business decision, you access the claimed stakes for the lawyer. It makes things abhorrent for the lawyer, no doubt, but it aswell motivates them to plan abundant harder in abounding cases. You accept assorted your enemies.
A Final Acknowledged Consideration
If you are suing the lawyer, your affirmation is not absolutely a "counterclaim." Instead, what you would apparently do is acknowledgment beneath the FDCPA adjoin the debt beneficiary and accompany a third-party clothing (within the aforementioned lawsuit) adjoin the lawyer. The argumentation is just alleged a third-party clothing and names the advocate as third-party actor and states your affirmation in the aforementioned way the acknowledgment did. Then the advocate has to be served a summons. None of this is distinctively difficult, but it is time-consuming. Given the ambiguous account of suing the lawyer, I rarely anticipation it was account spending the added time. You'll accept to adjudge what makes faculty to do in your case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)