Servetus

I just thought the same thing... and I don't even carry onions on my bike

The way I understood things at the time, the locking of the gates was completely unannounced, so there was nothing the club could do (or say) about it beforehand.

You don't have to get divorced, but you have to apply to court to change your marital status and you have to advertise your intention in the government Gazette and to all your creditors beforehand. In previous generations there was no way to change your marital status and people tried to circumvent it by divorcing and remarrying.

NOW I get to read this! After almost dying on the route yesterday, cramping (never had cramps before), walking almost every uphill in the second half, I finally understand why! Next time I'll pay attention to the total ascent before entering...

Are you talking about the case of Dr Koos Roux (Bottelary Rd, Kuilsrivier)? - http://www.thehubsa....hl__kuils river The driver was arrested and the case postponed to 29 January 2014. As for Burry's case not being clear-cut - I think that makes the need for the case to be properlyprosecuted even greater - so that what actually happened can come out for all to see. On the other hand, if the NPA believes there is insufficient reasons to proceed, we need to at least see how they come to this conclusion as well.

Just as I was about to type a lecture on the difference between civil and criminal liability you edited the post I agree that such a change could make a difference to the attitude of the driving public, however I don't think the difference would be huge - greater risk of civil liability is not going to make much of a difference if you have nothing to lose financially - which might well be the case for a 25 yo taxi driver. But every bit helps.

The European law that you are referring to deals with civil liability for damages from a road accident, and shifts the onus of proof on to the car driver to show who was at fault in case of a collision with a a cyclist (pedestrian, etc). What you are asking is for a person to be presumed criminally guilty in an accident with a cyclist - that is a draconian exception to the normal principles of law and I don't think you will find it in any civilised country.

I don't think anyone is "comfortable with this guy walking away". Some of us are just less comfortable with mob justice.

Incidentally, does anyone here have any knowledge or experience of private prosecutions?

"Provisionally" taken off the roll means that the accused can be charged again at a later stage (e.g. when the evidence is ready as Gummibear said). "Withdrawn" would be when the prosecutor decides in principle not to proceed with the case - that is then the end of the matter and the accused then cannot be charged again later

Let's hope this is the case. Huge difference between withdrawn and just taken off the roll.

Thanks! I assume P3 it "least badly injured" then?

Does anyone know what "P2" means here?

There is a tram running on that track now - http://winetram.co.za/. So it might be a good idea to look left and right before crossing ...

Ah, so it's Al then...

Who's the guy on the bottom right? EDIT: if you confuse left and right I guess it's late in the week...

I think I saw this person too. Was more or less across Boschendal, I saw the group about 100m ahead of me slow down suddenly, and there was a car standing still behind him. When I passed, the guy was still lying in the roadway looking really bad, with a lady (looked like the driver of the car) attending to him. I thought at first he was hit by the car, but his bike looked undamaged. Would really like to hear he's OK!

H for me, which surely must be a mistake, considering my normal mediocre performances! Now I actually have to live up to my seeding!

No prob. Oh and please report back on your findings!

I've never ridden that route on a bike myself, but I would be very careful of Voortrekker Road through Maitland and Kensington, especially the section through Kensignton which is divided into four very narrow lanes and is a bit daunting even by car. Wouldn't it possibly be better to take the cycle path up to Section Road in PAarden Eiland, take a left into Section, ride to Koeberg Interchange and then cross the N1 into Maitland, hop over to Berkley Rd, then Jan Smuts past Old Mutual, and then Viking Road into Epping?

Thanks, you just reminded me to enter for Die Burger!

Go to http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/ and click on "reasoned decision".

Just a few (very random) quotes from USADA's decision: Hamilton saw Armstrong using the “oil”, which was a mixture of olive oil and Andriol (testosterone) developed by Dr. Ferrari, and on at least one occasion during the 1999 Tour Armstrong squirted the “oil” in Hamilton’s mouth after a stage of the race (p 34) … Floyd Landis also saw Armstrong receiving small doses of EPO to stimulate reticulocyte production so as to attempt to mask the blood transfusion’ s impact on his blood values (p 64) At the Puigcerdà training camp Floyd Landis saw Lance Armstrong “lying on a massage table wearing a transdermal testosterone patch on his shoulder.” (p 69) I haven't read the entire thing but it seems to be pretty detailed.

Regarding USADA's process, Lance actually did bring a court application in July to stop USADA from acting against him because it would be procuedurally unfair, but the application was dismissed. So unless you can find fault with the judge's reasoning, Lance is not being treated unfairly. As for being "hell-bent" on proving doping - it's their job. They are supposed to prove doping took place. And they did. EDIT: Oh and as for consistency: every single murderer, rapist and thief out there who is convicted would point out to every other criminal that hasn't been caught yet and shout "Unfair!" That doesn't make them any less guilty. If that was a valid defence, no-one could ever be convicted. Same applies here

Regarding burden of proof, USADA's decision contains the following paragraph (my highlighting): 1. Standard of Proof Article 3.1 of the Code provides that: “[t]he standard of proof shall be whether the Anti- Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.” As noted in the comment to Article 3.1, this standard of proof is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. Thus, for example, in proceedings in the United States to take away the license to practice of a doctor or lawyer, the applicable standard of proof is typically “clear and convincing evidence.” In this case, the evidence against Mr. Armstrong is overwhelming. In USADA’s view, it establishes his doping beyond a reasonable doubt.