Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[biggriffin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4839454/Cyclist-chases-cab-goads-driver-RUN-OVER.html

[Viral_Jim]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4839454/Cyclist-chases-cab-goads-driver-RUN-OVER.html

Happened in Blackpool.


Case closed 

[STEMO]

An off-his-head-on-something cyclist. I've seen them behind the wheels of a car in that state, now that is scary.

[Gaffers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4839454/Cyclist-chases-cab-goads-driver-RUN-OVER.html

Happened in Blackpool.


Case closed 

Nuff said.   


But if you want me to justify the actions of a few "idiots on a bike"  I shall ask the same of you for the same minority of motorists

[redelitev6]

  The scary eyes give it away

[Gaffers]

Seeing as we are in the habit of having to justify every mistake and unlawful act performed by people in our tribes, have a go at this one Bigron:

https://twitter.com/veloevol/status/902808360654917632/video/1

[Gaffers]

And explain how this driver got off lightly considering the potential danger he could have caused:

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Drunk-HGV-driver-could-have-caused-catastrophic-disaster-after-making-a-U-turn-on-the-M6-in-Cumbria-64f9cfe6-2166-4f59-9255-afe9b7661efe-ds

Compared to this cyclist who did everything right but the police and the CPS went out of their way to convict him of a 19th century law:

http://road.cc/content/news/228582-drunk-cyclist-who-had-been-pushing-bike-was-locked-police-under-19th-century-law

[Viral_Jim]

That HGV driver is outrageous!

I'd bet my last quid that had this happened after the recent M1 crash (in the other thread) he would have been dealt with more harshly!

[Gaffers]

One would think so but Judges go by sentencing guidelines and not the public mood.

[Doctor Gollum]

One would think so but Judges go by sentencing guidelines and not the public mood.

This is a good thing.

[Gaffers]

One would think so but Judges go by sentencing guidelines and not the public mood.

This is a good thing.

Unless you were directly and adversely affected by the offense committed.  I speak here from experience.  Last weekend I was back up in Cheshire so I decided to go and see my brother's grave, lay some flowers and give it a tidy up.  It has been over 27 years but every time I go I never fail to shed a tear.  Part of that is not just the loss but the fact that his life was worth a measly 9 months in prison.  The injustice still hurts and always will.

[Doctor Gollum]

That does, understandably, add a sense of perspective.

But at the same time, would you rather a society whose justice system is run by kangeroo courts with judgements made on the basis of whim, for example where all the men in 'community' are ordered to rape a child because of some perceived misdemeanor; or one devoid of emotion, guided by precedent and the letter of the law and which occasionally appears soft in its punishment?

My simplification above is in no way meant to be an affront to your brother, or to you and your families loss. And I know you will be constantly trying to improve the system so that other similarly affected families may take some small solace in tougher/more appropriate sentences.

Sometimes the law is an ass, but it could be far, far worse.

[biggriffin]

And explain how this driver got off lightly considering the potential danger he could have caused:

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Drunk-HGV-driver-could-have-caused-catastrophic-disaster-after-making-a-U-turn-on-the-M6-in-Cumbria-64f9cfe6-2166-4f59-9255-afe9b7661efe-ds

 

The above should have had the book thrown at him, the case proves the law is an ass. 
And as for the mitigating circumstances, that's just a very good lawyer/qc fighting his case,hence why he got what he did, which is wrong.

[Gaffers]

That does, understandably, add a sense of perspective.

But at the same time, would you rather a society whose justice system is run by kangeroo courts with judgements made on the basis of whim, for example where all the men in 'community' are ordered to rape a child because of some perceived misdemeanor; or one devoid of emotion, guided by precedent and the letter of the law and which occasionally appears soft in its punishment?

My simplification above is in no way meant to be an affront to your brother, or to you and your families loss. And I know you will be constantly trying to improve the system so that other similarly affected families may take some small solace in tougher/more appropriate sentences.

Sometimes the law is an ass, but it could be far, far worse.

I full agree with you, I was just trying to add that element which many feel is lost in sentencing even with today's 'Victim Impact Statements' which do little to influence things imo.  I agree that the law is an ass, but so long as it is an ass of equal measure to everyone then it is ok.

Counter your statement with the public lynching of cyclist pr!ck Mr Alliston while the whole country has complete apathy toward the two cyclists who were killed, one in a hit and run, during the trial.  Like you said, the law is an ass but if it was swayed by public opinion it would be worse.

[Terbs]

Off topic slightly, but in view of a previous post, I don't know how these lawyers can sleep at nights. They defend these 'criminal acts' and the more sickening horrendous crimes that seem part of modern life, and do everything in their power to get these slimy b******s off, when in reality, they should rot in hell !!!

[Bigron]

Exactly how I feel about those shysters; it all comes down to greed and filling their wallets, regardless. 

Ron.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172434

[Gaffers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172434

I saw that.  Let's ignore the 400 pedestrians killed by motorists and many of whom get away with a light sentence because the RTA and the definitions of Reckless and Dangerous driving are not fit for purpose.  Let's jump on the bandwagon instead...

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

The issue was raised in the house by the MP for the area where the woman was killed, so I suppose I would give her the benefit of the doubt, and say she is just doing her job as a constituency MP.
She is a politician though, so a bit of bandwagon jumping may not be beyond her.

[Gaffers]

True, but the issue is much wider than the narrow scope that the MP called for.  A complete overhaul should be made imo to cover everyone.

[Gaffers]

And another.  When the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden manslaughter charges are not considered:

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

[Viral_Jim]

And another.  When the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden manslaughter charges are not considered:

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

Yup, hard to differentiate between this and the case in central London, other than the cyclist was the one killed (and had a fully legal bike).

[tigers_gonads]

And another.  When the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden manslaughter charges are not considered:

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest

Its shit when ANYBODY losses there life like this but I was always led to believe that once a pedestrian is on the road, he has legal right of way ?

Also noted that the investigating officer could not say whether the cyclist could not say if the lights was on red or green when the poor bugger went through them 

Also if you are driving a vehicle / riding a cycle in a public place, i'd have thought that you should be travelling at a speed were you should be able to stop quickly if the needs arise 
Imho, riding a push bike at 24 mph in a built up area were they are pedestrians about is oppsing stupid 

Just because he wasn't breaking the 30 mph limit doesn't mean its okay to ride at that speed 

[Gaffers]

Having knocked over a pedestrian myself once I can tell you that if you were to be ready for every pedestrian who could step out at any time you wouldn't break 10mph.  Mine happened in Paris and a pedestrian ran in to the oncoming traffic and decided to stop in the cycle lane where I was.  I had maybe a couple of tenths of a second to react, the only difference my speed would have made was the depth of the gash on his forehead and the force with which my backside hit the ground.  Regardless of the fact that it was green for me and red for the pedestrian, my insurance paid out and I was interviewed by the Police.  Assumed liability means that the more vulnerable are protected in the event of an accident.

In the UK, the only 2 situations a pedestrian has right of way on an active road is on a zebra crossing and when one has already stepped in to the road of a junction a motorist/cyclist is turning into.  If one steps out in to the road in any other situation in to oncoming traffic they are in the wrong.  This pedestrain did just that and the incident resulted in the death of a cyclist.  So why is this any different?  Where are the calls for a manslaughter charge?  It didn't even make national news.

Interesting that you latch straight away on to any possible mistakes or breaking of the law (unproven) by the cyclist rather than responding to the point made which I suppose answers it in a round about way. 

[tigers_gonads]

Having knocked over a pedestrian myself once I can tell you that if you were to be ready for every pedestrian who could step out at any time you wouldn't break 10mph.  Mine happened in Paris and a pedestrian ran in to the oncoming traffic and decided to stop in the cycle lane where I was.  I had maybe a couple of tenths of a second to react, the only difference my speed would have made was the depth of the gash on his forehead and the force with which my backside hit the ground.  Regardless of the fact that it was green for me and red for the pedestrian, my insurance paid out and I was interviewed by the Police.  Assumed liability means that the more vulnerable are protected in the event of an accident.

In the UK, the only 2 situations a pedestrian has right of way on an active road is on a zebra crossing and when one has already stepped in to the road of a junction a motorist/cyclist is turning into.  If one steps out in to the road in any other situation in to oncoming traffic they are in the wrong.  This pedestrain did just that and the incident resulted in the death of a cyclist.  So why is this any different?  Where are the calls for a manslaughter charge?  It didn't even make national news.

Interesting that you latch straight away on to any possible mistakes or breaking of the law (unproven) by the cyclist rather than responding to the point made which I suppose answers it in a round about way.

[/highlight]




Probably because both as a pedestrian who has nearly been run over by these c*nts on pedestrian crossings a couple of times or so called cyclists belting down cycle paths at 15 or 20 mph a matter of inches away from myself and my family, have to really stop myself from idiotting them and ending up in a lot of trouble 

As for the first couple of paragraphs, its fair to say you make some good points 

[Gaffers]

But I thought people wanted cyclists to use cycle paths rather than the roads, and what were you doing walking on a cycle path?

[Entwood]

But I thought people wanted cyclists to use cycle paths rather than the roads, and what were you doing walking on a cycle path?

Not wishing to pre-empt any other answer, but around here several "cycle paths" share the space with a pedestrian path, being "side-by-side" as it were ... it would appear that most cyclists overtaking a slower cyclist feels it is totally within their right to leave the designated cycle lane and use the pedestrian part, fully expecting the pedestrians to have eyes in the back of their heads and to instantly make way for them as the hurtle along at whatever speed they wish; the same applies at junctions - pedestrians must stop even though the cycle path has the give way lines; and a cyclist is allowed to "cut a corner" and leave the cycle lane when ever they wish......

I am not anti-cyclist, same as i'm not anti-pedestrian or anti-motorist .. I have indulged in all 3 aspects of transportation....  what I am is anti-selfishness,
anti-bullying, and anti-stupid, and I'm afraid the MAMIL is becoming more and more of all three.

Laws and common sense SHOULD apply to all of us, unfortunately some think they are "more special" than others, which not only leads to incidents (note deliberate non use of the word "accident" as these are are NOT "accidents" per se) but the instant accusation of the "other" person being at fault, regardless of the truth.

[tigers_gonads]

But I thought people wanted cyclists to use cycle paths rather than the roads, and what were you doing walking on a cycle path?

Basically what nige said.

A footpath from the marina area to the city centre.
Used to be a wide ish footpath then some cock decided to paint a raised white line down the middle and paint one half of the path brown.
Cyclists come off the similar type of path heading east alongside the A63 then head north down mytongate into the city centre at stupid speeds.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7404166,-0.3443792,63m/data=!3m1!1e3

HTH 

[Entwood]

But I thought people wanted cyclists to use cycle paths rather than the roads, and what were you doing walking on a cycle path?

Basically what nige said.

A footpath from the marina area to the city centre.
Used to be a wide ish footpath then some cock decided to paint a raised white line down the middle and paint one half of the path brown.
Cyclists come off the similar type of path heading east alongside the A63 then head north down mytongate into the city centre at stupid speeds.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7404166,-0.3443792,63m/data=!3m1!1e3

HTH 

Interesting image .... shows how stupid the designers of these things are..... as I see that junction, the cycle path ceases to exist either side of the crossing. (double click to go to street view and you can see what I mean ... ). There is also a "visually impaired assistance path" (dimpled paving) clearly shown ...  Therefore all cyclists should stop, dismount and WALK across the pedestrian only area.... and the chances of that happening ?? so the pedestrians at the crossing waiting for the lights to change have to try and avoid two wheeled missiles heading their way ..... manifestly poor design, but the cyclists will insist its "not their fault" and won't dismount..... at a guess ..

[Gaffers]

At risk of sounding pedantic, then it is not a cycle path but a shared use path.  The reason for for the bullish statement was to bring up the suggestion that cyclists should be forced to use cycle paths where they are installed.  If I am cycling at 15-25mph on my triathlon bike then a cycle path is more dangerous than the road.

But again we come back to the big wide brush which paints all cyclists the same colour.  There was no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the cyclist yet blame is placed in his way.  No charges brought against the pedestrian who was in blatant breach of the highway code and possibly the RTA.  The fact that some are absolute pillocks (and I do not dispute that fact) does not mean that cyclists should be considered second-class road users who are subject to the law but somehow not protected by it. 

When I ride I follow the Highway code, I like most cyclists do not break the law yet I see dozens of motorists putting my life at risk and passing me leaving inches of space for the sake of gaining a few seconds waiting time in the next queue (which I will normally catch them up for).  Either that or a SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) turning right in to my path or overtaking and then left-hooking in front of me regardless of the high quality light and hi-viz I am decked out with.  Let alone a pedestrian looking down at their phone and walking out in to the road in front of me.  All of which I am somehow supposed to pre-empt by having radar in the back of my head and a crystal ball to fathom which f%$kwit is going to try and end my life today.

Then after all that, I have to reconcile with the highly likely possibility that if my life was ended by someone else's mistake (or deliberate act) then there is a good chance that nothing will come of it due to the fact that I was cycling and not driving or walking.  Whereas if I kill a pedestrian then all the villagers come out with their pitchforks and demand my blood.  Put yourself in the shoes of a cyclist for a moment and tell me that's fair.

[tigers_gonads]

At risk of sounding pedantic, then it is not a cycle path but a shared use path.  The reason for for the bullish statement was to bring up the suggestion that cyclists should be forced to use cycle paths where they are installed.  If I am cycling at 15-25mph on my triathlon bike then a cycle path is more dangerous than the road.

But again we come back to the big wide brush which paints all cyclists the same colour.  There was no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the cyclist yet blame is placed in his way.  No charges brought against the pedestrian who was in blatant breach of the highway code and possibly the RTA.  The fact that some are absolute pillocks (and I do not dispute that fact) does not mean that cyclists should be considered second-class road users who are subject to the law but somehow not protected by it. 

When I ride I follow the Highway code, I like most cyclists do not break the law yet I see dozens of motorists putting my life at risk and passing me leaving inches of space for the sake of gaining a few seconds waiting time in the next queue (which I will normally catch them up for).  Either that or a SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) turning right in to my path or overtaking and then left-hooking in front of me regardless of the high quality light and hi-viz I am decked out with.  Let alone a pedestrian looking down at their phone and walking out in to the road in front of me.  All of which I am somehow supposed to pre-empt by having radar in the back of my head and a crystal ball to fathom which f%$kwit is going to try and end my life today.

Then after all that, I have to reconcile with the highly likely possibility that if my life was ended by someone else's mistake (or deliberate act) then there is a good chance that nothing will come of it due to the fact that I was cycling and not driving or walking.  Whereas if I kill a pedestrian then all the villagers come out with their pitchforks and demand my blood.  Put yourself in the shoes of a cyclist for a moment and tell me that's fair.

Just clarify .........

How would you describe " a cyclist" ?

eg, a person who uses a bicycle to get from A to B or something else ?

[Gaffers]

Someone, regardless of ability, who takes to a push bike with a respect for the road and rules in the same way a motorist would.  The rest are just t@#ts on a bike