Stop Killing Cyclists

[Gestarp]

I seem to have touched a nerve here, not my intention. For the record I didn’t say that you had no empathy just that I believed you were lacking in it and that’s often an indicator of lower EQ. Not everyone is same we don’t all have equal ability’s some of us have greater levels of empathy and are lacking in other areas it’s the way of the world.

To be fair the lack of empathy seems a reasonable observation when you’ve been indicating that while you hope it doesn’t happen, you have no issues if a cyclist comes a cropper or ends up under your car in the blink of an eye as your conscience would be clear.

The intimation of cyclists getting what the deserve for swerving around and failing to smash through pot holes with unsuitable equipment also coloured my observation.

As did the stance that the cyclists are operating out of choice rather than a need, be that lack of access to a car, poor or nonexistent public transport or a distance too far to cover by foot.

That said I’m not stranger to the pit so happy to move there if you like, i’ll be cycling and depending on the time might have a few snifters on route, please try not to mow me down if I get a touch swervey on the way

no nerve touched captain. i'm just shooting the breeze. i'm way too long in the tooth to be upset on a forum. i never said cyclists deserved to fall under a car if they swerve to avoid potholes. but if they cycle erratically and cause an accident then i'll stand by that my conscience will be clear. i assumed this thread had just took the road of cyclist v motorist and took it at that. if we are adding in the economic reason why folk cycle then surely thats another thread called can you afford to drive or something along those lines

[PreacherCain]

I've never really understood the "I'm technically in the right so my conscience will be clear if I ever do kill a cyclist as long as they are the one who contravened the Highway Code" line of thinking. I don't cycle on the roads - being run over while riding to a summer job rather put me off - but drive a fair bit. I always work on the basis that cyclists are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than I am in my car, and try to drive accordingly. Overtaking with a full lane's clearance is a good example; if I give the cyclist the prescribed 1.5m minimum and they have a problem (wheel failure, pothole, whatever) which results in contact being made, the fact that I'd technically have done nothing wrong wouldn't counter the godawful reality that I'd just killed or seriously hurt someone else. It might keep me to the right side of the law, but in my own head it'd be different.

Accordingly I don't mind waiting to overtake till I have enough space; clearly I can't avoid all risk, but I can manage it as best I can, and (to me at least) that includes making allowances for the mistakes of others... I'd add that Lifesavers and other observation tools are important for everyone, not just cyclists; a cyclist shouldn't be passing me up the nearside as I'm indicating and about to turn left - but if he is, and I see him, I can let him go rather than squash him.

[MrSmith]

you can bat the anecdotal angst from both sides back and forth but one thing remains, the fact that drivers kill people every day. they are not ‘accidents’ unless its a mechanical malfunction or a tree falls across your path etc its dick moves, speed, inattention, mobile phone use etc etc.
another 5 were killed since i last posted. cyclists kill people too, about 1 a year which is less then motility scooters causing fatalities (9 per year), huge uproar about the idiot on the brakeless fixed hitting the woman who walked out in front of him and how the law needs to be changed but there were 500 road deaths between him committing the crime and his sentencing date, nobody thinks about that. or the left turning lorry driver who killed Edith Cairns and then after getting a fine despite having defective vision was back on the road after a short ban where he then killed a pensioner on the pavement. is he in prison? same with the cycle club that was wiped out in Wales a few years back, defective car but a slap on the wrist.

the duty of care is way higher with a motorised vehicle, thats not to say that cyclists do not also have responsibilities that they also fail to adhere to but i see far more stupidity from drivers every day.
i have a quiet 20mph road outside my flat and working in the kitchen or making a cup of tea i look down into the passing cars, not that many but every cup of tea made will see mobile phone use and speeding as it’s a quiet road, they also overtake cycles and slower cars around a traffic island with the blue arrow despite a long term roadwork a few yards further down the road which creates a pinch point that 2 cars and a bike don't fit into and it’s illegal with 3 points and a fine.

i’m actually a considerate cyclist and have at times stopped incidents happening that could have turned nasty very quickly (usually by putting my hand back palm outwards when i have heard cars or motorbikes drop a gear to overtake close to a bend that i can see round, had bikes give me the thumb up after doing this several times) but the sheer amount of muppetry on the roads really needs to be addressed, if people obeyed the law the deaths will drop further.

its the real life changing dangers of poor driving by motorists and HGV drivers that make vulnerable road users (motorbikes, horses and pedestrians too) so tetchy about the subject, not being held up for a few seconds, thats what amazes me about the vehement hatred from some motorists its so out of proportion.

enough of this thread, im off for a bike ride..

[trident-7]

you can bat the anecdotal angst from both sides back and forth but one thing remains, the fact that drivers kill people every day. they are not ‘accidents’ unless its a mechanical malfunction or a tree falls across your path etc its dick moves, speed, inattention, mobile phone use etc etc.
another 5 were killed since i last posted. cyclists kill people too, about 1 a year which is less then motility scooters causing fatalities (9 per year), huge uproar about the idiot on the brakeless fixed hitting the woman who walked out in front of him and how the law needs to be changed but there were 500 road deaths between him committing the crime and his sentencing date, nobody thinks about that. or the left turning lorry driver who killed Edith Cairns and then after getting a fine despite having defective vision was back on the road after a short ban where he then killed a pensioner on the pavement. is he in prison? is he fuck. same with the cycle club that was wiped out in Wales a few years back, defective car but a slap on the wrist.

the duty of care is way higher with a motorised vehicle, thats not to say that cyclists do not also have responsibilities that they also fail to adhere to but i see far more stupidity from drivers every day.
i have a quiet 20mph road outside my flat and working in the kitchen or making a cup of tea i look down into the passing cars, not that many but every cup of tea made will see mobile phone use and speeding as it’s a quiet road, they also overtake cycles and slower cars around a traffic island with the blue arrow despite a long term roadwork a few yards further down the road which creates a pinch point that 2 cars and a bike don't fit into and it’s illegal with 3 points and a fine.

i’m actually a considerate cyclist and have at times stopped incidents happening that could have turned nasty very quickly (usually by putting my hand back palm outwards when i have heard cars or motorbikes drop a gear to overtake close to a bend that i can see round, had bikes give me the thumb up after doing this several times) but the sheer amount of muppetry on the roads really needs to be addressed, if people obeyed the law the deaths will drop further.

its the real life changing dangers of poor driving by motorists and HGV drivers that make vulnerable road users (motorbikes, horses and pedestrians too) so tetchy about the subject, not being held up for a few seconds, thats what amazes me about the vehement hatred from some motorists its so out of proportion.

enough of this thread, im off for a bike ride..

Excellent post.

[bry nylon]

Excellent post.

+ 1 :)

[Saint-Just]

How many drivers on the road? How many idiots?
You can shout until you turn blue, they ‘ll remain idiots, regardless of the stats you throw at them. Indeed, the number of drivers who use their phone handheld beggars belief. And drink driving is still an issue.

Until the towns are given considerably more money, cycle lanes won’t happen on a scale that would even remotely compare with Holland.

The third party of the problem are the cyclists. Again, a percentage are idiots. Others are ignorant (unlike the idiot drivers, they never even had to meet a minimum standard to be allowed on the road). Those should indeed be made to either have a competency test, or join a club early.
What makes this group special is that regardless of who’s responsible for the accident they come up worse.
There is nothing that can be done when idiot driver meets idiot rider.
The only way for knowledgeable reasonable riders to escape the idiots is to ride defensively.
That also means pulling over when you’re holding up cars that cannot pass you safely. Because there is always a chance that the first car in the queue behind you is an idiot, or was on the edge and you’ve pushed him to the dark side, and he’ll pass you regardless of what it implies for your security.
Or you can feel smug about being right and exercise that right. It’s your life.

[oldoakknives]

How many drivers on the road? How many idiots?
You can shout until you turn blue, they ‘ll remain idiots, regardless of the stats you throw at them. Indeed, the number of drivers who use their phone handheld beggars belief. And drink driving is still an issue.

Until the towns are given considerably more money, cycle lanes won’t happen on a scale that would even remotely compare with Holland.

The third party of the problem are the cyclists. Again, a percentage are idiots. Others are ignorant (unlike the idiot drivers, they never even had to meet a minimum standard to be allowed on the road). Those should indeed be made to either have a competency test, or join a club early.
What makes this group special is that regardless of who’s responsible for the accident they come up worse.
There is nothing that can be done when idiot driver meets idiot rider.
The only way for knowledgeable reasonable riders to escape the idiots is to ride defensively.
That also means pulling over when you’re holding up cars that cannot pass you safely. Because there is always a chance that the first car in the queue behind you is an idiot, or was on the edge and you’ve pushed him to the dark side, and he’ll pass you regardless of what it implies for your security.
Or you can feel smug about being right and exercise that right. It’s your life.

Agree with that. Plus groups of 10-20 cyclists 2 or 3 abreast holding up queues of traffic. Just ignorant. Perhaps if I drove in front of them slower than they want to go so they couldn't pass they might understand, although I doubt it.

[adg31]

It is incredible how many people here seem to know more about every case where a driver was prosecuted and the howling injustice of the sentencing process than the people who actually heard the case and imposed what was felt to be an appropriate sentence.
Is this irrational bias or genuinely informed comment?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rfrazier]

An overweening sense of entitlement does seem to be part of the contemporary zeitgeist.

Best wishes,
Bob

[lughugger]

+ 1 :)

+2


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[davida]

https://news.sky.com/story/drivers-c...ke-up-11528398

[wildheart]

https://news.sky.com/story/drivers-c...ke-up-11528398

Oh do me a favour, I'm off to join the Amish. I'll get my coat!

[Gestarp]

I hear they are trying to re-introduce the man with a flag in front of every car on the road now.

[nunya]

https://news.sky.com/story/drivers-c...ke-up-11528398

Now that's just stupid

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...lYoN27UEByK-Xw

[adg31]

https://news.sky.com/story/drivers-c...ke-up-11528398

I suppose that with the lack of other pressures on Government resources given our huge trade surplus, lack of national debt, flourishing NHS and triumphant Brexit negotiations they must have ample time on their hands to spend on more trivial issues... deckchairs on the Titanic spring to mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cbh]

Indeed how dare anyone suggest that motorists have to give way to anyone, after all driving in Europe and the US has ground to a halt because of it!

[deepreddave]

Cyclists can be their own worst enemy but they are always the vulnerable party vs motor vehicles. We shouldn't need to make this law but there are clearly a small number of motorists for whom ignition on equates to common sense off.

That's why Cycling UK has been campaigning for changes to the Highway Code rules for many years, to make the requirements crystal clear to give enough space when overtaking a cyclist, wait if you can't, and look before you open your car door.

[Saint-Just]

Should we start a campaign group called Driving UK to stop cyclists filtering, riding 2 or more abreast and generally dangerously elevating drivers’ high blood pressure (a factor of death greater by an order of magnitude than the number of cyclists killed).

[cbh]

Should we start a campaign group called Driving UK to stop cyclists filtering, riding 2 or more abreast and generally dangerously elevating drivers’ high blood pressure (a factor of death greater by an order of magnitude than the number of cyclists killed).

Isn't there one already, called mailonline ;)

[Captain Morgan]

Should we start a campaign group called Driving UK to stop cyclists filtering, riding 2 or more abreast and generally dangerously elevating drivers’ high blood pressure (a factor of death greater by an order of magnitude than the number of cyclists killed).

S-J & OOK Sitting in a tree K. I. S. S. I. N. G.

[Saint-Just]

🤣

[Captain Morgan]

I wonder what those who have been vocal in there issues with ‘some’ cyclists think about the sentencing here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45989288

[Saint-Just]

Assault. No complaints. The guy was pushed under a van.

[adg31]

I wonder what those who have been vocal in there issues with ‘some’ cyclists think about the sentencing here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45989288

Daft question, this is physical assault pure and simple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kingstepper]

Best let it lie whatever the provocation TBH. Could always be some Kenneth Noye style nutter in the other vehicle.

[pugster]

[Captain Morgan]

How is asking what people think about sentencing daft?
The chap plead guilty so the offence is not in question.

Personally I think two years which means he’ll do 12-18 months seems light for an assault of this nature, leaving the victim with life changing injuries but still lucky he wasn’t killed.

Still a ‘daft’ question?

[adg31]

How is asking what people think about sentencing daft?
The chap plead guilty so the offence is not in question.

Personally I think two years which means he’ll do 12-18 months seems light for an assault of this nature, leaving the victim with life changing injuries but still lucky he wasn’t killed.

Still a ‘daft’ question?

Yes because you are conjoining two events, as such the fact that the person rode a bike is not really relevant to the fact that they were assaulted.
The exception would be if you are trying to suggest that the assault should be treated differently because a bike was involved somehow making it worse than if he were a pedestrian, driving a car or riding a space hopper?
Violent assault is violent assault and should not be tolerated in a civilised society. Period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cbh]

That road's not only on a bend but not wide enough for a car to pass even if the cyclists were single file, also Terry might not be cycling with his friends he might be on his own and overtaking a slower group, who knows.

[Captain Morgan]

Yes because you are conjoining two events, as such the fact that the person rode a bike is not really relevant to the fact that they were assaulted.
The exception would be if you are trying to suggest that the assault should be treated differently because a bike was involved somehow making it worse than if he were a pedestrian, driving a car or riding a space hopper?
Violent assault is violent assault and should not be tolerated in a civilised society. Period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They may be conjoined in your mind but I’d like to ask you to quote my conjoining post?

I have simply asked what the thoughts were on sentencing, specifically from those who have exhibited a negative bias to cycling.

Any more that that is your own inference.

[MrSmith]

That road's not only on a bend but not wide enough for a car to pass even if the cyclists were single file, also Terry might not be cycling with his friends he might be on his own and overtaking a slower group, who knows.

Isn’t that a solid white line too? Mind you i don’t think many people actually know what that means.

[adg31]

They may be conjoined in your mind but I’d like to ask you to quote my conjoining post?

I have simply asked what the thoughts were on sentencing, specifically from those who have exhibited a negative bias to cycling.

Any more that that is your own inference.

The thread is 'Stop Killing Cyclists' but you are asking for thoughts on sentencing in a case of Grievous Bodily Harm - to which I replied.
Unless the objective is now to post links to random legal cases and ask for comment on the sentencing of each one - which I agree could make an interesting thread - it would appear that you are trying to link the assault with the fact that the victim was, in this instance, a cyclist. That is conjoining.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Stanford]

That road's not only on a bend but not wide enough for a car to pass even if the cyclists were single file, also Terry might not be cycling with his friends he might be on his own and overtaking a slower group, who knows.

Isn’t that a solid white line too? Mind you i don’t think many people actually know what that means.

Highway Code Rule 129:
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

[adg31]

Isn’t that a solid white line too? Mind you i don’t think many people actually know what that means.

Good point, it is indeed - which should warn all road users that this is a dangerous stretch of road which also appears to be within a National Speed Limit area.
It is also clear that there is limited visibility with the bend in the road and high bank significantly reducing the forward line of sight.
It therefore places the cyclist in the centre of the road at greater risk since a vehicle travelling within the speed limit will not have as much time to react when coming around the bend and less space in which to manoeuvre.
Is it really worth the risk?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jaytip]

Isn’t that a solid white line too? Mind you i don’t think many people actually know what that means.

You included it seems. You CAN overtake with solid white lines as the Highway Code example above shows.

[MrSmith]

You included it seems. You CAN overtake with solid white lines as the Highway Code example above shows.

Yes you can, except in that instance it’s obviously not safe on a bend, there’s also not enough room to safely pass a single cyclist without crossing the solid line (unless you are perhaps driving an old school mini)

[jaytip]

Yes you can, except in that instance it’s obviously not safe on a bend, there’s also not enough room to safely pass a single cyclist without crossing the solid line (unless you are perhaps driving an old school mini)

No, your post suggested that cars are not allowed to overtake when there is a sold white line.
You made no reference to that photo in the post of yours that I quoted.

[Kingstepper]

The thread is 'Stop Killing Cyclists' but you are asking for thoughts on sentencing in a case of Grievous Bodily Harm - to which I replied.
Unless the objective is now to post links to random legal cases and ask for comment on the sentencing of each one - which I agree could make an interesting thread - it would appear that you are trying to link the assault with the fact that the victim was, in this instance, a cyclist. That is conjoining.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, threads never deviate at all.

[100thmonkey]

Firstly I am a cyclist of 40 years Road and MTB, I am also a Driver and Motorcyclist so I understand all 3 (sometimes 4 if I include running where no footpaths exist) of road use.

As a cyclist I don’t like riding 2 a breast, Im training, trying to get exercise I dont want a chat, I can do that once I finish or as another part of my day. I also have and do ride with others as it is ‘sociable’ and can be motivating but sitting on someones wheel is about 25% easier so Im kidding myself when I look at the stats gained from the workout. I think its all about education and tolerance with a little compromise on both all sides, as a cyclist I always consider the frustration I cause and often sit in the gutter where the surface is bad and dodgy to ensure they have the space to proceed but they dont always appreciate it, I also as a cyclist have a responsibility to chose a route that will minimise my effect of the traffic and as a driver I need to respect the speed at which a considerate cyclist travels, rarely is there ever a need to be somewhere so urgently that you cant chill out as a driver and just go with the flow.
Jumping lights, mounting pavements etc is right and wrong, I have done it when safe to do so and also I circumnavigate lights and roadworks so that I am out the way of the drivers when they get the green light but to do it arrogantly is unacceptable. Recently travelling through a village south of Guildford I had a group riding 2-3 abrest and slowing the traffic down significantly, I was on the motorbike with an open face helmet so I pulled along side the group and said ‘Guys Im a cyclist and you are restricting the flow of the traffic which goes against the Highway Code and its only serving to make the drivers behind anti cyclists’ at which they shouted you’re on camera and stop intimidating us!’ It took almost an hour but I patently followed them and when they stopped I politely engaged with them and all apologised once we had an adult debate.
Don't fight each other, educate each other, a move to the Dutch and German model of giving way to cyclists will make tolerance increase but sadly it’ll take a generation so I fear Ill be spending the remainder of my life testing the durability of wing mirrors from a selection of oversized vehicles usually occupied by one person making a journey they could of walked if they weren’t morbidly obese! (just a generalisation). But it leads me to my final point, motorists are frustrated by busy roads, if you actually analyse the journeys and individuals in cars then most of them are travelling less than 3 miles and are driving solo, I walk to the station which is 2+ miles each way to avoid being part of the problem and if more did so then congestion would reduce and they would be a lot healthier.

[seadog1408]

You followed them for an hour on your motorbike to tell them they were wrong?!!, now that's dedication to the cause indeed.

[100thmonkey]

You followed them for an hour on your motorbike to tell them they were wrong?!!, now that's dedication to the cause indeed.

It was probably 40 mins in reality but that patience has changed attitudes and will save alot more time (maybe lives) in the future

[trident-7]

Highway Code Rule 129:
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

That may well be but this looks like a bunch of serious riders on a chain gang. Terry has likely finished his turn on the front & is dropping to the back of the line. I do this myself most Saturdays. I predict their speed will be well over 20mph if they are riding up a gentle gradient as it appears. If the terrain is so hard to warrant 10mph or less, these guys are going to be riding out of the saddle & in survival mode & not sat comfortably in a nice neat line out

[MrSmith]

No, your post suggested that cars are not allowed to overtake when there is a sold white line.
You made no reference to that photo in the post of yours that I quoted.

Yes that is your interpretation of what I wrote
You infer I’m not referencing the photo yet I include it and you thought I was saying something I obviously did not (that cars must not cross the white line). Help yourself to a point though if it makes you feel better.

[Captain Morgan]

Firstly I am a cyclist of 40 years Road and MTB, I am also a Driver and Motorcyclist so I understand all 3 (sometimes 4 if I include running where no footpaths exist) of road use.

As a cyclist I don’t like riding 2 a breast, Im training, trying to get exercise I dont want a chat, I can do that once I finish or as another part of my day. I also have and do ride with others as it is ‘sociable’ and can be motivating but sitting on someones wheel is about 25% easier so Im kidding myself when I look at the stats gained from the workout. I think its all about education and tolerance with a little compromise on both all sides, as a cyclist I always consider the frustration I cause and often sit in the gutter where the surface is bad and dodgy to ensure they have the space to proceed but they dont always appreciate it, I also as a cyclist have a responsibility to chose a route that will minimise my effect of the traffic and as a driver I need to respect the speed at which a considerate cyclist travels, rarely is there ever a need to be somewhere so urgently that you cant chill out as a driver and just go with the flow.
Jumping lights, mounting pavements etc is right and wrong, I have done it when safe to do so and also I circumnavigate lights and roadworks so that I am out the way of the drivers when they get the green light but to do it arrogantly is unacceptable. Recently travelling through a village south of Guildford I had a group riding 2-3 abrest and slowing the traffic down significantly, I was on the motorbike with an open face helmet so I pulled along side the group and said ‘Guys Im a cyclist and you are restricting the flow of the traffic which goes against the Highway Code and its only serving to make the drivers behind anti cyclists’ at which they shouted you’re on camera and stop intimidating us!’ It took almost an hour but I patently followed them and when they stopped I politely engaged with them and all apologised once we had an adult debate.
Don't fight each other, educate each other, a move to the Dutch and German model of giving way to cyclists will make tolerance increase but sadly it’ll take a generation so I fear Ill be spending the remainder of my life testing the durability of wing mirrors from a selection of oversized vehicles usually occupied by one person making a journey they could of walked if they weren’t morbidly obese! (just a generalisation). But it leads me to my final point, motorists are frustrated by busy roads, if you actually analyse the journeys and individuals in cars then most of them are travelling less than 3 miles and are driving solo, I walk to the station which is 2+ miles each way to avoid being part of the problem and if more did so then congestion would reduce and they would be a lot healthier.

Quite fair and reasonable and close to how I view the situation.
Bar I have more time for two abreast to encourage safer overtaking and limit the time exposed to danger for everyone involved. Also not a fan for driving in the gutter as it gives you nowhere to go and encourages close passing from some.

Oh and running, thats just a cruel and unusual pastime

[Saint-Just]

Just so you know Captain, I am rarely in a hurry and always pass a cyclist giving them a very wide berth. When 2 abreast I treat them as a 4 wheel vehicle and will pass because my car can, where I would possibly have not passed if they had been in line. The distance between the outside cyclist and my car can be substantially shorten.

[trident-7]

Quite fair and reasonable and close to how I view the situation.
Bar I have more time for two abreast to encourage safer overtaking and limit the time exposed to danger for everyone involved. Also not a fan for driving in the gutter as it gives you nowhere to go and encourages close passing from some.

Oh and running, thats just a cruel and unusual pastime

I quite agree on all points.

[Captain Morgan]

Yes because you are conjoining two events, as such the fact that the person rode a bike is not really relevant to the fact that they were assaulted.
The exception would be if you are trying to suggest that the assault should be treated differently because a bike was involved somehow making it worse than if he were a pedestrian, driving a car or riding a space hopper?
Violent assault is violent assault and should not be tolerated in a civilised society. Period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The thread is 'Stop Killing Cyclists' but you are asking for thoughts on sentencing in a case of Grievous Bodily Harm - to which I replied.
Unless the objective is now to post links to random legal cases and ask for comment on the sentencing of each one - which I agree could make an interesting thread - it would appear that you are trying to link the assault with the fact that the victim was, in this instance, a cyclist. That is conjoining.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Unfortunately I think you need to take your claim of conjoining to the judge and prosecutor who seem to have made it a mater of public recored that this is a road rage incident between a cyclist and motorist, this would seem to indicate they see a relevance in these facts.

I would suggest myself that if Mr Marshall was a pedestrian or motorist that day then we would not have a incident to discuss.

He chose to stop his vehicle, chose to get out and chose to assault another road user, resulting in dreadful injuries.

Your behaviour was arrogant, stupid and impatient. It shows a total lack of self control.

"Mr Marshall will have to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of his life.

"This incident arose because of your total lack of ability to control your temper. Confrontations like this between road users have to be deterred.

I think that puts the question of this being an altercation between road users, in this case a cyclist and motorist out of question.

As such it seems perfectly reasonable to raise the case on a thread that started with the discussion of cases between cyclists and motorists and the related sentencing.

If you could point out where the OP has said that only discussions of sentencing of cases involving the death of cyclists involving motorists were allowed, I would be happy to concede the your claim of conjoining.


And as to the general point of off topic, this is a public forum being used as a means of discussion where often subjects take various twists and turns, if you are uncomfortable with this perhaps this is not the place for you.

Here are some more off topic posts not related to the thread title 'Stop Killing Cyclists' to consider.

Motorists will generally pay Tax on a new vehicle along with Vehicle Registration.
There then follows the privilege of Annual Road Tax, Vehicle Insurance and Tax, Fuel and the extortionate Fuel Tax, Parking Charges and VAT - all coming on top of the Income Tax which you mention.
As such they do pay quite heavily for the privilege of driving on our ever more congested and crumbling highway infrastructure.
What tax or insurance does a cyclist specifically pay in comparison?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think many people who ride a bike don't carry insurance and in relation to your above note okay it's a Vehicle Tax collected by those nice folks at the DVLA - is there one for cyclists?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slightly off message but I keep seeing a lot of comments here about zero emissions cars being good. Is it worth asking about the mineral extraction, processing and transportation costs of the battery components or the large power stations lurking at the other end of the power cable doing their bit to contribute to pollution levels.
Not so long ago Government policy was to lure everyone into diesel powered cars - until amazingly they discovered that it was actually worse than petrol powered vehicles with increased particular emissions.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Stanford]

I predict their speed will be well over 20mph if they are riding up a gentle gradient as it appears.

Your perception does not concur with the information provided with the picture.

[rfrazier]

Car tax rate depends on emissions. So, if the same rules applied to bicycles as to cars, bicycles would all be 0 rated.

My bicycle is on the UK bicycle registration database. It was free. However, there is an initial registration fee for cars, I think. I don't know how it would affect those of us whose bicycle comes from abroad and is pre 1983.

Bicycles users pay VAT on bicycle related things. Fuel (food) doesn't, usually, attract VAT.

Many of us have liability insurance.

Best wishes,
Bob

[adg31]

As such it seems perfectly reasonable to raise the case on a thread that started with the discussion of cases between cyclists and motorists and the related sentencing.

Since I was not at the trial and have not seen the evidence I am not in a position to be second guessing on sentencing but the article states that 'He pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm following the 11 January attack.' and was sentenced accordingly.
It is therefore possible that had a pedestrian or other road user shouted at the driver - as the cyclist was reported to have done - they too could have been subject to the same road rage attack. Indeed the Judge commented that 'This incident arose because of your total lack of ability to control your temper. Confrontations like this between road users have to be deterred.'
This statement would appear to apply to all road users and I would hope that if nothing else we might all show a little more consideration to others to avoid repeating the same tragedy.

PS: thank you for the retrospective of my previous posts in this thread.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk