Double standards as usual

giant_man

So I don't know if anyone has seen this yet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds ... 496757.stm

OK so the cyclist sounds like an arrogant arsehole who killed this girl, and I am very sorry for the family, any fatal rta is absolultely dreadful but I don't get the acting police spokesman, Sgt Dominic Mahon, Thames Valley Police's comments stating 'I think many people would say perhaps that law needs looking at'.

So what about the countless stupid and idiotic car drivers who take the lives of cyclists every day on our streets, what about them? A year or two in jail and that's ok, no change of law needed there then for car drivers. God no, perish the thought.

It's just hypocrisy it really is.

Garry71

The girl's dad should follow this c*nt in a van and shout "move because I'm not stopping" before squashing him flat.

The law needs changing. Any vehicle related death which occurs as the result of a deliberate action should be treated as manslaughter at the very least.


Garry

cee

according to another report, it was one of the girls friends who said 'He said something LIKE move 'cos im not stopping'

Vigilante c*nt van chasing is the same reaction as the daily haters. Who siad it was deliberate....you have read that into this.

None of us really know what happened. The friends couldn't remember whether she was on the road or the pavement, (again according to another report, there was actually a lot of discrepency between the friends stories...on the path..the cyclist mounted the kerb...on the road etc) but was probably a foot into the road.

The group of teenagers had been drinking, so she may have wobbled into the path of the cyclist. The cyclist probably should have spotted the hazard and given them a wide berth.

everything i have read points to a really tragic accident.

Yes...little things could have been done differently/better but thats exactly what an accident is.

Do you as a cyclist really think that you would choose deliberately to barrel into someone between 15 and 20 mph? You would have to guess that you would be hurt, so would deliberately choose to avoid that.

The good old press reporting the version of the truth that fits their current slant again I am afraid.

However....it is tragic and a young lady has lost her life. The parents anger and wanting to lash out is natural and is a part of grief.

eternal_headwind

Is the deliberate action the girl running out into the road? Yes it is. The incident is a tragedy but there is nothing to suggest the rider was doing anythng other than ride along the road.
There is no comment from the rider. Perhaps we are all the victims of media misdirection. To clarify, '...because I'm not stopping' could mean that the girl jumped out in front of him within his stopping distance. He may also have never said those words. Don't you think it a little odd that he had enough time to launch into full sentence? I suspect those words were only 'remembered' weeks after the incident.

Perhaps the rider is totally at fault. Maybe he did zoom out of a sidestreet whilst the pedestrians were executing a perfect green cross code manouvre. This repor is woefully inadequate either way.

cee

also.....how does the cyclist sound like an arrogant a-hole???

the link you supplied gave no quotes from him, and in the other reports i have read, there has been no quote from him.

The girls parents said he was arrogant.......is that where you have formed your opinion from?

beverick

There are indeed double standards and the law does indeed need looking at.

Dangerous driving attracts a maximum conviction of 2 years prison and an unlimited fine. The driver will also be banned for a period of time and will, in many cases, have to retake the standard DSA test.

The same offence on a pedal cycle gets a maximum £2,500 fine.

There must be a custodial element to the cycling offence.

BTW in the eyes of the law and given that the cyclist was not charged with causing death by dangerous cycling, I can only assume that the cylist was not held directly responsible for the death of the pedestrian.


Bob

spen666

beverick wrote:

There are indeed double standards and the law does indeed need looking at.

Dangerous driving attracts a maximum conviction of 2 years prison and an unlimited fine. The driver will also be banned for a period of time and will, in many cases, have to retake the standard DSA test.

The same offence on a pedal cycle gets a maximum £2,500 fine.

There must be a custodial element to the cycling offence.

BTW in the eyes of the law and given that the cyclist was not charged with causing death by dangerous cycling, I can only assume that the cylist was not held directly responsible for the death of the pedestrian.


Bob

I presume you mean "should" be as at present there is no custodial element for cyclist, nor is there an offence of causing death by dangerous cycling (AFAIK)

spen666

beverick wrote:

There are indeed double standards and the law does indeed need looking at.

Dangerous driving attracts a maximum conviction of 2 years prison and an unlimited fine. The driver will also be banned for a period of time and will, in many cases, have to retake the standard DSA test.

The same offence on a pedal cycle gets a maximum £2,500 fine.

There must be a custodial element to the cycling offence.

BTW in the eyes of the law and given that the cyclist was not charged with causing death by dangerous cycling, I can only assume that the cylist was not held directly responsible for the death of the pedestrian.


Bob

In most if not all cases, the driver convicted of such an offence has to take an EXTENDED test, not the standard one

sean19690

What ever your view this is such a tradgic event. I was trying to put myself in the postion of both parties as a cyclist and parent. i can understand fully the families quotes relating to the lack of justice. in relation to the issue of proportionality it seems very unjust to me that a indivuals life is worth so little.

I also feel that the media have put their usual slant on this issue. i can not begin to imagine how the cyclist must feel. i hope they have a opportunity to speak in the future.

duncan_r

I have discovered that most of the cyclist who go through red lights etc... are car drivers!!! who have taken up cycling. I get annoyed when i see a cyclist not obey the road rules.

I cycle to and from work everyday 12 miles each way and i always stop. The media have "stirred" this up and are "tarring" us all with the same brush. Most car drivers seem to get away with killing on the roads. There was also talk that if a driver caused an accident because they were distracted by say a baby in the back seat and this caused an accident and someone died as a result, they would "get" away with it.

number9

1/

the reporting of this case was a disgrace.


2/


Howard hit the girl after she stepped back into the road, according to
the cops


3/


The claim that Howard shouted"Get out of my way, I'm not stopping" was
a crock of shit, the only person who made this claim was the
prosecutor, no witness confirmed this at all


4/


Youths drinking in the park and then mucking about in the road getting
the support of The Mail just shows The Mail hate cyclists more than
drunk youths


5/


e quote from the father about the cyclist is of interest:


"He is an arrogant, vile little man."


Given that Mick Bennet is on a Life Licence, having been released from
a life sentence imposed for a s18 Wounding With Intent some years ago,
he speaks from a position of some knowledge on the matter of
vileness.


6/


The problem (as I understand it) is that amongst the group of friends,
"conflicting statements" were given.


This included one person saying the girl walked into the path of the
cyclist.


Who's right? I have no idea, I was not there.


But: If these self same witnesses maintain their statements even in a
civil case, then there is every chance of the claim failing.

spen666

number9 wrote:

1/
....
3/


The claim that Howard shouted"Get out of my way, I'm not stopping" was
a crock of shoot, the only person who made this claim was the
prosecutor, no witness confirmed this at all
....

Really?

So the barrister or solicitor prosecuting this case will be facing disciplinary charges or peverting the course of justice will they?

no- thought not- why not? Because the prosecutor in a triall cannot make such a statement if there is not witness evidence. The prosecutor presents the FACTS, not invents allegations

number9

Not one witness verified this claim. How do i complain?

dennisn

number9 wrote:

1/

just shows The Mail hate cyclists more than
drunk youths

Being from the US I am more than a bit curious as to why a newspaper would "hate"
cyclists. Perhaps they don't really hate anyone and slant all their news in order to
create controversy and sell more newspapers. Sounds like they are one of those newspapers that doesn't really report the news but turns it into more of a story, part
fact, part fiction, part opinion. The real truth of the whole thing is that it someone riding a bicycle hit and killed a pedestrian. The rest is just speculation until proven otherwise.

Dennis Noward

alfablue

dennisn wrote:

number9 wrote:

1/

just shows The Mail hate cyclists more than
drunk youths

Being from the US I am more than a bit curious as to why a newspaper would "hate"
cyclists. Perhaps they don't really hate anyone and slant all their news in order to
create controversy and sell more newspapers. Dennis Noward

I have the feeling that there is some cyclist-hating around, and the press are not immune. Take for example the What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated? article penned by Matthew Parris in The Times, December '07. Unfortunately the Press Complaints Commission who received a record number of complaints ruled that this rant, potentially an incitement to murder, did not breach their code (which it clearly does not, but perhaps it should).

number9

There are some relevant comments to this post to "The Magistrate's
Blog":

http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogs ... exploite...


Most interesting amonst them, someone claiming to be the defendant's
solicitor posted the following:


"Hats off to the person who has spotted that almost all of the press
coverage came about as a result of the Prosecutor's opening. The
evidence came out very differently in Court.
None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed
if he shouted at all.
None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping"
which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise
the cyclist.
Having been in Court throughout the trial I do wonder where some
of the reporters got their information. Some of them even had us in
the Crown Court!
I'm back to defending murderers and rapists now where I get a much
quieter life!"

Cunobelin

The real double standard is Hugh Bladen!

Mr Bladen said cycling on pavements was an especially dangerous habit which more cyclists needed to stop doing.

"All road users have a duty of care for other road users.

Surely not the same ABD spokesman who referred to a campaign against parking on pavements by cars as "a restriction of the freedom of motorists" and a "Jihad against motorists"

Surely no-one could be that hypocritical.......