Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

PBo

dilemna wrote:

I think many regular road cyclists will recognise the cuture of agression displayed by many drivers toward cyclists. The forums are not exactly devoid of these incidents.

dilemna wrote:

Not a ride goes by without a couple of near death experiences.

Now, this nicely encapsulates why this thread has deteriorated.

An observation based on experience, with some anecdotal evidence too.....sets the flavour of the debate

but then a completely emotive ott statement which makes others on the blog cross - because we ALL recognise a problem, but some want to try and address it using hard evidence and playing the system correctly - and feel that emotive unsubstantiated stuff just devalues the argument.

but - and this sounds really patronising, but isn't meant to be - I don't have anything like the passion that some here have, and which I admire, even if what they say frustrates me incredibly.

I actually think that both sides have now sunk too low -

spen666 wrote:

BTW- who had a warning on here regarding their postings and were warned they would be banned if they didn't control themselves.

I think it was M Cole from Bike Radar who warned somebody. He named the person he warned in the thread.

It wasn't me I seem to recall, unless of course he mistakenly typed number9 meaning spen666.

Number9 was warned because i complained specifically about his use of a homophobic insult (I clicked on the little red exclamation mark). Mods respond to such notifications, they don't read everything as a matter of course. Not everybody is aware of this, so not being warned is not some kind of clean bill of health - just means no-one has complained in this way. Spen - I'm not a lawyer, and on balance am in your camp, however, i think you have gone too far, so your holier than thou post is a little unfair

gtvlusso

I would like to stick to the point and offer my condolences to the family. It is a sad case and must be awful for them.

In honour of their lost son and brother, I think it is quite rude to argue the toss over legal this and that and I think the "lawyers" who use this site should perhaps STFU and simply offer their sympathies as opposed to outwitting and slagging each other off......as they would do in court/in contracts. It is a human life we are talking about, even though the family feel that the sentance is not enough, sentance has been passed and any comment on here may upset the family even further - if they wish to appea or raise awarenessl, I am sure they can decide for themselves and appoint appropriate representation in their own time and space.

Are you any better than the father of the jailed truck driver commenting on the other forum?

*Jeez - my speelling is terrible!

spen666

number9 wrote:

Pointing out repeatedly that your posts are wrong in law, illegal under the ECHR, have no basis in the evidence of the case?

My posts are illegal under the European Court Of Human Rights? :roll:

My main aim is to get the roads safer, what I've posted has been trying to back up my view by showing cyclists are not treated fairly, along with other vulnerable road users.

spen, you've repeatedly banged on about how my posts are irrelevant and wrong in law.
I have no idea what you mean,

So why then do you argue everytime I make the points then?

You are now admitting to arguing about things you know nothing about

I've explained over and over and over again that mandatory bans and presumed liability are not mutually exclusive. This is not a hard concept to grasp, I support a law change that's been shown to make the roads safer for vulnerable road users. I also support a different, seperate law change to ban killer drivers where culpability is established.

There's no confusion.

I'm afraid there is confusion in your mind when you can't seem to equate the difference in civil law and criminal law.

You repeatedly call for mandatory driving bans and say this is something civil law can deal with.

It cannot

There are other examples too numerous to mention.

I have invited you to clarify whether you are talking about civil law issuers r criminal law, but you repeatedly ignore those requests and try to suggest the civil law can do what the criminal law does and vice versa.

Presumed liability is a civil law matter. It is not possible to have presumed liability in criminal law. Remember that doctrine of inniocent until proven guilty. That is enshrined in the Geneva convention on Human Rights. Presumed liability cannot therefore apply to a criminal case.

Add to the fact that the term "liability" iss a civil law concept, not a criminal law one. In criminal law it is guilty or not guilty.

Remember I said to grasp the point you'd need to retain two concepts at the same time? A change in liability and a change imposing bans on killer drivers.

Two different concepts, see? Not mutually exclusive, not confused, not illegal under the European Court Of Human Rights.

Presumed liability

It's perfectly obvious that you grasped this point several pages back and yet you continue posting repetitive straw men.

That's trolling.



And I've never been banned from here, you paranoid, hysterical person..

Paranoid? Hysterical?

Hmm- I wonder who that term applies to. I wonder who it is who calls for those who oppose their views to be banned, repeatedly insults those who disagree with their views. Is it the same person who was threatened yesterday with being banned from this site by thepublishers?


You may want to improve road safety. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

however, your proposals are in many cases contrary to Human Rights legislation. They are muddled in that you repeatedly confuse and merge civil law remedies with criminal law

To make suggestions that are contrary to natural justice, are contrary to human rights legislation and are simply unfair is not going to convince anyone to change the position for the good of cycling.

We need to deal with the problems in a sensible method. Applying change where appropriate,seekingto educate and to avoid knee jerk anti motorist rants.

None of the rantings on here calling for changes that are contrary to human rights legislation will do anything for the family of the deceased and will do nothing to improve the attitude of motorists and the public at large to cyclists.

Lets go back to a fundamental point in this case.

The cPS charged thedriver with causing death by dangerous driving, an offence carrying 14 years imprionment. He also was charged with perverting the course of justice.

The JURY , not the CPS or the Judge convicted ( for whatever reason) the driver of the perverting the course of justice offence and a simple careless driving offence. The careless driving matter is non imprisonable.

Given the jury did not think

spen666

gtvlusso wrote:

I would like to stick to the point and offer my condolences to the family. It is a sad case and must be awful for them.

In honour of their lost son and brother, I think it is quite rude to argue the toss over legal this and that and I think the "lawyers" who use this site should perhaps STFU and simply offer their sympathies as opposed to outwitting and slagging each other off......as they would do in court/in contracts. It is a human life we are talking about, even though the family feel that the sentance is not enough, sentance has been passed and any comment on here may upset the family even further - if they wish to appea or raise awarenessl, I am sure they can decide for themselves and appoint appropriate representation in their own time and space.

Are you any better than the father of the jailed truck driver commenting on the other forum?

*Jeez - my speelling is terrible!

The loss of life is always tragic, but to rant on making calls for things that are either illegal or impractical or will cause more problems is not going to help.

To suggest that those who disagree with a view should be silent simply because someone has died in an earlier accident is hardly either a logical or sensible view.

It is going to do nothing to help improve the lot of cyclists. Indeed it will do the opposite as the public at large will see cyclists are whingers and "looneys".

We need to have sensible debate. Sensible debate does not come from silencing those whose views you oppose. Sensible debate comes from looking at the problems, discussing potential solutions and being sensible enough to appreciate there can be problems with some suggested solutions.

Calling for civil courts to impose criminal sanctions for example is simply stupid and will not take the matter forward at all.

opposing a proposed solution is not the same as opposing improving the lot of cyclists

number9

however, your proposals are in many cases contrary to Human Rights legislation. They are muddled in that you repeatedly confuse and merge civil law remedies with criminal law

Once again, twenty-fifth time, nothing I've proposed is contrary to any Human Rights Legislation. There is no confusion between civil and criminal law outside your fevered imaginination.

You're arguing against something nobody has said.

That's a straw man.

It certainly makes it easier to win the debate when you don't listen to what the other person is saying and substitute their points with ones you've plucked from thin air, or claim they must be "anti-motorist", but it's extremely tiresome and I wish you'd stop.

number9

to rant on making calls for things that are either illegal or impractical or will cause more problems is not going to help.

I agree. Thankfully, nobody's suggested any such thing.

Calling for civil courts to impose criminal sanctions for example is simply stupid

Absolutely. Luckily, again, nobody has made any such call.

yoohoo999

gtvlusso wrote:

In honour of their lost son and brother, I think it is quite rude to argue the toss over legal this and that and I think the "lawyers" who use this site should perhaps STFU and simply offer their sympathies as opposed to outwitting and slagging each other off


Are you any better than the father of the jailed truck driver commenting on the other forum?

Actually, I think you will find that the very first thing I did was offer my condolences.

The reason I entered this thread was due to the absurd amount of misinformation being spouted and the general lack of understanding as to why the legal process led to a result that many felt was inappropriate.

Have you actually read any of my posts? I suggest you do before you start telling people to "STFU".

Also, I have not been offensive to any people in this thread, which is quite impressive given the fact that we have charming people like yourself who decide to pitch in and tell me to "STFU".

This thread turned into a debate over legalities, I could have walked away but instead I tried to stop the thread blowing up into a mass of misinformation generated by emotional people who don't fully understand the concepts they are referring to. How does this help anyone?

It's people like YOU that have pitched in with you hypocritical remarks designed to offend that have turned this thread into what it is.

You may as well keep put of the thread if you have nothing useful to add other than "STFU" to those who have tried to explain the same things over and over again in the face of being called "heartless" because they state fact.

PBo

gtvlusso wrote:

I would like to stick to the point and offer my condolences to the family. It is a sad case and must be awful for them.

In honour of their lost son and brother, I think it is quite rude to argue the toss over legal this and that and I think the "lawyers" who use this site should perhaps STFU and simply offer their sympathies as opposed to outwitting and slagging each other off......as they would do in court/in contracts. It is a human life we are talking about, even though the family feel that the sentance is not enough, sentance has been passed and any comment on here may upset the family even further - if they wish to appea or raise awarenessl, I am sure they can decide for themselves and appoint appropriate representation in their own time and space.

Are you any better than the father of the jailed truck driver commenting on the other forum?

*Jeez - my speelling is terrible!

except this thread was not set up as a "condolences book' - it was set up as a "WTF", and to begin a thread discussing how cyclists are truck fodder, and what can be done.

The brother signed up to bike radar to join the discussion (as best as i can remember his first post on this topic was his first bikeradar post) - so I don't think we should avoid the topic.

your last (bold) point is just silly...Stubbs' father signed up to the deceased's brother's forum and "invaded" that space. that was not the case here. the debate may have degenerated somewhat, but that does not make it disrespectful or inappropriate in anything like the same way.

number9

except this thread was not set up as a "condolences book' - it was set up as a "WTF"

Since the case is no longer sub judice, I think it was a mistake to delete Stubbs senior's "contribution" in the original link. Offensive, deluded and downright nasty they may have been, but illuminating of a closed mindset that brooks no dissent. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

gtvlusso

Yoohoo999

I have been in this situation, losing a sister, many years ago in an RTA motorbike incident and know how this feels - particulary the lenient sentencing, happened in my sisters case, but thats the ruling - it is not something I would want people to discuss the legal ramifications/try to outwit each other and get a bit personal/point scoring off each other, on a web forum, in fact. In fact I find it as distasteful as Mr Stubbs comments on the other web forum - just my point of view from experience. Not sure what you find offensive from my thread as it was pointed at no one in particular, are you feeling guilty?

My thoughts are with the family. I will not be rising to respond to you anymore.

spen666

gtvlusso wrote:

Yoohoo999

I have been in this situation, losing a sister, many years ago in an RTA motorbike incident and know how this feels - particulary the lenient sentencing, happened in my sisters case, but thats the ruling - it is not something I would want people to discuss the legal ramifications/try to outwit each other and get a bit personal/point scoring off each other, on a web forum, in fact. In fact I find it as distasteful as Mr Stubbs comments on the other web forum - just my point of view from experience. Not sure what you find offensive from my thread as it was pointed at no one in particular, are you feeling guilty?

My thoughts are with the family. I will not be rising to respond to you anymore.

So because someone has died, we are not allowed to discuss the dangers and problems faced by cyclists on the road and try to discuss potential problems and potential solutions?

So what you are effectively saying (if I understand correctly) is that we have to just accepot the situation, and do nothing and let other diwe because it is distasteful to discuss the subject?

That sounds more distasteful - ie not trying to improve things is more distasteful

As for points scoring, I am not sure who you refer to. I have merely tried repeatedly to explain the legal position- facutal matters- and explain why proposed solutions are none starters

DonDaddyD

gtvlusso wrote:

Yoohoo999

I have been in this situation, losing a sister, many years ago in an RTA motorbike incident and know how this feels - particulary the lenient sentencing, happened in my sisters case, but thats the ruling - it is not something I would want people to discuss the legal ramifications/try to outwit each other and get a bit personal/point scoring off each other, on a web forum, in fact. In fact I find it as distasteful as Mr Stubbs comments on the other web forum - just my point of view from experience. Not sure what you find offensive from my thread as it was pointed at no one in particular, are you feeling guilty?

My thoughts are with the family. I will not be rising to respond to you anymore.

But the lenient sentencing was being discussed for pages before yooohoo entered the thread.

Its a little unfair to target the lawyers and not all of us, including myself, because they dared to give clarity and information to more accurately discuss the the topic we had already been discussing.

In fact the premise from the OP, included the sentencing.

yoohoo999

gtvlusso wrote:

Yoohoo999

I have been in this situation, losing a sister, many years ago in an RTA motorbike incident and know how this feels - particulary the lenient sentencing, happened in my sisters case, but thats the ruling

I am sorry for your loss. I can also sympathise, as you will note from my first post.

it is not something I would want people to discuss the legal ramifications/

but the point is, people are discussing it, and they are (in my opinion) incorrect. This is a public forum, anybody can access it. It seems pointless that people will read some of the information here and treat it as correct without considering another, more informed and logical side to the discussion.

try to outwit each other and get a bit personal/point scoring off each other, on a web forum, in fact.

I don't need to score points from anyone I have discussed this with on here, certainly not on legal points. With the greatest of respect, everyones statements are nothing more than words on a screen. And I considered some of those words to be incorrect, so I put across my (educated) view.

I have at no point entered into any personal discussions with anyone. I don't know anyone here.

Not sure what you find offensive from my thread as it was pointed at no one in particular, are you feeling guilty?

Are you joking? Let me remind you of your comment:

I think the "lawyers" who use this site should perhaps STFU

Do you still stand by your comment that this wasn't aimed at anyone in particular? You don't have a leg to stand on.

My thoughts are with the family. I will not be rising to respond to you anymore.

rising to me anymore? you were the person who told the lawyers to STFU remember?

I have not made any such offensive comment to anyone in this thread, least of all you who has not actually made any real contribution other than to offend.

Like I said before, if you have nothing constructive to add to this debate then the thread is much better off without your "STFU" comments.

number9

I have not made any such offensive comment to anyone in this thread,

"Foaming at the mouth lunatic"?

yoohoo999

number9 wrote:

I have not made any such offensive comment to anyone in this thread,

"Foaming at the mouth lunatic"?

Once again your point is completely false/inaccurate.

Get your facts straight.

If you care to reread the thread you will note that it was another person who made that comment.

:?

The hypocrisy and bias in this thread is shocking.

gtvlusso

DonDaddyD wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Yoohoo999

I have been in this situation, losing a sister, many years ago in an RTA motorbike incident and know how this feels - particulary the lenient sentencing, happened in my sisters case, but thats the ruling - it is not something I would want people to discuss the legal ramifications/try to outwit each other and get a bit personal/point scoring off each other, on a web forum, in fact. In fact I find it as distasteful as Mr Stubbs comments on the other web forum - just my point of view from experience. Not sure what you find offensive from my thread as it was pointed at no one in particular, are you feeling guilty?

My thoughts are with the family. I will not be rising to respond to you anymore.

But the lenient sentencing was being discussed for pages before yooohoo entered the thread.

Its a little unfair to target the lawyers and not all of us, including myself, because they dared to give clarity and information to more accurately discuss the the topic we had already been discussing.

In fact the premise from the OP, included the sentencing.

Sorry - did not mean to offend all lawyers or would be lawyers, or bin men who think they are lawyers. I will leave that to cartoon writers! Hope you can see my point from experience as regards to attitudes - grief is an differing experience for everyone and this just keeps scratching a sore point for me, particulalry as sentencing was lenient in both cases. I think clarity has been lost in this thread and simple point scoring off each other seems to have taken over, from a while ago - simple egotism, does read as a bit of a bitching fest at certain points.

From my experience, as stated previously, I would not want "legal" issues being banded around on a website by people I do not know about something so close to me.........Hopefully, that is my point made!

Again, I have been there, it is not a great place to be and personally, I would rather it was left and people who may or may not be lawyers did not discuss the "ins and outs" of a loved, lost one's case - it is almost as if the victim becomes a martyr or is simply a tool for people to show there legal mind and prowess - thats why it feels distasteful.

I do not wish to discuss this any further as I am diversifying the thread to my sister (not the point and not fair to the Spinks family - the point of this thread) and it is bringing an awful lot back - including poor legal advice/bickering from so called "educated" people....who work at a certain magic circle firm, yes, my father could afford the alleged best of the best in court.

My wife is a lawyer, I think she is going to throw something at me!

Hope you understand my point of view, yoohoo999 :?: :

Doh - I responded..:-(

whyamihere

Cool it chaps.

Locking this now as it's just turned into a slagging match.