Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

yoohoo999

dilemna wrote:

With any luck due to the continuing credit crunch if reports are to believed thousands of fat cat city corporate and commercial lawyers have yet to lose their jobs ............

Oh my heart bleeds ............

well you are a charming fellow aren't you?

For what it's worth, I work in an area of commercial law called PFI/PPP.

I build the schools your children attend.
I build hospitals.
I build universities.

Hardly "fat cat" wouldn't you say?

And if you ever become redundant yourself, every higher rate tax payer in my office will be supporting you and your family until you can find another job.

DonDaddyD

I think this thread is suffering from two things.

1. Lawyers and the legal-learned who have a clear understanding of how the legal system works. And who can seperate their personal feelings from the legal process and from the severity of the sentence given for said crime from what they may personally feel the accused, if found guilty, should get. I.e. Mrs DDD

2. Individuals who have varying knowledge of the legal system. Who aren't seperating their personal feelings from the legal process and who often cannot accept a sentence that may not be punishment enough to echo their personal feelings. I.e. Mr DDD

Example:

Lawyer: "2 years prison sentence for being found guilty is what the law states you'll have to serve if found guilty"

Passionate person: "What do you mean 2 years jail sentence for taking a life, that's not justice they took a life they should forefit theirs!!!!!"

Lawyer: "Well they weren't tried or sentenced for taking a life. The law states for their crime if found guilty they are given said sentence"

Passionate person: "It's a human life, your saying 2 years is the value you place on human life!! That's sick! We're victims!!! We are being targetted and they are getting off, mostly, scott free!!!!"

Lawyer: "I never said that, I'm quoting the law of the land I didn't make them. My personal feelings don't come into it. It's the written law we all follow."

Passionate person: "You have no soul!!! Are you even human!!!??"

It's almost like a class divide.

In my eyes the two will very rarely see eye to eye. I have had to learn to accept the law for what it is and not be so personally attached to what I think a reasonable sentence or punishment should be. If we did that, it wouldn't be a law for a society it would be us taking the law into our own hands.

That isn't to say that the legal system shouldn't change, where necessary to better reflect the laws needed in an ever changing society. But even that suggestion for change has to follow a proper and fair process.

dilemna

yoohoo999 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

With any luck due to the continuing credit crunch if reports are to believed thousands of fat cat city corporate and commercial lawyers have yet to lose their jobs ............

Oh my heart bleeds ............

well you are a charming fellow aren't you?

For what it's worth, I work in an area of commercial law called PFI/PPP.

I build the schools your children attend.
I build hospitals.
I build universities.

Hardly "fat cat" wouldn't you say?

And if you ever become redundant yourself, every higher rate tax payer in my office will be supporting you and your family until you can find another job.

Well we're all f****d then.

PFI and PPP is another big public finance scandal populated by greedy financiers, extortionate management companies, private equity groups, unprincipled corporate lawyers screwing the tax payer to the hilt as the government lawyers were so clueless to realise what onerous contracts they were entering into to finance the provision of our schools, universities and hospitals that we will end up paying for tens or more times over. Some people have become very very rich out of PFI whilst healthcare trusts have had to close wards and cut staff to avoid going bust.

dilemna

yoohoo999 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Incorrect about what please?

It's a bit harsh to attack me for dishonesty without saying what I've said that's wrong!

I said "incorrect", not "dishonest". There's a difference (but hey, you don't seem to be that bothered about accuracy, just getting reasonably close)

In all honesty, I agree entirely with what you are trying to acheive.

As I've said before, I'm a cyclist, I lost my grandfather in an RTA caused by an HGV driver that had been driving for around 19 hours out of the previous 24, and I'm a lawyer who understands that the remedies provided by statute isn't always the justice you want.

But the simple fact of the matter is that despite having very powerful and emotive arguments, your understanding of how your proposals would intergrate into our current legal system appears to be flawed. It's a complex area that would require considerable analysis by a lawyer practising in that particular field, so the fact that a lay person comes close to understanding is admirable - but close doesn't really cut it when you are trying to influence legislative policy.

I think that the arguments on this topic have gone as far as they can go. It seems odd that there isn't a single person involved in this discussion who doesn't want the same thing (greater protection of vulnerable road users and adequate sentencing of those committing criminal offences causing injury or death to road users), yet we have effectively spent 12 pages banging our heads together.

There is a solution to both of these issues, but you proposal isn't it. It works from a cyclist's perspective, but it doesn't fit with ECHR, the Government or any other road users.

The solution has to be proportionate, just and above all legally possible. Yours is not.

As I said in the very first comment I made in this thread, legislative change must be made via parliament. Parliament won't (as they have already indicated) consider your proposal, so let's move on and try to find something that WILL work.

You will need FIRM statistical analysis (not from media sources, your own personal experience or from grieving family members), you need the assistance of a lawyer who is very conversant in this area and committed to the same cause, and you need a couple of MPs on board who will take this where it needs to go - the Commons.

Number9, if you come up with a proposal that is sound in principle, I would walk up to downing street with you and present it. We're all trying to achieve the same end result, but from different starting points.

All big law firms, my own included, do a lot of pro bono work and many lawyers are avid cyclists. It might be worth speaking to a few to see if they are willing to get involved. You would have access to some fantastic resources and a much better profile.

I would suggest that this debate is now pointless and that we all either go our seperate ways and maintain the status quo, or we actually try to make a concerted effort to come up with NEW solutions to the issue of vulnerability of cyclists on the UKs roads.

Christ you are a patronising arrogant chap. Good qualities for a lawyer no doubt

Chapeau Number9 for remaining composed and couteous throughout your posts under very fierce and unwarranted criticism of those who claim they are or are clearly lawyers if they haven't. There are ways with engaging with people and if these guys are indicative of the legal profession no wonder it is the mess that it currently it is.

yoohoo999

dilemna wrote:

Well we're all f****d then.

PFI and PPP is another big public finance scandal populated by greedy financiers, extortionate management companies, private equity groups, unprincipled corporate lawyers screwing the tax payer to the hilt as the government lawyers were so clueless to realise what onerous contracts they were entering into to finance the provision of our schools, universities and hospitals that we will end up paying for tens or more times over. Some people have become very very rich out of PFI whilst healthcare trusts have had to close wards and cut staff to avoid going bust.

Brilliant!

I was really hoping you would try to provide some insightful knowldge into the world of PFI/PPP!

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, clearly demonstrated by your Daily Mail rant.

It's truly unbelievable that people like you manage though the day, given the huge burden you carry of having to comment on matters that you no absolutely nothing about. I feel for you.

Care to pass on any other pearls of wisdom?

DonDaddyD

dilemna wrote:

yoohoo999 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

With any luck due to the continuing credit crunch if reports are to believed thousands of fat cat city corporate and commercial lawyers have yet to lose their jobs ............

Oh my heart bleeds ............

well you are a charming fellow aren't you?

For what it's worth, I work in an area of commercial law called PFI/PPP.

I build the schools your children attend.
I build hospitals.
I build universities.

Hardly "fat cat" wouldn't you say?

And if you ever become redundant yourself, every higher rate tax payer in my office will be supporting you and your family until you can find another job.

Well we're all f****d then.

PFI and PPP is another big public finance scandal populated by greedy financiers, extortionate management companies, private equity groups, unprincipled corporate lawyers screwing the tax payer to the hilt as the government lawyers were so clueless to realise what onerous contracts they were entering into to finance the provision of our schools, universities and hospitals that we will end up paying for tens or more times over. Some people have become very very rich out of PFI whilst healthcare trusts have had to close wards and cut staff to avoid going bust.

Yes its their fault the NHS is a bottomless pit for money and has nothing to do with anything else like how thee utilise the tax payers money. There surely isn't any other circumstances why healthcare services are closing wards cutting down staff...

And before you start trying to harp on about me not knowing what I'm talking about. I just left employment with a £300million pound Trust that made a £31million surpluss (in a recession) to reinvest in services, which it did while at the same time closing wards and cutting staff costs where those services had become ineffective.

Its wild uninformed, misinformed or simply deliberately loaded rants that you make that make me skim everything you write just to give my brain a rest from the factual Healthcare services related things I have to read at work.

:roll:

davmaggs

+1 to DDD

I think he's posted a great summary.

I would add that I think is probably also a difference when people are in jobs or perhaps went through training or education in subjects that means that they are used to using statistics and/or evaluating the standards of evidence.

For example the passoniate poster would say "I know 20 people who've been attacked this year whilst cycling, therefore attacks are on the rise as I didn't hear about that many in the 1980s". Whereas the evidence based type of mind goes along the lines of "how many attacks were there last year, 5 years ago etc.", then the evidence based person questions how the evidence was gathered in the first place, what standards were used and how reputable is the source.

For the more serious debates a basic understanding of the difference between anecdotes (and I include media stories/blogs and this forum) and scientic evidence is needed. In addition the basic concept of sample size and significance is helpful.

dilemna

DonDaddyD wrote:

dilemna wrote:

yoohoo999 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

With any luck due to the continuing credit crunch if reports are to believed thousands of fat cat city corporate and commercial lawyers have yet to lose their jobs ............

Oh my heart bleeds ............

well you are a charming fellow aren't you?

For what it's worth, I work in an area of commercial law called PFI/PPP.

I build the schools your children attend.
I build hospitals.
I build universities.

Hardly "fat cat" wouldn't you say?

And if you ever become redundant yourself, every higher rate tax payer in my office will be supporting you and your family until you can find another job.

Well we're all f****d then.

PFI and PPP is another big public finance scandal populated by greedy financiers, extortionate management companies, private equity groups, unprincipled corporate lawyers screwing the tax payer to the hilt as the government lawyers were so clueless to realise what onerous contracts they were entering into to finance the provision of our schools, universities and hospitals that we will end up paying for tens or more times over. Some people have become very very rich out of PFI whilst healthcare trusts have had to close wards and cut staff to avoid going bust.

Yes its their fault the NHS is a bottomless pit for money and has nothing to do with anything else like how thee utilise the tax payers money. There surely isn't any other circumstances why healthcare services are closing wards cutting down staff...

And before you start trying to harp on about me not knowing what I'm talking about. I just left employment with a £300million pound Trust that made a £31million surpluss (in a recession) to reinvest in services, which it did while at the same time closing wards and cutting staff costs where those services had become ineffective.

Its wild uninformed, misinformed or simply deliberately loaded rants that you make that make me skim everything you write just to give my brain a rest from the factual Healthcare services related things I have to read at work.

:roll:

No I think you just did that job for me

What did you leave for? Did you get the sack?

Tomred

one of the saddest stories i have ever heard, my condolences to the spink family..mr stubbs should be hung up for the crows to pick at.. when will the legal system cop on and start protecting the rights of the cyclist.. people always partially blame the cyclist for accidents.. people must realise that they share the road with cyclist and that being in a car or lorry means that the responcibilty is on them to take due care and attention.. mr stubbs is nothing more than a wanker with a bad attitude.. would love to put him under a lorry and leave him to die.. hope he befriends a lad in jail called bubba that makes him his prison bitch... rot in hell stubbs ya dirt bag..

yoohoo999

dilemna wrote:

Christ you are a patronising arrogant chap. Good qualities for a lawyer no doubt

No, i'm justifiably confident that I am correct. That's not arrogant.

Chapeau Number9 for remaining composed and couteous throughout your posts

What you mean composure and courtesy like this comment directed at Spen?

Spen, at my work I have read papers that say you're a crabby, obnoxious know-it-all. I can't go into details but it appears you're a cantankerous, argumentative...

And that's the edited version, it went far more personal than that but Number9 has clearly deleted it.

He should have been banned for his comments.

There are ways with engaging with people and if these guys are indicative of the legal profession no wonder it is the mess that it currently it is.

Sorry, explain again what exactly you know about the state of the legal profession?

You're a lost cause mate, go back to reading the Daily Mail.

number9

yoohoo, I've edited nothing.

Spen claimed a dead cyclist was not completely innocent , then suggested I "read the evidence" before commenting. That's rude, and patronising.

When I said I couldn't find any evidence that Mr Maynard did anything wrong, spen claimed that he had the evidence but refused to post it.

Which makes me wonder why he mentioned it in the first place. Why slag off a dead cyclist who can't respond based on evidence spen claims is a secret?

What's the point?

I then posted that spen was cantankerous and argumentative. They're observations based on pretty strong evidence, not insults. Made in one single post.

Since then I've received untold personal abuse. I've been called a liar, an idiot, pathetic, foaming at the mouth. Over five pages of this thread I've had nasty ad hominem attacks.

It's been claimed I'm somehow "anti car" , that I don't know that LA is in America, I must be retarded and confused, and I'm a "illiterate bigot."

I have not, incidentally, made a single complaint to the mods about any of this, and the mods have allowed every single insult to remain on the board, which demonstrates nothing so much as spen can dish out childish, obnoxious insults but whines and snivels to the mods when treated in kind, to much milder abuse than he happily doles out.

Like I said, childish and obnoxious.

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

I'm a "illiterate bigot."

"semi-literate rantings of a bigot", IIRC.

dilemna wrote:

Chapeau Number9 for remaining composed and couteous throughout your posts under very fierce and unwarranted criticism of those who claim they are or are clearly lawyers if they haven't. There are ways with engaging with people and if these guys are indicative of the legal profession no wonder it is the mess that it currently it is.

I suggest you re-read this thread.

dilemna wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

And before you start trying to harp on about me not knowing what I'm talking about.

What did you leave for? Did you get the sack?

Reel your neck in.


Having breached my own injunction that I mentioned when I entered this thread, I'm out of it.

It is unfortunate, and I'm sorry to have contributed to this, that this thread has hijacked a genuinely distressing incident and become something completely unrelated to that incident.

number9

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

I'm a "illiterate bigot."

"semi-literate rantings of a bigot", IIRC.

Don't do yourself down.

I explained that I felt that a aggression was increasing on the roads, offered examples and my own experience.

In what way is your response, saying my post was the "semi-literate rantings of a bigot", constructive? Or helpful? Or polite?

If I made a spelling mistake I'm sorry, I can edit if it's important to you, but why is it "bigotted" to relay my own, personal experience?

Terra Nova

I am struggling to read all the posts since my last post and will go back to reading them in a minute, but I have to write this now:

Spen66 - you have a right to your opinion but your persistent use of the word "accident" to describe my brother's death, and the word "accident" to describe other road traffic collisions, including the Rhyl Cycling Club Disaster (a disaster on scale of the Heck Train Disaster IMO) is deeply offensive to me and probably to all other victims of road traffic collisions. To then say there were no causes to these "accidents" is even worse. This use of the word "accident" is a symptom of the ATTITUDE and perception that is engrained in our society and culture that prevents any kind of progress in stopping these disasters on the road.

Please, I ask you, to stop calling them "accidents". They are collisions.

And one other thing before I go back to reading, would those who mention my brother please call him by his proper name: SPINK. There is no S at the end of Spink.

Many, many thanks. I am very heartened by this debate. I'll go back to reading.

yoohoo999

Terra Nova wrote:

Spen66 - you have a right to your opinion but your persistent use of the word "accident" to describe my brother's death, and the word "accident" to describe other road traffic collisions, including the Rhyl Cycling Club Disaster (a disaster on scale of the Heck Train Disaster IMO) is deeply offensive to me and probably to all other victims of road traffic collisions. To then say there were no causes to these "accidents" is even worse. This use of the word "accident" is a symptom of the ATTITUDE and perception that is engrained in our society and culture that prevents any kind of progress in stopping these disasters on the road.

Please, I ask you, to stop calling them "accidents". They are collisions.

The key issue we are facing in this thread is that there a number of people viewing this from a legal perspective, including from my count at least 2 lawyers, Spen being one.

By the very nature of his work, Spen will refer to such collisions as Road Traffic Accidents, since that is how they are defined. This is not intended to be an insult, it's simply the word that is used.

Legal definitions are not concerned with public perceptions or sentimentality. An RTA in the legal sense may not involve a collision at all. Accident is simply a word attached to cover all such circumstance, without any public perception influence.

I don't know Spen, but I do know that the word accident carries a different meaning to lawyers than it does in common usage and that it would be most unlikely that Spen was insinuating that accident meant "no blame" in these circumstances.

number9

yoohoo999 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

Spen66 - you have a right to your opinion but your persistent use of the word "accident" to describe my brother's death, and the word "accident" to describe other road traffic collisions, including the Rhyl Cycling Club Disaster (a disaster on scale of the Heck Train Disaster IMO) is deeply offensive to me and probably to all other victims of road traffic collisions. To then say there were no causes to these "accidents" is even worse. This use of the word "accident" is a symptom of the ATTITUDE and perception that is engrained in our society and culture that prevents any kind of progress in stopping these disasters on the road.

Please, I ask you, to stop calling them "accidents". They are collisions.

The key issue we are facing in this thread is that there a number of people viewing this from a legal perspective, including from my count at least 2 lawyers, Spen being one.

By the very nature of his work, Spen will refer to such collisions as Road Traffic Accidents, since that is how they are defined. This is not intended to be an insult, it's simply the word that is used.

Legal definitions are not concerned with public perceptions or sentimentality. An RTA in the legal sense may not involve a collision at all. Accident is simply a word attached to cover all such circumstance, without any public perception influence.

I don't know Spen, but I do know that the word accident carries a different meaning to lawyers than it does in common usage and that it would be most unlikely that Spen was insinuating that accident meant "no blame" in these circumstances.

I know plenty of lawyers, yet none is as patronising, supercilious and aggressive as spen.


Unattractive traits, when combined with his ignorance about the Rhyl deaths, for instance, he claims the driver was treated fairly despite the police making a dog's breakfast of the investigation from beginning to end. Spen's factually wrong and shrilly unpleasant when challenged.

Terra Nova

Having now caught up with the thread I am now extremely "disheartened" by the debate. In fact, there isn't one. All there seems to be is a couple of lawyers using their legal knowledge, training and experience to exert authority, superiority and power they believe their legal knowledge gives them over Number9. The people who have legal experience and expertise berate, be-little and generally try to humiliate Number9 just because he isn't a lawyer/ solicitor/ barritser whatever.

I am particularly appalled that the legal people who are doing this are cyclists too. From reading posts by Spen66, yoohoo999 and Greg66 to name a few I have no idea where you stand on the issues being debated here, and that surely is a poor reflection of the contributions you have all made. All I have gleaned from your posts is a desire to band together to attack Number9. It is distasteful.

Instead of trying to humiliate people and devalue their opinions because you have legal knowledge why don't you try explaining the legal viewpoints so that we can understand you viewpoint and maybe assist Number9 in articulating his ideas for legal reform (ideas that are aimed at making it dafer for you as cyclists to cycle) in a way that would help inform the debate, I being one that needs informing.

Whilst I have no legal training whatsover I sat through two court trials about the death of a cyclist and know that there are legally trained people out there incredibly skillfull at constructing arguments designed to humiliate, baffle, confuse and discedit perfectly decent people who tell the truth.

Terra Nova

Yoohoo999, you say "By the very nature of his work, Spen will refer to such collisions as Road Traffic Accidents, since that is how they are defined. This is not intended to be an insult, it's simply the word that is used." I think Spen can speak for himself on that one. He repeatedly used the word “accident”, he never used the legal term “Road Traffic Accident".

And regarding a legal reference to RTA It makes no difference whether the intention is to insult or not. The result is an insult. The fact that something is "defined" in this way makes no difference either. The definition is wrong. The collision that led to my brother's death was not an accident.

The Oxford dictionary states an accident is: "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally".... if you drive dangerously or carelessly, a collision will not happen unexpectedly. By its very nature dangerous or careless driving can be expected to result in an "incident".

And, the Oxford dictionary also states that an accident is "an incident that happens by chance or without apparent cause". In my brother's death and the Rhyl Cycling Club deaths quoted, there were clear causes for the incidents occurring.

It appears to me that there is deliberate use of the word “accident” by lawyers in legal proceedings to defend motorists from being made responsible for the consequences of their actions in the course of motoring. This was definitely part of the legal defence campaign conducted in the case of Andrew Stubbs as the Crown tried to prove his guilt of causing the death of my brother Tony Spink by his dangerous driving. The complete acceptance of the “accidental” nature of deaths that occur in the course of motoring, and the power and influence this word carries in the legal process in such cases is absolutely fundamental to juries coming to decisions on motorists’ driving, when that driving is the subject of the charges in question. The word “accident” has huge significance in legal arguments.

The word "accident" should be banned in all cases of road traffic collisions. They should be called "collisions".

Coriander

FWIW, I think the (at least) three lawyers who have contributed to this thread have done so with calm, distance and rationale. They have attempted to explain that emotions and the law do not always run hand in hand, that a jury and judge have limits imposed on what they can do and that if you wish to see changes to sentences, what evidence is admissable, what charges can be laid against someone, etc then your audience should be parliamentarians.

I do not perceive their maintaining that terms banded about in 'common' English do not always have the same meaning in 'legal' English means they are heartless, unfeeling or actively supporting those who intially seem to be at fault in accidents/collisions.

Personally, I don't think this thread is achieving anything and should be locked; something that originally started as a tribute to a man who died an horrendous, unjust death while following a hobby all of us share has descended into point scoring from people who are not listening to those who work in the law and actually have something useful, though not necessarily welcome, to contribute to the debate.

number9

FWIW, I think the (at least) three lawyers who have contributed to this thread have done so with calm, distance and rationale.

"Illiterate bigot"

"Pathetic"

"liar"

"retarded"

"ignorant"

"unable to understand"


As is so often the case, as soon as spen appeared the vitriol and personal attacks began, he's deliberately misrepresented what's been said, lied about the Rhyl case and demeaned and belittled anyone who dares point out his dishonesty.

Rather than lock the thread, a short ban for spen would be better, let him consider whether this forum needs him as much as he needs this place to bolster his ego by being obnoxious to other posters.

dilemna

Coriander wrote:

FWIW, I think the (at least) three lawyers who have contributed to this thread have done so with calm, distance and rationale. They have attempted to explain that emotions and the law do not always run hand in hand, that a jury and judge have limits imposed on what they can do and that if you wish to see changes to sentences, what evidence is admissable, what charges can be laid against someone, etc then your audience should be parliamentarians.

I do not perceive their maintaining that terms banded about in 'common' English do not always have the same meaning in 'legal' English means they are heartless, unfeeling or actively supporting those who intially seem to be at fault in accidents/collisions.

Personally, I don't think this thread is achieving anything and should be locked; something that originally started as a tribute to a man who died an horrendous, unjust death while following a hobby all of us share has descended into point scoring from people who are not listening to those who work in the law and actually have something useful, though not necessarily welcome, to contrbute to the debate.

Well coriander I certainly don't share your view on how the contributors who are or claim to be lawyers or have extensive legal experience have conducted themselves in responses to the lay posters including myself.

I belatedly joined this thread and was hoping to join a rational and tempered debate which would come up with ideas that could be put into proposals to present to the relevant authorities so that the rights and vulnerabilities of cyclists can be emphasized much more widely so that collisions such as the one that claimed Anthony's life can be avoided, preventing yet another cyclist being fatally injured as poor Anthony and others have been has surely now got to be a priority as since his death yet more cyclists have been killed by HGVs. I have tried to be mindful of this and especially the feelings of Andrew Spink and his family. I was hoping some others would do like wise.

To Andrew Spink and family I apologise for mis-spelling your surname with an s at the end. I should have taken greater care . I am sorry.

Wrt to locking this thread I feel this would be a pity as there might yet be benefit in letting the thread run if those with legal knowledge refrain from talking down and making personal attacks on people who clearly are only concerned and trying to make helpful suggestions to advance the issues from the incident and similar such fatal collisions. Seeing particular contributors belittled and bullied is not an edifying sight. Having legal knowledge puts you in an advantagous, privileged and superior position. To impart and share your knowledge in an accessible, tolerant and sympathetic manner given the circumstances of the subject matter is a skill in itself IMHO. Where this doesn't happen as we have seen we end up nowhere and people become confrontational and others become upset which is totally counter productive. Perhaps the lawyers amongst us could take a more pro-active rather than a reactive approach, guiding rather than pushing which may go a long way to moving this discussion on to something constructive that can genuinely be taken forward. Surely we can all have some sort of input and also take something from this terrible incident.

However should the mod(s) decide to lock tis thread then I would have thought the person to consult would be Terra Nova - Andrew Spink.

I also feel desperately sad that the tone of this thread has now deteriorated and am concerned of the effect this is now having on Andrew Spink, the memory of his brother and his family. I urge more respect and restraint be shown in responses to posts as Anthony like a lot of us on here was a passionate experienced cyclist who was not at fault when he died.

number9

The weight of spen's magisterial posts ought perhaps to be weighted against the fact he has 15,000 posts, all made in working hours.

Not a tremendously in demand lawyer then.

iain_j

Folks

I've just spent the last three hours reading this thread.

There's valuable, intellectual, intelligent debate going on here. I'm learning a lot here and seeing valid points from both sides.

But please, is there any need for the personal abuse and slanging matches? FFS, adding smileys to your jibes and "jean luc picard face palms" in response to valid points only cheapens the whole issue and shows a blatant lack of respect. Are you trying to score points against each other?

Please go back to page 1 and remind yourselves what the issue is here.

spen666

number9 wrote:

FWIW, I think the (at least) three lawyers who have contributed to this thread have done so with calm, distance and rationale.

"Illiterate bigot"

"Pathetic"

"liar"

"retarded"

"ignorant"

"unable to understand"


As is so often the case, as soon as spen appeared the vitriol and personal attacks began, he's deliberately misrepresented what's been said, lied about the Rhyl case and demeaned and belittled anyone who dares point out his dishonesty.

Rather than lock the thread, a short ban for spen would be better, let him consider whether this forum needs him as much as he needs this place to bolster his ego by being obnoxious to other posters.

I think you will be hard pushed to show I have used all the above terms in this thread.

You want me banned? Hmm for what? Pointing out repeatedly that your posts are wrong in law, illegal under the ECHR, have no basis in the evidence of the case?



Interesting approach by you to free speech though isn't it. You want those who disagree with you banned.

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.

spen666

number9 wrote:

The weight of spen's magisterial posts ought perhaps to be weighted against the fact he has 15,000 posts, all made in working hours.

Not a tremendously in demand lawyer then.

Really? On that basis, I must be working 24/7 because my posts have been made at all hours of the day. My posts also go back several years.

You have probably made many more posts than me under the numerous different aliases you have had on here as you repeatedly get banned for abusing people and abusing the message board.

Would you like to disclose how many different aliases you have had to use over the years?

number9

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, 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. 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.

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..

DonDaddyD

Coriander wrote:

FWIW, I think the (at least) three lawyers who have contributed to this thread have done so with calm, distance and rationale. They have attempted to explain that emotions and the law do not always run hand in hand, that a jury and judge have limits imposed on what they can do and that if you wish to see changes to sentences, what evidence is admissable, what charges can be laid against someone, etc then your audience should be parliamentarians.

I do not perceive their maintaining that terms banded about in 'common' English do not always have the same meaning in 'legal' English means they are heartless, unfeeling or actively supporting those who intially seem to be at fault in accidents/collisions.

+1

That said having tried to reason and present both sides of the case impartially, as the best Lawyers do, so in this instance (because in court or the DDD house hold it would be used to anticipate/shoot down the others persons point, to win) an informed and balanced opinion/discussion can be formed. If I was continuely presented by a constant 'wall of irrational' as the lawyers have I'd have lost my rag long ago.

DonDaddyD

My above post said, I will again come to the Lawyers defence.

The first few pages, were somewhat rightly angry posts about the sentence, sympathy for the victim, fury at the legal system for only giving a 2 year sentence.

All "the Lawyers" and by that I think, originally Yahoo and Spen, originally did was clarify:

The sentence was the maximum sentence for that crime at the time the accused was sentenced. That has since changed. It's not legal systems fault for following, correctly, its rules and regulations. Clarify that changing Laws follow a certain method.

They did this rightly, given their profession, with a degree of impartiality. They also attempted to suggest considering both sides of the case before forming an opinion, as oppose to just condemning human life on the basis of one account. If we are to feel secure justice is balanced and fair, despite my personal feeling, this must be carried out.

The thread descended from that point onwards.

John Stevenson

Enough with the ad hominem attacks please, and he-said/she-said about who has insulted whom.

Any more complaints and we'll lock this thread.

number9

Mindless morons now think it fair game to literally push cyclists off the road, as their hero, has as good as said it's okay, indeed made it 'cool' to do so.

Their is a large amount of sociopaths already in possession of vehicles on Britain's roads without giving them de facto licence to vent their videogaming fantasises of 'taking someone out', or generally venting their sick inadequacies in everyday life, from behind the wheel of a two ton weapon on a defenceless twelve stone of human flesh.


Personally I hate cyclists, and a 'carbon credit' should be given to all motorists for the reduction in carbon emissions when another sweaty, huffing and puffing cyclist is snuffed out.

I too loathe cyclists! Not just because they smell and are sanctimonious pricks but because they ride two and three abreast and when you call them selfish cunts as you try to knock them off with the X5 door mirror they become even more sanctimonous!

What I do with the Wankers is to give them a couple of foot clearance with the car to boost their confidence, then give them 6 metres of "shed" gradually closing in on them.........works well on country lanes with hedges and ditches etc....

just run them over.....I nearly got one yesterday.....spotted me a couple of seconds too early,.... otherwise he was on the deck,.... out of order for dodging the lights.......never mind...next time...had two this year so far, 1 broken ankle, fucked bike....and 1 seriously bruised..fucked bike and I pods....shame......

http://forum.jeremyclarkson.co.uk/jerem ... t1287.html



You can see similar sentiments below cycling stories on The Mail website and the Evening Standard, and The Register, Telegraph and pro-speeding forums.

People sometimes buy a vehicle for aspirational reasons. They're beguiled by the adverts featuring empty mountain roads with just one car winding its way through.

I'm probably wrong, but I think cyclists represent a rebuke of their choice in buying the car. Having been sold the dream of untrammelled progress, the drivers then encounter the inevitable situation on public roads of humans beings competeing for a limited resource. They see cyclists whizzing past and it's an affront to their choice. They see cyclists making better progress than cars (on my commute I'll overtake 60 or 80 vehicles at my average 12mph!). They realise all that money counts for nothing, and people perceived to be lower down the natural order of the roads heirarchy are making faster progress. It's an insult to them, or some of them. And some of them become so frustrated they act out the fantasies from the Clarkson forum. People have been hurt after a driver has used their vehicle as a weapon. This ought to be Assault With a Deadly Weapon, as with the road rage doctor in California. This is not anti-driver, it's anti-violent sociopaths.

Why would any rational person despise someone and wish them harm based on their mode of transport? I'm buggadifino.