Why Lock The Thread re Death of a Cyclist?

Big Wib

Always Tyred wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

And this is the cycling community???

No, this is the Commuting forum, and is basically a spam forum. If you want threads full of crap, post on the commuting forum, want sensible discussion don't post here. Sensible debate lives elsewhere on Bikeradar.

That's not ALL that helpful Reddragon. I can't really see the logic in reading and posting somewhere you hold such contempt for. Its rather like writing to Points of View to complain about how dull the first 4 hours of children in need were.

---

No anonymous internet forum, anywhere, is a suitable forum for all of the issues being discussed here. TerraNova - sorry, but this isn't the place to tackle issues so personal and painful for you.

tbh I'd kind of assumed that Redddragon was being ironic but forgot the - see his follow up comment

IMO this is a relativley sane forum, most go off topic & personal within the first two posts, its usually 3 or 4 here

TerraNova - I know this is deeply personal, but I'm not sure I understand what the mods have done wrong? They stopped a thread which was getting too personal & abusive after a complaint(s) and banned the people being abusive. OK they didn't do what is normally done and post a reason but have acknowledged that as a mistake

deptfordmarmoset

Terra Nova,

If you can still be bothered to read this thread, I've sent you a PM.

zanes

Greg66 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

IExactly where does the sensible debate live on here?

You don't want debate. You want agreement.

I hope you find it. I'll get out of your way.

+Eleventy trillion billion!

Using one case to attempt to massively change parts of the legal system is, IMHO, foolish and short sighted.

Terra Nova

zanes wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

IExactly where does the sensible debate live on here?

You don't want debate. You want agreement.

I hope you find it. I'll get out of your way.

+Eleventy trillion billion!

Using one case to attempt to massively change parts of the legal system is, IMHO, foolish and short sighted.

Thanks Zane. Si. I'm a fool and short sighted..

Terra Nova

---

Always Tyred: "No anonymous internet forum, anywhere, is a suitable forum for all of the issues being discussed here. TerraNova - sorry, but this isn't the place to tackle issues so personal and painful for you.[/quote]

May I draw your attention to the reasons I started the thread "death of a cyclist" which was locked by "the mods" due to other contributors who couldn't respect the opening statement of intention I wrote in opening the thread: Please read, digest, and you will understand that. This was my opening entry to that thread:.......

"….I joined this website because of the thread about my brother but I was searching the internet for debate amongst cycling and motoring communities as to what we could do to campaign for greater safety and protection of vulnerable road users…….I just want to discuss what is on my mind, to offer my opinion but more importantly to learn from other cyclists through listening and appreciating those opinions (and no you don’t have to agree or fear disagreeing just because I am on this thread), and even to learn from our experiences, and to discuss, rationalise, reflect, work out, change, adapt our views, if we feel they could be or need be, and if anything, to discuss what can be done constructively to stop the thousands of deaths that are happening on our roads each year…….I have other ideas and opinions as to what we can do, and what else I would like to be done. I am hoping to share those ideas and hear more from others….."

I agree with you - a thread on an internet forum is not the place for ALL the issues I describe above to be discussed, but it is ONE place to discuss some of the subjects I want to discuss, and it is, by the very virute of the fact that the general public have access to and contribute to, a perfectly valid place to gain some insight to general opnion and feeling out there about the issues I cite. There are many other places to get this from too. Someone who wants balance to formulating opinions and ideas seeks as many of these forums as possible.

And I will make my own mind up on what I want to discuss about my personal experience. I am quite capable.

always_tyred

Terra Nova wrote:

…….I just want to discuss what is on my mind, to offer my opinion but more importantly to learn from other cyclists through listening and appreciating those opinions..........

Okay.

Terra Nova

Big Wib wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

And this is the cycling community???

No, this is the Commuting forum, and is basically a spam forum. If you want threads full of crap, post on the commuting forum, want sensible discussion don't post here. Sensible debate lives elsewhere on Bikeradar.

That's not ALL that helpful Reddragon. I can't really see the logic in reading and posting somewhere you hold such contempt for. Its rather like writing to Points of View to complain about how dull the first 4 hours of children in need were.

---

No anonymous internet forum, anywhere, is a suitable forum for all of the issues being discussed here. TerraNova - sorry, but this isn't the place to tackle issues so personal and painful for you.

tbh I'd kind of assumed that Redddragon was being ironic but forgot the - see his follow up comment

IMO this is a relativley sane forum, most go off topic & personal within the first two posts, its usually 3 or 4 here

TerraNova - I know this is deeply personal, but I'm not sure I understand what the mods have done wrong? They stopped a thread which was getting too personal & abusive after a complaint(s) and banned the people being abusive. OK they didn't do what is normally done and post a reason but have acknowledged that as a mistake

By stopping a thread they closed the debate that I wanted. I had not finsihed discussing points of view with the contributors who had taken their time to offer their points of view. The quality of that debate had begun to deteriorate into point scoring and, as I recognised a trait in a similar thread, I coudl recongnise what I felt amounted to bullying of one person who expressed opposite views. Bearing in mind the sincere intentions, and hopes I had, in beginning the thread I was extremely disappointed with the blunt response of the modertaors.

In punishing one person at the requests of anyonymous others, they also punished everyone on the thread, and then let themselves down in a big way by their bragging in this thread..

I would have preferred that they took the action they felt necessary to take against the individual they felt it necessary to take, and left me and others to continue our exchange of views.

This, I hope you understand, is what I felt was wrong with what the moderstors did. My thread remains locked and the debate stifled.

Terra Nova

Greg66 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

IExactly where does the sensible debate live on here?

You don't want debate. You want agreement.

I hope you find it. I'll get out of your way.

You are wrong Greg. I can't want agreement as my ideas and opinions are maturing and developing in the light of my experience and the passing of time after my experience. I haven't fully formulated my views yet and so I am very open and willing to listen to what others have to say.

I feel strongly yes, but I am genuinely looking for what I explained in detail in my opening post to my thread "death of a cyclist".

suzyb

Terra Nova wrote:

This, I hope you understand, is what I felt was wrong with what the moderstors did. My thread remains locked and the debate stifled.

So now you know why the thread was locked (which should have been posted in the original thread) create another one, making sure to ask that people try and debate calmly and lay off the personal attacks.

Threads on internet forums are locked all the time. Especially when things get heated and there ends up being a massive amount of reports about the thread. Sometimes locking a thread is the only way to allow people some time to cool down as they cannot immediately respond to a post and are forced to think about it a little longer.

The only problem with the way your thread was moderated was the lack of a post indicating why it was locked.

redddraggon

Terra Nova wrote:

I would have preferred that they took the action they felt necessary to take against the individual they felt it necessary to take, and left me and others to continue our exchange of views.

I fully agree. If the idiots won't stop posting after the posts have been deleted, get the banstick out.

Wallace1492

Back on point.

I do think that the number of vehicle drivers that really try and cause harm to cyclists is very low. Mostly it is from misjudgement, poor positioning, selfishness or a whole manner of other reasons.

In the incident in hand, did Stubbs set out to deliberately cause harm. I would be surprised if he did. After all, he did overtake the cyclist before the incident happened.

At what point did Stubbs change from law abiding to criminal. Not sure if anyone will get the answer. Did a misjudgement on his part lead to panic, denial, and cover up?

The term "misjudgement" is not the best either, as it sounds like "accident". Was it a misjudgement not checking mirrors more fully, was it a lapse on his duty of care, not sure.

What can be done to prevent it - better mirrors, sensors, cctv from the side.

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

[
3. SL. Covered above. In criminal law no chance, and frankly rightly so. In civil law, no chnace either, but plainly there's one country that thinks otherwise (the Netherlands).

...

Greg, my research suggests it is not SL in Holland, byut presumed liability and it was in context of civil claims, not criminal law!

Interesting that there is clearly so much confusion

Terra Nova

-null- wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

This, I hope you understand, is what I felt was wrong with what the moderstors did. My thread remains locked and the debate stifled.

So now you know why the thread was locked (which should have been posted in the original thread) create another one, making sure to ask that people try and debate calmly and lay off the personal attacks.

Threads on internet forums are locked all the time. Especially when things get heated and there ends up being a massive amount of reports about the thread. Sometimes locking a thread is the only way to allow people some time to cool down as they cannot immediately respond to a post and are forced to think about it a little longer.

The only problem with the way your thread was moderated was the lack of a post indicating why it was locked.

My second post on the thread I started, addressed to Spen666: "I ask that both you and Number9 do not get into the point scoring and slandering exchange of posts that prevented me from making all the points I wanted to make in a thread that Number9 started about my brother's case....."



Made no differewnce to them.

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

-null- wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

This, I hope you understand, is what I felt was wrong with what the moderstors did. My thread remains locked and the debate stifled.

So now you know why the thread was locked (which should have been posted in the original thread) create another one, making sure to ask that people try and debate calmly and lay off the personal attacks.

Threads on internet forums are locked all the time. Especially when things get heated and there ends up being a massive amount of reports about the thread. Sometimes locking a thread is the only way to allow people some time to cool down as they cannot immediately respond to a post and are forced to think about it a little longer.

The only problem with the way your thread was moderated was the lack of a post indicating why it was locked.

My second post on the thread I started, addressed to Spen666: "I ask that both you and Number9 do not get into the point scoring and slandering exchange of posts that prevented me from making all the points I wanted to make in a thread that Number9 started about my brother's case....."



Made no differewnce to them.

So now you start attacking me (and number 9)

If you read the threads, yoiu will see that I was merely stating what the law is.

If yiou or number 9 or anyone else doesn't like the law, then take it up with your MP, not me. I don't make the law

Wallace1492

I think there was some debate on the isuues. However, there was someone that was not open to any sort of debate and got a bit personal with some people. It is right that they were removed.

Terra Nova, your place of debate is still here and very much open, now with the beneficial arrangement that someone that was out to just argue is no longer here.

I believe the Mods acted correctly.

Spen666, I don't believe that Terra is attacking you, it was another that was being very, how can i say, "difficult".

suzyb

Terra Nova wrote:

My second post on the thread I started, addressed to Spen666: "I ask that both you and Number9 do not get into the point scoring and slandering exchange of posts that prevented me from making all the points I wanted to make in a thread that Number9 started about my brother's case....."

Made no differewnce to them.

Asking someone to stop something when they are mid-attack rarely works. But asking them not to start attacking again, after a few days when they've had time to think about the way they acted usually does.

DonDaddyD

The Internet has very few boundaries or social grace where discussion is involved. It's not right but by the very nature of it (the internet), it happens and often forums need moderators to take action when things have gone too far.

I don't think the moderators did anything wrong.

I don't think challenging the moderators on their decision is productive at all, it is their decision not ours. All they ask of us is to respect the rules (which even I push too there near limits - I've often wondered if I'm on their 'monitor' list, am I?) and to their credit they can be quite relaxed at letting things go. We can however disagree with whatever rule or decision is taken, I have. But is open protest really going to get anywhere. It is surely better to simply PM and voice the disagreement through those means.

As I said, I don't see challenging their decision as productive and for the most part they (moderators) seem willing to let the discussion continue if conducted in a respectful manner. Yet even in this thread its mostly gone off topic and appears to show hints that members are once again taking things personally and on their way to getting personal.

I for one have been reading this thread (not posting) and the points that have come out of it and hope that those discussing can get back on track as it was quite interesting.

Terra Nova

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Internet has very few boundaries or social grace where discussion is involved. It's not right but by the very nature of it (the internet), it happens and often forums need moderators to take action when things have gone too far.

I don't think the moderators did anything wrong.

I don't think challenging the moderators on their decision is productive at all, it is their decision not ours. All they ask of us is to respect the rules (which even I push too there near limits - I've often wondered if I'm on their 'monitor' list, am I?) and to their credit they can be quite relaxed at letting things go. We can however disagree with whatever rule or decision is taken, I have. But is open protest really going to get anywhere. It is surely better to simply PM and voice the disagreement through those means.

As I said, I don't see challenging their decision as productive and for the most part they (moderators) seem willing to let the discussion continue if conducted in a respectful manner. Yet even in this thread its mostly gone off topic and appears to show hints that members are once again taking things personally and on their way to getting personal.

I for one have been reading this thread (not posting) and the points that have come out of it and hope that those discussing can get back on track as it was quite interesting.

Fair enough everyone, I understand. Its just that I have been involved in 4 threads about my brother's death and issues relating and all have been subject to censorship when the content, I do not think, was that derrogative to warrant censorship and the allowance of a voice and a debate was in my opinion far more important than the side-issues. Very frustrating. But there is nothing I can do about it I accpet. I have said my piece, and that's it. I'l go somewhere else.

I would like to know who complained and about who and who got banned though... Just out of interest. And I wouold have the "social grace" not to say anything else on the matter.

bigmat

Well from what I recall of that thread, number9 was getting a bit confused on a number of issues and attempts to correct him were met with some hostility. In my opinion the thread could / should have been left open, but then its easy enough to open a new one so can't see what all the fuss is about. :?

Stone Glider

IIRC there was a post from someone who lived in the Netherlands to the effect that the liabilty issue only applied in cases where the cyclist was 11years of age or younger. Another, less stringent test was applied up to 18? After that the rules were much the same as everywhere else. The difference in the Netherlands is a cultural one rather than a legal one.

dilemna

Whether it is a failure of the courts to sentence adequately or a failure of the police and CPS to investigate or prosecute drivers who kill or seriously injure cyclists, cyclists are still being killed on the roads where drivers put up a frankly feeble defecne of SMIDSY or through a "momentary loss concentration".

See this recent case mentioned on another thread:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12663729

spen666

Stone Glider wrote:

IIRC there was a post from someone who lived in the Netherlands to the effect that the liabilty issue only applied in cases where the cyclist was 11years of age or younger. Another, less stringent test was applied up to 18? After that the rules were much the same as everywhere else. The difference in the Netherlands is a cultural one rather than a legal one.

I'd be interested to see that post as my research and that of Greg seems not to have raised this point.

Wallace1492

dilemna wrote:

Whether it is a failure of the courts to sentence adequately or a failure of the police and CPS to investigate or prosecute drivers who kill or seriously injure cyclists, cyclists are still being killed on the roads where drivers put up a frankly feeble defecne of SMIDSY or through a "momentary loss concentration".

See this recent case mentioned on another thread:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12663729

There does seem to be a huge difference in this case and the one that the thread is about. Firstly in this one, the driver stopped, didn't try and cover it up, admited the offence, and has accepted the sentence.

I am in no way defending her, as she was culpable, but what sentence do you want? She did not in any way want to harm anyone, had a slight lose of concentration and caused the death of a cyclist. I am very sure that this will haunt her every day for the rest of her life. She may very well never drive again, no matter if ban is up or not.
Prison would be no use, she is not a danger to society.

The damage was done long before the accident, as the driver did not realise the impact of losing concentration while driving. Either she was never taught it, or got license too easily. This is the main issue. I see many drivers who lose concentration, and thankfully there is not a ped or cyclist around to pay the consequences of that.

Tougher sentences? Well maybe, but why not address the cause rather than the symptoms.

There will however be guys like Stubbs around, and it is his type that need tougher sentences. He will not have a daily dose of guily, or bitterly regret what happened.

simple_salmon

Wallace1492 - surely prison is also about punishment as well as keeping dangerous people away from society?

If drivers think their behaviour could result in a prison sentance and not just a fine/ban then maybe some will take more care?

Something else that I've been wondering about - do we not have a 'presumed guilt' type law if someone hits a car from behind? Is that not the same thing that was being asked for when a cyclist is hit or have I misunderstood?

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Whether it is a failure of the courts to sentence adequately or a failure of the police and CPS to investigate or prosecute drivers who kill or seriously injure cyclists, cyclists are still being killed on the roads where drivers put up a frankly feeble defecne of SMIDSY or through a "momentary loss concentration".

See this recent case mentioned on another thread:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12663729

There does seem to be a huge difference in this case and the one that the thread is about. Firstly in this one, the driver stopped, didn't try and cover it up, admited the offence, and has accepted the sentence.

I am in no way defending her, as she was culpable, but what sentence do you want? She did not in any way want to harm anyone, had a slight lose of concentration and caused the death of a cyclist.

Interestingly, you are making differentials that did not exist in the othercase.
There is absolutely no evidence that Stubbs wanted to harm anyone.
He was convicted of the same level of bad driving as the lady in the other case.

So as to the culpability in relation to the accident. There is no difference. If Stubbs is jailed, then perhaps the female driver should be as well.

What Stubbs did AFTER the accident was appaling and he was convicted of seperate offences for that and jailed. However you are not correct to imply intent to cause harm or cause the accident on the basis of what happened afterwards. Remember the prosecution took the view intent wasn't there and the jury convicted of the lesser bad driving charge

I am very sure that this will haunt her every day for the rest of her life. She may very well never drive again, no matter if ban is up or not.
Prison would be no use, she is not a danger to society.

The damage was done long before the accident, as the driver did not realise the impact of losing concentration while driving. Either she was never taught it, or got license too easily. This is the main issue. I see many drivers who lose concentration, and thankfully there is not a ped or cyclist around to pay the consequences of that.

Tougher sentences? Well maybe, but why not address the cause rather than the symptoms.

There will however be guys like Stubbs around, and it is his type that need tougher sentences. He will not have a daily dose of guily, or bitterly regret what happened.

Again, there is no evidence to support this contention at all. The fact Stubbs may appeal his sentence doesn't mwean he doesn't have any regret. Appealing a sentence has no bearing on feelings of guilt or regret

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Whether it is a failure of the courts to sentence adequately or a failure of the police and CPS to investigate or prosecute drivers who kill or seriously injure cyclists, cyclists are still being killed on the roads where drivers put up a frankly feeble defecne of SMIDSY or through a "momentary loss concentration".

See this recent case mentioned on another thread:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12663729

There does seem to be a huge difference in this case and the one that the thread is about. Firstly in this one, the driver stopped, didn't try and cover it up, admited the offence, and has accepted the sentence.

I am in no way defending her, as she was culpable, but what sentence do you want? She did not in any way want to harm anyone, had a slight lose of concentration and caused the death of a cyclist.

Interestingly, you are making differentials that did not exist in the othercase.
There is absolutely no evidence that Stubbs wanted to harm anyone.
He was convicted of the same level of bad driving as the lady in the other case.

So as to the culpability in relation to the accident. There is no difference. If Stubbs is jailed, then perhaps the female driver should be as well.

What Stubbs did AFTER the accident was appaling and he was convicted of seperate offences for that and jailed. However you are not correct to imply intent to cause harm or cause the accident on the basis of what happened afterwards. Remember the prosecution took the view intent wasn't there and the jury convicted of the lesser bad driving charge

I am very sure that this will haunt her every day for the rest of her life. She may very well never drive again, no matter if ban is up or not.
Prison would be no use, she is not a danger to society.

The damage was done long before the accident, as the driver did not realise the impact of losing concentration while driving. Either she was never taught it, or got license too easily. This is the main issue. I see many drivers who lose concentration, and thankfully there is not a ped or cyclist around to pay the consequences of that.

Tougher sentences? Well maybe, but why not address the cause rather than the symptoms.

There will however be guys like Stubbs around, and it is his type that need tougher sentences. He will not have a daily dose of guily, or bitterly regret what happened.

Again, there is no evidence to support this contention at all. The fact Stubbs may appeal his sentence doesn't mwean he doesn't have any regret. Appealing a sentence has no bearing on feelings of guilt or regret

Firstly I have in no way said that Stubbs wanted to harm anyone. I have actually said earlier in the thread that he very likely did not. The difference, as I pointed out in the first paragraph is that the female driver stopped, didn't try and cover up, and admitted the offence.

From reading previously what Terra Nova had said, Stubbs is in no way has shown any remorse or regret or guilt for what happened, that is evidence enough for me. He has tried to blame the cyclist for it all, and not shown any regret for driving a vehicle that killed a cyclist.

To any sane person these two cases are very different.

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

I've often wondered if I'm on their 'monitor' list, am I?)

There's a monitor list? :shock:

MonkeyMonster

Always Tyred wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I've often wondered if I'm on their 'monitor' list, am I?)

There's a monitor list? :shock:

There is always a monitor list with your names on it...

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

....

From reading previously what Terra Nova had said, Stubbs is in no way has shown any remorse or regret or guilt for what happened, that is evidence enough for me. He has tried to blame the cyclist for it all, and not shown any regret for driving a vehicle that killed a cyclist.

To any sane person these two cases are very different.

You clearly try to distinguish the femal driver from Stubbs by saying she did not intend to harm and it was only a momentary inattention. The implication in saying that about her but not him is that he did intend those things, otherwise it is irrelevant to say it.

The big difference in the 2 cases is what Stubbs did after the accident. It was appaling and cannot be condoned. That however is not a motring offence and is an offence against public justice.


As for Stubbs allegedly trying to blame the cyclist. This is a by product of the adversarial nature of the legal system. Most people would try to lessen anyprison sentence they get. The nature of our legal system often means the way to do this is to blame your victim.

I think that is a far more damning criticism of the system rather than the individual. to reduce the culpability of yourself, you naturally try to move it to someone else.

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

....

From reading previously what Terra Nova had said, Stubbs is in no way has shown any remorse or regret or guilt for what happened, that is evidence enough for me. He has tried to blame the cyclist for it all, and not shown any regret for driving a vehicle that killed a cyclist.

To any sane person these two cases are very different.

You clearly try to distinguish the femal driver from Stubbs by saying she did not intend to harm and it was only a momentary inattention. The implication in saying that about her but not him is that he did intend those things, otherwise it is irrelevant to say it.

The big difference in the 2 cases is what Stubbs did after the accident. It was appaling and cannot be condoned. That however is not a motring offence and is an offence against public justice.


As for Stubbs allegedly trying to blame the cyclist. This is a by product of the adversarial nature of the legal system. Most people would try to lessen anyprison sentence they get. The nature of our legal system often means the way to do this is to blame your victim.

I think that is a far more damning criticism of the system rather than the individual. to reduce the culpability of yourself, you naturally try to move it to someone else.

Maybe it did not come across correctly. I was never intending to say Stubbs meant it. I had highlighted the fact the female did not mean it, and would no doubt suffer every day in relation to a call for tougher sentences, asking what her punishment should be.

I completely agree that the main difference is what happened after.

I understand what you are saying about lessening a prison sentence, but when any sentence would be quite paltry. For example, if Stubbs had stopped, as I believe he could have, he would more than likely not have gone to jail. He was imprisoned for his actions after.

Yes, the system is not perfect at all.