Jon Snow "Camerooned"

prj45

Caught doing some dodgy stuff on his cycle on the way home:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... afety.html

s'funny they never do this to people who drive home...

Gussio

Poor bloke is still in mourning for his stolen Ti Condor. The press has no right to intrude during this time of loss.

UndercoverElephant

What a hatchet job that was. Most of the "He runs ANOTHER red light" show him waiting just ahead of the stop line, or better still, one shows him going along a cycle lane which is next to a red-light but doesn't appear to be controlled by the light.

"HE RIDES ON THE PAVEMENT" ones seem to be when he's either getting on or off his bike.

prj45

In those night shots is he actually displaying lights?

CiB

Caught an item on The World This Weekend yesterday (Sun) dinnertime on R4. It was the usual nothing to add item about cyclists v traffic, but was unusual in having a lucid errudite fellow - Jon Snow himself - on the pro-cycling side, who actually admitted that some cyclists aren't angels. Putting up the opposing view was a character straight out of central casting - WVM, cockerny geeezer, all cyclists are twunts attitude. Worth 3 minutes on the wireless, but added zero to the well-being of the nation ultimately.

mybreakfastconsisted

What a load of old crap, The Mail have a long history of lying about cyclists and trying to demonise them, like this load of unmitigated balderdash, and the fact that the poor girl has seen Boris's cum face and has a mind like a frazzled piece of bacon is no excuse:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -down.html

Petronella Wyatt claims there is a proposal to make motorists responsible for all accidents involving cyclists, regardless of who is actually in the wrong. This is factually inaccurate and creates animosity towards cyclists. The proposed Strict Liability legislation will always allow a driver the chance to prove a cyclist's guilt. Equally a cyclist who hits a pedestrian would be presumed guilty but will have the chance to prove otherwise.

rich_e

Pretty stitched up story without video evidence, as you can't tell what's happening in most of the pictures.

I know he does a similar commute to myself in places, and one of the Cycle Lanes he uses has separate traffic lights to that of the main road. So while you can see him going through a red light on the main road, he is actually in the Cycle Lane which has had the Cycle Lane's own traffic lights covered up.

They actually did this once before on the same stretch of road at another set of lights. They did some roadworks and so covered up the Cycle Lane Lights. The Lane wasn't actually closed, but they left no warning to as what Cyclists were actually supposed to be doing while the works were on, as there was no diversion like cars coming a different direction had.

mybreakfastconsisted

Cycling on a mobile isn't an offence and to make it one would discriminate against one-armed cyclists.

cee

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Cycling on a mobile isn't an offence and to make it one would discriminate against one-armed cyclists.

is the same logic extended to one armed car drivers?

mybreakfastconsisted

cee wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Cycling on a mobile isn't an offence and to make it one would discriminate against one-armed cyclists.

is the same logic extended to one armed car drivers?

No, because I was having a laugh.

spen666

Some forum members (who using different names have been banned several times) have been known to lie about what the Daily Mail has or has not done

dondare

spen666 wrote:

Some forum members (who using different names have been banned several times) have been known to lie about what the Daily Mail has or has not done

Bans are bad.

spen666

dondare wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Some forum members (who using different names have been banned several times) have been known to lie about what the Daily Mail has or has not done

Bans are bad.

They should be banned

As should lying

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

dondare wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Some forum members (who using different names have been banned several times) have been known to lie about what the Daily Mail has or has not done

Bans are bad.

They should be banned

As should lying

How would lawyers make a living?

DevUK

Jon Snow's rebuttal -

http://road.cc/content/news/20885-daily ... le-breaker

spen666

TailWindHome wrote:

spen666 wrote:

dondare wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Some forum members (who using different names have been banned several times) have been known to lie about what the Daily Mail has or has not done

Bans are bad.

They should be banned

As should lying

How would lawyers make a living?

Would anyone care?

amnezia

BURN HIM!

Gussio

DevUK wrote:

Jon Snow's rebuttal -

http://road.cc/content/news/20885-daily ... le-breaker

To be fair, we would also like the popular media to turn their attention to those motorists who don't abide by the rules of the road.

Amen.

Gussio

172 comments on the Mail article and counting.

I have wrote to our chief constable and told him the only way to stop these stupid cyclists from riding on pavement is to throw the book at them i am fed up with them in our town.
- Gary MARSHALL, LEICS, 26/7/2010 15:55

Thank you Gary. Perhaps if you developed a proper grasp of English, action might be taken against these stupid cyclists.

An M.P. was killed by a cyclist outside the Houses of Parliament; one would think that politicians would have learned from that!

- William, Gosport, Hampshire., 26/7/2010

I think you may be incorrect. Are you confusing your assertion with the fact that in 2008 a Range Rover driven by Chelmsford West MP Simon Burns collided with a male cyclist as the politician left Parliament?
- Ms B (The Original), London, 26/7/2010 15:51

Well said Mrs B, but please don't let facts get in the way of a good rant!!

Like all too many activist cyclists, when he says "In particular I want to play a part in making cycling safer", what he actually means is:

He wants to strangle the arteries of the nation, through which the life blood of the economy is trying to flow, for cars, so that cyclists can have free rein on the roads motorists pay approaching £50 billion a year for in extra additional taxes, on top of their ordinary citizens taxes.

And he will use the same excuse as the authorities, that the evil speedophile motorist is a killer.

But 30 million motorists, on a third of a million miles of roads, doing a vastly higher mileage, only manage to be involved in double the number of fatal collisions with pedestrians as around 15,000 train drivers on around 11,000 miles of track!

More to the point, the number of pedestrians killed in collisions with heavy, supposedly speeding, "homicidal" motorists is in the same ball park as those killed by light, slow, cuddly cyclists per passenger mile!
- Mr B J Mann, Nottingham, England, 26/7/2010 15:38

*shakes head in pity*

Gussio

And some interesting debate from the Grauniad http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/26/jon-snow-bike-red-light#start-of-comments

Kieran_Burns

TailWindHome wrote:

spen666 wrote:

dondare wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Some forum members (who using different names have been banned several times) have been known to lie about what the Daily Mail has or has not done

Bans are bad.

They should be banned

As should lying

How would lawyers make a living?

start a band?

andrewc3142

Interesting to note the Daily Mail has a Littlejohn diatribe today about speed cameras. Cue comments from motorists about how they are just there to raise cash and justifying speeding (as indeed Littlejohn seems to when he says cameras take no notice of road conditions, etc).

Black pots and kettles indeed.

noisemonkey

Littlejohn is a total cunt though..

mybreakfastconsisted

andrewc3142 wrote:

Interesting to note the Daily Mail has a Littlejohn diatribe today about speed cameras. Cue comments from motorists about how they are just there to raise cash and justifying speeding (as indeed Littlejohn seems to when he says cameras take no notice of road conditions, etc).

Black pots and kettles indeed.

The BBC headed the story about Oxfordshire speed cameras:

"Good news for motorists!"

Delete "motorists" insert "criminals".

the_hundredth_idiot

noisemonkey wrote:

Littlejohn is a total **** though..

There was a great thread on b3ta recently inviting members to submit "photos" of Littlejohn. My favourite was the one where Littlejohn's mouth had been replaced with an animated rectum. I would link but b3ta NSFW in my view so can't add it now - should be easy enough to find if you're "interested".

CiB

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

andrewc3142 wrote:

Interesting to note the Daily Mail has a Littlejohn diatribe today about speed cameras. Cue comments from motorists about how they are just there to raise cash and justifying speeding (as indeed Littlejohn seems to when he says cameras take no notice of road conditions, etc).

Black pots and kettles indeed.

The BBC headed the story about Oxfordshire speed cameras:

"Good news for motorists!"

Delete "motorists" insert "criminals".

Sorry guv but tthat's just tosh, the sort of response that gets cyclists a bad name. I travel in Oxfordshire a lot, and the council has a policy of implementing 50mph limits on roads that quite honestly don't warrant it. If there's an accident blackspot on a paticular stretch of road then fine, have a reduced limit, rearrange the street furniture, improve lines of sight & road markings if that helps. But don't turn 6½ miles of otherwise perfectly ordinary rural highway into a 50 limit just because one junction along it has an accident blip.

Extrapolate that across the county and suddenly you have mile after mile of road where traffic crawls along not at 50mph, but closer to 40 due to bumbling haflwits who shouldn't be on any road at all during peak commute times due to their inability to accelerate up to anything like the posted limits. Wishing to keep to a reasonable pace does not equate to wanting to do 90 everywhere, something that a olot of people seem unable to grasp.

The upshot is that when I drive in to work, I see plenty of drivers losing patience and overtaking slower moving traffic where it's perfectly safe to do so, but in doing so they temporarily become 'criminals'. Tosh.

mybreakfastconsisted

ACPO guidelines mean cameras can only be sited where there have been accidents, injuries and deaths.

Speeding is a criminal offence so speeders are criminals.

prj45

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

ACPO guidelines mean cameras can only be sited where there have been accidents, injuries and deaths.

Which I've always thought is nuts. I mean, why wait for there to be a death?

CiB

There are no cameras where I'm referring to. Doesn't mean that Plod won't be waiting there towards the end of the month when the Police Benevolent Fund needs a bit of nudge towards its monthly target.

The point being that roads that have come under some arbitrary lower limit actually cause frustration and impatience in some drivers - I see it whenever I drive along that road and others like it. And in overtaking slow traffic, something that is perfectly safe and valid to do 3 miles away on identical roads in a different county, that act becomes a 'criminal act' purely because that same road contains an accident black spot somewhere along its 6½ miles, presumably. On a long straight road with no junctions, 50 is a silly limit.

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

ACPO guidelines mean cameras can only be sited where there have been accidents, injuries and deaths.

That's stupid

mybreakfastconsisted

Money from speeding fines is hypothecated for road safety, the cops don't get any as a bonus.

If drivers are frustrated or impatient because of cameras then they're crap drivers.

If drivers brake when they see a speed camera then it's not an argument against speed cameras.

Some drivers may brake when they see a cop car, that's not an argument to ban cop cars.