Hate campaign or justified safety concerns?

jeepie

I'm struck by the enshrined rights of more and more groups of users being protected e.g. emos, punks and goths, and eastern Europeans, which have both been in the news this week:

Emos, punks and goths recorded as a specific subculture: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22026044
Eastern Europeans: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-co ... e-22104151

However, cyclists don't have their rights as sub culture protected as emos, goths and punks have, and they can be subject to targeted campaigns such as run by MP Dr Julian Lewis and the new forest authorities which would be illegal when applied to race:

http://road.cc/content/news/80731-new-f ... ls-will-be

So do you feel the New Forest campaign (in the light of the recent news articles) is reasonable and this is a genuine plea for sharing the road legally or more sinister intimidation by the motoring majority? Specifically is the "SAFETY ALERT" notice discriminatory? Thoughts?

andyk19

I can't see anything specifically wrong with the notice, afterall it is a responsibility of cyclists to obey the highway code. Therefore I wouldn't call the notice itself any more discriminatory than speed cameras for cars. Although it may cloak some far more discriminatory attitudes of the publishers.
So long as the organisers are sensible then the only people who would face bans would be those who do stupid things that bring the sport into disrepute. As they could legitimately say to a complainant that someone doing 35mph in a 30mph area is not breaking the highway code, similarly riding 2 abreast, where reasonable, is not a breach either. Of course there is an onus on riders to be sensible, and I would look poorly on any cyclist who goes through the centre of a village at 40mph regardless of whether speed limits apply to them; just as there are plenty of 60mph roads where drivers must be stupid to go past 40mph.

What is more worrying is what this may be a cloak for. Quite possibly people with an axe to grind against cyclists and those who simply don't like 'people riding around in condoms*'.

Re the MPs comments about the animals in the New Forest being at risk from cyclists. When I last cycled in the New Forest the animals were rather large ponies and I took great care not to hit them, not least because of the damage it would have done to me!


*to quote a comment I saw on a newspaper website the other day

Agent57

Why shouldn't people observe the Highway Code? Just because they're on a mass participation ride? If the roads were closed, that's one thing, but assuming they're open to other traffic, the Highway Code should be observed anyway.

jamesco

From reading the articles, it looks like the rides are so popular that there's a need for more planning. Getting permission (i.e. preparation!) for 4,000 cyclists seems sensible, not sinister, as is the insistence on considerate behaviour. Relax, nice to be a victim of your own success

Jeepie wrote:

I'm struck by the enshrined rights of more and more groups of users being protected

That's a good thing! Their rights are your rights, after all.

davmaggs

I wouldn't say its the groups that want special protection. I'm yet to hear the spokesman for UK EMO society on R4, it instead appears to be the Police that initiate some special drive to sound like they are doing something. I think the Police much prefer the idea of special squads and crackdowns on specific things in short bursts than day in day out dealing with crime.

The police should stick to enforcing the law and arresting scrots for all victims rather than deciding which groups they want to apply special resources and efforts on.

andyk19

@davmaggs, seconded. I've always been a little perplexed as to why the criminal justice system treats two similar assaults so very differently just because one is a hate crime and the other isn't, both people have been assaulted. From my point of view if someone beats me up, then the thing which I'm most concerned about is that I've been beaten up, not what the motive was.
Not to say I can't see that the motive can aggravate the offence, but sometimes I wonder if plod is more concerned about the hate part and less the assault part; to me the latter is far more important.

jamesco

andyk19 wrote:

I've always been a little perplexed as to why the criminal justice system treats two similar assaults so very differently just because one is a hate crime and the other isn't

I think it's because of the effect that the crime may have on the group that the victim belongs to, which justifies the disproportionate treatment and (eventual) punishment.

Looking at recent history (and not risking Godwin's Law!) the first civil rights protestors and gay rights protestors were very brave precisely because they were defied violence intended to make them and their fellows cower.

davmaggs

jamesco wrote:

andyk19 wrote:

I've always been a little perplexed as to why the criminal justice system treats two similar assaults so very differently just because one is a hate crime and the other isn't

I think it's because of the effect that the crime may have on the group that the victim belongs to, which justifies the disproportionate treatment and (eventual) punishment.

Looking at recent history (and not risking Godwin's Law!) the first civil rights protestors and gay rights protestors were very brave precisely because they were defied violence intended to make them and their fellows cower.

I understand why a few small groups were chosen to have extra attention. At the time these groups received no police protection, in fact were often harrassed by the police themselves so steps were taken to bring some focus to those crimes. Also certain crimes were seen as having consequences for the wider society and order beyond the incident being investigated.

However once special groups started getting priority over resources and effort, then it was only a matter of time before more groups wanted recognition or the authorities created more groups to recognise.

I really don't want to be like America where we all have to pick a group to belong to in order to be special or to get resources.

andyk19

A fair point Jamesco, and I agree that attacks on minority groups, and similar, should be considered aggravated over similar crimes lacking the discriminatory motive.
However I feel that were, for example an assault occurs, the primary offence is one of assault and it should therefore be treated as such. Post conviction the motive may be very relevant in deciding if the offence is aggravated or mitigated, and the motive of dislike of a particular group is seriously aggravating, but in essence the crime is assault with a nasty motive on the side, not a nasty motive with an assault on the side.

Otherwise a situation arises in which the aggravated offence must be disproportionately punished (even when the aggravation is considered) or the basic offence, e.g. assaulting someone because they didn't look at you right, is punished excessively leniently. My gut feeling is that the plod / criminal justice system in the UK swings towards the latter.

jamesco

davmaggs wrote:

I understand why a few small groups were chosen to have extra attention. ... However once special groups started getting priority over resources and effort, then it was only a matter of time before more groups wanted recognition or the authorities created more groups to recognise.

It might be a result of the success of anti-discrimination efforts? The worst affected and largest groups in recent history (women, non-whites and gays?) have had remarkable success in addressing their grievances, which leaves room for smaller groups to get attention. Plus, we all take discrimination a bit more seriously now than 50 years ago, even if the news about it can get wearisome.

davmaggs wrote:

I really don't want to be like America where we all have to pick a group to belong to in order to be special or to get resources

Yeah, I agree, though there's a different history - slavery is America's original sin and they fought their bloodiest war over it - making it a different kettle of fish. The Republican Party attempts to suppress minority voting, which would be unimaginable in the UK, thankfully.

gbsahne001

jamesco wrote:

[Yeah, I agree, though there's a different history - slavery is America's original sin and they fought their bloodiest war over it - making it a different kettle of fish. The Republican Party attempts to suppress minority voting, which would be unimaginable in the UK, thankfully.

Not just America though, Scotland also played a significant part in this

paulintheforest

It's not the car lobby it's the horse lobby kicking up the stink on this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-22081407
Specifically New Forest Equestrian Association (NFEA).
The attitude seems to be "we were here first, they can't come to our forest taking up all the space and slowing down traffic, that's our role" I could be being a little cynical but a quick Google for the leader of this organisation (Dr Tony Hockley) seems to be he complains about everything.
I'm considering getting in touch asking how I can get his permission to ride my bike to work and whether I need to file a route in advance so that the horse riders can be notified that I'll be coming along the busy A35 along with the cars, lorries and buses so that if anyone has a horse that might be scared by my bike they will be duly informed.

But to give some balance I also discussed this with a horse owner at work whose house the event goes past and she couldn't care less about the bikes since they will be on road and she will be riding in the forest, although she did find it useful to know in advance that the roads will be busy this weekend.