[Closed] Sad letter in the local anti cycling rag

What a nice man.
I can't believe that a responsible newspaper would print this kind of thing.

Wow. Just... Wow. That goes beyond the word "insensitive" to choose to publish a letter like that.

Wow.

get in the car like any rational person would.

Erm...

Local rag publishes frothing flame-bait from local nutter to increase clicks and comments.

Be interesting to see if he applies the same logic to pedestrians killed by cars, or even drivers killed in car crashes?

I feel sad for this guy, his moral compass is way outta whack

I've learnt in life that some people are just ****s, such as the author of that bile, and let them be that way.

well the troll is getting exactly what he wanted. cyclists wound up.

I'd say... time to "out" the editor for actually publishing that. name and shame!

yeah no doubt "click bait"

So sad that the paper feels the need to stoop to that level though. They're very much in cahoots with the new forest lot which are trying to ban as much cycling in the forest as they can.

The comments section go's on and on with a few well known (on the papers board) elderly anti cycling regulars, who are just unbelievable in the their views, very much like the letter.

The paper wouldn't allow comments on the article about the driver who got away with sod all after leaving him for dead after the sun got in his eye's, "out of respect/sensitivity" yet print this. They publicly say they're not anti-cycling 🙄

Linky (if you want to give them the benefit of a click-through):
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/yoursay/letters/10996773.Cyclist_s_death__was_the_fault_of_all_cyclists_/

It seems Mr Rigby has former, his last reader's letter was [i]"Prime Minister should ban cyclists"[/i] December 12 2013 complaining about cyclists causing congestion.

You can see by the number of comments why they publish his drivel.

you weigh 70kg.

I'd say... time to "out" the editor for actually publishing that. name and shame!

I'd just say keep them rational, unabusive and easy on the emotion.

[i]I'd say... time to "out" the editor for actually publishing that. name and shame![/i]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/contact/#editorial

Trouble is, like any editor/journalist responsible for publishing this crap, they will find ways to justify themselves. Otherwise, how could they do the job.

[url=

County legislator's repsonse[/url] to a letter from a son whose mother was hit by a car. Distributed by @bikesnobNYC and others.

I've sent them a letter for consideration. I doubt it will get published, as it is critical of their editorial decisions, rather than glorying at the death of a cyclist.

I read an article about jaywalking the other day and how in America the 20's the car lobby shifted blame for accidents to pedestrians and the answer was to make crossing the road illegal outside of set crossings. It was a coordjnated strategey over years. Astonishing. I sometimes wonder if there is implicit sympathy with this blokes view somewhere in government. If we make it hard enough and punsishmenta lax enough cyclist wl go away, or at least go to off road paths and velodromes and some of the better ones can win us some medals every four years.

you weigh 70kg.

he's obviously never been on an STW forum ride

From the evidence in that letter Alex Oliver Rigby is a weapons grade bell end.

US County legislator's repsonse to a letter from a son whose mother was hit by a car.

Jesus that is truly sad!

I read an article about jaywalking the other day and how in America the 20's the car lobby shifted blame for accidents to pedestrians

This one? "Jaywalking: How the car industry outlawed crossing the road"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

We weigh 2000kg

Sheesh, that guy needs to get some exercise. I hear cycling is a good way to lose weight.

And that is all I have to say because that letter is not worth raising your blood pressure over.

When I become PM I'm going to crush cars for minor offences, starting with people who do not use their indicators. 😈

and those who just turn on every single light just to have all bases covered

The paper appears to have form for publishing this kind of anti cycling stuff. A few years ago, a cyclist was killed on the itchen bridge, i seem to recall there being similar letters printed in the same manner. Could even be the same bloke. I understand the editor is very anti-bike and is very vocal about any organised ride in the new forest.

That really is bordering on hate crime.

Report to the Press Regulator.

Report to the Press Regulator.

ITs worrying how hate filled/irrational some folk are

Some journalists seem to have no morals never mind a compass

Its not worth giving them publicity because that is what they want tbh better to not even post this shit

Yep, report it, that papers not in the Archant group is it?

Its the sort of stuff they put in the local rags around here , their just a bunch of click hungry ****s who would print anything to get a web hit.

Ooops! Didn't realise that it was from a member of the Great British Public. 😐

"For your own safety leave the bike at home, get in the car like any rational person would. You’ve lost the fight for your right on the road and a legal precedent has been established." it could be described as incitement of crime and threatening behaviour in a complaint to the pcc.

I wondered about 'click' stories this morning as I was skipping past the ususal drivel posted on facebook. How many stories now are just written to generate click through ad revenue?

Usually written as a polarising view on a current hot topic that they know will rile.

I wouldn't piss on that idiot if he was on fire. I'll bet he's got 'esteem issues' (that's therapist speak for being a sad, narrow-minded irrelevance who feels the need to affirm themselves by getting a rise out of others).

Such a waste of oxygen could normally be ignored, of course, but when he's in charge of a half-tonne of metal on wheels it is a different matter.

It would be interesting if he was involved in an RTA and someone forwarded that letter to the police and his insurer. Then again, it probably wouldn't.

Remember - tossers - they are everywhere, EVERYWHERE...........

There is a good reason why local rags focus so much on sport and inflammatory stories:

[img] [/img]

70kg... i must have lost a bit weight, not all bad 8)

EDIT: i see this point has been covered

That's horrible letter.

The guy has no empathy. It makes me sad to read that there are people like that in the world. Basically the sort of person who seems more in favour of a totalitarian regime then a respectful, free society.

A stunning lack of sensitivity and objectivity.

Something that really disturbed me about a case where the defense was 'I didn't see him because I was blinded by the low sun' was the judge's comments that

'Jury must be applying physical facts but could also consider expectations; is there an expectation that there wouldn't be a cyclist on Mountbatten Way? [b]Jury will be directed to ignore Highway Code "slow down or stop if dazzled" as Mr Petterson may not have done this but Highway Code is not law.[/b] Causation and contributory factor are different.'

[url] http://www.southamptoncyclingcampaign.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Day-6-of-Steven-Petterson-trial.pdf [/url]

Lifer: the Defence summing up in that transcript explains why so few of these cases are prosecuted:

It was a tragic accident; do not turn a tragedy for David Irving into a tragedy for Mr Petterson. Can you say, hand on heart, that [b]as a careful, considerate driver you would have seen David Irving?[/b]"

The [i]"There, but for the grace"[/i] defence.

Not far off what the letter is saying to be honest, [i]it was his own silly fault for cycling on the road[/i].

Makes me very cross. 👿

[img] [/img]

Terrible photo - check
Not in this country - check

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/12/local-legislator-no-one-should-ever-ride-bikes-in-suffolk-county/

Not in this country - check

Yep, but very worrying at a time when so much good progress seems to have been made on New York's streets:

The van driver who killed my friend got away with it due to being dazelled by sunlight. Obviously you shouldnt slow down you should overtake and pull in running into the back of two cyclists killing one and seriosly injuring the other.

Something that really disturbed me about a case where the defense was 'I didn't see him because I was blinded by the low sun' was the judge's comments that

'Jury must be applying physical facts but could also consider expectations; is there an expectation that there wouldn't be a cyclist on Mountbatten Way? Jury will be directed to ignore Highway Code "slow down or stop if dazzled" as Mr Petterson may not have done this but Highway Code is not law. Causation and contributory factor are different.'

The Highway Code also recommends helmets and hi-vis - whatever your view on their use, would you want to open the door even wider to the "contributory negligence" argument if someone ventured out without them and was hit by a motor vehicle?

Such a poor state of affairs I really do not see how the editor could consider publishing such a letter at best of times. Take it in the context of the cyclist's death and grieving family I think it is an absolute disgrace.

[quote=pondo ]I'd say... time to "out" the editor for actually publishing that. name and shame!
Looks like it was the Southern Echo - Email: ian.murray@dailyecho.co.uk
I'd just say keep them rational, unabusive and easy on the emotion.

What's the point? I had a rational discussion with the editor of our local newspaper concerning an article one of their journalists had written encouraging disrespect of cyclists, and the only conclusion was that he maintained the position that it was a joke and fair comment. You might just as well send an abusive e-mail to be honest - at least that way he gets what he deserves.

The Highway Code also recommends helmets and hi-vis - whatever your view on their use, would you want to open the door even wider to the "contributory negligence" argument if someone ventured out without them and was hit by a motor vehicle?

A good point.

Interestingly the defence seems to have played both sides of that, saying that the victim [i]was[/i] wearing High-viz but that [i]"High-vis does not necessarily increase visibility"[/i] and beside he was wearing a backpack over some of it. 👿

Of course the drivers ahead managed to see him just fine and them pulling out should have indicated to the "blinded" Mr Petterson that something was ahead but [i]"You cannot be sure Mr Petterson saw lateral movements ahead; if he did it could have been for any reason."[/i] 😯

I still reckon that rather than going for a change in the civil law for the assumed liability, what we really need is a change to the criminal law, such that it is a statutory offence to hit a cyclist with a vehicle when you can prove that the cyclist is doing nothing wrong. This would shift the burden of proof in a meaningful and totally fair way. Whilst such a law does not exist, defence lawyers will still be able to argue that it is reasonable for a careful and considerate driver to run into a cyclist, and juries will still swallow it.

Day after day we see things like this. I think that if cycling was a creed, colour, religion (yeah, yeah I know it IS) or a sexual orientation there is NO WAY that the bigotry, hatred and lack of legal redress would be tolerated. How many more have to die?

I just hope David Irving's friends and family haven't read it

What's the point? I had a rational discussion with the editor of our local newspaper concerning an article one of their journalists had written encouraging disrespect of cyclists, and the only conclusion was that he maintained the position that it was a joke and fair comment. You might just as well send an abusive e-mail to be honest - at least that way he gets what he deserves.

I still reckon that rather than going for a change in the civil law for the assumed liability, what we really need is a change to the criminal law, such that it is a statutory offence to hit a cyclist with a vehicle when you can prove that the cyclist is doing nothing wrong.

I just hope David Irving's friends and family haven't read it

They may be in a position to report it to the police if they had, is it any different to some of the facebook trolls that have been prosecuted.

They may be in a position to report it to the police if they had, is it any different to some of the facebook trolls that have been prosecuted.

No you're right it's not, I doubt the police or the paper would give it any time though, unless the family themselves made the complaint.

I have to share a city with this p***k!

Scary...

The "There, but for the grace" defence.

Very true, and very effective because all of us have been suddenly dazzled at some time, and I'd bet very few of us did an immediate emergency stop.

In theory we should have done because we could no longer know whether or not the road space we were driving our 1500kg vehicle into was empty, but we didn't because maybe we'd have been rear-ended, or we'd have looked a bit foolish if we braked and it was empty (as it usually is), or we were only dazzled for a moment or whatever other reason we came up with after we got away with it again.

No road conditions make me more nervous on a road bike than heading into low sun, I ride along nipping up a bit every time I hear a car behind - I'm having trouble seeing properly so I really hope he's paying attention. The difference between us is that on this occasion he is introducing the danger by bringing a car onto the road.

I'd bet very few of us did an immediate emergency stop.

That would be just as dangerous, but slowing down a bit would be a good idea, as would wondering why all the cars ahead were pulling out (because those drivers weren't "blinded", for some strange reason).

The guy is a loon with a massive anti cyclist chip on his shoulder.
[url= http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10885854.print/ ]Here[/url]

but we didn't because maybe we'd have been rear-ended, or we'd have looked a bit foolish if we braked and it was empty (as it usually is), or we were only dazzled for a moment or whatever other reason we came up with after we got away with it again

IMHO Its a defence trotted out as it is believed - as Graham S notes no one else was affected- its usually BS but hard to prove.

Either way driving a vehicle like that when you cannot see must be some offence but drivers just wont prosecute drivers as they all go oh i nearly hit someone once and it was not my fault.....oh i have been dazzled it could be me there.

[i]but slowing down a bit would be a good idea, as would wondering why all the cars ahead were pulling out[/i]

If you can see the cars ahead pulling out, then you can see the road ahead. If you are "suddenly blinded" such that you have no time to evaluate the road conditions ahead, it could only be that you've rounded a sharp bend into the sun.
Problem is most drivers only evaluate as far as the end of their ****ing bonnets.

I wonder...
[URL= http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r90/dezb99/Junk/acut_zps1336cad6.jp g" target="_blank">http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r90/dezb99/Junk/acut_zps1336cad6.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

You’ve lost the fight for your right on the road and a legal precedent has been established.

I hope he NEVER ends up on Jury service...

First class C**K!!

And of course if I was "blinded by the sun" and I hit something then I'd stop, not just presume it was a bus stop and carry on.

The fact the majority break the law is not a defence

I totally agree, I was just laying out why the "there but for..." reasoning GrahamS mentioned is so compelling. It's also why we've got very little chance of seeing Strict Liability introduced in this country, even though that would have a chance of bringing about the behavioural changes that would make cyclists safer.

[img] [/img]

DezB OT, but do you have a brother called Matt, probably about 30 now? Works in IT / Telecoms.

I'd bet very few of us did an immediate emergency stop.

That would be just as dangerous

again...

The fact the majority break the law is not a defence

Would it? Unsafe stopping distance?

If you are blinded and you perform an emergency stop then you are gambling that the driver behind makes the same decision - and I'd say the odds would not be in your favour.

again...

The fact the majority break the law is not a defence

Not sure where you are coming from there? The blinded driver in that scenario wouldn't be doing anything illegal.

The fact the majority break the law is not a defence

But the guidelines for dangerous/careless driving aren't absolute. They're all relative to "the standard expected of a competent and careful driver" . The definition of "competent and careful" is set in the minds of each juror. Each juror is likely to be part of the majority of 'bad' drivers. So when the majority drive blind and each person justifies their own driving blind, then driving blind becomes "competent and careful" in their mind. They then end up on a jury and the jury as a group decides that Mr X isn't guilty of death by careless driving because he was 'only' driving blind. Driving blind is what they do. They are all "competent and careful" drivers. Therefore driving blind is "competent and careful" and Mr X is not guilty, just unlucky.

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/at-the-going-down-of-the-sun/

Not sure where you are coming from there?

An extension of tailgating. A bookable offence I believe...?

Risk or otherwise, if someone goes into the back of me they are at fault, and the repercussions could be bad.
If I continue....see OP for reminder of repercussions.

All letters to newspapers must have an address and phone number, the paper usually contacts the writer to make sure they exist, so the newspaper has his address, perhaps a few phone calls to the paper asking for the address would help.

Lety us hope he isnt hit by a 2000kg car,or a smaller and lighter cyclist .

All letters to newspapers must have an address and phone number, the paper usually contacts the writer to make sure they exist, so the newspaper has his address, perhaps a few phone calls to the paper asking for the address would help.

I'm sure the potential fine from the ICO for breaching the Data Protection Act would be no barrier at all to them complying with the request...

Risk or otherwise, if someone goes into the back of me they are at fault, and the repercussions could be bad.

So you'd emergency stop on the basis that if you are all killed then it [i]might[/i] be shown that they were legally at fault?

Not a gamble I'd take.

Bear in mind the car behind you could well be paying perfect attention and maintaining a reasonable and legal stopping distance for [i]normal circumstances[/i], but also be suddenly blinded and unable to see you slamming on.

Definitely the most idiotic things ive seen/read this year so far. Im trying to write a email to these ***** but am genuinely stuggling to keep it rational and inoffensive..

How can this pric get away with writing such dribble..like others have said the sheer disrespect for irving and his family is diabolical. I feel sorry for his kids (if and when) i wonder what his reaction would be when they want a bike/ride.

Really sad state of affairs.

project - Member

Lety us hope he isnt hit by a 2000kg car,or a smaller and lighter cyclist .

Can you imagine how the family feel?

The chap is quite obviously killed by someone with a careless disregard for him who then does his best to flee the scene.

They dont get any justice and to cap it off have to listen to some **** saying it was all his own fault.

Really difficult not to get angry about this stuff especially when evry week brings about a new case.

The fcat that someone would write such vitriol, and allow their full name to be printed, makes me think that:
a) Its an obvious troll with a false name
or
b) The paper made it up. Which would't surprise me given their previous form on cycling.

Don't suppose we'd ever be able to prove b) though

What a bell end!

bigyinn - Member
DezB OT, but do you have a brother called Matt, probably about 30 now? Works in IT / Telecoms.

2 brothers, one in IT, he not called Matt and is 40+. Other is in cars and 50+
Good mate called Matt in IT, also 40+ though.
(So, no 🙂 )

Has nobody tracked this guy down yet and left a flaming dog turd on his doorstep?

So you'd emergency stop on the basis that if you are all killed then it might be shown that they were legally at fault?

Not a gamble I'd take.

....or should I not bother because I'll likely be alright if I'm hit, but if a pedestrian/cyclist was in front of me, that's their fault, right?

Probabilities isn't it lilchris?

If I perform a sudden emergency stop when I get blinded then there is a pretty high probability that a car behind me is going to plough into me at 60-odd mph, with a pretty high risk to life to myself and the occupants of the car behind.

If I carry on, but ease off, then there is a pretty low probability that there is a pedestrian or cyclist in the road that for some reason I haven't seen before now, can't see now, and can't see other cars navigating around them.

Neither are great options, but when forced to I'd choose the one less likely to kill someone.

[quote=GrahamS ]Neither are great options, but when forced to I'd choose the one less likely to kill someone.

If you choose wrong, is it reasonable to prosecute you?

That's my friends brother who was killed. Whether this was made up or not it's a ****ing disgrace and whoever did so is a [b]**** [/b]of the highest order

I've witnessed the devastation Stephens death left behind and the pain is as raw as it was when it happened. It's bad enough that no one accountable for his death without this shit being published.

So put in an official complaint (to police and/or paper) if you can cope with that, eyerideit - you're sufficiently close that they ought to pay attention.

Lots of sympathy to you and your friend and family.