[Closed] Sad letter in the local anti cycling rag

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.

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

I don't think someone should or would be prosecuted [i]purely[/i] on that basis.

The bigger issue was that [url= http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10961644.Driver__should_have_seen_cyclist__before_fatal_crash/ ]he had 17 seconds in which to spot other vehicles pulling out[/url] but didn't.

And also that he knew he hit "something", stopped briefly but didn't investigate properly and left the scene.

My sympathies too eyerideit, an awful waste of life.

[quote=GrahamS ]I don't think someone should or would be prosecuted purely on that basis.

I agree. I did realise after I posted that particularly given my history on stuff like this it would be easy to take my comment the wrong way and make assumptions about what I thought the answer was, so well done for not doing so.

I also agree with the rest of what you say - as with the woman overtaking on a bend, I have a feeling the only available direct witness has a made up story.

I have a feeling the only available direct witness has a made up story.

To be fair they did have another witness, a scooter rider, who [url= http://road.cc/content/news/109784-minibus-driver-cleared-over-southampton-cyclist-death ]according to road.cc[/url] said:

Witness Clive Jones told the court that the low sun and glare had been "blinding". He was riding a scooter at the time of the crash and told the court: "I was doing about 40mph, no more than 45mph.

"It was blinding. My first reaction, if I couldn’t see, was to take my hand off the throttle. I was concerned about traffic going into the back of me.

"It all happened in such a quick time. It was just a whiteout.

"I couldn’t really see anything at that point. Even with my sun visor pulled down. It was the glare that just hit me."

Mr Jones added that he was later able to "just make out tail lights" and he realised something had happened.

"In a split second, to my left, that’s when I thought I saw a person in the road.

"I wasn’t aware it was a cyclist. I hadn’t seen the cyclist prior to the accident."

But I agree that "blinded by the sun" seems to be a very common excuse.

In this case the driver was wearing sunglasses, and had the sun visor down, but somehow didn't see the cyclist or presumably the car in front of him pulling out, despite testifying that [i]"I was concentrating. I could just see the car in front with its lights on."[/i]

Neither are great options, but when forced to I'd choose the one less likely to kill [s]someone[/s] myself in my metal box.

I'd choose the one less likely to kill [s]someone[/s] myself in my metal box.

Phrase it how you like, that's the decision I would make [b]if[/b] I was forced to.

Better to risk the quite minor possibility of killing an unseen cyclist than the far more likely risk of being rear-ended at speed and causing a multi-car pile up that could kill dozens.

Press complaints can't help on a matter of taste and decency -

"...there is no body that performs the function you describe. However, editors have a direct interest in responding to concerns about taste and decency issues because they will lose readers if they do not take their views into account. I recommend therefore writing to the editor to express your concern about the letter.

With regard to the issue you raise about hate crimes, I am not able to give legal advice but I do not believe that cyclists are a protected class under any relevant UK legislation. If you believe a crime has been committed, however, it is best to contact the police."

How do we go about getting protected class status?

Unfortunately there are thousands of morons like the letter writer but for the paper to publish such vitriol is shocking.

I would hope that the publishing of such a letter would go against the writer if they are ever involved in an incident (was going to write accident but it could be a deliberate act) with a cyclist.

Hopefully karma will arrange for a 50 ton lorry to hit his 2 ton car with him in it and for the legal process to fail him too.

I have enormous sympathy for the friends and family of the rider killed. I would be appalled to read this sick garbage if it were one of my friends or family.

So sad.

I live just round the corner from mountbatton way, in fact I regularly ride the junction of regents park and mill brook just up from mountbatton way which often has bunches of flowers in the middle. I think for another cyclist killed a few years back.

I was quite close to being clipped yet again on Monday. Really hits home how dangerous it can be, and how thoughtless and uncaring some people are.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/yoursay/letters/10996773.Cyclist_s_death__was_the_fault_of_all_cyclists_/

Lots of reputable companies advertise on the site where that bile is published.

Volvo, Martins Group etc.

I wonder how thrilled they are to have their names and contact details on the same page as it?

On the original case, one question I want answered. The cyclist was hit with the wing mirror. This means the van had started to pass the cyclist. Was the cyclist so close to the kerb that the minibus had no reason to move out and it simply was a case of blindness, or did the driver see the cyclist and not move out sufficiently and is basically lying.