I think your mate could higher a pensioner to drive him round for a bit of cash in hand ?

I give in!!!!!!! Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No TJ you are getting muddled up, I’m well aware of the facts of the case. The whole point is that the Police did not take the matter seriously, and were roundly criticised afterwards for that fact. The fact that they didn’t is the symptom, the actual illness is that the “system” doesn’t treat cyclists lives as having any worth, so the case was treated as “poor fella, he’s going to have to live with killing those people”, as opposed to “this is a very serious incident, and has to be fully and properly invesitgated and if someone is culpable they should be taken to book for it”.

Which bit was too difficult?

druidh – Member

That’s a valiant attempt to garner sympathy for your view based on making it so sort of “us and them” type of argument..

Yep thats right, its what you do in a discussion/debate, you argue your point of view against others. So take yourself a gold star off the shelf and add to that the one for spotting that I don’t think cyclists get treated fairly in these circumstances.

However, do you feel that the Rhyl driver was left off lightly because it was “only” cyclists and that it would have been different if he had killed pedestrians

Yes I do. Think of the scenario where a driver with 4 bald tyres on an icy road has ploughed through a group of pedestrians, killing 4, admits openly that he was going too fast for the conditions, and only gets charged with having bald tyres, then on top of that the Police are literally bollocked up hill and down dale by the coroner for their lack of diligence on several levels, and then tell me that there wouldn’t be a public outcry about it.

Having crossed that bridge, see if why as a cyclist when you see others getting punished more severely for lesser crimes which luckily or not had lesser consequences that it wouldn’t make you mindful of that disparity.

Frankly I cannot see what people have issue with, so please explain it to me, anyone ……

I hate to say it but I find myself agreeing with rudeboy AND tandemjeremy on this thread.

G – your mate is an idiot who deserved to be banned, and clearly not very clever as he didn’t take the 3 previous warnings on board. If someone had four convictions in 3 years for robbery, shoplifting, assault they would be a serial offender and dealt with pretty harshly. Your mate should be, and indeed is, no different. You have to wonder how much speeding he does to get done 4 times in 3 years really – I agree it would be unlucky if he only sped 4 times in that period and got nicked every time but I somehow doubt that is the case.

I also agree with you that it seems awfully unjust that the guy that killed the 4 Rhyl riders only got done for worn tyres. Yes, that seems apauling that the driver escaped punishment if he was culpable but we’re only going on heresay and conjecture. Perhaps the police who gathered the evidence at the accident scene didn’t do their jobs as well as they should have done and let the guy away with it, which if true is tragic, but at the end of the day the DPP decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for anything more than dodgy tyres and that’s what he got done for. I’m sure if they could have done him for more they would have done but it’s a fact that people only get taken to court on the best charges the prosecutor thinks he can get them on.

The only connection I see between the two is that both involve convictions for traffic offences. I still find the comparison thoroughly distasteful, and don’t see what you are trying to gain (other than sympathy for your mate) out of making it.

neverfastenuff – Member
I think your mate could hire a pensioner to drive him round for a bit of cash in hand…

But cash in hand is illegal, so prepare yourself for a major shafting by the holier than though brigade…. I can hear the sucking in of breath and the self righteous indignation-o-meter building up a head of steam right now!

I can only hear the laughing at you and the endless banging of head against keyboard

Keeping to speed limits really isn’t very difficult.

If I managed to pick up 3 points then I’d consider myself a d*ckhead and be more careful in future.

To collect enough for a ban would seem to indicate a disregard for the law.

Stu_N – Member

**** me!!!!!

You really can’t read can you??

G – your mate is an idiot who deserved to be banned

No he isn’t hes a very hard working family guy who has been a bit unlucky. Neither he nor I have sought to justify or pardon his actions.

but at the end of the day the DPP decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for anything more than dodgy tyres

No, the Police failed to investigate the matter properly and didn’t lay any charges, therfore the CPS, (not the Director of Public Prosecutions) didn’t have anything to make a decision about. Not only that, it wasn’t really a big deal to investigate the driver admitted driving too fast for the conditions….. how difficult does it have to be to figure out the charge from there???? Subsequent to that at the inquest the coroner criticised the police for exactly that and then complained about the matter to the Home Secretary. Whats so F***ing hard to understand about that FFS!!!!!!!

G – I have tried to Explain it. You won’t listen. I’ll try once more.

We have a judicial system that decides on what charges someone faces and what the punishments for those charges are if found guilty. This is impartial.

In the Rhyl case irrespective of what you think was the correct thing the judicial system only charged him with a relatively minor offense and he got the appropriate punishment for that offense.

In the case of your pal he was similarly charged with an offense and got the punishment for that offense.

You ( and I for that matter) would like the Rhyl driver to have been charged with a more serious offense – but he wasn’t. He was found guilty of a minor traffic offense and that was all. There was not enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of convicting him of a more serious offense. We have a principle in this country of “innocent until proven guilty” The Rhyl driver was not found guilty of the killing. That is the fact. Anything else is surmise and supposition.

It is perfectly possible to be responsible for a death on the road and not be guilty of any offense.

The law punishes on the basis of what you are found guilty of. The Rhyl driver was found guilty of a minor offense. Your pal has been found guilty of 4 minor offences. In each case the guilty party got the punishment that the crime they were found guilty of merited.

Now there may have been mistakes made in the investigation of the Rhyl case that meant that he wasn’t charged with a more serious offense – but that is again supposition and surmise – not fact. The only facts under discussion here are those that were proven in a court of law.

We do not have summary justice by public opinion in this country. we have rule of law.

No he isn’t hes a very hard working family guy who has been a bit unlucky

What, that he got caught breaking the Law? Repeatedly?

Be’ave yerself, G.

G – the police take all the evidence they have to the CPS, the CPS review it and decide what the person is to be charged with. That’s the procedure.

(Of course the reason that insufficient evidence of careless/dangerous driving was put before the CPS could be due to police shortcomings).

Was that admission made to the police, or at trial, or at the inquest?

**** me!!!!!

You really can’t read can you??

Yes, I can read. I have read.

hes a very hard working family guy who has been a bit unlucky

LOL. No. Really. 😆 He’s a serial offender who got what was coming to him. To answer the opening question on the second line of your original post, that’s my feelings on your mate.

When I got caught speeding* I realised that maybe I couldn’t just go hooning around as fast as I felt like so modified behaviour accordingly. It’s not hard. I haven’t been caught since – that’s not to say I have never exceeded a speed limit since I got the NIP as that would not be true at all, but I have certainly had more respect for speed limits. Maybe if your mate had the same approach then you he wouldn’t have been banned and you wouldn’t have wasted your afternoon making a fool of yourself on the internet. Food for thought?

*(76 on a 60 bit on the A9 near Dalwhinnie in 2003, for the record)

djglover – Member
I can only hear the laughing at you and the endless banging of head against keyboard

Fair point, but to be honest, I’ve had a really crappy and very dull day at work, so the thread whilst all fundamentally true started off mischievously through boredom, on a subject, that I know brings the self righteous out of their cupboard, it is basically a troll.

Nonetheless I honestly do think the underlying point is absolutely correct, in that cyclists and their safety do not get a fair shake of the stick, but then they never will as long as nobody, not even fellow cyclists seem able to grasp the basic inequity that lies at the base of it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, love em or hate em, at least the red socks stick together and get stuff done. We’re crap at that, as the above sanctimonious outpouring does rather prove….

Anyway, can’t put it off any longer, DIY beckons

In the meantime, lets see how many more posts go on without actually reading what any of its about.

PS: Sorry if any offence was caused by any of the above, but you probably deserved it if there was. ABSOLUTELY NO DISRESPECT IS IMPLIED OR INTENDED TO THE RHYL 4 OR ANY OTHER BROTHER/SISTER CYCLIST WHO HAS LOST THEIR LIFE ON THE ROADS, AND IF JUST ONE MORE PERSON REALISES HOW UNFAIR THE CYCLISTS TREATMENT ON THE ROAD IS AS A RESULT, THEN THAT IS A POWERFUL ADDENDUM TO THE MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES.

G. But cash in hand is illegal, so prepare yourself for a major shafting by the holier than though brigade…. I can hear the sucking in of breath and the self righteous indignation-o-meter building up a head of steam right now!

What we have seen in Parliament this week has thrown all this codswallop into the bin mate…

Stu_N – Member

I hate to say it but I find myself agreeing with rudeboy AND tandemjeremy on this thread.

It can happen you know – no need to feel dirty or guilty.

G – Member

Nonetheless I honestly do think the underlying point is absolutely correct, in that cyclists and their safety do not get a fair shake of the stick, but then they never will as long as nobody, not even fellow cyclists seem able to grasp the basic inequity that lies at the base of it. …………….

On that point I totally agree with you. Its just that the two cases you picked don’t show that. If the Rhyl driver had been charged with and found guilty of death by reckless driving and not received a custodial sentence then you would have had more of a point.

Similarly it is in cyclists interests that drivers with bad speeding habits and poor observation such as your pal need to be shown the error of their ways. I would rather collisions were prevented rather than people punished afterwards

Ah – so it was a troll all along.

Of course. 🙄

Did I say the wife and the girlfriend have just met………

CBA reading all this.
From what I have read…

Your mate broke the law 4 times.
This is not unlucky…just purely stupid and reckless.

Don’t give us all the “hard-working, family-man, sole bread-winner” bollox.
He should have thought about all of that before he chose to speed.

If you don’t learn the easy lessons, they just get harder.

Sorry Im late. Ive occassionaly dipped over the 100mph-mark on the motorway (VERY rarely). However I know the risks in many many ways. Sorry G. He racked up the points. He knows how it works. The law didnt spring this info on him.

/Chuckles

So one guy admits perjury, another suggests tax evasion, and almost everyone fails to get the point. It should be called brainlesstrackworld….

I’m really glad you used the death of my friend to help while away the boredom…

And the sense of proportion decreases further….

it is basically a troll.

I was wondering
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
when you were going to get round to claiming it was a troll in an attempt to back down with a little dignity.

Though there’s still one little point along the way I thought I’d pick you up on

Totally overlooked the fact that on a £4000 mtb there are hydraulic brakes which actually can stop you quicker than car in the same circumstances

No they can’t – particularly not when going downhill.

No they can’t – particularly not when going downhill

If you can’t stop your bike quicker than car at the same speed and in the same conditions I’d get your brakes serviced urgently if I were you. Consider the fact that your using pretty much the same technology, and weigh a fraction of what a car does… well at least I do.

crikey – Member
I’m really glad you used the death of my friend to help while away the boredom…

Sorry if you feel that way, my view however is obviously different. I happen to beleive that what happened to those guys, and significantly their familes afterwards, and therefore to the greater cycling fraternity by implication was an absolute disgrace. Regretably despite many attempts it has remained a fact that the opportunity to build something positive from that horrible event seems to have been completely ignored. Personally, I’m unlikely to stop banging on about it, or winding people up who seem intent on ignoring the inequities in the way cyclists are treated and riding off on some holier than crusade instead.

TJ, I despair. The point is that without investigation my mate, truly did get banned for 6 months, he has lost his livlihood, and great hardship has been brought down on him for the error of his ways. Likewise without investigation, the Police for it was they who failed to charge the driver, not the CPS who had no evidence presented to them, chose to treat the incident as “one of those things” and not important enough to warrant serious investigation and thought. Thats not my interpretation of it, thats the interpretation of the coroner and the Home Secretary. So yep you’re right the Rhyl fella wasn’t taken to court and it wasn’t tested in a court of law. However, the point is the motivation behind that. i.e. the “system” doesn’t take deaths of cyclists seriously. Step away from the Rhyl 4 for a moment and consider any one of numerous other incidents and think about it. The guy on the Dunwich Dyanmo in 07 (i mention it as I happened to be there). To the best of my knowledge no charges were ever brought. The guy on the A1 the other week, anyone know if any charges have been brought? I’m guessing not.

Now then for those who think I’ve tried to slip off the hook with dignity, read what I’ve written, (especially this bit)

In the meantime, lets see how many more posts go on without actually reading what any of its about.

and then return here highlighting whether you would like the half hour argument, or the full hour, for I can go on indefinitely and happily will do.

Finally for those who cannot fully get it. I am not now, never have and will not be drawn on trying to defend my mates actions. That is not what this is about. It is about the inequity between the way some traffic offences are treated in relation to extremely serious offences aginst cyclists. (I don’t actually have a view particularly on pedestrains incidentally, viewing them as I do as a sub species). I have used the Rhyl 4 as an illustration, being as it is a notorious case where, the investigating authorities were directly criticised for their woeful lack of diligence in dealing with it. The catalyst for these thoughts was indeed my mate appearing with his tale of woe, and me thinking that doesn’t seem right in relation to all of these numerous other cases of cyclists being wiped out and nothing being done about it. However, it is not about him, it is about the lack of support for cyclists.

Now then you’ll have to make do with moaning about this post for now, as I’ve got stuff to do today. However, never fear I shall return to wind the handle even more.

Bye for now.

G – Member

> No they can’t – particularly not when going downhill

If you can’t stop your bike quicker than car at the same speed and in the same conditions I’d get your brakes serviced urgently if I were you. Consider the fact that your using pretty much the same technology, and weigh a fraction of what a car does… well at least I do.

😀

That’s the best comment in this whole thread..

Why thank you sir.

remember the guy on the £4000 moutnain [sic] bike he ran into a girl

The public outrage surrounding that case was not whether the guy was on a £4K bike, it was about whether or not he was a) riding on the pavement (CCTV showed him further up on the pavement, but he claimed to be on the road when he hit her and all the other witnesses were either pissed, or couldn’t remember) and b) The was a suggestion from other witnesses, that he appeared to be aiming for her…

G – your mate is an idiot who deserved to be banned
No he isn’t hes a very hard working family guy who has been a bit unlucky. Neither he nor I have sought to justify or pardon his actions.

Its not unlucky for **** sake, its his moronic driving and an inability to see where he has gone wrong with the previous cases. If he was so worried about his wife and kids he’d have slowed down.

G – your mate isn’t Mr.McGoo per chance?

Tankslapper – I think G might be Calimero ….

An anthropomorphized cartoon chicken? You’ve cycled with him then? 😆

I don’t think this thread was a troll. I think it’s research for an essay.

This is him…. how the **** he gets 37mph out of it is beyond me

??

Thanks… age is against me.

And the majority of the forum it would appear…..

If you can’t stop your bike quicker than car at the same speed and in the same conditions I’d get your brakes serviced urgently if I were you. Consider the fact that your using pretty much the same technology, and weigh a fraction of what a car does… well at least I do.

Why don’t you try outbraking a car sometime and see what happens? I’d recommend you don’t do this by following the car and trying to stop before you run into the back of it, though that might improve the level of comprehension on this thread. Hint: consider what happens if you yank the brakes on as hard as possible on a bike, and what happens if you mash the brake pedal to the floor in a car.

Of course your latest reply shows that the rest of my last post was also spot on. It has been quite clear all along that this never was a troll (though I did wonder briefly). It has also been quite clear that one of the main reasons you’re getting so worked up is that you feel your mate has been hard done by, no matter how much you might try to deny it.

Not reading past the original post.
But your mates bang to rights.
But worst than that was your comment, the bit that sort of implies that speeding at certain times of the day is fine and dandy.
I can’t find any evidence that somehow suggests that a human being is less likely to be killed to death by a speeding motorist at 2am!
And (shakes fist) I get called out all times of the day and night, and the ammount of drivers that think little rules like speed limits and traffic lights don’t apply in the early hours, ****.

****, I’m beginning to feel sorry for the OP now. The comparison between his mate and the Rhyl incident was ill-judged; as was asking for sympathy on STW for a driver who’s racked up twelve points for speeding offences. There’s definitely some major digging going on now by the OP to get himself out of the hole…this, on an internet forum (especially STW) is probably the most ill-judged action of all.

I think it’s done now and some of this is beginning to look a bit like bullying.

Bullying? No, more like a pack of hyenas moving in to finish off the poor little antelope, which is now exhausted, and faces the inevitable…

It’s nature, I’m afraid. Can’t fight against it.