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.

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 was wearing High-viz but that “High-vis does not necessarily increase visibility” 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 “You cannot be sure Mr Petterson saw lateral movements ahead; if he did it could have been for any reason.” 😯

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.

No, I hear you – it’s just that, as unlikely as it is that anything positive is going to come from a polite email, I honestl believe that only bad things can come from hurling abuse.

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. Must. Happen.

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.
Here

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

The fact the majority break the law is not a defence

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.

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

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 **** bonnets.

I wonder…

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.

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

Would it? Unsafe stopping distance?

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.

At The Going Down of The Sun and In The Morning

Not sure where you are coming from there?

Unsafe stopping distance.

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 might 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 normal circumstances, 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 .
Perhaps that is why he has the large chip in the first place?

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.No. The gamble I wouldn’t take is not driving into a space in front of me, not knowing what was there.

….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.

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 **** disgrace and whoever did so is a **** 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.