wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.
Discussion
yellowjack said:
Does that make you a t
t then? For the benefit of moderators, I'm not saying you are, but if it looks like a...
I'm a bike mad "MAMIL Lycra Lout" according to certain newspaper columnists, and because I identify myself as a 'Cyclist', it must be true, right?
Yet I see plenty of oafs on bikes. Just last night two of them riding down a shared use path, unlit, hands in pockets, wearing hoodies and perched on Sports Direct's finest Dunlop "full suspension mountain bikes". But they would no more describe themselves as "cyclists" than I would be able to lay claim to the title of Airline Pilot, and I see nothing in common between me and them apart from the fact that I breathe air and st through a hole in my arse. Both of which things I presume I also have in common with you?
I also define myself as a 'Driver'. I have a hatfull of licenses and specialist qualifications, and take an interest in driving to as high a standard as possible. Yet I encounter "people in cars" every single day. Most of them with no more interest in the act of driving than they have in practicing heart surgery as a sideline to a cleaning job.
YOU can believe whatever you want, but wishing something to be true doesn't make it so. Quit trying to define and label people so they can be neatly stacked in 'boxes' of similar people. Everyone is different, and acts/reacts differently in any given situation. And as you keep getting told, MANY people have multiple interests, so find themselves with a foot in both camps when it comes to the 'driving v cycling' debate. You won't catch me blindly defending idiots on bicycles, nor even fellow "cyclists", any more than I'll blindly defend some aggressive retard behaving dangerously in a car. With all these sweeping generalisations you keep throwing around, you really do begin to come across as a bit of a swivel-eyed lunatic. Step back, take a breath, and think it through, FFS...
t then? For the benefit of moderators, I'm not saying you are, but if it looks like a...I'm a bike mad "MAMIL Lycra Lout" according to certain newspaper columnists, and because I identify myself as a 'Cyclist', it must be true, right?
Yet I see plenty of oafs on bikes. Just last night two of them riding down a shared use path, unlit, hands in pockets, wearing hoodies and perched on Sports Direct's finest Dunlop "full suspension mountain bikes". But they would no more describe themselves as "cyclists" than I would be able to lay claim to the title of Airline Pilot, and I see nothing in common between me and them apart from the fact that I breathe air and s
t through a hole in my arse. Both of which things I presume I also have in common with you?I also define myself as a 'Driver'. I have a hatfull of licenses and specialist qualifications, and take an interest in driving to as high a standard as possible. Yet I encounter "people in cars" every single day. Most of them with no more interest in the act of driving than they have in practicing heart surgery as a sideline to a cleaning job.
YOU can believe whatever you want, but wishing something to be true doesn't make it so. Quit trying to define and label people so they can be neatly stacked in 'boxes' of similar people. Everyone is different, and acts/reacts differently in any given situation. And as you keep getting told, MANY people have multiple interests, so find themselves with a foot in both camps when it comes to the 'driving v cycling' debate. You won't catch me blindly defending idiots on bicycles, nor even fellow "cyclists", any more than I'll blindly defend some aggressive retard behaving dangerously in a car. With all these sweeping generalisations you keep throwing around, you really do begin to come across as a bit of a swivel-eyed lunatic. Step back, take a breath, and think it through, FFS...
Interesting. How many licenses do you have & what specialist qualifications?
mygoldfishbowl said:
A pedestrian knocked down a pedestrian will have to become the title for these threads in the future in your strange world.
As you're someone who constantly brings drivers into these threads..
Eh? As you're someone who constantly brings drivers into these threads..
These threads are almost always started by drivers and populated by drivers, I don't bring them into the thread.
What I try to do is address the mass numptyism that goes on in these threads, address the often offensive views held by so many of them. I try to help give the view that not every car enthusiast is a complete a
hole who thinks the roads should be exclusively for them, and I challenge the barking views that are so prevalent in these threads. I don't have a problem with acknowledging the roads are for all, I don't find it at all difficult to accept that everybody has paid for them, I've got enough of a grip on reality to know that people are much the same and behave the same, but I do think that those in the heaviest and fastest vehicles should take the most care and should have some knowledge about what they are doing.
That's all, and I'm surprised (though shouldn't be) that I encounter such disagreement.
mygoldfishbowl said:
Interesting. How many licenses do you have & what specialist qualifications?
Seeing as how you asked nicely, all of them, save for motorcycle and bus. Although I was trained to test standard for buses, but didn't get to take my test (army - left hand didn't know what the right hand was being asked to pay for, etc...). I (privately) tried some motorcycle (direct access?) training too, but quickly found that big motorbikes just didn't interest me as much as I thought they would.Specialist qualifications on MHE (forklifts) and some plant, as well as tanks and AFVs. Biggest machine I qualified to operate and maintain was this beast...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbYtTKZ3ks
...and I got a LOT of experience driving that thing in Iraq when we were preparing to withdraw from there. You can fold it up to fit in an aeroplane too
I've also had Dangerous Goods (not tankers though) specialist qualifications, as well as being qualified to consign dangerous goods for others to drive. Mainly explosives and ammunition (now out of date, sadly). Not bad, considering that my initial trade when I joined the army was one that didn't even have a requirement to be able to drive even a basic GS Land Rover. I was a late learner too. I got my 'H' licence at 19 to drive FV432 APC and Chieftain AVRE/Bridgelayers in Germany, but had to wait until I was nearly 21 to get a car licence. Policy changes mean that it cannot happen that way around now, but I was driving 60 tonne tanks on public roads before I was allowed to drive a car unsupervised. I was due to train as an instructor/assessor on some of the MHE/plant machines, but a change of role meant I didn't have the opportunity to develop my skills in that department.
Edited by yellowjack on Friday 15th September 09:08
heebeegeetee said:
Eh?
These threads are almost always started by drivers and populated by drivers, I don't bring them into the thread.
What I try to do is address the mass numptyism that goes on in these threads, address the often offensive views held by so many of them. I try to help give the view that not every car enthusiast is a complete ahole who thinks the roads should be exclusively for them, and I challenge the barking views that are so prevalent in these threads.
I don't have a problem with acknowledging the roads are for all, I don't find it at all difficult to accept that everybody has paid for them, I've got enough of a grip on reality to know that people are much the same and behave the same, but I do think that those in the heaviest and fastest vehicles should take the most care and should have some knowledge about what they are doing.
That's all, and I'm surprised (though shouldn't be) that I encounter such disagreement.
SNAP! Although we both probably come across as addressing it from opposite sides. These threads are almost always started by drivers and populated by drivers, I don't bring them into the thread.
What I try to do is address the mass numptyism that goes on in these threads, address the often offensive views held by so many of them. I try to help give the view that not every car enthusiast is a complete a
hole who thinks the roads should be exclusively for them, and I challenge the barking views that are so prevalent in these threads. I don't have a problem with acknowledging the roads are for all, I don't find it at all difficult to accept that everybody has paid for them, I've got enough of a grip on reality to know that people are much the same and behave the same, but I do think that those in the heaviest and fastest vehicles should take the most care and should have some knowledge about what they are doing.
That's all, and I'm surprised (though shouldn't be) that I encounter such disagreement.
yellowjack said:
Seeing as how you asked nicely, all of them, save for motorcycle and bus. Although I was trained to test standard for buses, but didn't get to take my test (army - left hand didn't know what the right hand was being asked to pay for, etc...). I (privately) tried some motorcycle (direct access?) training too, but quickly found that big motorbikes just didn't interest me as much as I thought they would.
Specialist qualifications on MHE (forklifts) and some plant, as well as tanks and AFVs. Biggest machine I qualified to operate and maintain was this beast...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbYtTKZ3ks
...and I got a LOT of experience driving that thing in Iraq when we were preparing to withdraw from there. You can fold it up to fit in an aeroplane too
I've also had Dangerous Goods (not tankers though) specialist qualifications, as well as being qualified to consign dangerous goods for others to drive. Mainly explosives and ammunition (now out of date, sadly). Not bad, considering that my initial trade when I joined the army was one that didn't even have a requirement to be able to drive even a basic GS Land Rover. I was briefly an instructor/assessor on some of the MHE/plant machines, but a change of role meant I didn't have time to develop my skills in that department.
Cool stuff & an interest career you've had. I did do the big motorbike thing & currently ride around the country on an FJR, I'm no power ranger type motorcyclist though. My past 20 years have been nowhere as interesting as yours & I've only been a lowly courier transporting everything from body parts & blood, emergency medication etc to even a Buddha statue I transported one day. Hardly exciting, but saying that doing sometimes 70,000 miles a year all over the UK & Europe does give one a lot of experience & knowledge of everyday road use & users. Specialist qualifications on MHE (forklifts) and some plant, as well as tanks and AFVs. Biggest machine I qualified to operate and maintain was this beast...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbYtTKZ3ks
...and I got a LOT of experience driving that thing in Iraq when we were preparing to withdraw from there. You can fold it up to fit in an aeroplane too
I've also had Dangerous Goods (not tankers though) specialist qualifications, as well as being qualified to consign dangerous goods for others to drive. Mainly explosives and ammunition (now out of date, sadly). Not bad, considering that my initial trade when I joined the army was one that didn't even have a requirement to be able to drive even a basic GS Land Rover. I was briefly an instructor/assessor on some of the MHE/plant machines, but a change of role meant I didn't have time to develop my skills in that department.
This pains me more than i can say, but as it's anonymous those who know me and my devout hatred of cyclists won't know it's me
But
I feel the guy on the bike has been made a scapegoat,
There, I said it, I'm off to lie down till this passes
I used to drive in London regularly in an artic many years ago so am aware of what it was like then, can't imagine it's better now
But
I feel the guy on the bike has been made a scapegoat,
There, I said it, I'm off to lie down till this passes
I used to drive in London regularly in an artic many years ago so am aware of what it was like then, can't imagine it's better now
Humper said:
This pains me more than i can say, but as it's anonymous those who know me and my devout hatred of cyclists won't know it's me
But
I feel the guy on the bike has been made a scapegoat,
Why not explain your reasons for feeling this? If the same scenario was repeated but with a car driver instead of a cyclist (i.e. no front brakes on car, car driver blames pedestrian on social media, car driver shows no remorse) do you feel the car driver would have received a lighter sentence?But
I feel the guy on the bike has been made a scapegoat,
ClaphamGT3 said:
18 months in the slammer.
Presumably he'll be out in 9 months having learned how to be even more of a scrote
Quite likely, unless he misbehaves.Presumably he'll be out in 9 months having learned how to be even more of a scrote
Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 18th September 12:45
Remorse is an odd thing though. If I was in an accident which was someone else's fault and they died, especially if they were a vulnerable road user- cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist - I think I would probably be agonising about what I could have done to avoid it, and I suppose remorse is part of that.
However I am not sure I would blame someone else in the same circumstances (or who thought they were) if they didn't feel remorse, especially if they as the actual victim of the other party's carelessness, found themselves in court being threatened with prison for not successfully avoiding them.
To take lack of remorse following accidents into account for sentencing seems unfair- it is not the same as lack of remorse following deliberate criminal acts.
Maybe its too fine a hair to split. Especially as in the case in point my view would then be divided between the lack of brakes (deliberate- remorse due) and the collision itself (not deliberate- no remorse due).
However I am not sure I would blame someone else in the same circumstances (or who thought they were) if they didn't feel remorse, especially if they as the actual victim of the other party's carelessness, found themselves in court being threatened with prison for not successfully avoiding them.
To take lack of remorse following accidents into account for sentencing seems unfair- it is not the same as lack of remorse following deliberate criminal acts.
Maybe its too fine a hair to split. Especially as in the case in point my view would then be divided between the lack of brakes (deliberate- remorse due) and the collision itself (not deliberate- no remorse due).
mac96 said:
Remorse is an odd thing though. If I was in an accident which was someone else's fault and they died, especially if they were a vulnerable road user- cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist - I think I would probably be agonising about what I could have done to avoid it, and I suppose remorse is part of that.
However I am not sure I would blame someone else in the same circumstances (or who thought they were) if they didn't feel remorse, especially if they as the actual victim of the other party's carelessness, found themselves in court being threatened with prison for not successfully avoiding them.
To take lack of remorse following accidents into account for sentencing seems unfair- it is not the same as lack of remorse following deliberate criminal acts.
Maybe its too fine a hair to split. Especially as in the case in point my view would then be divided between the lack of brakes (deliberate- remorse due) and the collision itself (not deliberate- no remorse due).
You don't have to be remorseful, just say that you are in court.However I am not sure I would blame someone else in the same circumstances (or who thought they were) if they didn't feel remorse, especially if they as the actual victim of the other party's carelessness, found themselves in court being threatened with prison for not successfully avoiding them.
To take lack of remorse following accidents into account for sentencing seems unfair- it is not the same as lack of remorse following deliberate criminal acts.
Maybe its too fine a hair to split. Especially as in the case in point my view would then be divided between the lack of brakes (deliberate- remorse due) and the collision itself (not deliberate- no remorse due).
I know it's serious to lie in court but I can't understand people that don't at least pretend to be sorry.
That's what I did when in court, dressed nicely, acted remorseful and swore on the bible to tell the truth. All things that weren't true to me that I thought would help me get a lighter sentence.
Maybe the guy in this case thought the total opposite and did everything he could to get a harsher sentence because he thought he deserved it?
I think it's more likely that so much of his life was posted online that he knew he couldn't get away with pretending to be sorry/religious/respectful of the court.
LocoCoco said:
mac96 said:
Remorse is an odd thing though. If I was in an accident which was someone else's fault and they died, especially if they were a vulnerable road user- cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist - I think I would probably be agonising about what I could have done to avoid it, and I suppose remorse is part of that.
However I am not sure I would blame someone else in the same circumstances (or who thought they were) if they didn't feel remorse, especially if they as the actual victim of the other party's carelessness, found themselves in court being threatened with prison for not successfully avoiding them.
To take lack of remorse following accidents into account for sentencing seems unfair- it is not the same as lack of remorse following deliberate criminal acts.
Maybe its too fine a hair to split. Especially as in the case in point my view would then be divided between the lack of brakes (deliberate- remorse due) and the collision itself (not deliberate- no remorse due).
You don't have to be remorseful, just say that you are in court.However I am not sure I would blame someone else in the same circumstances (or who thought they were) if they didn't feel remorse, especially if they as the actual victim of the other party's carelessness, found themselves in court being threatened with prison for not successfully avoiding them.
To take lack of remorse following accidents into account for sentencing seems unfair- it is not the same as lack of remorse following deliberate criminal acts.
Maybe its too fine a hair to split. Especially as in the case in point my view would then be divided between the lack of brakes (deliberate- remorse due) and the collision itself (not deliberate- no remorse due).
I know it's serious to lie in court but I can't understand people that don't at least pretend to be sorry.
That's what I did when in court, dressed nicely, acted remorseful and swore on the bible to tell the truth. All things that weren't true to me that I thought would help me get a lighter sentence.
Maybe the guy in this case thought the total opposite and did everything he could to get a harsher sentence because he thought he deserved it?
I think it's more likely that so much of his life was posted online that he knew he couldn't get away with pretending to be sorry/religious/respectful of the court.
mac96 said:
Remorse is an odd thing though. If I was in an accident which was someone else's fault and they died, especially if they were a vulnerable road user- cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist - I think I would probably be agonising about what I could have done to avoid it, and I suppose remorse is part of that.
Any normal person, capable of empathy, would feel remorse if they had killed a random stranger accidentally, and especially if some kind of negligent behaviour on their behalf had contributed to the accident (i.e. no front brakes). If you had killed someone and showed no remorse then you'd be a sociopath.
Mr2Mike said:
mac96 said:
Remorse is an odd thing though. If I was in an accident which was someone else's fault and they died, especially if they were a vulnerable road user- cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist - I think I would probably be agonising about what I could have done to avoid it, and I suppose remorse is part of that.
Any normal person, capable of empathy, would feel remorse if they had killed a random stranger accidentally, and especially if some kind of negligent behaviour on their behalf had contributed to the accident (i.e. no front brakes). If you had killed someone and showed no remorse then you'd be a sociopath.
BMWBen said:
Mr2Mike said:
mac96 said:
Remorse is an odd thing though. If I was in an accident which was someone else's fault and they died, especially if they were a vulnerable road user- cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist - I think I would probably be agonising about what I could have done to avoid it, and I suppose remorse is part of that.
Any normal person, capable of empathy, would feel remorse if they had killed a random stranger accidentally, and especially if some kind of negligent behaviour on their behalf had contributed to the accident (i.e. no front brakes). If you had killed someone and showed no remorse then you'd be a sociopath.
Mr2Mike said:
Humper said:
This pains me more than i can say, but as it's anonymous those who know me and my devout hatred of cyclists won't know it's me
But
I feel the guy on the bike has been made a scapegoat,
Why not explain your reasons for feeling this? If the same scenario was repeated but with a car driver instead of a cyclist (i.e. no front brakes on car, car driver blames pedestrian on social media, car driver shows no remorse) do you feel the car driver would have received a lighter sentence?But
I feel the guy on the bike has been made a scapegoat,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/18/taxi-dr...
£35 fine!
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/dead-cyclists-fami...
£200 and 3 points (and he failed an eye test and had his licence revoked temporarily whilst he got glasses)
Sometimes the system works though
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-386...
9 years as it was his 8th! conviction for texting at the wheel. Why he still had a licence is beyond me!
In non cyclist deaths (and each year theres something like 1000 in the UK)
Car driver kills Motorcyclists
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8070554...
£300 and 6 points!
Man kills pedestrian and fails to stop!
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/farnham...
£330 fine!
The system is f
ked IMO. The phrase "it's an accident" somehow absolves the driver of most responsibility apparently. And explains why the driving standards on our roads are so st. If there's no punishment when it goes so badly wrong, where's the incentive to give a st?mac96 said:
Remorse is an odd thing though. If I was in an accident which was someone else's fault and they died, especially if they were a vulnerable road user- cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist - I think I would probably be agonising about what I could have done to avoid it, and I suppose remorse is part of that.
However I am not sure I would blame someone else in the same circumstances (or who thought they were) if they didn't feel remorse, especially if they as the actual victim of the other party's carelessness, found themselves in court being threatened with prison for not successfully avoiding them.
To take lack of remorse following accidents into account for sentencing seems unfair- it is not the same as lack of remorse following deliberate criminal acts.
Maybe its too fine a hair to split. Especially as in the case in point my view would then be divided between the lack of brakes (deliberate- remorse due) and the collision itself (not deliberate- no remorse due).
Agree with that.However I am not sure I would blame someone else in the same circumstances (or who thought they were) if they didn't feel remorse, especially if they as the actual victim of the other party's carelessness, found themselves in court being threatened with prison for not successfully avoiding them.
To take lack of remorse following accidents into account for sentencing seems unfair- it is not the same as lack of remorse following deliberate criminal acts.
Maybe its too fine a hair to split. Especially as in the case in point my view would then be divided between the lack of brakes (deliberate- remorse due) and the collision itself (not deliberate- no remorse due).
I wonder what the outcome of this one will be - http://www.kentonline.co.uk/tunbridge-wells/news/t...
Red Devil said:
I wonder what the outcome of this one will be - http://www.kentonline.co.uk/tunbridge-wells/news/t...
I see where you are going but it's bit short on facts. However- on one point you are definitely correct- where is the outrage , the pillorying of the driver by people who have no idea what happened?
Seems to be little coverage after 11/9, and not many comments on those newspaper sites which allowed comment. Admittedly the Mail has its share of comments from clairvoyants who know the car was going too fast, but they really don't count..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff