Twitter user's response to media coverage of cyclist jailed for killing pedestrian is hard-hitting - and heartbreaking

MikeKay wrote:

Reading this has just kicked my up the arse to complain about my own treatment after being hit from behind by a car doing approx 50mph, the driver didn't see me! Unbeliverbly I survived but revived head injuries broken fumur and collar bone. The driver has been offered a driving course with a £175 fee.

That's really shit, on both counts.

Complain? You should be FUCKING OUTRAGED.

I hope you recover fully and that you are also able to pursue the culprit for compensation.

MikeKay wrote:

Reading this has just kicked my up the arse to complain about my own treatment after being hit from behind by a car doing approx 50mph, the driver didn't see me! Unbeliverbly I survived but revived head injuries broken fumur and collar bone. The driver has been offered a driving course with a £175 fee.

Because the police force gets to keep a portion of the fee.

If it goes to court and he's fined, they don't get anything.  

kil0ran wrote:

Those Russian blokes stickering pavement drivers have got the right idea

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-viral-stop-a-douchebag-fad?ref=scroll

 

Been doing it for a fair few years now, it can and does flare up quite a bit.

4:16 onward it all kicks off, hilarious ending though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibl6SHbq8sY&has_verified=1

kil0ran wrote:

Those Russian blokes stickering pavement drivers have got the right idea

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-viral-stop-a-douchebag-fad?ref=scroll

 

Well, that's an hour of my life I can't get back!  Just sat watching loads of those videos.  Brilliant stuff.  

I'd love to see a similar organisation in London, but the young men doing the stickers would be stabbed or shot, and those that lived would be prosecuted for getting themselves shot.  

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I remember reading some of the comments on the Daily Mail website under the report about little Esme Weir. Some comments were actually blaming her mother and focused on the "nuisance" of little children scooting on the pavement. The illegal pavement mounting of the pick-up driver who hit her was somehow acceptable. The jury who acquitted him must have felt the same. Contrast with the venom directed at any cyclist who dares to cycle on the pavement. I used to regularly see a pickup parked on the narrow pavement outside my child's school. Presumably another parent. I hated being forced to squeeze past the inside of it, keeping my daughter as far away as possible away from those massive wheels.

Such a shame when the zip from my coat snags on the expensive paintwork, and my shoulder bends the wing mirror back

kil0ran wrote:

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I remember reading some of the comments on the Daily Mail website under the report about little Esme Weir. Some comments were actually blaming her mother and focused on the "nuisance" of little children scooting on the pavement. The illegal pavement mounting of the pick-up driver who hit her was somehow acceptable. The jury who acquitted him must have felt the same. Contrast with the venom directed at any cyclist who dares to cycle on the pavement. I used to regularly see a pickup parked on the narrow pavement outside my child's school. Presumably another parent. I hated being forced to squeeze past the inside of it, keeping my daughter as far away as possible away from those massive wheels.

Such a shame when the zip from my coat snags on the expensive paintwork, and my shoulder bends the wing mirror back

I always - always! - either fold away or bend back the side mirror of any motor vehicle parked on the footpath (unless the driver's still sitting in it...). Petty, I know, but...

brooksby wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I remember reading some of the comments on the Daily Mail website under the report about little Esme Weir. Some comments were actually blaming her mother and focused on the "nuisance" of little children scooting on the pavement. The illegal pavement mounting of the pick-up driver who hit her was somehow acceptable. The jury who acquitted him must have felt the same. Contrast with the venom directed at any cyclist who dares to cycle on the pavement. I used to regularly see a pickup parked on the narrow pavement outside my child's school. Presumably another parent. I hated being forced to squeeze past the inside of it, keeping my daughter as far away as possible away from those massive wheels.

Such a shame when the zip from my coat snags on the expensive paintwork, and my shoulder bends the wing mirror back

I always - always! - either fold away or bend back the side mirror of any motor vehicle parked on the footpath (unless the driver's still sitting in it...). Petty, I know, but...

guaranteed that they don’t even realise this has happened either so your actions are futile !

giff77 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I remember reading some of the comments on the Daily Mail website under the report about little Esme Weir. Some comments were actually blaming her mother and focused on the "nuisance" of little children scooting on the pavement. The illegal pavement mounting of the pick-up driver who hit her was somehow acceptable. The jury who acquitted him must have felt the same. Contrast with the venom directed at any cyclist who dares to cycle on the pavement. I used to regularly see a pickup parked on the narrow pavement outside my child's school. Presumably another parent. I hated being forced to squeeze past the inside of it, keeping my daughter as far away as possible away from those massive wheels.

Such a shame when the zip from my coat snags on the expensive paintwork, and my shoulder bends the wing mirror back

I always - always! - either fold away or bend back the side mirror of any motor vehicle parked on the footpath (unless the driver's still sitting in it...). Petty, I know, but...

guaranteed that they don’t even realise this has happened either so your actions are futile !

it makes me feel better, though, and isn't as prosecutable as scratching the vehicles paintwork...

brooksby wrote:

giff77 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I remember reading some of the comments on the Daily Mail website under the report about little Esme Weir. Some comments were actually blaming her mother and focused on the "nuisance" of little children scooting on the pavement. The illegal pavement mounting of the pick-up driver who hit her was somehow acceptable. The jury who acquitted him must have felt the same. Contrast with the venom directed at any cyclist who dares to cycle on the pavement. I used to regularly see a pickup parked on the narrow pavement outside my child's school. Presumably another parent. I hated being forced to squeeze past the inside of it, keeping my daughter as far away as possible away from those massive wheels.

Such a shame when the zip from my coat snags on the expensive paintwork, and my shoulder bends the wing mirror back

I always - always! - either fold away or bend back the side mirror of any motor vehicle parked on the footpath (unless the driver's still sitting in it...). Petty, I know, but...

guaranteed that they don’t even realise this has happened either so your actions are futile !

it makes me feel better, though, and isn't as prosecutable as scratching the vehicles paintwork...

The push rims on a wheelchair make really interesting patterns when dragged along the entire length of a car that's been left on a pavement such that it's hard to get past...

I don't intentionally cause damage - but I don't particularly go out of my way to avoid it, either. It's easy to avoid, though - don't park on the goddamned pavement.

Crippledbiker wrote:

brooksby wrote:

it makes me feel better, though, and isn't as prosecutable as scratching the vehicles paintwork...

The push rims on a wheelchair make really interesting patterns when dragged along the entire length of a car that's been left on a pavement such that it's hard to get past...

I don't intentionally cause damage - but I don't particularly go out of my way to avoid it, either. It's easy to avoid, though - don't park on the goddamned pavement.

kil0ran wrote:

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I remember reading some of the comments on the Daily Mail website under the report about little Esme Weir. Some comments were actually blaming her mother and focused on the "nuisance" of little children scooting on the pavement. The illegal pavement mounting of the pick-up driver who hit her was somehow acceptable. The jury who acquitted him must have felt the same. Contrast with the venom directed at any cyclist who dares to cycle on the pavement. I used to regularly see a pickup parked on the narrow pavement outside my child's school. Presumably another parent. I hated being forced to squeeze past the inside of it, keeping my daughter as far away as possible away from those massive wheels.

Such a shame when the zip from my coat snags on the expensive paintwork, and my shoulder bends the wing mirror back

Pound coins have specialy sharpened edges.

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

I remember reading some of the comments on the Daily Mail website under the report about little Esme Weir. Some comments were actually blaming her mother and focused on the "nuisance" of little children scooting on the pavement.

Both my kids scooter to school/pre-school a lot of the time, as do many of the other kids.

We have to go along and then cross a short stretch of road that leads to an industrial estate and therefore gets some quite large lorries rumbling along. Most of the drivers are pretty good about slowing down and moving away from the kerb, but some seem to take the opportunity to drive as close as physically possible, which is pretty scary, even on the side with the wider path.

Hopefully won't be a problem for much longer, as they're putting in a new road soon which the lorries should use, as it will avoid an awkward junction for them.

Ad Hynkel wrote:

Looking in the comment of the Bournemouth Echo story (Jaiden Mangan, killed on crossing), there it is in a nutshell why juries should not be involved in deciding guilt in these cases:

Bob78:

"Its just incredibly sad. Its the kind of thing that hundreds/thousands of people do each day (including speeding, mobile phones, just dropping someone off, tyres lacking tread/underinflated)
, that, lets be honest, we are all guilty of at some point. This was just incredibly unlucky and ended in this tragic outcome."

That's right.  Our media has convinced us that road deaths are no-one's responsibility, they are like rain or earthquakes, an act of god.

Ad Hynkel wrote:

Looking in the comment of the Bournemouth Echo story (Jaiden Mangan, killed on crossing), there it is in a nutshell why juries should not be involved in deciding guilt in these cases:

Bob78:

"Its just incredibly sad. Its the kind of thing that hundreds/thousands of people do each day (including speeding, mobile phones, just dropping someone off, tyres lacking tread/underinflated)
, that, lets be honest, we are all guilty of at some point. This was just incredibly unlucky and ended in this tragic outcome."

And a staggering number of people blaming the boy's mother for not holding his hand while he rode a balance bike.  Sometimes I despair of my fellow humans.

burtthebike wrote:

Ad Hynkel wrote:

Looking in the comment of the Bournemouth Echo story (Jaiden Mangan, killed on crossing), there it is in a nutshell why juries should not be involved in deciding guilt in these cases:

Bob78:

"Its just incredibly sad. Its the kind of thing that hundreds/thousands of people do each day (including speeding, mobile phones, just dropping someone off, tyres lacking tread/underinflated)
, that, lets be honest, we are all guilty of at some point. This was just incredibly unlucky and ended in this tragic outcome."

And a staggering number of people blaming the boy's mother for not holding his hand while he rode a balance bike.  Sometimes I despair of my fellow humans.

Also if you see the BBC report, the guy parked on the crossing gets 3 year ban and the killers defence lawyer is stating that driver  was fortunate to only be charged for careless driving, yet the killer who could not be arsed to look left or right at lights but was only concentrating on traffic coming for a space gets careless and 18 month ban. I'm not stating the parked car driver should be absolved off all fault but talk about shifting blame. 

ktache wrote:

I was reading the comments on an Alliston thread the other day, and it referenced a gov report that said that about 40% of vehicles fail their MOT on something, 5% of those on brakes.  There are a lot of illegally driven vehicles out there (and that's just in terms of roadworthiness).  At the very least on the way to the test centre.

I'm driving a car at the moment with major defects. Perfectly legal to do so until the MOT expires in a week's time - even following the recent updates to the law, which tells you all you need to know about the appetite for the "war on the motorist"

(Handbrake is knackered on my car because the adjusters are seized so whilst it's a major fault it isn't affecting handling or braking or grip so I'm driving it whilst I wait for the parts. Just leave it in gear when I park up)

LastBoyScout wrote:

I'm sure the gutter press have a reminder in their diaries for when Charlie Alliston is released, so they can drag it all up again, roll out Mr Briggs for a comment and hound Charlie and all other cyclists some more.

Meanwhile, the road safety review will have moved precisely nowhere in 18 months.

I would have thought that Alliston was released quite some time ago.  I suspect he's now keeping his head down, travelling by bus or something...

kil0ran wrote:

I'll add my colleague David Irving to the list - hit by an van driver and crushed by a following car. Van driver acquitted, following driver not even charged. Hit and run from the van driver. Low winter sun m'lud. M'lud also directed the jury to ignore Highway Code advice, and the expert police witness victim-blamed, saying that he shouldn't have been there (it's a 40mph limit urban dual carriageway)

http://www.southamptoncyclingcampaign.org.uk/2014/news/1888/ for detailed court reporting on this one - Bez also covered it here 

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/at-the-going-down-of-the-sun/

"Jury will be directed to ignore Highway Code "slow down or stop if dazzled" "

Of course David didn't fit into a group of interest, or one that would trigger an emotional response, so he got no justice. Just a wife without a husband and two kids under ten without a Dad, no-one important, move along.

This is from the local rag featuring the acquittal of the van driver

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10972581.family-react-to-acquittal-of-d...

I can't imagine why being 'dazzled by the sun' is considered a mitigating factor and not an aggrevating factor.  No collision ever happened because a driver was dazzled by the sun, the collision happened because they did not alter their driving to match the conditions.

jh27 wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

I'll add my colleague David Irving to the list - hit by an van driver and crushed by a following car. Van driver acquitted, following driver not even charged. Hit and run from the van driver. Low winter sun m'lud. M'lud also directed the jury to ignore Highway Code advice, and the expert police witness victim-blamed, saying that he shouldn't have been there (it's a 40mph limit urban dual carriageway)

http://www.southamptoncyclingcampaign.org.uk/2014/news/1888/ for detailed court reporting on this one - Bez also covered it here 

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/at-the-going-down-of-the-sun/

"Jury will be directed to ignore Highway Code "slow down or stop if dazzled" "

Of course David didn't fit into a group of interest, or one that would trigger an emotional response, so he got no justice. Just a wife without a husband and two kids under ten without a Dad, no-one important, move along.

This is from the local rag featuring the acquittal of the van driver

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10972581.family-react-to-acquittal-of-d...

 

I can't imagine why being 'dazzled by the sun' is considered a mitigating factor and not an aggrevating factor.  No collision ever happened because a driver was dazzled by the sun, the collision happened because they did not alter their driving to match the conditions.

The usual excuse is "I'll get rear-ended if I brake heavily". Given the passive and active safety features of modern vehicles vs a soft and squishy human body I think that defence is utterly execrable - but trotted out time and time again. And accepted by juries. These are the same people who tailgate people for doing the speed limit, park on zebra crossings, lob their two tonnes of metal at the pavement, and so on.

The driving license points system is quite unlike any other implementation of punishment. Do something illegal and it should be an instant ban and retest, not a "it's OK, you've got three more strikes before we do anything to stop you"