Drunk cyclist who rode bike on motorway sentenced

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

I'll be the first go admit I've been on a bike after s couple, but he sounds like a prize bellend with a history of bellendness.

That reads as though you've had a couple of shandies already

hawkinspeter wrote:

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

I'll be the first go admit I've been on a bike after s couple, but he sounds like a prize bellend with a history of bellendness.

That reads as though you've had a couple of shandies already

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Drink drivers don't usually get suspended sentences, and they are in control of over a ton of high-speed capable lethal machinery. Far more dangerous than wobbling around on a bike.

Before anyone claims it's dangerous because it's a motorway... Motorways are the safest roads in the UK and there are no road users a cyclist could harm by wobbling around on a bike. Any danger on motorways is purely caused by drivers.

I think your first paragraph is a very reasonable comparison and I agree with your point there.

I am less sure on your second paragraph.  Driving on a motorway is the one time it is reasonable for a driver not to be ready to encounter someone on a bike.  A driver taking evasive action - at motorway speeds - could lead to a serious accident.

Steve K wrote:

I think your first paragraph is a very reasonable comparison and I agree with your point there.

I am less sure on your second paragraph.  Driving on a motorway is the one time it is reasonable for a driver not to be ready to encounter someone on a bike.  A driver taking evasive action - at motorway speeds - could lead to a serious accident.

I agree. Taking evasive action at motorway speeds could easily cause a crash. A suspended sentence seems appropriate to me even though drivers are often treated more gently by the courts.

Yes, there is a reason why driving too slow on a motorway is considered more of an offence then on most other roads and certain vehicles are banned from it. I also suspect that he has other convictions related to his Drink/drug exploits. 

Is a community order the same as a suspended sentence? The latter is a jail sentence suspended but can be imposed at any time, the former is more punishment given instead of jail and doesn't automatically applies jail time if not completed. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Yes, there is a reason why driving too slow on a motorway is considered more of an offence then on most other roads and certain vehicles are banned from it. I also suspect that he has other convictions related to his Drink/drug exploits. 

Is a community order the same as a suspended sentence? The latter is a jail sentence suspended but can be imposed at any time, the former is more punishment given instead of jail and doesn't automatically applies jail time if not completed. 

Looks like it was just a community order, not a suspended sentence. I think ChrisB200SX made up the suspended sentence bit and I didn't think to check.

I never said the bike rider got a suspended sentence, I said drink drivers don't normally. Quite a few of misunderstanding what I wrote and then misrepresenting it. The fact that drink drivers don't normally get community orders makes it just as bad, or worse.

Anyone trying to say it's dangerous because drivers might have to suddenly swerve or whatever have totally overlooked the fact that they would only have to do that if they were not driving with due care and attention, so like I said, it is only drivers that would make it dangerous. Also, nobody is forcing anyone to drive slowly on the motorway, so that is nonsense. There are very long, clear sight-lines on motorways and everyone is travelling in the same direction on a massive expanse of tarmac with lots of room for error, hence Motorways are relatively safe despite the speeds.

I once saw a deer stood toward the outside of the hard shoulder of the M4, did I continue at Motorway speed or did I adjust to the conditions so my driving was safe if the deer suddenly unpredictably move? It's not rocket surgery.

Admittedly, it is possible to rapidly accelerate into a drivers' path and cause problems, but not actual danger, unless there are other vulnerable road users on the motorway that they could injure... which is fairly unlikely.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

I never said the bike rider got a suspended sentence, I said drink drivers don't normally. Quite a few of misunderstanding what I wrote and then misrepresenting it. The fact that drink drivers don't normally get community orders makes it just as bad, or worse.

Sorry - I read it as a comparison between typical drink driver sentences and this one.

Also puts those sent out to retrieve him from the motorway at unnecessary risk. Despite taking lots of precautions (flashing lights, battenburg reflectives, high viz clothing, matrix signs etc) we still experience incidents where drivers fail to see police / ambulance / fire service / HATO personnel dealing with motorway incidents and plough into them or their vehicles. This is putting them at risk to rescue a person who shouldn't have been there and should have known better.

Motorways are largely safe due to them being away from towns and the hazards of local roads with traffic travelling at speed together. Someone wobbling around on a bike at 60mph below the traffic flow thows a spanner in that and poses a massive risk if someone has to take last minute evasive action.

Probably "would not be looking out for cyclists" so just as likely to mow them down first - but agree.  (Thinking about all the issues which came up with e.g. turning the hard shoulder into an extra lane...)

Motorways have a whole slew of safety features built into the infrastructure to allow them to be safe.  Some of which are used elsewhere and others could usefully be deployed on other roads also e.g. they're monofunctional (they don't also have housing build next to them using the motorway), designed to have all traffic moving (at a similar speed - so no horses, cyclists, pedestrians, people pulling straight out of side-roads...) in same direction (no overtaking vehicles coming the opposite direction), road has measures to keep people alert (built with gentle curves in the case of motorways, rumble strips at edges) etc.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Before anyone claims it's dangerous because it's a motorway... Motorways are the safest roads in the UK and there are no road users a cyclist could harm by wobbling around on a bike. Any danger on motorways is purely caused by drivers.

Oh come now, if there was a multicar pileup caused by somebody having to swerve to avoid a drunkard riding down the motorway in the dark that danger/incident would have been "purely caused by drivers"? Apart from the fact that he was in no condition to ride a bicycle, he was riding it where bicycles are not allowed, of course he was posing dangers, you might as well say somebody cycling down the railway track wasn't posing any danger because the train drivers are in control of hundreds of tons of "high-speed capable lethal machinery."

Rendel Harris wrote:

Apart from the fact that he was in no condition to ride a bicycle, he was riding it where bicycles are not allowed...

That reminds me - it's a bit (a lot) OT but did anyone see that article recently about a woman on a privately owned e-scooter (ie. one of those which you are not allowed to use on the roads) who is suing a council because she hit a pothole and came off?  The councils' defence is apparently staring with "But she was never supposed to be riding there in the first place!".

I did but I read their defence once you pick through the media lens, as they were complying with their obligations to fix issues with the road,when reported, but even if the court decided they should have fixed the pothole sooner, the person claiming losses from them was not complying with the law by riding a private scooter, which the seller of warns potential buyers (so they cant claim ignorance of the law) I believe the claimant also wouldnt have qualified to successfully hire a legal scooter either due to age or not having a provisional license I cant remember which and even if they could have hired a scooter again the hire scheme warns users to ride them safely and be aware of potholes, changes in road surface. So all that together was their defence

Which seemed fair enough to me, but then I saw another case this week where you just think the law is a total ass sometimes that it concluded the way it did.

Although with the comment from his defence that “he’s getting too old for the criminal justice system”, you do wonder if he has been done for multiple drink (and drug?) related offences previously. Could explain why he was on a bike and not in a car.