Search found 3339 matches

by cycle tramp
28 Mar 2024, 5:00pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "
Replies: 26
Views: 1380

Re: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "

Nearholmer wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 5:57pm
..apart from the ctc and other organisations does there have to be an opposition to it?
To the seemingly inexorable rise of hatred and othering across society, yes, because if it continues unchecked, there will be a repeat of the horrors perpetrated by the nazis, on a much larger scale.

And, it needs something a lot more influential than a touring cycling lobby body to achieve that.
Well...perhaps the ctc could do something like this https://theradavist.com/mid-south-2024/
Whilst it's about riding bikes, the photographs show that it's pretty much inclusive and nicely devoid of alot of the er.. macho/masochism which road racing brings:-)
by cycle tramp
27 Mar 2024, 5:41pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "
Replies: 26
Views: 1380

Re: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "

Actually if we wanted to be divisive about this...its only those who are on the 'stupid right' who are against cycling...

..those who have truely understood the concept of national socialism could be supporting cycle use -

It makes you stronger and fitter, and hardens you to the elements
It reduces your reliance on the state
It reduces state expenditure
It reduces the state's reliance on foreign energy resources
It's transportation which continues to work even during periods of conflict, and natural disasters
It's transport which can be easily repaired
It's transportation which can mobilise a large percentage of the population at once.
It's transportation which keeps you mobile even through personal financial hardship
It's transportation which can be accessed by those on a limited wage, but equally can still become a status symbol
It's transportation which is supported by a wide range of companies and industries, and the investment rate to start a company is much small than that of any other transport.

..having written this I'm kinda surprised that an organisation like the national front hasn't dropped leaflets with 'cyclists are super persons heralding the new generation of hardened, stronger, and fitter Britishers. Join them or be forever enfeebled by your crutch - the combustion engine cowering behind your windscreen scared of a few drops of rain. Remember cyclists are super strong, enduring both weather and physical endurance. Be a hero to your children. Ride a bike. The fate of British people depend on it. You will not let them down'.

..er.. might just ask to the shops now...
by cycle tramp
27 Mar 2024, 9:12am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "
Replies: 26
Views: 1380

Re: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "

Nearholmer wrote: 27 Mar 2024, 6:58am people can be played like puppets, and any of us might be played without even knowing it.
Indeed - I've always kept in mind the question 'why are they telling me this? What emotions are they hoping to stir'

It is important to be kept informed of the news and current debate - infact it was only through the environmental warnings, that I gave up my then passion for the combustion engine, and rekindled my love of cycling.

The confusion lies when a person's point of view is dressed as a news item. Some are easier to spot than others.

Does anyone know if you can still get the 'one less car' stickers for your cross bar?
by cycle tramp
26 Mar 2024, 6:33pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "
Replies: 26
Views: 1380

Re: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "

Still one of my favourite quotes;

Some people think that a great power is needed to keep evil in check. That is not what I have found. I have found its the small every day deeds of ordinary folk which keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of love and kindness.
by cycle tramp
26 Mar 2024, 5:06pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "
Replies: 26
Views: 1380

Re: "Why is the right at war with cyclists?... "

Nearholmer wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 8:12am
There is some genuinely, deeply disturbing/chilling stuff out there. I saw something yesterday which advocated burning transgender people in ovens, and it was attracting comment after comment in support, for instance.

As cyclists, we simply find ourselves in the crosshairs in a small way.

Where this all goes, I don’t know, but I see no organised opposition to it, either from “the guardians of democracy and peace” that we elect, or at the sort of “street fighting” level that I recall from the 1970s and early 1980s when the enemy was the NF, which in retrospect looks like a baby outfit compared with the forces of darkness at play now.
Good lord, that's terrible- as if transgender people don't have enough confusion and mental angst in their lives, they have to put up with that sort of thing...

..apart from the ctc and other organisations does there have to be an opposition to it? After all, mass car movement is self defeating - there comes a point where the road network simply will not accommodate any more cars, either parked or moving....

..anyway - perhaps the greatest argument we have, is for more people to cycle, to enjoy it and do it more often. People are very jealous of other people having more fun than them (perhaps it's the reason why the LGBT community gets targeted so often - a sense that their lives are just more happier than those who seek to oppress them). Sometimes people get so jealous they go out and have ago at it themselves, like cycling....

In lots of ways I do wonder if the whole angry thing is in part the acknowledgement that they have lost the argument. That the next generation could have much more freedom than this generation has, and it scares the hell out of them.
by cycle tramp
26 Mar 2024, 11:46am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

thirdcrank wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 11:11am Re The Crown Court Compendium linked above.

If I've understood and remembered this correctly, there should then be no appeals based on trawling the law books for ingenious grounds for appeal long after the trial. The only points which would then normally go to appeal would be those where defence submissions had been rejected by the judge.
Thanks - in your opinion, having read much more of the rules than myself, could that include if the judge had rejected the earlier defence claims that the defendant did not intend to harm the deceased, if the defendant had (attempted) to make physical contact with them before the collision, but only sought to protect themselves?
by cycle tramp
26 Mar 2024, 10:59am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Jdsk wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 9:58am
cycle tramp wrote: 26 Mar 2024, 7:53am ...
According to a source on the web, during the police interview the defendant admitted that she 'made light contact with the deceased' however during her trial she advised the courts 'I can't remember'.
...
Please could you share that source.

Thanks

Jonathan
This is where it becomes slightly tricky, because I used the Google search function which finds text. I typed in 'Auriol Grey contact cyclist' just to see if any details about the case had made it onto the web and could be attrubited to a reliable source. Google found the text and attributed it to an article in the Times, which is hidden behind a request to enrol in a free subscription.

However I am indebted to Mattheus who found the same quote under a BBC news article. It's more than possible at this stage, the press are not giving any other variances of the situation, other than what has been presented by the appeals team, until the appeal is over, simply to protect themselves against any complaints
by cycle tramp
26 Mar 2024, 7:53am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

thirdcrank wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 5:58pm
Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 5:03pm
thirdcrank wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 5:00pm

A lot to go at but I've begun reading
You really only need to look at that section, which isn't too onerous. It's pretty well written, I think.
Yes. But perhaps the big issue here relates to the evidence heard by the jury and incomplete reporting means we don't know the extent of that evidence.

Anyway, thanks for the link. Above all, it seems much more coherent than the Law Teacher stuff
According to a source on the web, during the police interview the defendant admitted that she 'made light contact with the deceased' however during her trial she advised the courts 'I can't remember'. Coaching from the solicitors, perhaps?
Further to this her autism has been diagnosed after the incident... as for being partially blind? Perhaps without her glasses she is. Certainly her solicitors are making the best case to cast the defendant as a victim of circumstance rather than perpetrator.
by cycle tramp
25 Mar 2024, 11:20am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 9:44am
The definitive truth isn't there. One aspect of a very great deal of evidence is there.
If you write to convince others, then this is your concern. If you write to convince me, then you waste your time. His holiness the Pope could bless the defendant himself, and still my mind would not change
by cycle tramp
25 Mar 2024, 9:30am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 9:15am
cycle tramp wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 9:12am
Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 8:59am
Inadvertently killing a person may well not be a crime.
We do not need any men in wigs nor the ramblings of people whose joy of life fled their existence years ago to tell us wherever or not a crime has been committed. It is witnessed. Whether or not the appeal is successful or otherwise for many of us on this forum she is damned to a pitiless existence, and no charitable works or fine arguments will convince otherwise...
Your post illustrates better than I could why those individuals are needed to facilitate the determination of guilt or innocence by a correctly instructed Jury of our peers, I would strongly suggest.
I was a jury member once. Neither the defence nor the prosecution appeared to be interested in the definite truth, only their version of it. The lawyers themselves seemed less interested in the outcome and more of their payment. It was a waste of time, the only things which grew were tge wallets of those involved. Chess, but with real people as the playing pieces

In this case, the definite truth is there to see. The forum members can make their own mind ups. It matters not. This thread could run until it was so large, God himself would have to notice it, and even then that wouldn't bring back the beloved family member who was taken due to the foolish actions of someone who perhaps was better off in care, and only allowed out under supervision.
by cycle tramp
25 Mar 2024, 9:12am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Bonefishblues wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 8:59am
rareposter wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 8:55am
Valbrona wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 3:36am As tragic as it was, I can't think of any crime that the defendant committed.
Other than the minor one of (inadvertently) killing a person. 🤷🏻‍♂️
Inadvertently killing a person may well not be a crime.
We do not need any men in wigs nor the ramblings of people whose joy of life fled their existence years ago to tell us wherever or not a crime has been committed. It is witnessed. Whether or not the appeal is successful or otherwise for many of us on this forum she is damned to a pitiless existence, and no charitable works or fine arguments will convince otherwise.

If I find that I am supporting any charity which lends assistance or comfort to the defendant, I will cut all payment.
by cycle tramp
25 Mar 2024, 8:08am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

DaveReading wrote: 25 Mar 2024, 7:59am
cycle tramp wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 9:31am
DaveReading wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 9:29am

Precedent has no relevance in this instance.
Because....? Its no use saying that Precedent has no relevance in this instance, because that's like saying that this event will never happen again. I hope it won't but the future doesn't make any promises for this...
Sorry, I had assumed that you were using the term in the legal sense.

In the Crown Court, only previous judgments in the higher courts (e.g. the Appeal Court) can constitute Precedent. Obviously that doesn't apply in this instance.
Thank you for the explanation. It is appreciated. Thanks to Sun, the thread has now evolved, and whatever the court's decide, it is now immaterial to the fact that the defendant's actions have become clear for all to see. Each of us can make our own judgement. I have made mine
by cycle tramp
24 Mar 2024, 10:31pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Bonefishblues wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 10:27pm You have formed an opinion based on an aspect of the evidence presented at trial. Please stop saying we.
I'd actually watch the clip from sky before you make any further comment. That's not my opinion, in the post above - it's my witness statement from having seen the footage.

Again my thanks to Sun for this clip. As difficult as it is to witness, I hope everyone watches it. We owe the deceased that much.
by cycle tramp
24 Mar 2024, 10:24pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

Sum wrote: 24 Mar 2024, 10:10pm I believe this is the BBC footage:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... e-64824436
It appears in several BBC news articles on the same subject.

Sky news had a slightly longer (and more distressing) version but without the audio and expletives:
https://news.sky.com/video/auriol-grey- ... d-12823966
Thank you Sun. It is appreciated and confirms that I had presumed. Here's person walking confidently, not scared or frightened towards a cyclist and act in a way which intends them harm by seemingly push them from their bike into the road. The defendant can be seen to have stopped walking as the bike passes her and there is a twist to the defendant's torso. Regardless of the actions of the appeal, the camera reveals the defendant for what who they are. Not scared, not frightened but someone who was prepared to use their own size against an elderly cyclist who was cycling along a shared use pavement.

Whether the appeal goes the defendant's way or not, through that video footage anyone can witness the defendant's actions and need no further lawyers or judges to know what she is.
by cycle tramp
24 Mar 2024, 9:59pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist
Replies: 244
Views: 15322

Re: Huntingdon: Angry pedestrian guilty of killing cyclist

If one goes all the way back to the first bbc news report, the defendant stated that 'she may have put out her arm to defend herself'... I believe that this is the part which is missing from the footage, and I believe that this is the action to which the court paper's refer.
If this has been covered in the original court case then what we have may be a physical connection or an attempt thereof with the cyclist which sends them off the pavement. In which case there is the intent to harm, wrapped in a statement to suggest self defence.