Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

[Carlton green]

Does the Mail target model scale railway enthusiasts? Does the Express target gardeners? Or stamp collectors. Probably because there's nothing to target.

Gardeners, modellers and philatelists do not expect to share the road with motors.
The roads are often overcrowded by cars and lorries etc., and it is easier to blame us for this than think about the real problem.
And they have to slow down because of bikes. It's obvious we are the cause of the problem.
Besides, we are fit and green so they have to find reasons to excuse their own sins.

I think that you miss the point made. People on bikes too often behave in antisocial ways that bring problems for the rest of the population whereas gardeners, stamp collectors and model scale railway enthusiasts rarely or never do so.

The activities of motorists is a separate topic.

[Mike Sales]

Does the Mail target model scale railway enthusiasts? Does the Express target gardeners? Or stamp collectors. Probably because there's nothing to target.

Gardeners, modellers and philatelists do not expect to share the road with motors.
The roads are often overcrowded by cars and lorries etc., and it is easier to blame us for this than think about the real problem.
And they have to slow down because of bikes. It's obvious we are the cause of the problem.
Besides, we are fit and green so they have to find reasons to excuse their own sins.

I think that you miss the point made. People on bikes too often behave in antisocial ways that bring problems for the rest of us/cyclists whereas gardeners, stamp collectors and model scale railway enthusiasts rarely or never do so.

Your point was completely clear.
However, I feel that cyclists' bad behaviour is not the fundamental reason for the bile of drivers. It is only a handy excuse and I believe the real reason is as I state.
Drivers do mention RLJing and such, but also insurance, licence, VED. They clearly will use any excuse.
We have many instances reported on this forum of drivers targetting cyclists who are behaving correctly, with close passes etc.

Edited to make it clear I do not condone bad cycling behaviour, and I really hate to see it.
I have to admit though, that I sometimes feel it needs a certain temerity to claim my H.C. priority in traffic.
Some bad cycling is obviously because these people do not believe that cyclists have a legitimate place on the road, they accept drivers' belief that we are not legitimate road users and should avoid claiming the rights we do have. They are intimidated into a wheeled pedestrian existence.

[cycle tramp]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGlZrK9WYpo

Indefensible road manners for the worst reasons. Edited see below.

[cycle tramp]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGlZrK9WYpo

Indefensible road manners for the worst reasons.

Apologies- edited because I failed to read the above post - yes I take your point that there will always be an amount of dis-like levied at bicycle users for being relatively unencumbered by paperwork. However, it's worth remembering that (historically) motorists have brought this amount of paperwork on themselves- the mot test came into being because previous to this there was a percentage of vehicles unfit to be on the road, vehicle registration came into being because of the increasing amount of motor vehicles being driven and the need to identify those which were being driven poorly. (Indeed 'Ixion' who was a vicar and motorcyclist and newspaper writer of that time came out against vehicle registration plates)

History repeats itself, let us give no ground or reason why similar laws should be applied to pedal cycles, through good road manners and civil behaviour.

[Mike Sales]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGlZrK9WYpo

Indefensible road manners for the worst reasons.

Apologies- edited because I failed to read the above post - yes I take your point that there will always be an amount of dis-like levied at bicycle users for being relatively unencumbered by paperwork. However, it's worth remembering that (historically) motorists have brought this amount of paperwork on themselves- the mot test came into being because previous to this there was a percentage of vehicles unfit to be on the road, vehicle registration came into being because of the increasing amount of motor vehicles being driven and the need to identify those which were being driven poorly. (Indeed 'Ixion' who was a vicar and motorcyclist and newspaper writer of that time came out against vehicle registration plates)

History repeats itself, let us give no ground or reason why similar laws should be applied to pedal cycles, through good road manners and civil behaviour.

Yes, motorists have brought this paperwork on themselves, but I doubt that they would agree. They seem to see it as an unjust imposition which cyclists should bear if they want to use the road. We would still be an annoying irritaion even if it was imposed on us. The lack of it makes no real difference in the hurly-burly of traffic.
I certainly obey traffic laws and the HC and thoroghly deplore those who don't. I have seen some deviant behaviour which I try to understand.
I was catching a slow rider as we approached a quiet roundabout. Just before I passed, just before the roundabout she suddenly veered across the road and went round it widdershins in the perimeter gutter! It was a slightly shorter route I suppose.
Edited to apologise for my generalisations about drivers. They are not all the same and do not have a group mind. Nevertheless, there is a consistency in the vituperation we hear and read from some of them.

[thirdcrank]

Grant Shapps panders to The (Daily) Mail Stop press! Hold the front page! A party politician resorts to spin! Excuse the irony but this is hardly unusual. They do little else. And AIUI, the BBC was publicising one of its own radio programmes.

It's not necessary to complete a media studies course - listen to any politician - to know that the aim is to switch the discussion to your message. eg "What I think is important ... " or "I think we should be discussing...." it's a mistake to fight on the opponent's ground, not least because it publicises their argument.

Against that background, a lot of people seem to be "fighting for justice" for somebody. This isn't all about allegedly wrongful convictions but also about when it was exactly the opposite: no prosecution/ conviction of an alleged perpetrator. Social media can make this so much easier for savvy campaigners. The next stage is Xxxx's Law which may be the target or the result.

Personal attacks on the bereaved who campaign are imo likely to be at least counter-productive and questioning the good faith of somebody like Matthew Briggs seems unworthy.

[awavey]

So we really shouldn't concern ourselves about a press release that is extremely unlikely to become law

I agree with the analysis in your post Pete but sadly (to re-iterate my previous post); this is such an easy vote winner that I can still see this moribund government forcing it through

I think all sides of the house will happily rubber stamp this kind of thing through because its one of those they wont have a strong opinion on laws, and seems on face value to be a "good thing" if it saves just one life, whilst we blindly ignore the 5 lives we lose every day on the roads as just one of those things, even though Im pretty sure all our laws are largely archaic in origin, because thats how our legal & law system works in this country.

I mean no one complains that the laws on being drunk on a highway actually source from the 1872 licensing act do they ?

[cycle tramp]

One more post and then I'm done...

..personally I think the argument for bicycle travel has been won with Whitehall. Its been accepted (although perhaps begrudgingly) in terms of the nation's physical and mental health, in terms of congestion, in terms of C02 emissions and in terms of national energy security there is a place for bicycle travel and an understanding that measures should be put into place to increase it.

..on the flip side of this there have never been as many shared walk and cycle ways as there are now. If we look to increase the number of cyclists, there will also be the risk that there will be more cyclists & vulnerable user collisions, with perhaps the tragic consequence of death for either one or both parties (either as a direct result or complications thereafter).

Personally I am uncomfortable admitting that riding my bike could cause injury or death. In my mind that's a risk I associate for those (thankfully) odd occasions for when I drive. However if i accept that there is a capability that I can cause death even when cycling, it's now something I'm more greatly aware of, which helps me to keep focused on the consideration of others, especially when I'm on mixed and shared paths, or whenever I'm cycling past people using the pavement and that's no bad thing.

[freiston]

Is this the same Grant Shapps that wants to abolish mandatory training/testing to drive 7.5 tonne trucks and let people drive then on the strength of a driving test that can be trained and passed in a small hatchback?

For many years our government and its ministers have played the Daily Fail game of whipping up hatred and division (and ironically unifying its supporters in doing so), of appealing to the worst in people, of encouraging baseless emotional responses at the expense of the truth and pragmatism.

This is more of the same. The actions of Mr Briggs aside, to see it as anything else is naive. As Pete Owens (and others) pointed out, there already is a disparity whereby the motorist is likely to escape a custodial sentence despite the maximum sentences allowed (14 years iirc). This is not really an issue of safety, justice and parity - it's a small part of a bigger game-plan to facilitate a "populist" government that is leaning towards authoritarianism (whether consciously, behaviourally or whatever).

Unfortunately, I don't know what the solution is. All I can do is try to counter any such posits with facts and reason. Sometimes I know that I will not change the mind of a bigot, sometimes (social media?) there is an audience that might be influenced by facts and reason. Sometimes it's an echo chamber. One thing I'm sure of is that if Daily Fail style propaganda and tactics go unchallenged, then an angry minority can become the tip of an iceberg rather than a drop in the ocean.

[awavey]

So we really shouldn't concern ourselves about a press release that is extremely unlikely to become law

I agree with the analysis in your post Pete but sadly (to re-iterate my previous post); this is such an easy vote winner that I can still see this moribund government forcing it through

I think it might help if certain bicycle users did not give ammunition which in turn would be used against the rest of us. Certainly there was a thread on 'on the road' where a road was closed, but the footway remained open. Here it was mentioned that cyclists rode the footway 'nearly knocking down' a pedestrian who was also using it, and then rather than stop to apologise, were simply abusive to them and cycled on..

..that pedestrian could have been anyone including a columnist for a newspaper or have links with a newspaper, hey - they might even be part of some judicial law review or even know someone who is.

Does the Mail target model scale railway enthusiasts? Does the Express target gardeners? Or stamp collectors. Probably because there's nothing to target.

This is not the first instance I've experienced of this and touring the Isle of Wight sometime ago, spoke to a nice couple and their dog, who were abused in a similar way by a cyclist for daring to be on a shared cycle footway. I made sure I gave the dog alot of attention and listen to their grievances and they actually said at the time 'We wish more cyclists were like you'.

Speaking personally I am sure that many road users dislike the additional mental effort involved in overtaking me. But the stake holders within cycling in all its many forms, need to work to get the message out there, that if that is to be thought of as a problem or difficulty then let it be the only problem or difficulty that riding a bicycle causes.

my experiences especially on shared infra as a cyclist you get far more abuse from pedestrians for daring to be there,not the other way around and its usually because youve upset their train of thought whilst theyd been letting their mind wander as they walked, there they were meandering along and now theres a cyclist they need to think about, if they are walking their dog, now they need to control their dog, if they are walking with small children, now they need to take care of their kid more, without the cyclist there they dont have to do any of that and thats what causes the friction between the two groups because its a forced jolt of taking some responsibility and more care than they thought they need to.

Ive no idea if the dog walkers you met on the Isle of Wight met an abusive cyclist or not, I can well imagine lots of alternate scenarios where the cyclist was entirely blameless and just encountered a couple who took the hump because the cyclist didnt behave as they wanted, because Ive been in those situations, even once accused of riding too fast, when I was completely stationary.

so its always worth remembering there are always two sides to a story

[Bonefishblues]

So we really shouldn't concern ourselves about a press release that is extremely unlikely to become law

I agree with the analysis in your post Pete but sadly (to re-iterate my previous post); this is such an easy vote winner that I can still see this moribund government forcing it through

I think all sides of the house will happily rubber stamp this kind of thing through because its one of those they wont have a strong opinion on laws, and seems on face value to be a "good thing" if it saves just one life, whilst we blindly ignore the 5 lives we lose every day on the roads as just one of those things, even though Im pretty sure all our laws are largely archaic in origin, because thats how our legal & law system works in this country.

I mean no one complains that the laws on being drunk on a highway actually source from the 1872 licensing act do they ?

Mr Briggs patiently explained that he knew this was a very rare occurrence. His motivation is to try to reduce the impact, distress and confusion caused to the bereaved after the event because the CPS has to decide what and how to prosecute - and all they have is this anachronism to apply.

My bold

[Albrecht]

and use the precedent of his case to establish that driving vehicles (whether or not powered by motors) at speeds in excess of 18mph in built up areas is wanton and furious.

All good points, well made. Which neatly segues into the other topic about a 20mph national speed limit in urban environments.

As a C19th aside, I know of one Hunt Saboteur who was recently deliberately run over by a horse rider at full gallop, the "whipper-in" of the hunt, causing several broken bones and a collapsed lung, and requiring taking to Hospital by air ambulance. The angry riders swearing at him as they did so (the Hunt Sab had stopped to check on a horse which had collapsed in a field having, it turned out, ‘suffered an aneurism on the hunting field’ and died as a result).

He was only charged with causing grievous bodily harm to the animal rights activist and was allowed out on unconditional bail.

The trial is taking 3 years to come to court and I won't be holding my breath to see the scale of justice swing fairly on that one either.

I think it might help if certain bicycle users did not give ammunition which in turn would be used against the rest of us.

It's a certain type, isn't it? And it's not what I'd call the "yob" element, e.g. young kids on bikes. Funnily enough, they tend to know they are in the wrong.

In my experience, it tend to be a kind of an aggressive male who dressing up like a full sports rider on a racing bike or high performance MTB, and treats every ride as a race or a cardio work out.

A sort of cyclist's version of 'roid rage, not just road rage.

Like a Top Gear car driver, they've spent their £2000 on a bike and demand the right to ride it at full speed everywhere. Hell on tow paths too.

[awavey]

I agree with the analysis in your post Pete but sadly (to re-iterate my previous post); this is such an easy vote winner that I can still see this moribund government forcing it through

I think all sides of the house will happily rubber stamp this kind of thing through because its one of those they wont have a strong opinion on laws, and seems on face value to be a "good thing" if it saves just one life, whilst we blindly ignore the 5 lives we lose every day on the roads as just one of those things, even though Im pretty sure all our laws are largely archaic in origin, because thats how our legal & law system works in this country.

I mean no one complains that the laws on being drunk on a highway actually source from the 1872 licensing act do they ?

Mr Briggs patiently explained that he knew this was a very rare occurrence. His motivation is to try to reduce the impact, distress and confusion caused to the bereaved after the event because the CPS has to decide what and how to prosecute - and all they have is this anachronism to apply.

My bold

5 people died on the roads yesterday, 5 people will die today, 5 people will die tomorrow...

My bold

[slowster]

Edit - Crossed posts with Bonefishblues.

As I understand it's quite common in jury trials that the judge will have to explain the law in question to the jury, i.e. both the actual wording and also how that wording should be interpreted, e.g. explanations of the legal meaning of 'careless' or 'reckless' with regard to the particular law in question. Even for legislation written in seemingly plain English some words and phrases will have specific legal meaning which will need to be explained to the jury members for them to be able to assess properly whether the law has been broken.

I suspect one of the distressing aspects for Mr Briggs of the trial of Charlie Alliston, was the fact that the explanation of the law to the jury members was much more involved and possibly convoluted because of the need to explain in modern plain English the legal meanings of each of the three different offences in that particular Act ('wanton and furious driving', 'wilful neglect' and 'wilful misconduct').

For the trial to have to devote significant time to, and potentially even hinge upon, discussion of arcane legal terms was probably a cause of added distress which he justifiably felt ought to be avoided in any future similar case. Although it appears that the judge was well able to explain the meaning of the law to the jury members, and they in turn appeared to understand it and were able to apply it in reach their verdict, it is an unnecessary cause of extra distress for bereaved relatives attending the court like Mr Briggs, and that is probably reason enough to update that law, despite the rarity of such cases.

On the face of it I think thirdcrank's suggestion is a good one of going further and replacing current offences of manslaughter, death by dangerous or careless driving/riding etc. with an offence of 'unlawful killing' (or maybe 'culpable homicide') with varying levels of punishment depending upon the degree of culpability, e.g. careless vs. reckless. A major benefit of that would be that the anomaly in motoring deaths of jury members determining for themselves what is careless, reckless or below/far below the standard of an ordinary driver would probably end. Whether the charge of unlawful killing involved some driving a car, a lorry, riding a bike or a motorcycle, or operating heavy machinery etc., the criteria for what would be defined as careless or reckless etc. would be based on a (reasonably) competent driver/rider/operator. Therefore there would be expert witness testimony from the likes of driving examiners, Bikeability examiners etc. on the question of whether the actions were careless or reckless etc.. That should reduce the tendency for jury members to acquit motor vehicle drivers due to feeling that 'there but for the grace of God...' - it will be much harder for a jury member to do that if they have heard an expert witness for the prosecution give compelling evidence for a guilty verdict.

[Albrecht]

5 people died on the roads yesterday, 5 people will die today, 5 people will die tomorrow...

Yeah, but how many of them were pretty, young blondes?

That's what really matters. To the news.

You can cull off the elderly, mow down the minorities, curtail the lives of infant chavs ... but dare touch a fair haired, middle class lady and it's a matter of state emergency.

I suspect one of the distressing aspects for Mr Briggs of the trial of Charlie Alliston, was the fact that the explanation of the law to the jury members was much more involved and possibly convoluted because of the need to explain in modern plain English the legal meanings of each of the three different offences in that particular Act ('wanton and furious driving', 'wilful neglect' and 'wilful misconduct').

But why was he even being tried for it? It was a "something has to be done about it" case in reaction to the moral outrage in the press. Someone in the CPS had to pour back through the law books until the C19th to find something to stick him with.

This is not really an issue of safety, justice and parity - it's a small part of a bigger game-plan to facilitate a "populist" government that is leaning towards authoritarianism (whether consciously, behaviourally or whatever).

They're doing a similar thing with Extinction Rebellion and climate crises protestors. They allow a reasonable situation to over run, in order to use it as an excuse, to bring in ever more oppressive legislation.