I’m Spartacus

The reckless behaviour may have been intentional, but can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the specific intent was to kill the cyclist? If you charge with murder instead of manslaughter and can't convince all 12 jurors of that, you get no conviction.

@DJameson De'Ath on Wheels!

The French will try anything to get a Tour de France winner.

Unfortunately convicted Fraudster Louise Haigh is unavailable to serve as Transport Minister as she has been given (checks notes) the lead role for Ethics and Propriety as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That’s right - Burnham has appointed to an ethics and propriety role a person who not only committed fraud, but reportedly stayed silent when the person she sold one of the phones she stole to got arrested for having bought it from her in good faith.

Perhaps because the riders are going to fairly fatigued at this point of the race, and with a load of big stages still to come, so more likely to be using (if indeed they are)?

Well, "Texas law recognizes manslaughter as criminal homicide under section 19.04 of the state’s penal code. A person commits the crime of manslaughter if he or she recklessly caused the death of an individual. This differs from murder, where the accused intentionally and knowingly caused the death of someone. Manslaughter can be interpreted as an action that unintentionally caused a death, which is referred to as reckless behavior." I would say trying to hit a biker with a car so hard that she completely shattered the Honda's rear hatch window and crushed the hatch inward is severely intentional. The driver has been "booked into the Brazos County Jail 13 times since 2012...Those include criminal mischief, theft, resisting arrest, assault, hit and run, escape from custody, deadly conduct, possession of a controlled substance, and multiple driving offenses."

Well, the new transport secretary isn't Lousie Haigh, she's been appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Has anyone worked out what that job is yet?

@jh2727 I fear you may be right but if you are I find it a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. If it is an offence then they have the choice of sending a NIP, a warning letter or an advisory letter instead of NFA. All of these should be just a matter of pressing a button. In the case of the NIP, once the driver has been identified and checked for previous they have the option of a course, a fixed penalty notice or taking it to court. The first actually generates income, the second only goes to court if it's contested. I can see why they don't always use the courts but I can't see any reason not to use the others. Some on here would say that letters and courses are a waste of time but I don't. It hasn't happened to me yet but if a driver has already been dealt with in that way then the next time it's going to be very difficult to justify not taking action. I have also noticed a marked improvement in driving around me since Gloucestershire started sending advisory letters rather than NFA for close passes.

Also, with 8 seats and space for 6 standing, that's over 1 tonne just in passenger weight, plus the weight of the vehicle. Okay, they might not usually be at capacity, but a company is hardly likely to run them almost empty. It was vehicle weight which damaged the bridge and they're solving that with more vehicles? This report is just a press release reissued. The Barnes and Hammersmith Electric Light Transit is supposedly a grassroots community group that developed this junk?

@Another_MAMIL I'd say yes. I've not read up on the requirements lately, but my understanding is that while the heavy lifting of doping tests can be done after competition as it routine at the Olympics and in tennis, or as part of the whereabouts testing (athletes specifying when and where they'll be for an hour each day), the doping authorities have the right to turn up and request a test any other time, specifically to deter microdosing. They can't get into trouble if they aren't there when the testers turn up, but refusing is not an option. I have heard of testers turning up on mass at tournament hotels used by tennis players, including one time in the run up to the start of the Paris Masters event. I remember because rumour has it that one well known player had a sudden and coincidental family emergency that meant they had to temporarily leave the country. That was around the time biological passports were coming in, and they were taking blood samples. If memory serves me right, that was late at night, but not the middle of the night. While some players may have been in their pyjamas, it sounded as if all of the top players were targeted, and the tournament hadn't yet started, so much less disruptive, and harder for any player to claim they'd been victimised. As much as I support actions to catch or deter doping, it's because sport should be fair. Having just one or two competitors woken in the night is not fair.