Home
Jesse Norman comes out pedalling in defence of government's cycling safety review...

 

You may remember a news story by Laura Laker on road.cc from a couple of weeks ago that appeared under the heading, Obey! Transport Minister tells cyclists to follow Highway Code… well he asks leaders of cycling organisations to tell them for him.

Well, Laura followed that up with an opinion piece for the Guardian Bike Blog in which she accused transport minister Jesse Norman of “headline grabbing hypocrisy” in relation to his announcement of a review into cycling safety in the wake of the Charlie Alliston case.

> Government announces cycle safety review in wake of Alliston case

Now the minister has responded, branding Laker’s Guardian piece “extreme” and saying in a piece published in the newspaper’s Bike Blog that far from “ignoring the problem” the government is “shining a light on it.”

To underline his sincerity, he added: “To be clear: I am a keen cyclist myself, and I am absolutely aware of the number of cyclists killed and injured every year.

“The purpose of the review is to make our roads safer for all users, and the safety of cyclists will be a key element of that.”

In her Guardian article, Laura expanded upon that earlier piece on road.cc, which she wrote after it emerged that after announcing the review, Norman had written to several organisations representing cyclists, including British Cycling and Cycling UK, urging them among other things to ensure their members adhere to the Highway Code.

> Obey! Transport minister tells cyclists to follow Highway Code… well, he asks leaders of cycling organisations to tell them for him

Those organisations, and other cycling campaigners, had expressed grave concerns over the review, highlighting that while the vast majority of road traffic fatalities in Great Britain involve motorists, the outcome of a review into driving offences launched in 2014 was yet to materialise.

There was a strong feeling that the latest review had been ordered due to the widespread publicity that the Alliston case had attracted in the mainstream media, and that by focusing on collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, the government was ignoring the much more serious issue of deaths caused by motorists.

In his article for the Guardian Bike Blog, which appeared under the heading, We want to make our roads safer for everyone – especially cyclists, Norman did not mention the letter sent to cycling organisations.

Instead, he claimed that Laker’s earlier article was “quite an extreme reaction to my announcement of a review whose specific purpose is to improve the safety of all road users, especially in relation to cyclists.”

He wrote: “As I made clear, the review will address two key issues. The first is legal: whether the law is defective in the case of bodily harm or death from a cyclist, and specifically whether, as the rule of law demands, there is an adequate remedy here. Our aim is to complete this work early in the new year.”

“The second issue is broader: how to make the roads safer for all users. After the legal review there will be a public consultation, and road user groups and the general public will be invited to submit their views and evidence then.”

There is a case to be made for laws regarding careless or dangerous cycling to be brought up to date.

Alliston was convicted of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 but acquitted on the more serious charge of manslaughter.

However, campaigners argue that it should be conducted in the context of a wider review of the law as it applies to all road users.

Following the announcement of the review, Paul Tuohy, Cycling UK’s chief executive, said: “The consultation on road safety issues is an opportunity to keep cyclists and pedestrians safer.

“Cycling UK looks forward to working with the Department for Transport on this consultation to ensure it focuses on evidenced ways that keep our most vulnerable road users safe, by addressing risks such as dangerous roads, drivers and vehicles.

“The proposed review of cycling offences needs to be carried out as part of the Government’s promised wider review of all road traffic offences and sentencing.

“This will ensure the justice system can deal with mistakes, carelessness, recklessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users.”

Similarly, a letter published in The Times earlier this week called on the government to expand the scope of the review beyond cyclists.

Among the 15 signatories to the letter were John Parkin, professor of transport engineering at the University of the West of England, Rachel Aldred, reader in transport at the University of Westminster, and UCL professor of public health, Jennifer Mindel. They wrote:

Sir,

The government has announced an urgent review to consider whether a new offence equivalent to causing death or dangerous driving should be introduced for cyclists. Risk on our roads, particularly for the most vulnerable, remains high. As part of a strategy to address this, we agree that a review of road traffic offences is required, However, we question the focus only on deaths caused by cyclists. Of the 1,792 people killed on UK roads last year, only three were pedestrians killed in collisions with cyclists.

The review of all road traffic offences and sentencing announced in May 2014 is long overdue. This was reduced in scope to cover the distinction between careless and dangerous driving, drink and drug driving and use of mobile phones, and hit-and-run drivers. It has not yet appeared, despite such offences killing many more people each year than do cyclists.

We call on the government to ensure that any urgent review of road traffic offences is wide-ranging.

Laura received widespread praise for her piece in the Guardian, including from British Cycling policy advisor and Greater Manchester Cycling & Walking Commissioner Chris Boardman, who was quoted in the article.

Following Norman's response yesterday, she has since confirmed that she is due to meet with minister to discuss the government’s review in more detail.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

33 comments

Avatar
alansmurphy [1645 posts] 4 months ago
25 likes

Simple question:

 

Why did you write to cycling organisations following a single case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian yet not to motoring organisations following drivers routinely illegally killing cyclists and facing arbitrary prosecution?

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [1305 posts] 4 months ago
45 likes

This written by a guardian commenter sums it up perfectly. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/oct/05/we-want-to...

solomongursky 
"Mr Norman, in this country a driver can deliberately drive along a pavement and kill a four year old child skipping along with her mother and walk free from court. Yesterday a woman walked free from court after killing a 91 year old man on a zebra crossing in Wanstead.

Robert Harris took a car with three bald tyres on the road and killed four people on bikes. He got fined £180.

Ichhpal Bharma killed a cyclist and drove 300 feet with the victim on the car bonnet before crashing into a tree. He was fined £35.

Cycling lobbyists have been PLEADING with you to review road deaths and the way a jury of drivers will rarely convict culpable killer drivers. For the last three years we've BEGGED you to look at how criminal drivers who kill escape spending a single day in prison almost 50% of the time. We've lobbied, written letters, clamoured for justice and you've done nothing, so it's baffling that the only time you've spoken about the review that was promised three years ago was after a brakeless clown on a bike killed a woman who stepped in front of him.

In the last 10 weeks HGV drivers have killed seventen people and MPs sponsored by the road freight industry haven't said a word.

Something is seriously wrong with road justice in this country, defective vehicles kill around 45 people every year and you said nothing, one idiot on a bike kills someone and there are questions in the house, appeals for law changes and over 3000 newspaper articles. What's going on?"

 

Avatar
severs1966 [415 posts] 4 months ago
11 likes

Westminster MP and minister turns out to be an amoral liar. What a surprise.

He isn't a hypocrite at all; he's a politician owned by the road haulage industry. He is very sincerely keeping his promises to the road haulage industry.

If people on bikes are killed by motorists, he doesn't care. It isn't him, because the "keen cyclist" in him is almost entirely fictitious.

He is not a hypocrite, he is a liar.

Avatar
hawkinspeter [1257 posts] 4 months ago
3 likes

Sounds like a lot of hot air.

If he's committed to making roads safer, then what has he actually done rather than just talked about?

Avatar
Hug [12 posts] 4 months ago
1 like

A little off point, but because the wanton AND furious seems to be becoming ingrained it is worth mentioning, just because it helps to explain how Charlie A could be prosecuted -because he wasn't going particularly quickly, so probably not furious, but certainly wantonly sans brake.

As the wonderful Martin Porter pointed out in his article (http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/a-note-on-law-manslaughter-...) the offence  "is either wanton or furious or wilful misconduct or wilful neglect any of which causes bodily harm"

 

 

Avatar
Velovoyeur [58 posts] 4 months ago
1 like

Everyone accepts that the roads are dangerous places - moreso for some users than others. Therfore it is not surprising that ministers need to appear to be actively doing something about it. But starting with a group of users who are more at risk rather than major contributors to the number of deaths is illogical. The minister will not tackle the issue by looking at the major contributors to road deaths (road hauliers, motorists etc) because he is fully aware of the response he will recieve and the fact that a lot of tax revunue comes from them. If the minister truly was concerned with the issues he would go for the areas where the largest and quickest results could be had but I doubt he has the guts or the conviction to do it.   

Avatar
hawkinspeter [1257 posts] 4 months ago
4 likes
Velovoyeur wrote:

Everyone accepts that the roads are dangerous places...

However, they don't need to be and shouldn't be dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero

I just don't understand why people keep on voting for these utter waste of space politicians we have in the UK. They don't represent us at all.

Avatar
beezus fufoon [973 posts] 4 months ago
6 likes

it's a well known psychological maxim that any sentence which starts - I mean no offence... or, don't take this the wrong way... is explicitly self-contradictory and that the speaker knows full well that what they're saying is going to be offensive - one would think that at least this politician had been better trained in the use of deceitful language...

on which note - I mean no offence, and I hope the minister doesn't take this the wrong way, but Jesse Norman is a total imbecile

Avatar
Bluebug [310 posts] 4 months ago
2 likes

Only the onl y way to describe Jesse Norman's words is "bulls*$*"

 

Avatar
Awavey [367 posts] 4 months ago
3 likes

There was me thinking it was traditional in a right of reply,to actually counter the original piece,not just restate your same points, guess not if you're a politician

Avatar
davel [2109 posts] 4 months ago
3 likes

Top class righteous cage-rattling, Laker.

Avatar
handlebarcam [1082 posts] 4 months ago
5 likes
Quote:

I’m not a headline grabbing hypocrite

...says a politician. Next up, a plumber claims his job does not involve water, an astronaut who believes the Earth is flat, an estate agent who says her life is dedicated solely to altruism, and we meet the police officers who want to smash the system. All still to come on the new TV show, Great British People Who Never Read Their Own Job Descriptions.

Avatar
kitsunegari [345 posts] 4 months ago
3 likes

Ah he started with the "I'm a keen cyclist myself" defence.

What a prat.

Avatar
Hamster [109 posts] 4 months ago
2 likes
Quote:

“To be clear: I am a keen cyclist myself,

Strava or Garmin profile page and activities to be posted before I believe that one. Usually the first comment from an errant driver on being challenged over a close pass is "I'm a cyclist too..."

Avatar
Velovoyeur [58 posts] 4 months ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:
Velovoyeur wrote:

Everyone accepts that the roads are dangerous places...

However, they don't need to be and shouldn't be dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero

I just don't understand why people keep on voting for these utter waste of space politicians we have in the UK. They don't represent us at all.

Couldn't agree more but until we reach those utopian ideals we need to realise that there are plenty of hazards on the roads and remain vigilant at all times. If you are on the road and believe that you are in a safe environment you are sorely misguided. I can't wait for separate cycle ways and other town planning measures to make cycling a safer and more vialbe transport option but even if we have those there will still be hazards.

Avatar
crazy-legs [958 posts] 4 months ago
5 likes
Quote:

To be clear: I am a keen cyclist myself,

That's straight from the "Terrible Journalist Guide to writing about cycling"

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-terrible-journa...

Old article (2012) but still perfectly valid. Make some placatory comments about how you love cycling while simultaneously rushing through some knee-jerk legislation against cycling.

Call me cycnical but I'm willing to bet that "improving safety for cyclists" will involve:
mandatory hi-viz/helmets/lights
mandatory use of any cycle lanes present, no matter how inconvenient or impractical
increased enforcement of "no cycling" and "cyclists dismount" signs

All to allow the unimpeded rush of the very-important people in their very-important cars All in the name of safety.
 

Avatar
Bluebug [310 posts] 4 months ago
2 likes
severs1966 wrote:

Westminster MP and minister turns out to be an amoral liar. What a surprise.

He isn't a hypocrite at all; he's a politician owned by the road haulage industry. He is very sincerely keeping his promises to the road haulage industry.

If people on bikes are killed by motorists, he doesn't care. It isn't him, because the "keen cyclist" in him is almost entirely fictitious.

He is not a hypocrite, he is a liar.

If he's like a lot of politicians he's telling a version of the truth.   The point he left out from his version is that he only cycles on his friends' private estates with private roads. 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... [1972 posts] 4 months ago
1 like
Hamster wrote:
Quote:

“To be clear: I am a keen cyclist myself,

Strava or Garmin profile page and activities to be posted before I believe that one. Usually the first comment from an errant driver on being challenged over a close pass is "I'm a cyclist too..."

I dunno about Strava - Strava users are a particular kind of cyclist, and not _necessarily_ the ones most likely to be concerned about the safety of non super-fit hard-core riders.

The main point for me would be whether he depends on the bike as his primary mode of transport. Would he be practically inconvenienced without it? Or is his normal, preferred, mode of travel in fact the motor car?

The very phrase 'keen cyclist' is suggestive of a hobby, not a practical necessity.

Avatar
davel [2109 posts] 4 months ago
1 like
Bluebug wrote:

If he's like a lot of politicians he's telling a version of the truth.   The point he left out from his version is that he only cycles on his friends' private estates with private roads. 

...with the pedals turned by peasants' legs.

Avatar
Morgoth985 [101 posts] 4 months ago
3 likes
kitsunegari wrote:

Ah he started with the "I'm a keen cyclist myself" defence.

What a prat.

 

Agree, almost as obvious as "Some of my best friends are [x], but . . . "

Avatar
BarryBianchi [419 posts] 4 months ago
1 like
Morgoth985 wrote:

Agree, almost as obvious as "Some of my best friends are [x], but . . . "

I'm not a racist but, all those Klu Klux Klan guys look the same to me....

Avatar
Hamster [109 posts] 4 months ago
1 like
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Hamster wrote:
Quote:

“To be clear: I am a keen cyclist myself,

Strava or Garmin profile page and activities to be posted before I believe that one. Usually the first comment from an errant driver on being challenged over a close pass is "I'm a cyclist too..."

I dunno about Strava - Strava users are a particular kind of cyclist, and not _necessarily_ the ones most likely to be concerned about the safety of non super-fit hard-core riders. The main point for me would be whether he depends on the bike as his primary mode of transport. Would he be practically inconvenienced without it? Or is his normal, preferred, mode of travel in fact the motor car? The very phrase 'keen cyclist' is suggestive of a hobby, not a practical necessity.

 

Don't come round here being all reasonable! smiley

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [1305 posts] 4 months ago
6 likes
crazy-legs wrote:
Quote:

To be clear: I am a keen cyclist myself,

That's straight from the "Terrible Journalist Guide to writing about cycling"

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-terrible-journa...

Old article (2012) but still perfectly valid. Make some placatory comments about how you love cycling while simultaneously rushing through some knee-jerk legislation against cycling.

Call me cycnical but I'm willing to bet that "improving safety for cyclists" will involve:
mandatory hi-viz/helmets/lights
mandatory use of any cycle lanes present, no matter how inconvenient or impractical
increased enforcement of "no cycling" and "cyclists dismount" signs

All to allow the unimpeded rush of the very-important people in their very-important cars All in the name of safety.

I'd rather go to prison than be forced to wear a helmet, hi-vis and be forced off the road. I'm not contracting to anymore bullshit. the Universal declaration of human Rights gives me the right to liberty and equality, my common law right is to travel unhindered and I expect those rights to be upheld by the so called powers that run this country not erode them so that i am no longer equal or my rights removed.

Those that have sworn an oath to be fair don't give any fucks and refuse to uphold what they are supposedly sworn to, keeping the peace. So there's no way this side of hell freezing over am I letting some wanker/s whose idea of justice/change is to blame victims and to force victims of criminals to take up the slack of those causing the harm (which never worked in any period of history in any circumstance/arena) force their shit onto me because they can fuck right off with it if they try to.

I think the cycling organisations of this country should crowdfund to raise a shit ton of money to take legal action against the government as they are already past the point of being unlawful in their actions and complicit in the deaths of innocent people through their inaction and indeed actions that cause more harm and remove innate rights and freedoms.

Avatar
ironmancole [358 posts] 4 months ago
4 likes

I still do not understand why we, as a concerned and utterly frustrated collective, cannot or do not use legal avenues to bring the lack of government action to a high court.  One of the principle tasks of a government is to safeguard its citizens...clearly where road safety is concerned the government is failing us.

Use any other anology.  Whites killing blacks and getting away with it because whites pay vast sums to government...would that be ok?  How about schoolteachers kicking the shit out of pupils every day because their union is really powerful?  How about doctors and nurses abusing drugs and ending lives early that they don't consider to have any value?

Extreme yes, but what really is the difference?  Perhaps its easier to simply ask why do vulnerable road user lives have no value?  We need to put the government before a court and force the Transport Minister to very simply detail why he refuses to act.

It is possible to take government to court, why can we not get together and demand that government is forced to explain why it refuses to act?

Is is really that hard?

Avatar
Eton Rifle [49 posts] 4 months ago
6 likes

Laura Laker's piece in The Guardian is well worth a read.  She effortlessly tears Jesse Norman a new one and brilliantly exposes his bullshit and hypocrisy.  Anyone with half a braincell would have realised that and at least kept quiet.  The fact that the fuckwit Norman has somehow managed to make himself look even more stupid with this pathetic 'response' is an indicator of just how staggeringly incompetent a politician he is.

Avatar
IanMunro [37 posts] 4 months ago
0 likes

I did laugh at the 'keen cyclist' bit, so had a google, and in fairness to him the first picture I found did show him on a bike sans helmet and hi-viz, so he's already gone up in my opinion  1
http://renews.biz/105518/norman-handed-energy-brief/

Avatar
brooksby [2906 posts] 4 months ago
2 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
crazy-legs wrote:
Quote:

To be clear: I am a keen cyclist myself,

That's straight from the "Terrible Journalist Guide to writing about cycling"

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-terrible-journa...

Old article (2012) but still perfectly valid. Make some placatory comments about how you love cycling while simultaneously rushing through some knee-jerk legislation against cycling.

Call me cycnical but I'm willing to bet that "improving safety for cyclists" will involve:
mandatory hi-viz/helmets/lights
mandatory use of any cycle lanes present, no matter how inconvenient or impractical
increased enforcement of "no cycling" and "cyclists dismount" signs

All to allow the unimpeded rush of the very-important people in their very-important cars All in the name of safety.

I'd rather go to prison than be forced to wear a helmet, hi-vis and be forced off the road. I'm not contracting to anymore bullshit. the Universal declaration of human Rights gives me the right to liberty and equality, my common law right is to travel unhindered and I expect those rights to be upheld by the so called powers that run this country not erode them so that i am no longer equal or my rights removed.

Those that have sworn an oath to be fair don't give any fucks and refuse to uphold what they are supposedly sworn to, keeping the peace. So there's no way this side of hell freezing over am I letting some wanker/s whose idea of justice/change is to blame victims and to force victims of criminals to take up the slack of those causing the harm (which never worked in any period of history in any circumstance/arena) force their shit onto me because they can fuck right off with it if they try to.

I think the cycling organisations of this country should crowdfund to raise a shit ton of money to take legal action against the government as they are already past the point of being unlawful in their actions and complicit in the deaths of innocent people through their inaction and indeed actions that cause more harm and remove innate rights and freedoms.

="I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

(I honestly think that cyclists are going to have to resort to genuine civil disobedience within the next few years, or be forced to only ride bikes at Centre Parcs...)

Avatar
Rapha Nadal [741 posts] 4 months ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

This written by a guardian commenter sums it up perfectly. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/oct/05/we-want-to...

solomongursky 
"Mr Norman, in this country a driver can deliberately drive along a pavement and kill a four year old child skipping along with her mother and walk free from court. Yesterday a woman walked free from court after killing a 91 year old man on a zebra crossing in Wanstead.

Robert Harris took a car with three bald tyres on the road and killed four people on bikes. He got fined £180.

Ichhpal Bharma killed a cyclist and drove 300 feet with the victim on the car bonnet before crashing into a tree. He was fined £35.

Cycling lobbyists have been PLEADING with you to review road deaths and the way a jury of drivers will rarely convict culpable killer drivers. For the last three years we've BEGGED you to look at how criminal drivers who kill escape spending a single day in prison almost 50% of the time. We've lobbied, written letters, clamoured for justice and you've done nothing, so it's baffling that the only time you've spoken about the review that was promised three years ago was after a brakeless clown on a bike killed a woman who stepped in front of him.

In the last 10 weeks HGV drivers have killed seventen people and MPs sponsored by the road freight industry haven't said a word.

Something is seriously wrong with road justice in this country, defective vehicles kill around 45 people every year and you said nothing, one idiot on a bike kills someone and there are questions in the house, appeals for law changes and over 3000 newspaper articles. What's going on?"

 

I believe that the most appropriate phrase to use here is "nail on the head".

Avatar
Recumbenteer [174 posts] 4 months ago
2 likes

I’m not a "headline grabbing hypocrite" …I’m a keen cyclist - Transport minister, Jesse Norman responds to cycling critics.

Then why is he behaving like one?

We need more traffic Police, to deter lawlessness and to catch the bad ones (all road-users).

Pedestrians can be a menace.

As a cyclist, I've hit one pedestrian. 
Many years ago I was cycling Northwards in Kingston-upon-Thames Market-place when motorised through traffic was still allowed and I hit a pedestrian. 

I wasn't moving fast, I was riding a Hercules roadster, with Sturmey-Archer three-speed (no speedo, bike computers and GPS didn't exist). I guess 8-12mph-ish.

She was one of a number of pedestrians walking along the pavement when I saw her and I was on the road [where I normally cycle]. She changed direction and without looking, stepped off the kerb into the road and walked still without looking, across the road and my path. I  slowed to let her cross, and if she had continued on her way or stopped where she was, I would have passed behind her and no collision would have happened. However, what next happened caught me completely by surprise. She emerged from her little world, became aware of my presence and in her amazement she leapt backwards into my path. I had almost stopped* when I collided with her.

*The weather was bone-dry, if it had been raining, I would have barely slowed, wet brakes on steel-rims would have meant stopping would have taken perhaps two or three times the distance.

The backwards jump was a real surprise. She said nothing and I said nothing. Her injuries, possible mild grazing from my front-rack and mudguard.

What did I learn? Apart from the 'expect the unexpected', pedestrians can do the stupidest of things. I should have rung my bell, I just didn't see any point, since she was moving away from my intended path.

Nowadays, quite a few pedestrians ignore and some even resent the ringing of bicycle bells. I've heard of assaults against cyclists, just for ringing their bell. Some pedestrians are both militant and ignorant. See bottom of comment

Of course, these days with everybody having their attention 'glued' to their bloody phones, whether it's listening, or texting, or playing a stupid game, when they should be paying attention to what they're doing i.e. crossing the road, such behaviour seems more likely. I can't help but suspect this was a factor in the Alliston/Briggs impact & fatality, but of course it's only a suspicion. But her reported behaviour suggests inattentiveness & preoccupation with something other than crossing the road was a factor. Whether it would have made any difference to the outcome we'll never know for sure. Pedestrians need to look and act accordingly.

-----------------------

See below:

I once got into a small verbal fight with someone near B&Q on the Peninsula when I was cycling along the shared-use path and saw two people standing in the shared use path. As I got closer I rang my bell once, twice, three times. Then stopped in front of them, on the cycle path. They glared at me and carried on talking. I said “excuse me” and one of them asked what I wanted. I asked them politely to move out of the way, and the one who had spoken starting screaming at me: WHY SHOULD WE MOVE OUT OF YOUR WAY YOU SHOULD BE ON A CYCLE PATH NOT THE PAVEMENT YOU’RE THE ONE IN THE WRONG WE’RE JUST STANDING HERE TALKING MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS AND YOU COME ALONG ON YOUR BIKE AND DEMAND THAT WE MOVE OUT OF THE WAY GET ON A CYCLE PATH LIKE YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO!
…I waited until she’d finished her little screaming session and then pointed at the bicycle painted onto the cycle path she was standing on, saying nothing. She and her companion sheepishly moved out the way and I moved on on my way.

Source: https://charltonchampion.co.uk/2011/01/04/olympics-cycle-path-for-woolwi...

I thought that was hilarious.

 

Avatar
burtthebike [1374 posts] 4 months ago
4 likes

I've checked my dictionary, but I can't find a word for a double hypocrite, someone who piles hypocrisy on hypocrisy; can I suggest that it be defined as a "Norman"?

Pages