Witness appeal after Surrey cyclist pushed off bike by car passenger

There is basically no cycling infrastructure in Edinburgh that is not either a shared footpath or shared with motor vehicles. Cyclists are subservient in both cases. On shared use paths this is by legislation and common sense. On the road it is because most cycle lanes in residential areas are parking spaces, bus lanes have busses in them and the lanes segregated by wands peppered with give ways to cars every few feet. And people still park in them. Pretty much the only exception is that side of the extremely wide path through the meadows, for a few hundred yards. The total width of the paved region is probably wide enough to land a light aircraft, there is absolutely no restriction to pedestrians and pedestrians completely ignore the cycle markings on one side anyway. Given the colossal amount of space given over to motor vehicles in the city, which are predominantly single occupancy, and the fact it is illegal to cycle on all of the pavements dedicated formpedestrians, I going to put this guy's comments in the "idiotic" category.

I believe the Miners Pension Fund has proved a nice little earner for Government coffers, generating a huge surplus and that Government has been pocketing half of it. This payment that you apparently resent so much is a partial settlement of that unfairness!

Mr Fraser would seem a perfect paraphrase of the old cartoon about the millionaire with a thousand cookies telling the working man with one cookie to watch out or the immigrants will steal his cookie...incidentally, in this age of obesity I often see pedestrians far wider than me and the bike, not to mention people with pushchairs twice as wide or more, they don't feel guilty about the amount of space they're taking from me, or so I surmise from the way they wander into the bike lane whenever it suits them...

Motor-heads are the champions of false equivalence.

10 years in prison for killing a cyclist should be the minimum sentence. The objective is to raise awareness and remind motorists they must remain vigilant at all times when behind the wheel. Drivers who harm people and/or damage properties shall be sent to retest. No excuses. No exceptions.

@wtjs No remorse from the 84 year old driver though. " He fully accepts responsibility and places no blame on the cyclist whatsoever". Which seems to imply he'd like to blame the cyclist if he could.

Hookless and yet still ‘just 1585’ grams. No and no . The only thing ‘industry leading’ is their marketing team that convinces folk to part with their money for this product.

@wtjs That's how it works, though. The defendant expresses remorse. You can believe it or not, as can the judge. On the face of it, he is remorseful. Accepted. The Judge goes on to clarify that his remorse is effectively nullified: the defendant knew (or ought to have known) better; he had all the information he needed to know not to do it. So the judge has done what he needs to do: he acknowledges the remorse, takes it at face value and shows his balancing of the circumstances. If he did not, there is a chance it could be part of a sentencing appeal - "the judge did not take into account my remorse"... Well he did, and you're still a See You Next Tuesday! Now, whether 9 years and a time-limited ban are sufficient is a matter for sentencing guidelines which, without evidence to the contrary, I shall assume the judge has followed. My opinion is that the extended re-test needs to have a strong attitude test component, for a start, but that anybody who has caused death through such negligent regard for safety should not be permitted to operate a sewing machine, let alone a motor vehicle.

@wtjs That's how it works, though. The defendant expresses remorse. You can believe it or not, as can the judge. On the face of it, he is remorseful. Accepted. The Judge goes on to clarify that his remorse is effectively nullified: the defendant knew (or ought to have known) better; he had all the information he needed to know not to do it. So the judge has done what he needs to do: he acknowledges the remorse, takes it at face value and shows his balancing of the circumstances. If he did not, there is a chance it could be part of a sentencing appeal - "the judge did not take into account my remorse"... Well he did, and you're still a See You Next Tuesday! Now, whether 9 years and a time-limited ban are sufficient is a matter for sentencing guidelines which, without evidence to the contrary, I shall assume the judge has followed. My opinion is that the extended re-test needs to have a strong attitude test component, for a start, but that anybody who has caused death through such negligent regard for safety should not be permitted to operate a sewing machine, let alone a motor vehicle.

@Andrewbanshee Its unbelievable how short sighted the business community is, they all want people to buy more of their product but can't see that giving them more money would enable that very outcome.