Police deliver perfect mic drop reply to cyclist-bashing comment; Comedy gold Olympic mugshots; Cav wins again; Phil Gaimon calls out ESPN report of NFL coach’s ‘bicycling accident’; Pog touches down in Tokyo + more on the live blog

44 thoughts on “Police deliver perfect mic drop reply to cyclist-bashing comment; Comedy gold Olympic mugshots; Cav wins again; Phil Gaimon calls out ESPN report of NFL coach’s ‘bicycling accident’; Pog touches down in Tokyo + more on the live blog”

1. Must be nice having a police

   Must be nice having a police force that actually investigates crimes…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think it was more they

     I think it was more they bothered to follow up on the “not the driver” defence that other forces seem to think is not a crime and a full stop on the investigation.
      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Plus the prospect of a juicy

       Plus the prospect of a juicy Perverting the Course of justice charge.  Thats usually jail time so a bigger score in criminal bingo.

       Fair play all the same to Northumbria Police.  

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. Not a cyclist but:-

   Not a cyclist but:-

   E-scooter crash leaves girl, 3, seriously injured – BBC News

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • No, not a cyslist. Not a

     No, not a cyslist. Not a driver either.

     You’ll find most folk here have a clear idea of the hierarchy of responsibility, but if you need a refresher read why it should be in the highway code 

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

     Not a cyclist but:-

     E-scooter crash leaves girl, 3, seriously injured – BBC News

     — AlsoSomniloquism

      

     There’s a lot missing from that story:

     • Where are the parents and why weren’t they watching the child?
     • Was this a licenced or unlicenced scooter?
     • Was the scooter on the pavement or road?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Looks like it happened in a

       Looks like it happened in a park where it’s reasonable to let children run around so I don’t think it’s appropriate to blame the parents.

       We’ve only got very limited trials of rental scooters, so all private scooters are unlicensed and illegal to use on pavement or road (or park). The rental ones (we’ve got a Voi trial here in Bristol) are only for use on the roads and if the GPS detects that you’re in a park, they shut off the motor.

       I’d guess that if there is a e-scooter trial in the area, then the police would probably have contacted the company involved for GPS/rental information so I’d presume that this was a private e-scooter.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • hawkinspeter wrote:

         Looks like it happened in a park where it’s reasonable to let children run around so I don’t think it’s appropriate to blame the parents.

         — hawkinspeter

         I didn’t blame the parents. I think you’ve misread. It’s a valid question to ask where the parents were since we don’t know the circumstances in an article lacking much detail.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           Looks like it happened in a park where it’s reasonable to let children run around so I don’t think it’s appropriate to blame the parents.

           — Jenova20

           I didn’t blame the parents. I think you’ve misread. It’s a valid question to ask where the parents were since we don’t know the circumstances in an article lacking much detail.

           — hawkinspeter

           Sorry – I didn’t mean to imply that you were blaming the parent(s). I just don’t think it’s relevant where the parent(s) were as long as they were somewhere nearby as kids should be allowed to run wild and free in parks without needing constant supervision.

         • Jenova20 wrote:

           Looks like it happened in a park where it’s reasonable to let children run around so I don’t think it’s appropriate to blame the parents.

           — Jenova20

           I didn’t blame the parents. I think you’ve misread. It’s a valid question to ask where the parents were since we don’t know the circumstances in an article lacking much detail.

           — hawkinspeter

           There’s a lot missing from that story:

           Where are the parents and why weren’t they watching the child?
           Was this a licenced or unlicenced scooter?
           Was the scooter on the pavement or road?

           — Jenova20

           There’s a lot of assumption going here, especially as the article is so lacking in detail, as you rightly point out. Yet your comment “Where are the parents…” can very much be interpreted as a suggestion that the parents were somehow potentially responsible through inaction or inattentiveness. For all we know the parents may have been stood right next to the child, holding their hand even, or maybe the kid was running around uncontrolled, we simply don’t know.

           Let’s stop assuming and leave the Police to do what they can with their investigation shall we?

     • Actually, the scooter rider

       Actually, the scooter rider may also be a child (it’s not clear). So there may well be a case for looking at parental responsibility from the other side.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Jenova20 wrote:

       Where are the parents and why weren’t they watching the child?

       — Jenova20

       I don’t see the relevance, it’s the rider’s responsibility not to ride into three year olds, not the parents’.

       Was this a licenced or unlicenced scooter?

       No e-scooter is licenced to ride in a park

       Was the scooter on the pavement or road?

       see previous answer

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • [/quote]No e-scooter is

         [/quote]No e-scooter is licenced to ride in a park

         I would have to double check buy I believe that the hire scooter scheme in Milton Keynes are licensed for shared use “redways” so they would definitely be allowed in parks.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Ok for cycle lanes but not

           Ok for cycle lanes but not for tracks I think

           Cycle lanes: regulatory changes by DfT

           We will make amendments to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (that will apply to England only) to include e-scooters within the definition of vehicles permitted to use cycle lanes.

           We will amend the definition of cycle lane to read ‘part of a carriageway of a road reserved for pedal cycles and/or electric scooters that is separated from the rest of the carriageway—’ or similar. This will permit e-scooters to be used in cycle lanes. It also means that the cycle symbol on signs will apply to e-scooters.

           Cycle tracks: regulatory changes by DfT

           The definition of cycle track is contained in primary legislation so we cannot amend this before trials will start.

           Cycle tracks: actions required by local authorities

           Local authorities can designate road space as either cycle lanes or cycle tracks. To enable e-scooter use, cycle tracks would need to be redesignated as cycle lanes.

           https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-local-areas-and-rental-operators/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-local-areas-and-rental-operators

         • I think the Redways in Milton

           I think the Redways in Milton Keynes are pretty unique, but they are all shared use, not paricularly wide (a couple of meters) and run through all of the parks. 

           https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/pressreleases/2020/aug/electric-scooters-wheel-out-in-milton-keynes

           Interesting to note that they are geofenced against use on any of the grid roads which are all over 30mph.

       • Sriracha wrote:

         Where are the parents and why weren’t they watching the child?

         — Sriracha

         I don’t see the relevance, it’s the rider’s responsibility not to ride into three year olds, not the parents’.

         Was this a licenced or unlicenced scooter?

         No e-scooter is licenced to ride in a park

         Was the scooter on the pavement or road?

         see previous answer— Jenova20

          

         I missed the part where this was in a park. I’m assuming the article was updated since i last looked. In any case the scooter rider is at fault for the crash, but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t also be blame on behalf of whoever should have been watching the child.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Sriracha wrote:

         No e-scooter is licenced to ride in a park

         — Sriracha

         You might want to check that.  Bird has been running a trial in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park since November 2018.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • A mode of transport with a

     A mode of transport with a motor – definitely not a bicycle; so another bad motorist causing serious injury to a more vulnerable person.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • DaveHemm wrote:

       A mode of transport with a motor – definitely not a bicycle; so another bad motorist causing serious injury to a more vulnerable person.

       — DaveHemm

       Well, you’re technically correct (the best kind of correct), but you’re not taking into account the principle of “2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad” (apologies to trike riders). I think e-scooters are much closer to cyclists in terms of speed, danger to others etc. and the riders aren’t just viewing life through a windscreen so they’re more likely to be paying attention.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • The BBC don’t state clearly

     The BBC don’t state clearly whether the scooter is a legal hire one or an illegal privately owned one. Equally, they don’t say whether the area is open to hire scooters.

     However, a bit like road safety, the problem stems from the Police not enforcing low level criminality eg privately owned scooters, scooters on pavements, close passes, and even speeding. They only seem to wake up when there are actually consequences that arise from these problems. This is not what anyone would call prevention.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • The way the police operate is
       The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance. Anyway, while talking to him I mentioned the various illegal scooters zooming past. His response was that they are only illegal because of a “loophole” and that it is just because the laws haven’t kept up with technology. So in his view he wouldn’t stop people on scooters despite it currently being illegal unless they are on hire versions. He was a City of London police officer.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • I can’t see any way that the

         I can’t see any way that the use of motorised scooters is going to be legal on pavements or when used by minors and it’s highly likely that you’ll need insurance. Those factors are already covered by the hire scooter trials. He’s, therefore, wrong in his analysis.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • squired wrote:

         The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance.

         — squired

         Can they do that?

         I’d thought that on public land/highways you can take photos of whatever you want.

         Can only be stopped for it on private land where the police don’t have powers anyway (that’s why they have private security).

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Section 43 of the Terrorism

           Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice/

           Clearly squired is a very dodgy looking chap(ess).

           

         • Or bearded

           Or bearded

           

         • I wonder if squired was doing

           I wonder if squired was doing photography while Black (or brown)? 

           @squired? (edit: they’ve answered, and they weren’t)

         • Nothing illegal about taking

           Nothing illegal about taking photos – but if you spent a lot of time taking photos for example specifically around Downing Street (other sensitive sites are available), of security positions, etc, then they could be arguing that there’s suspicious activity meriting a stop and search.

           Personally, I would be putting a bit of pressure on the Officer to explain why having a camera in London, a massive tourist (and artistic) city is in any way suspicious and justifies a search – particularly as in the City of London, you aren’t at Downing Street or or other potentially ultra-sensitive sites.

       • squired wrote:

         The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance. Anyway, while talking to him I mentioned the various illegal scooters zooming past. His response was that they are only illegal because of a “loophole” and that it is just because the laws haven’t kept up with technology. So in his view he wouldn’t stop people on scooters despite it currently being illegal unless they are on hire versions. He was a City of London police officer.

         — squired

          

         genuinely I think I would’ve told him to fuck off.

         what do they think can be revealed by a camera that’s not already on google maps or the internet anyway? Outrageous abuse of power (assuming they have that power). And how would they/you know what a compromising photo is if it’s just pics of buildings with some pedals and traffic in front?!?

         this sort of thing used to happen a lot more a number of years back, thought it had calmed down tbh

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • squired wrote:

         The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance. Anyway, while talking to him I mentioned the various illegal scooters zooming past. His response was that they are only illegal because of a “loophole” and that it is just because the laws haven’t kept up with technology. So in his view he wouldn’t stop people on scooters despite it currently being illegal unless they are on hire versions. He was a City of London police officer.

         — squired

         strange that there is not also a ‘loophole’ allowing for use of cameras in tourist areas. Many historic sights within the city of London area

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • squired wrote:

         The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance. Anyway, while talking to him I mentioned the various illegal scooters zooming past. His response was that they are only illegal because of a “loophole” and that it is just because the laws haven’t kept up with technology. So in his view he wouldn’t stop people on scooters despite it currently being illegal unless they are on hire versions. He was a City of London police officer.

         — squired

         That officer had no right to ask to see your photo’s unless he was carrying out a Section 57 stop and in which case he would have had to give you a Section 57 notice after the checks, The Prevention of terrorism Act does not empower a copper to ask to see your photo’s just in case. It’s interesting that the same officer was carrying out illegal behaviour whilst ignoring illegal behaviour.

         Remeber if you are stopped by a copper & asked to let them see your photo’s “just in case”, ask if it is a Section 57 stop, if they say yes, ask for a Section 57 notification 1st, thet’ll usually not want to provide one so will bluster and walk off. If it isn’t a Section 57 stop you can refuse to let them see your photo’s full stop.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Indeed. Every smartphone is a

           Indeed. Every smartphone is a camera and basically everyone has one… and you can instantly upload any pics you take to the cloud, etc. So many complications. Police really shouldn’t be asking to see your photos without proper authority. Police are there to serve and protect us, to investigate crime, not to be nosey in an effort to find crime without any prior evidence of a crime having been reported or commited.
           I’d have told the policeman asking to see my photos to go and investigate some crime seeing as they weren’t busy.

         • I’m a middle aged healthy

           I’m a middle aged healthy looking (lots of cycling!) white guy.  I’d come from my office and was out for lunch, with my camera.  There were six of them across one of the junctions in the square mile.  He asked me what I was taking photos of (nothing, I’d not taken any), why I was there, etc.  Then said about hostile recon. and asked to see my images.  I know I could say no, but I had nothing to show him anyway.  However, it is bizarre really when I could have just as easily been walking round taking photos and videos with my mobile phone far more discreetly than anyone walking around with a camera.

           I’m well aware of the rules around stopping and in this case it was odd to be stopped when I’d literally not taken a single photo, just guilty of walking with a camera at my side.  I did wonder whether they had intel about someone in the area with more deadly intentions, but I doubt I would fit the expected profile.  After he checked me the six of them went back to their van and drove off.

         • squired wrote:

           I’m a middle aged healthy looking (lots of cycling!) white guy.  I’d come from my office and was out for lunch, with my camera.  There were six of them across one of the junctions in the square mile.  He asked me what I was taking photos of (nothing, I’d not taken any), why I was there, etc.  Then said about hostile recon. and asked to see my images.  I know I could say no, but I had nothing to show him anyway.  However, it is bizarre really when I could have just as easily been walking round taking photos and videos with my mobile phone far more discreetly than anyone walking around with a camera.

           I’m well aware of the rules around stopping and in this case it was odd to be stopped when I’d literally not taken a single photo, just guilty of walking with a camera at my side.  I did wonder whether they had intel about someone in the area with more deadly intentions, but I doubt I would fit the expected profile.  After he checked me the six of them went back to their van and drove off.

           — squired

           Clearly were just a bit bored, needed something to do…

           (Hey, but, remember, people: if you’ve nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear…)

           Hmm…

     • They are responding to the

       They are responding to the trial here https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19428882.essex-police-fine-riding-e-scooters-illegally/

       “But going forward we will now be issuing tickets for fines and points on your driving licence for traffic offences as well as seizing the e-scooter.”

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • The problem stems from the
       The problem stems from the law allowing the public sale of e-scooters knowing they will in all likelihood end up being ridden illegally. Who, having bought one of these things, is going to ride it around their garden?

       It puts the police in an invidious position – turn a blind eye, or rack up headlines about jobsworthy police harassing “innocent” e-scooterists; whatabout [insert your favourite crime]?

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • The child has “life changing”

     The child has “life changing” injuries, the scooter rider stopped to say sorry but then carried on their merry way, and the police are now “asking” for them to come forward (saying that maybe the scooterist hadn’t realised how serious the child’s injuries were).

     I’m presuming from that, that the scooter wasn’t an ‘authorised scheme’ rental scooter but a highly illegal private one…

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. Quote:

   It’s not a ‘bicycling accident’ when he was hit by a car

   I feel that this one comment correctly calls out an entire cultural attitude.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. The link to the police

   The link to the police comment, if you’re interested:

   facebook.com/northumbriapolice

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Could I keep up on a Tour

   Could I keep up on a Tour stage? No.

   Next?

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. Are those mugshots real??

   Are those mugshots real??

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • yep, download the official

     yep, download the official Tokyo olympics app, go to the athlete section, filter on the sport, and browse to your hearts content.

     each athletes bio comes with a surprising amount of detail, from their jobs,hobbies,ambitions to listing significant injuries, milestones, reasons for being in the sport, and even pre competition rituals, and some even have links to their Strava profiles, as well as the usual social media listings.

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. Re: Groenewegen

   Re: Groenewegen

   What a douchebag.  All about him and *his* difficult period.  That wasn’t an accident at all. We can’t on one hand (rightly) attack all of the “cycling accident” headlines, while allowing him to claim this.  No.  Just no.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • And why, just out of interest

     And why, just out of interest, wasn’t it an accident?  What malice was in the background between riders which made it intentional?  What exactly do you think drove Groenewegen to act in such a manner and to also risk his own life?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • He clearly intentionally ran
       He clearly intentionally ran him into the barrier. If this were a car and a bicycle, no one would be calling it an accident, because it wasn’t. And poor baby Groenewegen had so much adversity because of it. Spare me. He put a cyclist into a coma because he intentionally put him into the barrier.

       Log In or Register to post comments