Bad taste

This awful case is the nastiest end of the wedge started in 'jest' by the likes of Matthew Parris. I wonder whether he's proud of the part he's played in normalising violence against the vulnerable?

@mctrials23 Something that drives the price up is that the frame is specified for full through the frame routing only which means you have to use electric shifting and appropriate bars and stem. Hence the "cheapest" model is supplied with 105 Di2 and costs £3,700. If the frame had braze-ons for external cable routing you could likely build a bike that cost quite a bit less but it definitely wouldn't have the clean look of this one.

Rob Hatch's commentary of that moment is just superb. I was watching it on headphones at work on my lunch break and ended up crying with laughter. Sean being Sean just adds to the fun. Truly iconic moment of that era, up there with Froome "Running up that Hill"

@Pub bike Yeah, I was surprised by the price until I saw the frameset price. Thats pretty standard for a boutique aluminium frame made to a high standard. Campy is just expensive stuff.

@Rendel Harris Of course it won't. The only reason there isn't the usual anti cycling raving is because of just how shocking and callous this person was. The sort of person who shocks society with their violence and disregard for their fellow man that is so alien to them that it disgusts them. This won't move 99% of people opinion a centimetre. Its so far removed from the norm that it won't even be associated with the usual "motorists vs cyclist". People are usually on the side of the motorist because they can empathise or sympathise. In this case there is none of that so it won't register in their view of cyclists.

I posed the question on Reddit regarding life driving bans and got a surprising level of agreements (and most disagreements were around practicality rather than opposition to the concept). It seems to me that each driving ban should have a suspended sentence component meaning that drivers caught ignoring the ban risk some form of incarceration. Get rid of the points system and go straight to bans on a sliding scale. Something along the lines of; 1st offence - 3 month driving ban - ankle monitor curfew for breach 2nd offence - 1 year driving ban - open prison (Cat D) for the remaining length on the ban for breach 3rd offence - 5 year driving ban - incarceration in a Cat C prison for breach 4th offence - 10 year driving ban - incarceration in a Cat B prison for breach 5th offence - Life ban - incarceration for life if breached. An offence is anything which would get points under the old system. Any conviction for careless driving is treated as a 1 year ban Any conviction for dangerous driving is a life ban In all cases vehicles used to commit the offence are seized for the duration of the ban regardless of ownership by the offender. For longer bans the vehicle is disposed of at auction and the proceeds are plowed into local road safety campaigns Sound extreme? I'd draw your attention to the regulations regarding firearms certificates. Drivers kill far more people each year than people committing firearms offences (whether the weapons are legally held or otherwise)

@kil0ran I'm sorry, but clearly you haven't read everything about this case. The bloke easily needed jailing for 25 years. It was indisputable intentional brutal murder (Followed by significant threats against the cousin in the car who was the main witness for prosecution). That doesn't stop the separate discussion on WTF he still had access to a car (or van) given his driving record (fixing this might have removed the ability to commit said murder, but he was a violent thug regardless). I would argue that we need to allow for banning owning/keeping a car; Banned and 'inherit' one = required to turn it over immediately (say within 72 hours) to appropriate authority (solicitor, Office of Public Guardian, Car Auction?) Keeper/owner then has significant legal risk of getting banned if they let a banned individual use the car. Also need significant modernisation of transfer of ownership - insist it is done digitally (if you can't do it online, you HAVE to do it at a DVLA office or post office) at the time, with the checks done as part of it. Don't do the change of ownership; then you retain owner/keeper liabilities in full.

@Jimmy Ray Will Unfortunately affray and ABH both have a presumption in favour of bail under the Bail Act 1976 whereby defendants will usually be bailed unless they are a proven flight risk or are likely to attempt to interfere with witnesses or the accuser. Additionally bail is almost always granted if it is regarded by the presiding authority as being likely that the defendant will not receive a custodial sentence at trial. So it's hard to say without knowing the exact details of the affray and ABH charges he was facing, if they were relatively minor, e.g. pushing and shoving someone in a pub argument, it's likely that he would not get immediate custody, most likely a suspended sentence, so that may be the reason for his being bailed. I think, although I'm not sure, his previous driving record wouldn't be a factor that would be considered when looking at bail for non-driving offences.

@kil0ran We test vehicles every year at a cost of (from memory) £65 so let’s bring in a 3-year or 5-year re-test window for the drivers... Not in Lancashire we don't- MOT and VED are optional in the land of Bent Coppers. This isn't from 7.8.26, when I last filmed WU67 BLF, but from the J France Facebook pages. So if the police arrange to not enforce MOT, what do you think they'll do about this projected tidal wave of non-retested drivers? The police are actively working against road safety- and against cyclists.

I think the headline should be something like 'should' , because the final sentence is unfortunately spot on. I'll give it a few hours before I read irrational hatred of cyclists (or anything else for that matter which can be singled out) :-(