Sky disaster brings it all into focus

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.

The geometry chart is interesting. The progression in stack and reach is quite normal from 52 to 61 cm, but looking at what they call the "49" and "44" sizes, the differences are pretty small. It would definitely be more appropriate to call them 50 and 48. When are the brands going to start realizing that smaller riders need smaller wheels so that the frame geometry isn't compromised due to squeezing in the big hoops?

Judge Martin Picton accepted Booth was remorseful... How often do we have to endure this tripe from judges? This pseudo-remorse is of no importance- the only time the matter should be mentioned is when there is obviously no remorse- likely very rare owing to coaching by the shyster defence lawyer. He's sorry that he was caught, but that remorse didn't stop him from repeating the offence all those times when he wasn't.

...adding "Sorry - this doesn't normally happen..."