Victim blaming on social media - but it's ok it's a cyclist

Libtardproud wrote:

   As an American, at least it is perversely comforting to read that Brits suffer the same sorts of polarizing animosities we have been overdosing from, particularly in the past two years. Flaming the judge, who did rule fairly strongly against the motorist, seems a bit misguided. Currently here in Colorado, confusing laws may be enacted, related to the "Idaho Stop" concept, allowing cyclists to roll through stop signs, and even run red lights after stopping. The logic missing is that two riders will surely collide when both consider a right without noting who may already hold the right-of-way, including motorists already obeying requisite stops and such before entering the intersection. The majority of accidents involving acquaintances have been hit from behind on open country roads (several deaths and injuries), or hit by a car turning into them, either from behind or oncoming, at speed or from a stop. Belligerent drivers fortunately have not been the issue overall. In urban areas I consider a marked bicycle lane next to the curb a minimum, and yet still believe riders must abide the same set of rules as every other vehicle, or else there will be zero consistency; by experience over fifty years riding, I see cyclists as opportunists who will ignore or skirt rules to the extent they can get away with, and the trend only increases their risk factors, and to other riders like me. The current fad in "bike friendly" U.S. towns is to see bikes as benign, magical solutions to myriad congestion and traffic problems, without recognizing the reality, that cycles create new sets of issues which deserve and require responsible users, not rude, anarchistic hipsters with attitudes.

So, how do you propose that the rude, anarchistic hipsters with attitudes should get around? Would you prefer that they don't cycle and instead drive? Maybe skateboards only until they can learn to not skirt the rules? I'd propose pogo sticks to make them easy to spot from a distance.

Libtardproud wrote:

The current fad in "bike friendly" U.S. towns is to see bikes as benign, magical solutions to myriad congestion and traffic problems, without recognizing the reality, that cycles create new sets of issues which deserve and require responsible users, not rude, anarchistic hipsters with attitudes.

The reality that needs recognising wherever cars and cycles share the road is that cars (motorised vehicles weighing in excess of a ton or more and capable of travelling and accelerating at great speed) and bikes (non-motorised vehicles weighing less than 10% of cars even with a hefty rider like me aboard and only capable of travelling at much lower speeds) are not the same and really should not be treated as if they are.

The other important reality is that cars do far more damage to roads, infrastructure and other human beings than bikes ever could. 

Libtardproud wrote:

   As an American, at least it is perversely comforting to read that Brits suffer the same sorts of polarizing animosities we have been overdosing from, particularly in the past two years. Flaming the judge, who did rule fairly strongly against the motorist, seems a bit misguided. Currently here in Colorado, confusing laws may be enacted, related to the "Idaho Stop" concept, allowing cyclists to roll through stop signs, and even run red lights after stopping. The logic missing is that two riders will surely collide when both consider a right without noting who may already hold the right-of-way, including motorists already obeying requisite stops and such before entering the intersection. The majority of accidents involving acquaintances have been hit from behind on open country roads (several deaths and injuries), or hit by a car turning into them, either from behind or oncoming, at speed or from a stop. Belligerent drivers fortunately have not been the issue overall. In urban areas I consider a marked bicycle lane next to the curb a minimum, and yet still believe riders must abide the same set of rules as every other vehicle, or else there will be zero consistency; by experience over fifty years riding, I see cyclists as opportunists who will ignore or skirt rules to the extent they can get away with, and the trend only increases their risk factors, and to other riders like me. The current fad in "bike friendly" U.S. towns is to see bikes as benign, magical solutions to myriad congestion and traffic problems, without recognizing the reality, that cycles create new sets of issues which deserve and require responsible users, not rude, anarchistic hipsters with attitudes.

Hello, The Donald: how you doing? 

Libtardproud wrote:

   As an American, at least it is perversely comforting to read that Brits suffer the same sorts of polarizing animosities we have been overdosing from, particularly in the past two years. Flaming the judge, who did rule fairly strongly against the motorist, seems a bit misguided. Currently here in Colorado, confusing laws may be enacted, related to the "Idaho Stop" concept, allowing cyclists to roll through stop signs, and even run red lights after stopping. The logic missing is that two riders will surely collide when both consider a right without noting who may already hold the right-of-way, including motorists already obeying requisite stops and such before entering the intersection. The majority of accidents involving acquaintances have been hit from behind on open country roads (several deaths and injuries), or hit by a car turning into them, either from behind or oncoming, at speed or from a stop. Belligerent drivers fortunately have not been the issue overall. In urban areas I consider a marked bicycle lane next to the curb a minimum, and yet still believe riders must abide the same set of rules as every other vehicle, or else there will be zero consistency; by experience over fifty years riding, I see cyclists as opportunists who will ignore or skirt rules to the extent they can get away with, and the trend only increases their risk factors, and to other riders like me. The current fad in "bike friendly" U.S. towns is to see bikes as benign, magical solutions to myriad congestion and traffic problems, without recognizing the reality, that cycles create new sets of issues which deserve and require responsible users, not rude, anarchistic hipsters with attitudes.

Posting near-unreadable walls of text is bad manners.   A brief scan flags up a few of the usual unthinking cliches that makes me think it isn't worth the effort of trying to read it.

fenix wrote:

Shocking. There are some awful people out there. 

It seems dedicated bike paths are needed all over the place. 

By dedicated you really mean this sort of thing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gV30e2WO60

Rather stick to the roads.

fenix wrote:

Shocking. There are some awful people out there. 

It seems dedicated bike paths are needed all over the place. 

that just excuses the driver's behaviour and is essentially another form of victim-blaming. The solution is to change drivers' behaviour, even if that means - oh, horror! - banning them.

ConcordeCX wrote:

fenix wrote:

Shocking. There are some awful people out there. 

It seems dedicated bike paths are needed all over the place. 

that just excuses the driver's behaviour and is essentially another form of victim-blaming. The solution is to change drivers' behaviour, even if that means - oh, horror! - banning them.

Exactly this. You wouldn't treat an epidemic of gun crime by making people wear bullet-proof vests - you'd (hopefully) try and stop some people from shooting other people!

"Here, we've given you this lovely (ie not fit for purpose) strip of detritus-filled tarmac so that you can be safe"

"But can't you just stop people driving like dicks?"

"Nah, sorry - that's too hard, and besides, there are more voters in that demographic than there are in yours"

KendalRed wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

fenix wrote:

Shocking. There are some awful people out there. 

It seems dedicated bike paths are needed all over the place. 

that just excuses the driver's behaviour and is essentially another form of victim-blaming. The solution is to change drivers' behaviour, even if that means - oh, horror! - banning them.

Exactly this. You wouldn't treat an epidemic of gun crime by making people wear bullet-proof vests - you'd (hopefully) try and stop some people from shooting other people!

I believe the favoured way to treat that in the largest Western democracies is to change the law to make individual gun ownership a right and then promote the sale of guns for everyone. Clearly we need to reduce the barriers to car ownershi, make the licenses more easily available and spend more on lobbying for increased car-centric investments - the only thing that stops a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car.

ConcordeCX wrote:

fenix wrote:

Shocking. There are some awful people out there. 

It seems dedicated bike paths are needed all over the place. 

that just excuses the driver's behaviour and is essentially another form of victim-blaming. The solution is to change drivers' behaviour, even if that means - oh, horror! - banning them.

I don't see those two things as contradictory.  If you ban enough of them from enough roads you'll have your dedicated bike paths (otherwise/previously known as 'roads').

hawkinspeter wrote:

Nice of the judge to say things like:

Quote:

This is an illustration of how road users really should contain their tempers as tragic accidents like this can happen.

It's not really an accident if you intentionally drive like an asshole.

I'm wondering if the judge is related to the driver:

Quote:

He lives in a rural area where the nearest shop is four miles away so a driving ban will create a genuine hardship.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime - or in this case, if you NEED your car, then drive responsibly.

That was his defence barrister saying that ( the second quote),  the report in the paper says he got 9 points, ontop of his existing 5 points and received a six month ban..

I agree that you can't call that an accident - seems a very deliberate action to me..

bry nylon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Quote:

He lives in a rural area where the nearest shop is four miles away so a driving ban will create a genuine hardship.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime - or in this case, if you NEED your car, then drive responsibly.

That was his defence barrister saying that ( the second quote),  the report in the paper says he got 9 points, ontop of his existing 5 points and received a six month ban..

Oh dear. He's going to have to become one of those awful cyclists. I wonder if the transition is available on the NHS?

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm wondering if the judge is related to the driver:

Quote:

He lives in a rural area where the nearest shop is four miles away so a driving ban will create a genuine hardship.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime - or in this case, if you NEED your car, then drive responsibly.

 Nearest shop 4 miles away?  Is the perp severely disabled or something?  Get a rucksack or panniers and cycle or walk you* lazy twat.

Pretty much everywhere I go is at least 4 miles away.  Never seen the need for a car to get there.  Barely even worth cycling.

* er, 'you' being the defendent, not the previous poster!

hawkinspeter wrote:

Nice of the judge to say things like:

Quote:

This is an illustration of how road users really should contain their tempers as tragic accidents like this can happen.

It's not really an accident if you intentionally drive like an asshole.

I'm wondering if the judge is related to the driver:

Quote:

He lives in a rural area where the nearest shop is four miles away so a driving ban will create a genuine hardship.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime - or in this case, if you NEED your car, then drive responsibly.

What a load of rubbish. My understanding was the discretion is supposed to be used for people at the lesser end of the scale of offence who it would cause major hardship for, e.g. loss of job or they have a chronic illness they need to get to hospital 20 miles away every week, not "I would have to cycle for 20 mins or ask a friend to take me to get milk, or maybe sit on a bus with other people!"

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 Nearest shop 4 miles away?  Is the perp severely disabled or something? 

In such a way that they can't use a hand cycle or trike, but are do not need a power assited wheelchair and can still drive... There are some people in that position, and it is possible, but I would expect disability rather than location of shops to be given as the reason.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 Nearest shop 4 miles away?  Is the perp severely disabled or something? 

All he needs is a tablet or cheap laptop and he can do his shopping online. With the money he saves by not running a car he can afford an occasional taxi or deliveroo, or maybe a cheap bike for his wife to ride to the shops.