Home

There's a news article 'Lawyer calls for compulsory cycle training in schools - but appears to put the onus for safety on cyclists alone'.

I am sure it had a shed-load of comments below it, but now they've all disappeared and you can't comment on it at all.

Did road.cc get a legal threat, or did someone accidentally add <COMMENTS=NO> in the coding? 

14 comments

Avatar
stonojnr [37 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes

Well its updated with Cycling UKs response & comment, maybe they just hit they save & overwrite button not the update

Avatar
Helmut D. Bate [101 posts] 4 weeks ago
1 like

Well, its subject is a lawyer who's illogical enough to think that it's cyclists' fault if they hit pedestrians, and cyclists' fault if they themselves are hit by cars, and cocksure enough to write blogs highlighting that lack of logic on their corporate Website.

It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that such a lawyer might think a threat of legal action is a reasonable solution to their lack of logic being commented on.

Avatar
quiff [69 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes

Can anyone point me to the original article (not the road.cc item)? Can't find it on the Prettys website

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2994 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes
stonojnr wrote:

Well its updated with Cycling UKs response & comment, maybe they just hit they save & overwrite button not the update

It was updated the day before yesterday with that.

Avatar
Tony Farrelly [2994 posts] 4 weeks ago
2 likes
Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Well, its subject is a lawyer who's illogical enough to think that it's cyclists' fault if they hit pedestrians, and cyclists' fault if they themselves are hit by cars, and cocksure enough to write blogs highlighting that lack of logic on their corporate Website.

It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that such a lawyer might think a threat of legal action is a reasonable solution to their lack of logic being commented on.

No, we haven't been threatened with legal action over this story, in fact neither the lawyer or her law firm have been in touch. Their PR company have though - to say that we misinterpreted her remarks, something we obviously don't think we did as we based our story on what she said.
None of that though is why we've hidden the comments, we did that because so many of them were sweary, abusive and generally a bit shitty (technical term) and broke the site's T&Cs.
Great username btw.

Avatar
brooksby [4451 posts] 4 weeks ago
3 likes
Tony Farrelly wrote:
Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Well, its subject is a lawyer who's illogical enough to think that it's cyclists' fault if they hit pedestrians, and cyclists' fault if they themselves are hit by cars, and cocksure enough to write blogs highlighting that lack of logic on their corporate Website. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that such a lawyer might think a threat of legal action is a reasonable solution to their lack of logic being commented on.

No, we haven't been threatened with legal action over this story, in fact neither the lawyer or her law firm have been in touch. Their PR company have though - to say that we misinterpreted her remarks, something we obviously don't think we did as we based our story on what she said. None of that though is why we've hidden the comments, we did that because so many of them were sweary, abusive and generally a bit shitty (technical term) and broke the site's T&Cs. Great username btw.

OK, thanks for confirming that, Tony.

 

PS - "so many of them were sweary, abusive and generally a bit shitty (technical term) and broke the site's T&Cs" - but isn't that any thread talking about helmets...? blush

 

Avatar
srchar [1351 posts] 4 weeks ago
1 like

Tony, thanks for being so candid; in the future, can I suggest that you only delete the sweary/abusive/shitty (oops) comments and leave the reasonable stuff alone? Thanks

Avatar
ktache [1574 posts] 4 weeks ago
0 likes

I have started proofreading my comments using Word, so I discovered my previous comment for the post.  So here was my deleted comment (no swearing)

I suppose I am not alone in taking my cycling proficiency test when I was younger, didn't stop me being run over too many times, by people who had presumably had far more training and testing than I to control their over powerful and overheavy motor vehicles. 

 

 

Avatar
hirsute [821 posts] 4 weeks ago
1 like

I confess I did use the word 'bloody' but I feel that is less profane than 'shitty'.

Avatar
hawkinspeter [3598 posts] 4 weeks ago
7 likes

I want to know what happens to the "likes" that we got on those posts.

Avatar
Rich_cb [913 posts] 4 weeks ago
4 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

I want to know what happens to the "likes" that we got on those posts.

Avatar
dave atkinson [6509 posts] 4 weeks ago
1 like
hawkinspeter wrote:

I want to know what happens to the "likes" that we got on those posts.

looks like you're making up for it with this one

Avatar
don simon fbpe [2989 posts] 3 weeks ago
0 likes

If that's the one where I advocated 70% tax, I'm disappointed as I was hoping learn how 58% is the same as 70%. And who exactly pays 58% tax in this country.

Avatar
srchar [1351 posts] 3 weeks ago
0 likes
don simon fbpe wrote:

If that's the one where I advocated 70% tax, I'm disappointed as I was hoping learn how 58% is the same as 70%. And who exactly pays 58% tax in this country.

58+12=70. Roughly 5% of earners in the country are subject to that marginal tax rate.  Here's a Graun article about it, although they don't fold in NI even though it is a tax on income: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/03/tax-trap-budget-children

Even more stupid than that is that the personal allowance still isn't set high enough to prevent people on minimum wage having to pay income tax.