Cycling UK has written to City of London Magistrates’ Court expressing concerns about comments recently made by one of its Magistrates. Catherine Hobey-Hamsher saw fit to say “people don’t like cyclists” while passing sentence on a man charged with dangerous cycling and Cycling UK now believes she should withdraw from sitting on all cases involving cyclists.
Last week, Tanneguy Marie De Carne was fined for repeatedly failing to stop cycling for officers during a police chase across the City of London.
Passing sentence, Chair of the Bench, Catherine Hobey-Hamsher, said: “The offence was sustained in every possible way. A reasonable person would have stopped immediately. It is a silent danger, coming up behind people – they have no idea – and above all it diminishes the really rather low esteem cyclists already have. People do not like cyclists, and you are doing nothing to enhance their reputation.”
De Carne jumped red lights, failed to stop for a police car and tried to evade the police officer while cycling through busy streets and along the pavement.
Writing in a blog post, Cycling UK legal expert Duncan Dollimore made it clear that he condemned his actions, but expressed concern about Hobey-Hamsher’s attitudes and what they might mean for future cases.
“He only has himself to blame for ending up before the court, but once he got there he was entitled to expect to be dealt with by a Magistrate concentrating on his behaviour, not one displaying prejudice to a particular road user group.”
Dollimore makes the point that anyone charged with a cycling-related traffic offence, or any cyclist who is the victim in a road rage prosecution involving a motorist, could legitimately ask themselves how impartial Hobey-Hamsher really is. “Imagine the furore if the Chair had instead said that people don’t like Mancunians, motorists, Muslims or miners, who were all groups held in low esteem in some quarters.”
A recent Active People survey found that 9 per cent of people in England cycle at least once a week, and 15 per cent at least once per month. Dollimore questions why Hobey-Hamsher saw fit to refer to around 6.6 million people as one homogenous group.
“In their training Magistrates are constantly instructed that they must disqualify themselves from dealing with any cases where there may be an appearance of bias. The fact that they are not biased is irrelevant, it is the appearance that matters and Hobey-Hamsher and the Court should know this.
“That is why Cycling UK has written to the Court outlining our concerns regarding her comments, explaining why many people who cycle might question Hobey-Hamsher’s impartiality in cycling-related cases, and asking them to confirm that she will now withdraw from sitting on any cases involving cyclists.”
29 thoughts on “Cycling UK asks “people don’t like cyclists” Magistrate to withdraw from cases involving cyclists”
If someone started a petition
If someone started a petition to have her remoevd from all cases related in any way to cycling, or involving a cyclist, who would it be addressed to, does anyone have any idea?
Just to show popular support for Cycling UK’s position and the the application of the law relating to magistrates.
unconstituted wrote:
There is a website called 38 degrees that allows you set up a petition that involves most issues! Maybe worth a try?
Personally, I fear there
Personally, I fear there might be other domains in which she unthinkingly accepts intellectually incoherent collective-blame ideas, or unconsciously regards members of some out-group as not really being ‘people’. So I’d not have much confidence in her ability to do her job, even for cases that don’t involve cycling. A magistrate needs to be capable of rational thought and reflection.
I don’t like clueless double
I don’t like clueless double-barrelled pontificating twats.
How do I become a magistrate?
I know I am going to get
I know I am going to get greif about this but I don’t think this is a battle worth fighting.
Yes the magistrate was over generalising, but the truth is a lot of people do dislike cylists and changing their perceptions is more worth while than UK Cycling going after a single magistrate. The fact of the matter in this case is that the cyclist’s actions where unacceptable and the magistrate was trying to highlight it, albeit with a bad choice of words.
My concern is that it will come across that UK Cycling are standing up for a cyclist who doesn’t deserve to be supported, which is exactly the sort of thing that gets people’s back up and encourages a bad reputation for all cyclists.
pipthepilot wrote:
You’re missing the point: a magistrate is supposed to be unbiassed – in practice this may be hard to achieve, but in this particular case seems to show a bias against cyclists.
A magistrate ought to do better than ‘a bad choice of words’.
pipthepilot wrote:
The magistrate has already done that with the “people don’t like cyclists” comment (as though “people” and “cyclists” are somehow two completely separate groups and that “cyclists” are one homogenous group).
And now you’re doing the same with your “a bad reputation for all cyclists” comment. Everywhere you see that, every time you hear it, it must be countered. Don’t come on a cycling forum and start trotting out the same shit. We are not all the same, we cannot be tarred with one brush any more than “drivers” or “Muslims” or “Mancunians” as the CyclingUK case makes clear.
By all means throw the book at the cyclist for whatever offences he’s committed but leave it at that. Dear Sir you are guilty of x, y and z, your fine is £amount.
Although it’s interesting to note that his fine is an awful lot higher than most drivers ever get for killing someone…
crazy-legs wrote:
As a cyclist I know we are not all the same but whether you like it or not its human nature to tar people with the same brush. Everytime a cyclist rides through a red light there will be a driver sitting there thinking “Bloody Cyclists!”. I am not condoning this attitude, I’m being a realist.
pipthepilot wrote:
So you fight that mindset, not quit and start lecturing cyclists.
pipthepilot wrote:
No you’re not, you’re perpetuating the lazy generalisation and stereotyping.
I’m sorry, I know this seems like a petty and minor point but it’s this whole “bloody cyclists” thing that leads directly to lack of respect on the roads, punishment passes, snide comments on social media etc becasue it’s “only” a cyclist, because “they don’t pay road tax”, “they all jump red lights” and “they’re all the same”.
You can start by fighting that horrible insidious “bad reputation” shit wherever you see it, not by trotting it out verbatim.
crazy-legs wrote:
No they’re not. They’re pointing out part of the reality of the situation as it currently stands. There is lazy generalisation and stereotyping, that really shouldn’t be in dispute, and it’s not confined to motorists or any other perceived societal ‘group’ – a cursory glance at similar comment threads on road.cc should be sufficient evidence of that.
You can start by fighting that horrible insidious “bad reputation” shit wherever you see it, not by trotting it out verbatim.— crazy-legs
Of course you can, and should, and in between now and when that ‘fight’ is won I fail to see the issue with pointing out some of the sad, delusional behaviour of some human beings – and I didn’t see pipthepilot ‘trotting it out verbatim’, quite the opposite, YMMV obviously..
fukawitribe wrote:
Of course you can, and should, and in between now and when that ‘fight’ is won I fail to see the issue with pointing out some of the sad, delusional behaviour of some human beings – and I didn’t see pipthepilot ‘trotting it out verbatim’, quite the opposite, YMMV obviously..— pipthepilot
Agree. You can’t fight a problem unless you acknowledge it exists. Do more than that, of course, but that’s the starting point.
When I hear people talk about (e.g.) “cyclists never stop for red lights” (etc. ) I usually try to politely correct them. Same for other (usually minority) groups facing unfair prejudice too.
pipthepilot wrote:
If you don’t challenge it then it becomes acceptable.
The magistrate could even be pro-cycling for all we know (unlikely), but as someone else has said, a magistrate commenting that “people don’t like cyclists” endorses that attitude (and subsquent behaviours) towards cyclists.
pipthepilot wrote:
I wish you’d seriously think about what is ‘realistic’.
Are you saying its ‘realism’ to think the whole problem of bad driving endangering cyclists (and organised motoring lobby groups fighting to avoid any improvement in road design or move away from car-worship) can be fixed by getting every single person who ever gets on a bike to behave morally perfectly at all times?
Do you ‘realistically’ think this is remotely possible or that it would even work if it was?
If so, please point to an example anywhere in the world or anywhere in history where such an approach has worked. Not just for a mode of transport even, but for any issue, e.g. racism.
Far from being a ‘realist’, you are fantasising.
I mean, yet another point about this case is that I doubt the perp involved gives a toss about ‘giving a bad name’ to a mode of transport.
Does the average bank-job getaway driver, or car-bombing terrorist worry about ‘giving drivers a bad name’? It’s just bonkers to think you are ever going to get everyone , from drug-dealers to terrorists, to worry about the reputation of the particular mode of transport they happen to use in the course of their offences. I just don’t think its going to be one of their priorities.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
As a cyclist I know we are not all the same but whether you like it or not its human nature to tar people with the same brush. Everytime a cyclist rides through a red light there will be a driver sitting there thinking “Bloody Cyclists!”. I am not condoning this attitude, I’m being a realist.
— crazy-legs I wish you’d seriously think about what is ‘realistic’. Are you saying its ‘realism’ to think the whole problem of bad driving endangering cyclists (and organised motoring lobby groups fighting to avoid any improvement in road design or move away from car-worship) can be fixed by getting every single person who ever gets on a bike to behave morally perfectly at all times? Do you ‘realistically’ think this is remotely possible or that it would even work if it was? If so, please point to an example anywhere in the world or anywhere in history where such an approach has worked. Not just for a mode of transport even, but for any issue, e.g. racism. Far from being a ‘realist’, you are fantasising. I mean, yet another point about this case is that I doubt the perp involved gives a toss about ‘giving a bad name’ to a mode of transport. Does the average bank-job getaway driver, or car-bombing terrorist worry about ‘giving drivers a bad name’? It’s just bonkers to think you are ever going to get everyone , from drug-dealers to terrorists, to worry about the reputation of the particular mode of transport they happen to use in the course of their offences. I just don’t think its going to be one of their priorities.— pipthepilot
Thanks FluffyKitten, for saying it so much better than I could. A hundred likes if I could.
pipthepilot wrote:
Cycling UK explicitly stated that they did not defend the cyclists actions, so there is no ambiguity about that.
If you don’t challenge this sort of language, the sort of lazy prejudice shown by the magistrate is reinforced. Well done, UK Cycling
pipthepilot wrote:
Just wrong on every level.
The magistrate was
(a) colluding with and uncritically accepting the most absurd form of collective out-group responsibility.
I’d say its actually slightly more absurd than even saying ‘People don’t like Catholics’ [not that that would be acceptable!] in response to a Catholic committing a crime, for example, because Catholicism, like some other groups, has some element of institutional structure and some means of self-policing. There is no cycle-Pope who can excommunicate someone who happens to use a bike.
(b) implying that cyclists are a different kind of thing to ‘people’.
(c) implying that it would actually make a difference to the treatment of cyclists if no criminal ever road a bike, which is essentially suggesting that anti-cyclist views (and the behaviour that leads to their deaths?) are justified and due to the behaviour of some cyclists.
How are CUK ‘standing up for a cyclist who doesn’t deserve to be supported’? They are objecting to a magistrate who seems lack the capacity to do the job.
A reasonable person would
A reasonable person would have prefixed the word “people” with “many”. It is a silent danger, those in authority legitimizing the hatred of some ignorant people – they have no idea of the difference between a poor choice of words and an official endorsement. And, above all, it diminishes the really rather low esteem magistrates already have. Given the vast number of court cases documented on this web site, in which the drivers found responsible for the death of a cyclist were given insultingly light punishments, I hope she realizes that [b][i]many[/i][/b] cyclists do not like magistrates, and she is doing nothing to enhance their reputation.
pure racism-facism-sovinism.
pure racism-facism-sovinism. this is bad.
Bad people do things. There’s
Bad people do things. There’s evidence that rich arseholes tend to be rich because they don’t care about what they do to others in order to become rich. The bicycle is only relevant insofar as it limited the maximum possible harm that he could cause. Just imagine what could well have happened if he had behaved in the exact same way in a sports-car, which seems likely.
Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior Paul K. Piffa,1, Daniel M. Stancatoa , Stéphane Côtéb , Rodolfo Mendoza-Dentona , and Dacher Keltnera a Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; and b Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3E6 Edited* by Richard E. Nisbett, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and approved January 26, 2012 (received for review November 8, 2011)
Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lowerclass individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lowerclass individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
She has shown alarmingly poor
She has shown alarmingly poor judgement in making her prejudices known. Those prejudices should lead to her not being allowed to sit on cases involving cyclists.
“and above all it diminishes
“and above all it diminishes the really rather low esteem cyclists already have”
Firstly, I think her use of language is rather poor for a start.
It could have been better qualified with, perhaps:
“and above all it diminishes the really rather low esteem cyclists appear to have commanded from other non-cycling motorised vehicle drivers*, which share an absolute disregard for self propelled vehicles, such as myself.”
*Said “drivers” whom “obviously pay road tax and insurance” and never, ever contravene any road laws, whatsoever”
Secondly, despite the nature of the obviously frenzied attempted escapology act of the “panicked” cyclist described elsewhere… (silent question to oneself – why did he try and flee??)
Why are the cyclists’ subsequent punishment/fines so high – in comparison with the boozed up bar manager actually causing bodily harm to a cyclist (her landlord…karma??) and driving without insurance (his monetary loss was approx 4x hers) – is it because he tried to evade “the law”?
Had he perfomed his mad stunt in front of any other car driver and subsequently been run over by the aggrieved motorist…would the driver now be receiving the keys to the city….
I’ve yet to hear of a killer
I’ve yet to hear of a killer driver attracting that kind of verbal from a regular magistrate. Even ones that fail to stop at the scene and then try to cover up their crimes.
another shite-wing, stuck in
another shite-wing, stuck in the ’50s beak, who knew
Bet she’s a bloody motorist!
Bet she’s a bloody motorist!
“People don’t like blacks” –
“People don’t like blacks” – there, anyone want to defend that as a generally held view of a loosely grouped sector of the population. Go on any takers?
Dropped wrote:
Exactly this… There is little more to say when it comes to the ‘bloody cyclists’ chant.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
the obvious counter argument – “People don’t like estate agents”
People don’t like magistrates
People don’t like magistrates.