Girl band pop star jailed for killing Hertfordshire cyclist

vonhelmet wrote:

If you don’t know the answer to a question then saying so is the best answer to that question... Your other choice is pretending and making something up which is far worse.

You do realise that your method undermines my complete armoury of techniques for making amusing and memorable conversation?  Have you no pity?

Housecathst wrote:

“and gave two Highway Code recommended warnings,”

the judge used those warnings against him in the sentencing, apparently it show what Charlie believed it was up to the ped to get out of his way. I can only assume that this new case law will be used against any motorist that uses their horn in similar circumstances in the future, lol 

Using a horn as motorists do is saying 'get out the fucking way', the report last week of the motorist sounding their horn 4 or 5 times before mowing down a cyclist and killing them was glossed over as if it was nothing, yet shouting a an audible warning is totally different, why?

That the women who collided with alliston clearly didn't hear his audible warning means whatever language he used, she never heard it.

I'm making the point that he was stiched up like a kipper, he had the law used against him in a way no motorist or pedestrian ever has, including the massively flawed braking test by plod which was a disgrace it even got to court!

vonhelmet wrote:

Allison behaved like a bellend and was treated as such.

I'm sorry, but being a bell end in the heat of the moment / without full knowledge of the facts, should have little difference on the length of your prison sentence. 

if you don't think the Alliston case was a witch hunt already, I'd encourage you to think about the fundamentals some more. 

vonhelmet wrote:

Allison behaved like a bellend and was treated as such.

But there's no internationally agreed standard for the treatment of bellends. (And no ISO standardized unit of fuckwittery.)

  He was treated more harshly, and certainly more ineptly (that stupid police 're-enactment'), than motorists are when they do similar things.   Whether his treatment should have been milder or that of motorists harsher, is a matter for individual preferences, but the double-standard seemed obvious to me.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Allison behaved like a bellend and was treated as such.

 

But there's no internationally agreed standard for the treatment of bellends. (And no ISO standardized unit of fuckwittery.)

 

  He was treated more harshly, and certainly more ineptly (that stupid police 're-enactment'), than motorists are when they do similar things.   Whether his treatment should have been milder or that of motorists harsher, is a matter for individual preferences, but the double-standard seemed obvious to me.

I propose the new ISO standard be called the Trump.

I've got no idea how to measure it though and there could be difficulties defining it in terms of other units.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I propose the new ISO standard be called the Trump.

I've got no idea how to measure it though and there could be difficulties defining it in terms of other units.

A question worthy of the imagination of Douglas Adams; remember the monetary exchange units?

burtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I propose the new ISO standard be called the Trump.

I've got no idea how to measure it though and there could be difficulties defining it in terms of other units.

A question worthy of the imagination of Douglas Adams; remember the monetary exchange units?

I wonder what Douglas Adams would have said about Trump? Oh wait - I don't have to guess, he presciently wrote about him as Zaphod Beeblebrox:

Quote:

The President is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had- he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.

Or would this be more accurate:

Quote:

One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn’t be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn’t understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid. He was renowned for being amazingly clever and quite clearly was so — but not all the time, which obviously worried him, hence the act. He preferred people to be puzzled rather than contemptuous.

hawkinspeter wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I propose the new ISO standard be called the Trump.

I've got no idea how to measure it though and there could be difficulties defining it in terms of other units.

A question worthy of the imagination of Douglas Adams; remember the monetary exchange units?

I wonder what Douglas Adams would have said about Trump? Oh wait - I don't have to guess, he presciently wrote about him as Zaphod Beeblebrox:

Quote:

The President is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had- he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.

Or would this be more accurate:

Quote:

One of the major difficulties Trillian experienced in her relationship with Zaphod was learning to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn’t be bothered to think and wanted someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn’t understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid. He was renowned for being amazingly clever and quite clearly was so — but not all the time, which obviously worried him, hence the act. He preferred people to be puzzled rather than contemptuous.

Or, we have Zaphod's "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer." which I think is pretty much a Trumpism too.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I've not heard of Alliston being released, I'm sure it would get huge media coverage if it had, so that's 14 months inside so far if he hasn't been released.

I would have thought he'd be out by now, surely?  Probably gone very undercover to hide from the tabloids, probably somewhere nobody would have heard of him, where nobody who rides would ever set foot...

Probably working in a Halfords  

brooksby wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I've not heard of Alliston being released, I'm sure it would get huge media coverage if it had, so that's 14 months inside so far if he hasn't been released.

I would have thought he'd be out by now, surely?  Probably gone very undercover to hide from the tabloids, probably somewhere nobody would have heard of him, where nobody who rides would ever set foot...

Probably working in a Halfords  

Given the very determined and vengeful husband of the woman he killed, I would be keeping a very low profile indeed.  Never mind Halfords, working nights stacking shelves in the local supermarket in Aberystwyth.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Plenty of stats and studies out there to support my opinion that young females are the demographic most likely to suffer from social media addiction and also mental health problems associated with this new age of narcisism.

Here's a sample from literally the first study I pulled up on google.

The effect size for sex was considered as small-to-medium, thus substantially meaningful, with women having higher addictive social media use score. This finding suggests that women are more at risk in developing addictive behaviors to activities involving elements of social interaction, whereas men tend to develop problematic use of more asocial and/or solitary activities (e.g., video gaming)

Once again we see be ignoring that men and women are indeed different creatures with different habits.

 

Your comment was the very definition of sexism. What you are now doing is called confirmation bias. You may well be right that women are more likely to have an accident due to mobile phone use, but the studies that would back up your argument are those that relate to women (and all drivers) having accidents whilst on the mobile phone, as the study you chose has nothing to do with that at all. Women are generally more careful drivers than men (as insurance premiums reflect). 

Your comment was made simply as a sexist comment which you are now trying to back up. Even if you are proven right, your comment was still sexist as it was made at the time on supposition and generalisation about the behaviour of one sex... which is pretty much the definition of a sexist comment. 

Please carefully note I haven't made any argument as to whether your supposition was right or wrong though.

madcarew wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Plenty of stats and studies out there to support my opinion that young females are the demographic most likely to suffer from social media addiction and also mental health problems associated with this new age of narcisism.

Here's a sample from literally the first study I pulled up on google.

The effect size for sex was considered as small-to-medium, thus substantially meaningful, with women having higher addictive social media use score. This finding suggests that women are more at risk in developing addictive behaviors to activities involving elements of social interaction, whereas men tend to develop problematic use of more asocial and/or solitary activities (e.g., video gaming)

Once again we see be ignoring that men and women are indeed different creatures with different habits.

 

Your comment was the very definition of sexism. What you are now doing is called confirmation bias. You may well be right that women are more likely to have an accident due to mobile phone use, but the studies that would back up your argument are those that relate to women (and all drivers) having accidents whilst on the mobile phone, as the study you chose has nothing to do with that at all. Women are generally more careful drivers than men (as insurance premiums reflect). 

Your comment was made simply as a sexist comment which you are now trying to back up. Even if you are proven right, your comment was still sexist as it was made at the time on supposition and generalisation about the behaviour of one sex... which is pretty much the definition of a sexist comment. 

Please carefully note I haven't made any argument as to whether your supposition was right or wrong though.

The first act is confirmation bias, as in 'whenever I look/register, surprise surprise, its a woman'.

I can't say I've noticed women staring at phones any more than men. But when I filter past them, I can tell their silly little heads are full up with Love Island and vajazzles.

ROOTminus1 wrote:

Another tragic outcome.

I'm loathe to stir up the age-old high horses, but it's a sad state of affairs when this is a necessary line in reports such as these:

road.cc wrote:

Mrs Mills, who was wearing a cycle helmet, was taken by air ambulance to hospital where she died from traumatic brain injuries sustained in the collision

...as if bigoted folk would exclaim Mrs Mills' injuries were her own fault were she not wearing a helmet. Such aides are a riders choice, and those who pontificate either way are as arrogant as the privileged motorists who have no regard for any vulnerable road user.

 

It could be spun the other way of course. It could be specifically mentioned to reinforce the point that helmets are in no way a guarantee of survival in collisions with motor vehicles.

Mark.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Bet she was on the phone but they'd couldn't pin it on her. This isn't sexism but take away white van man and women seem to be the worst offenders for this based my travels. More so now I've got the motorbike and can go past and look through the windows at what I suspected was happening and most of the time I'm right......on the phone.

You used to think these people were drunk but it's just on the phone. Such is the lure I don't even think an instant ban would stop people.

 

I think your comment is actually the definition of sexism, however it has validity. 

I believe stats show that women are statistically more likely to have trivial accidents due to lack of care / concentration. Men, especially young men, are more likely to have large crashes caused by pushing the envelope / aggressive driving. 

So it might be that you see more women looking at their phones simply because you are more likely to be passing women as the men are off driving fast ahead of you. 

But I digress.

The reality is mobile phone use when driving is a problem for both sexes, and is arguably a side effect of a fundamental lack of care and attention / required focus applied to driving by too many in society.

Being sexist, I'd say my perception is that women can be more risk adverse than men. This might explain the statistical difference in crash rates / types. However, being risk adverse can bring its own problems, specifically around risk awareness. The two are not necessarily linked and if there is a fundamental belief that an activity is safe, then the person (no matter the sex) will not look for risk at all and can end up doing things that are incredibly dangerous, in total ignorance of the risk.

That is indeed a very dangerous proposition. 

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Bet she was on the phone but they'd couldn't pin it on her. This isn't sexism but take away white van man and women seem to be the worst offenders for this based my travels. More so now I've got the motorbike and can go past and look through the windows at what I suspected was happening and most of the time I'm right......on the phone.

You used to think these people were drunk but it's just on the phone. Such is the lure I don't even think an instant ban would stop people.

 

It is sexism.

Do you any statistics for this?  Otherwise your evidence is just anecdotal.  Pretty much the same as saying all cyclists run red lights and ride recklessly at pedestrians.

However I do believe that phone use at the wheel is far too prevalent among both sexes.

I agree she could have been using her phone but not for calls or texts as that would have discovered by the police.  Maybe social media use can't be picked up and she was using that on her phone.

She could even have been changing her music.   A while ago a lorry driver was caught on CCTV in his cab doing that, having caused a fatal accident when he drove into a car carrying a family of four.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/31/lorry-driver-distracted-...

Note he was male, as was the guy who killed a cyclist having previously been caught using his phone at the wheel 8 times and allowed to keep his licence.

https://road.cc/content/news/203741-nine-years-jail-texting-driver-who-k...

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Bet she was on the phone but they'd couldn't pin it on her. This isn't sexism but take away white van man and women seem to be the worst offenders for this based my travels. More so now I've got the motorbike and can go past and look through the windows at what I suspected was happening and most of the time I'm right......on the phone.

You used to think these people were drunk but it's just on the phone. Such is the lure I don't even think an instant ban would stop people.

 

You don't have any evidence other than your experience.  My experience is that I see more blokes in commercial vehicles with a phone to their ear than anyone else, but I wouldn't put money on that being a statistical fact.  

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Bet she was on the phone but they'd couldn't pin it on her. This isn't sexism but take away white van man and women seem to be the worst offenders for this based my travels. More so now I've got the motorbike and can go past and look through the windows at what I suspected was happening and most of the time I'm right......on the phone.

You used to think these people were drunk but it's just on the phone. Such is the lure I don't even think an instant ban would stop people.

 

You got a lot of likes for this sweeping generalisation.  Well done!

Shame this website seems to attract just as many casual misogynists as you might expect from your average lad mag or petrolhead site.

CaribbeanQueen wrote:

 

You got a lot of likes for this sweeping generalisation.  Well done!

Shame this website seems to attract just as many casual misogynists as you might expect from your average lad mag or petrolhead site.

 

Calm down love!

Housecathst wrote:

I a lot of ways I’m surprised she got a prison sentence. Normally “I didn’t see” Is a cast iron get out of jail free card. Couple of months driving ban and £200 fine 

I found another site that described the accident more clearly. The cyclist was approaching from the right but the driver did not stop at the roundabout but carried on at 20+ mph. The reason " I didn't see" could not be used was that there was a car already stopped in the middle lane of that approach clearly giving way to traffic from the right.

hirsute wrote:

I found another site that described the accident more clearly. The cyclist was approaching from the right but the driver did not stop at the roundabout but carried on at 20+ mph. The reason " I didn't see" could not be used was that there was a car already stopped in the middle lane of that approach clearly giving way to traffic from the right.

[/quote]

I have seen this any number of times, where one lane approaching a roundabout has stopped to give way to vehicles on the roundabout, but another driver approaches in another lane and pulls out, including one of the closest calls I've ever had without actually being knocked off.  It demonstrates such a low standard of driving that it cannot otherwise be described as anything but dangerous, and would immediately fail a driving test.

Anyone doing it should have their licence removed forever as they are clearly not competent to operate a dangerous machine in a public place, whether or not they cause a collision; if they didn't this time, it was just luck and they will do it eventually.