Eurobike rides: Orbea Orca

@mitsky Leaving aside the fact that I, and I think most people, wouldn't want to live in a society where physically or chemically mutilating people was used by the state as a form of punishment, why do you think that would be a deterrent? In cases like this the perpetrator, vile as he is, didn't intend that day to murder somebody, he didn't sit down and think okay, I'll get life in prison but I'm not going to have my taste buds or libido removed so I'll chance it. He did one of the most appalling things I've ever heard of a driver doing but on the spur of the moment and doubtless in a panic, if capital punishment was still in place the deterrent effect wouldn't have worked on him. We all know that in the USA states that have the death penalty have no lower murder rates than those that don't, there's no reason to suppose that your proposed, and if you'll excuse me utterly barbaric, form of punishment would act as any more of a deterrent. It might make us, or some of us, feel better about getting some form of revenge on the perpetrator of such an appalling crime, but as a deterrent its effect would be negligible if not non-existent.

Oxford Street is very wide, they ought to have accommodated cycling in these plans from the start. Not least because it's going to be very difficult to police and a lack of safe alternatives will encourage many cyclists to ignore the ban. They could have added bike lanes going in both directions, separated by a pedestrian area in the middle so that pedestrians only have to deal with crossing one direction of cycling traffic at a time.

@the infamous grouse KCs and barristers don't have an awful lot of choice about accepting a case: on the "cab rank" principle they are obliged to take instruction from anyone who asks, providing the case falls into their area of competence, an appropriate fee is offered and they have room for it on their calendar. They certainly are not allowed to say no, this bloke's obviously a piece of shit and guilty as sin, I'm not defending him, and once in court they are obliged to do everything within their power within the rules of the legal system to defend their client. Hence the obligation to make speeches like the one to which you object. I'm acquainted with several barristers and a judge and they've all told me that there are times when it absolutely sticks in their craw to have to do this sort of thing but it really is the only way to ensure that everybody gets proper representation regardless of however heinous the crime of which they are accused, their race, sex, personal beliefs et cetera.

It is very disappointing. My best guess is that he personally is not interested in cycling, and he can't see beyond his own habits and wishes.

@OldTom i suppose my commentary depends on whether the KC had any choice in representing this client or not .. a Milgram disclaimer, in a way.

This is my local constabulary. Does anyone know if there is any actual evidence behind this beyond "deemed", or do I need to FOI them? I think that if we actually had some cycle tracks without anti-cycling barriers, there would be fewer cyclists on the roads to be run down.

Labour MP Clive Betts seems to be another of those MPs who think that all of his constituents drive cars: none of them ride bikes or catch buses. And none of them are at all worried about climate change, pollution, congestion or dead cyclists. "Betts went as far as to describe the whole scheme to the BBC as “a complete waste of money”, “not necessary” and “a cycle lane to nowhere” I wish that this idiot was my MP (who is bad enough) as he would be getting a broadside from me, and demands that at least tries to be sensible sometimes. Honestly, MPs are supposed to be relatively intelligent.

@the infamous grouse It is the job of the defence solicitor to put the best possible case for their client. I think the defendant is a disgusting individual of little worth who deserves to be hit with the harshest possible sentence having now been convicted. I suspect you do too. But the role of the defence here, is to defend. It is the role of the jury to determine to what extent that defence holds up (as well as to consider the extent to which the prosecution has made its case). They have done so. Justice has been served in all regards. Having defending legal representation, whatever the crime, is a necessary cornerstone of our justice system. They have to be there for the worst people as well as those who are innocent and everyone in-between. The alternative is not a system we want to get into.

While I can only applaud the jury for their verdict, it gives me little joy. Two lives have been ruined when it could all have been so easily avoided. The state of mind of Simon Richardson is not mentioned, but he must be some kind of sociopath to behave so incredibly callously. My thoughts are with the family and friends of Michael Mullins, and I hope that this brings some closure to them.

@mitsky The mentality of, 'its just a cyclist' pervades throughout society and discourse, and is normalised to the extent that the killer likely believed this and therefore thought he would be judged in a more lenient way by the courts and by peers, which is what we see all of the time, both in sentencing and by the reporting in some media. It will be interesting to see how the media overall portrays this killer over coming days and I expect the hostility towards the cyclist community to be on full display (sadly!).