Cyclist finds 20 cars parked in 0.2 mile stretch of pop-up cycle lane; Council say 'No' to 'No cycling'; UK everesting record falls again; New bike for Vine's neighbour; Dirty Kanza founder sacked; Roglič wins Slovenian nats + more on the live blog

Just looking at the pictures in the story, and comparing it against google streetview.

https://goo.gl/maps/Nkc5gHNpwY2JYbYE6

So the seafront road has two lanes of motor traffic in both directions, and there is indeed a bidirectional cycle lane on the pedestrianised area (which looks just about barely wide enough for two cycles to pass without straying into the 'pedestrians only' bit).

But how wide is that pedestrian area?  Couldn't you have allocated a bit more room for the cycle lane, if there are that many cyclists using it that you've had to make sure they know not to stray onto the pedestrian bit?

fwiw I have some sympathy with Hove council there, that cycle lane is plenty wide enough for two cycles to pass,if you treat it with some common sense and accept its only a leisurely paced route,not a cycling superhighway, and it widens when the prom allows space for it, albeit the "no no cycling" bit doesnt make a huge amount of sense in the grand scheme of things which is no doubt why it leads to the calls for ever increasing amounts of signage.

but what google maps doesnt show you is actually how busy with pedestrians, joggers,dog walkers,small kids the prom can get,especially in summer and at weekends, it can be like walking through a football crowd sometimes, and it only takes one person riding a bike inconsiderately to create alot of conflict there.

Last time I was there, a guy on a bike who was riding way too fast for that lane and you also have to remember people cross the road heading to the beach and immediately encounter the bike lane, swerved off the cycle lane into a group of pedestrians, nearly took me out as I was walking along, and all because he couldnt be bothered to use his brakes to slow up as he'd caught a slower rider just as another bike came the other way.

the real problem as youve alluded to is actually the road, make the road less a dual carriageway like it gets treated by the motorists, and more pleasant to ride on, you wouldnt need to worry about cycling along the prom.

Awavey wrote:

the real problem as youve alluded to is actually the road, make the road less a dual carriageway like it gets treated by the motorists, and more pleasant to ride on, you wouldnt need to worry about cycling along the prom.

I don't disagree.

Why is there a dual carriageway along the seafront anyway?  (in all fairness, I don't think it's exclusive to Hove in that - IIRC Weston super Mare has a similar arrangement).

If cyclists are so dangerous - in conflict with milling pedestrians (milling about, not making flour) then it seems to make good sense to divert all that motor traffic somewhere else too...

Has it stifled his freedom of speech though?  He said what he wanted and I believe he can still say what ever he wishes to say.

Anything at all, unless they have taken away all of his social media accounts, and his smartphones and computers so he cannot obtain any more, perhaps cut off his hands so that he can't write to newspapers and others to express his views or cut out his tongue so that he cannot speak to others.

Have thay done any of that?

Those who hide behind the free speech defence often fail to realise that people taking issue with what you say is not stifiling free speech, it's just calling you out for being hateful and wrongheaded.

I say let the fools speak as much as they like, but continue to call them out and take action against those who reveal they hold opinions incompatible with a civilised society.

No, we are not.  If Boris were to direct all the ministries to fire all the people who don't vote Tory and to cut ties with all companies who don't support his policies you would be up in arms, and so would I if I lived in the UK.

You have decided that only those opinions which agree with yours are compatible with "a civilised society" which is the beginning of tyrany.

Thanks Ktache for a witty (and obvious) reply to the provocative, stupid post by our resident right wing racist aka NZVegan Rider. Perhaps  even the antipodean will understand the point you have made? But then again he is a sheep shagger. (Free speech mate, it's my right) 

2 wrongs don't make a right.

I appreciate the attempt at humour but I think it misses the point.

No one is disputing that the police officer shot Mr Brooks.

No one is disputing that those shots killed Mr Brooks.

What is yet to be decided legally is whether the shooting of Mr Brooks was justified.

That will be decided by a jury who must be free to decide either way.

The jury will be drawn from members of the public.

Therefore members of the public must be free to express their opinions about the justification without fear of consequence.

Allowing people to be punished for expressing an opinion on an undecided legal matter is a clear violation of their freedom of speech and even more importantly is a significant threat to justice itself.

I would've thought that allowing people to express opinions on an undecided legal matter is more likely to affect justice than not allowing discussion until after the case.

You've nicely avoided the point there.

He hasn't been fired for expressing an opinion.

He's been fired for expressing the wrong opinion.

That's where the threat to justice comes from.

If it is made clear that there is only one socially acceptable opinion to hold then the potential for a fair trial is significantly diminished.

I'm not seeing the connection between getting fired (which is between the company and employee) and the court case. It's not uncommon for companies to fire employees for not having market friendly/socially acceptable views, but that's more to do with marketing than suppressing free speech.

Surely, there're situations where we as a society want trials to abide by socially agreed views and opinions? I don't think people would be happy if people tried on bestiality charges could be let off because they held the opinion that the animal was consenting.

Personally, I wouldn't want to see court cases where holding racist views is deemed acceptable and a mitigation for violence. Similarly, I wouldn't want a court case to be examining unrelated social media posts by someone else.

He has expressed the opinion that the police officer was justified in shooting Mr Brooks.

That is essentially the defence argument.

If we decide that believing the argument of the defence is so unacceptable that anyone who does so publicly deserves to be punished do you not think that might have some effect on the trial?

We already accept that deadly force can be used in certain situations without a crime being committed. This is a well established defence in murder trials.

Your analogies are therefore not applicable.

The defence is using an established and socially acceptable argument.

A man has been fired from his job for agreeing with that argument.

That should be concerning to anyone interested in personal freedom and the rule of law.

Again, I'm not seeing the connection. The court case will (hopefully) examine the evidence and the jury will decide on whether the officer was justified. Whether or not a company fires someone for not being aligned with their brand is not going to be submitted as evidence for the prosecution and is irrelevant.

I'll try another analogy - The Times have decided that Rod Liddle is aligned with their brand and keep him in employ, but that's not going to have any effect on someone charged with stringing barbed wire across a path.

The point is that the jury must be free to decide whether to accept the argument of the prosecution or the defence.

If, prior to the trial, it is widely believed that anyone who accepts the argument for the defence can be fired and publicly vilified then that will obviously affect the impartiality of the jury.

If a juror believes that they might lose their livelihood and reputation if they accept the defence argument then they are far less likely to do so.

The jury are free to accept either verdict with no fear of consequences. They are NOT free to share their views of the trial on social media when they are linked to a company that does not want to be associated with that view. If a juror doesn't want to risk their livelihood then they can just keep quiet about it (quite a few job contracts include a section about not mentioning the company or its business on social media).

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Any potential juror who's shared their views on social media prior to the trial is likely to be dismissed for prejudice, and so not be a juror, regardless of what their employer or wider society thinks.

Yeah - I meant after the trial (during the trial would also get them chucked out).

You're missing the point.

Once it is made clear that only one verdict is acceptable to society then the impartiality of the jury is compromised.

History is full of horrendous miscarriages of justice where a jury has felt pressured to deliver the 'right' verdict.

If a unanimous not guilty verdict were reached in the Brooks case should Dirty Kanza be able to fire any employee who was on the jury?

Rich_cb wrote:

You're missing the point.

Once it is made clear that only one verdict is acceptable to society then the impartiality of the jury is compromised.

History is full of horrendous miscarriages of justice where a jury has felt pressured to deliver the 'right' verdict.

If a unanimous not guilty verdict were reached in the Brooks case should Dirty Kanza be able to fire any employee who was on the jury?

They can fire anyone posting publicly about the trial if they deem that to be damaging to their image. I doubt that they'd win a tribunal if they fired someone just for being on a jury.

If your employer fired you for expressing an opinion about, for example, the Aliston case, you'd be ok with it?

I'd be surprised as it's unrelated to the business and my name isn't associated with my employer (e.g. I'm not known as its founder). In the past, my work has sent out company wide emails to not discuss on social media some sensitive business information, so I'd be puzzled why no warning had been issued about any connection with Aliston. So yeah, I'd sue them for wrongful dismissal.

I'd argue that it's possible for anyone to be linked with their employer quite quickly if the online mob decide to do their research.

I'd also argue that anybody, regardless of their job, should be free to discuss controversial topics in a personal capacity without endangering their livelihood.

It wasn't too long ago that people were ostracised for supporting gay rights or interracial marriage.
Careers were destroyed by vindictive bosses who happened to disagree. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Yeah - I meant after the trial (during the trial would also get them chucked out).

Oh, I know - I meant to add to your point rather than question it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Probably spotted a squirrel up it. 

.

@hawkinspeter

You're wasting your time. Rich will never ever admit to being wrong - he'll just continue to write lengthy post after lengthy post and, in his mind, win the argument when everyone else stops replying. 

jasecd wrote:

@hawkinspeter

You're wasting your time. Rich will never ever admit to being wrong - he'll just continue to write lengthy post after lengthy post and, in his mind, win the argument when everyone else stops replying. 

I'm not looking for any kind of admission - just seeking a bit of clarification and whether I agree with his reasoning or not. I see these discussions more as examining differing points of view rather than a win-lose kind of thing.