Mr Loophole secures acquittal of cyclist accused of causing crash

Garage at Large wrote:

You wouldn't go out into a thunderstorm with a metal umbrella and stand under a tree would you? The same is true of going out at night in black clothing on a dimly lit street, it's about minimising risk. Take control of what you can control

If you're stood under a tree when it happens to get struck by lightning, holding a metal umbrella is likely to make precisely no difference to the outcome.

Much like your choice of clothing will have pretty much no effect if someone in a car isn't looking where they're going.

mdavidford wrote:

Much like your choice of clothing will have pretty much no effect if someone in a car isn't looking where they're going.

That is true but the best evidence available suggests you're significantly less likely to be in a collision if you're wearing bright clothing (or running daytime lights) so it likely has some effect.

I'm not arguing for these things to be mandatory but it's worth knowing what works and what doesn't so you can make an informed decision.

Wow, that's quite a find. In case anyone hasn't got Twitter, I'll take the liberty of providing a screenshot. 

To be fair, that's not really surprising. There's likely only one person here that considers him not a complete waste of oxygen.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Wow, that's quite a find. In case anyone hasn't got Twitter, I'll take the liberty of providing a screenshot. 

You are facking kidding me

Captain Badger wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Wow, that's quite a find. In case anyone hasn't got Twitter, I'll take the liberty of providing a screenshot. 

You are facking kidding me

I had to actually google that cos I thought that nobody was that much of skank.

And to think that some people even admire the overgrown schoolboy....

"Hi Nick, my daughter wears her skirt as her compulsory school uniform so well played victim blaming. I’ll show my 15 year old daughter your hot take and photo so she’ll know what an entitled dick head looks and sounds like."

'skankygelato'

I was going to bring up that his victim blaming when his client had acted criminally on the roads was along the lines of blaming a woman for being sexually assaulted because she left the house in a skirt. However I thought that might be too crass. I never actually realised he had done that exact thing.

I thought just the same - never fails to disappoint, does he?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Wow, that's quite a find. In case anyone hasn't got Twitter, I'll take the liberty of providing a screenshot. 

The best of it was.... it was at Nige's request that I did a search on Google for "Nick Freeman Law Change".... and that little gem came up, along with all of his other Cyclist Helmets/Tabards yadda yadda yadda petitions....  and the one Daily Heil article that he found was on about page 3 of the google search.

Sounds like Mr. Freeman might be needing some groin protection himself with that kind of line. Let's deploy Mannerly on that tweet:

This is totally unacceptable conduct. #upskirting

Better.

I'm sure Mr 'Safety' has loads of petitions out there for government debate and not just one. Of course he might just be doing newspaper articles in most cases for publicity and to try to cover the fact that most people see him as a Cnut who gets rich people off actual criminal acts that put other people in danger. Essentially the equivalent of Greenwashing like Ineos and all the other top polluting companies do. Now people have laughed at his Anti-cyclists "safety" videos he might even jump at some new publicity by representing a cyclist in a case that would have been laughed out of court anyway, then tweeting out all the news reports covering this. 

eburtthebike wrote:

Is it April 1st already?

Felt like I was in the Twilight Zone reading this article...

Brake checking is actually a traffic offence but you are correct that prosecution without independent witness evidence is ridiculous, when you consider the normal course of events would be the motorist colliding into the rear of another vehicle be found at fault for the collision. I was defending myself in a civil case where a woman that collided with the rear of my parked car while attempting to pass, had told her insurer that I had reversed into her; I pointed out that her car was on the wrong side of the road at the point of collision, clearly showing she was passing my stationary car but to no avail; the ancient male magistrate decided that the middle aged lady was truthful and the 18 yr old male was lying..

brooksby wrote:

I am SO conflicted about this story... 

It feels so wrong but it feels so right....

LOL!

Dire Straits, Expresso Love:

Well I feel so good because I feel so good
And I feel so good because it feels so right
I was made to go with my girl
Just like a saxophone was made to go with the night
 

You're showing you age now...

I can feel a revisit of Making Movies in the not too distant future!

Dire Straits: timeless.
Going to listen, too.

Garage at Large wrote:

Wearing brightly coloured clothing at night allows pedestrians to be seen more easily. How is that even controversial?

So lets see whats controversial.  A driver commits a crime of causing death by careless driving including driving in excess of the speed limit in an urban area (30mph - therefore has a legal requirement for street lights) yet your hero comes out with the gem that the pedestrian should be wearing Hi-Viz.

It's controversial in a few ways - firstly it attempts to suggest that the pedestrian was partly at fault for the careless driving perpetrated by the motorist.  As opposed to actually accepting that the driver was to blame.  Edit his argument was that the Rabbi dressed in black clothing was invisible to the driver, despite the street lighting.

Secondly... he "called on the government to ‘require’ pedestrians to ‘light up’ at night.", now bear in mind this was in response to a fatal accident in an area which is covered by street lighting.  Having a requirement for all pedestrians to light up in a street lit area would be entirely counter productive by introducing a sea of reflective/brightly coloured pedestrians milling about at the side of the road none of which would stand out.

Garage at Large wrote:

The actual quote attributed to Nick Freeman was "Pedestrians along with motorists and cyclists all share road space, and in my view therefore must assume some responsibility to ensure their visibility." I think that sounds broadly correct - if I go for a jog at night, I ensure that I wear something reflective and highly visible.

If I instead wear black clothing in a badly lit area and get hit by a car that was otherwise travelling legally and paying attention, then in my view I have contributed to the accident.

Sorry Nigel.  Let's put the full quote not your selectively edited version of his quotes

The actual quote was "I'm not suggesting everyone must wear a hi-viz jacket, but something reflective that would give them a visible presence, such as a vest, arm bands or belt. Pedestrians along with motorists and cyclists all share road space, and in my view therefore must assume some responsibility to ensure their visibility. Sadly, because he was 'invisible', Mr Steinberg has lost his life"

And yet again you are making things up to try and justify your argument.... "If I instead wear black clothing in a badly lit area "...... but Nick Freeman's quotes were NOT made in response to a pedestrian being killed in a badly lit area.  They were made in response to someone killed in a well lit residential area.

So why is Mr Freeman suggesting that pedestrians in well lit residential areas should wear something reflective?

Garage at Large wrote:

I don't see any reference in what Mr Freeman said as to whether the area where it occurred was well-lit or not, or whether the area was residential, so I'm assuming that's speculation on your part.

Not speculation on my point just using common sense.  The report provided the street where the victim lived and where they were going.  And a simple look on google maps shows that the Synagogue that the Rabbi was walking to was one street away from where the victim lived.  And street view shows that the area has plentiful street lights.

Mr Freeman was making the statements as part of his post trial press reports.  Therefore in this instance 1 and 1 makes 2 not the 7 you want it to

Garage at Large wrote:

Mr Freeman is merely dispensing general advice on safety at night

Is that part of being a lawyer, nowadays?

Garage at Large wrote:

No that's part and parcel of being a road safety expert, which as we know is Mr Freeman's second speciality.

His first speciality is victim blaming, but not according to you.  However his own words disagree with you.

Mr Freeman said "because he was 'invisible', Mr Steinberg has lost his life."

Please tell me how that statement is not victim blaming... his words put a direct correlation between the fact that he was killed and the fact that he was wearing black

So Freeman suggested that an elderly Jewish man ought to have been wearing something such as an armband to make himself visible. And would welcome a government making this a requirement.  Kin ell.

markieteeee wrote:

So Freeman suggested that an elderly Jewish man ought to have been wearing something such as an armband to make himself visible. And would welcome a government making this a requirement.  Kin ell.

Indeed. Perhaps some sort of hi-viz star could have been suggested.

Freeman clearly has zero awareness