You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There's a story breaking on the BBC that I thought I'd link to as it touches on a number of things that we've discussed here, not least the use of a car as a lethal weapon.
It's also the first news article I've read where an illegal e-bike is correctly called an e-motorbike (although no discussion about it's road legality). It also refers to the rider as a biker rather than a cyclist (would it be same if the e-bike rider had injured or killed someone?).
It's a pretty horrid story. There are some truly nasty people out there.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjd37km83p9o
Also noteworthy is the much better narrative that "it was obvious to you that they were not wearing a helmet, so this was a deliberate attempt to cause harm" rather than the more usual "the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet or hi-viz, so it's their own fault"
At the crown court on Monday, Judge Andrew Smith KC said it must have been clear to Ibrahim that Mr Jones was not wearing a helmet while riding his e-motorbike on Moat Lane.
Huh?
Agree about the helmet thing, though I assume the defence tried to use it the other way and we're just not hearing about it, it's good to see it being used this way. The judge's comments seem pretty much impeccable, absolutely not a trace of victim blaming, it's straight out "does not matter what they were doing, you murdered someone, their conduct is irrelevant"
As ever, don't look at social media about this. Birmingham police posted about it and it was literally "please do not murder cyclists with cars", and just about every response was "they deserved it" "bloody cyclists" "should happen more often". And that's people saying it directly to the police 🙁
And that's people saying it directly to the police 🙁
I do wonder how long before there's a case where someone who's posted this crap even accidentally hits a cyclist and their social media is used as evidence?
Yeah, this case hit hard. Glad to see the judge didn’t pull punches.
I think this is (sadly) a tragic case that needs massive publicity. Just do not **** about near vulnerable road users no matter how frustrated you are with their behaviour, good or bad.
22 years minimum properly reflects the intention to cause harm.
I would love stupid social media comments to be used against people - 3 points and £100 for each inaccuracy.
I do wonder how long before there's a case where someone who's posted this crap even accidentally hits a cyclist and their social media is used as evidence?
I remember some lady posting on Facebook during last year' riots, basically an ill thought out comment that 'asylum hotels should be set on fire'. She got a fairly hefty custodial sentence
I've not been reading social media's response to the OP's case, but if folks are posting stuff like 'they deserve it', and 'it should happen more often' then I'm struggling to see how they should be treated any differently.
"does not matter what they were doing, you murdered someone, their conduct is irrelevant"
Exactly.
Imagine someone going for a walk along the motorway for example - totally illegal (and absolutely mad), but that doesn't give drivers or riders the right to deliberately or accidentally run them over.
If such a person is run over, an investigation will have to take place to see whether the motorist(s) did anything to avoid hitting them.
No matter what vehicle you drive in, or ride on - not taking action to avoid an accident should go against you, full stop. None of this "I held my line", or "I didn't see them" crap - this goes for anyone on wheels of any sort. 👍
In a different case, one of those "family mourn kind and loving biker killed in crash" stories in the local news recently.
First comment was pointing out they were killed whilst riding 3-up on a motorbike they'd just taken at knifepoint. So sometimes it is worth reading the comments section to get a more balanced story!
I would love stupid social media comments to be used against people - 3 points and £100 for each inaccuracy.
😂 can you imagine the backlog of courses if they mandated highway code refreshers every time someone posted something incorrectly.
Just do not **** about near vulnerable road users no matter how frustrated you are with their behaviour
Not unrelated, there was a piece on today's News at 1 showing some ludicrously dangerous driving around horses & riders.
22 years minimum properly reflects the intention to cause harm.
It was really indefensible. The driver changed direction to chase the victim, then crashed into him twice. He can't even claim red mist type defence. It was very clearly murder.
I remember some lady posting on Facebook during last year' riots, basically an ill thought out comment that 'asylum hotels should be set on fire'. She got a fairly hefty custodial sentence
It was a Tory politicians wife, although she was far from the only one.
I've not been reading social media's response to the OP's case, but if folks are posting stuff like 'they deserve it', and 'it should happen more often' then I'm struggling to see how they should be treated any differently.
The distinction is her post was found to be racially motivated.
Which (IMO) would be fine if the racial component was just considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing. But I agree with your sentiment, the same law should apply to any group of people, it shouldn't need to be a protected characteristic.
The bar for prosecution is actually quite high, you can't just be insulting.
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
-
- (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
-
- (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
And then in the next part:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
It needs to be a lot more than "hurty words on facebook" as the gammon's try and play it. I may have gotten a little animated on that fact when someone in the cycling club used those words to defend them.......
TBH I'd be happy if the police fb dudes even just responded.
I've seen Surrey and TVP replying, but TBH it would be a full time job for someone 😬
Maybe rather than putting all the onus on social media companies to moderate content the original poster should be held in some way responsible for moderating the comments (or just disabling them).
I've written it before, perhaps not in this forum, but I'll write it again...
If people had to write stuff on the interweb using their own name, they would be far more likely to worry about the consequences of the garbage they write.
Good to see a pillock driver getting a sentence more in line with their actions, for a rare change.
the gammons
Given your post about protected characteristics, race and insults, your use of a racist, sexist, ageist insult is particularly ironic.
But I guess that’s fine when it’s about people WE don’t approve of.
the gammons
Given your post about protected characteristics, race and insults, your use of a racist, sexist, ageist insult is particularly ironic.
But I guess that’s fine when it’s about people WE don’t approve of.
Let's not start this again please!
Surrey RPU used to be very well known for standing firm. They famously shut down an online argument about cyclists wearing hi viz by posting a photo of a marked Police car that was hit by a SMIDSY driver and pointing out where responsibility lay.
Given your post about protected characteristics, race and insults, your use of a racist, sexist, ageist insult is particularly ironic.
But I guess that’s fine when it’s about people WE don’t approve of.
😂
Seriously?
OK, I'd like to offer a full and frank apology to all the racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, and others who hate on people for any other characteristic, keyboard warriors who argue until they are red in the face. Insulting them was cruel and may have raised their blood pressure even further. I'm not racist, sexist or ageist, some of my best friends were born in the 3rd quarter of the last century, up white, male and slightly privileged.
Not unrelated, there was a piece on today's News at 1 showing some ludicrously dangerous driving around horses & riders.
Not saying it doesn't happen (in fact I've seen similar video and even one horrific collision) but round here, it's incredible the lengths drivers will go to in avoiding horses / driving carefully around them. They'll sit there on a country lane at 5mph until it's safe to crawl past carefully using the opposite verge.
But a cyclist in front of them? Must get past NOW. Immediately! Why are you still in my way?! BEEEEEEEEEPPP! I'll tailgate you a bit more then whizz past inches from your elbow and yell something about road tax.
The difference is stark. Something about any form of cycling really brings the red mist as seen in this instance. 🙁
I do wonder how long before there's a case where someone who's posted this crap even accidentally hits a cyclist and their social media is used as evidence?
I've not been reading social media's response to the OP's case, but if folks are posting stuff like 'they deserve it', and 'it should happen more often' then I'm struggling to see how they should be treated any differently.
This was probably a drug dealing scrote on an illegal motorbike, not wearing a legally mandated helmet. They were not a cyclist.
This was probably a drug dealing scrote on an illegal motorbike, not wearing a legally mandated helmet. They were not a cyclist.
I don't think anyone has claimed he was a cyclist. The point most of us are making is that this appears to be a proper prosecution and sentencing of someone who used their car to commit murder, and should be welcomed by all vulnerable road users.