You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I was just reading this story and wondered what this 'road rage driver' looks like (not that it really matters - just curious).
I can't find a single article about this story that has a picture of the driver.
Plenty of pictures of the cyclist and his injuries/x-ray images. Plus a mention of his "£4000" bicycle. I know that it's easy to spend that much but why is it an important part of this story??
I know that it’s easy to spend that much but why is it an important part of this story??
It's not. The BBC Haven't mentioned it.
If other media outlets have, it's likely because it was mentioned in court and supplied to them by court reporter, and they had space to fill.
Plus a mention of his “£4000” bicycle
It will be news to many that a bike can cost this, plus it makes cyclists look like loons.
cynic-al - I decided the same. If you say that his bike cost £4000 you make everyone who isn't a cyclist feel like this guy's a bit wierd or odd.
So kind of siding with the driver??
They can side with him all they want inside for 6 months or however long a 2 year sentence actually lasts!
Makes a nice change to see some justice.
Good, there's an interesting thread on Twitter in response to the outrage & change of law proposal last year when one fixie guy killed one pedestrian.
It basically says yeah, where is your outrage about this...
..and he tweets every time a driver is prosecuted or not for assaults on cyclists and details the often petty charges.
cynic-al – I decided the same. If you say that his bike cost £4000 you make everyone who isn’t a cyclist feel like this guy’s a bit wierd or odd.
So kind of siding with the driver??
Yes - "us" as drivers and "them" as cyclists. TBF on that thread yesterday they did mention the "£56K Merc" but it's odd for the price of a car to be mentioned. IMO it makes the victim stand out as "different" ie not one of "us".
they did mention the “£56K Merc” but it’s odd for the price of a car to be mentioned.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but as someone who's written and edited hundreds of such stories I can assure you journalists will always seek to include the price of someone's fancy motor when they've been a bell end and hurt or killed someone.
Usually with reference to "lost control of his high-powered sports car", or similar.
I'd suggest there's enough obvious prejudice against cyclists without looking for conspiracies.
TBF on that thread yesterday they did mention the “£56K Merc” but it’s odd for the price of a car to be mentioned.
My understanding of the thread yesterday with the £56k Merc was that the story reported this price to further damn the cyclist for having such disrespect for property... Reading the £4,000 ref in the article below it's hard to tell why it's there -- seems redundant.
Oh, his face is here too...
^^ He looks a bit of a biffer doesn't he?
Ignoring the fact it’s a road rage incident - do you only get two years for punching someone hard enough to send them under moving traffic which results in the hideous level of injuries the guy incurred? It’s pretty obvious that’s very dangerous and the chance of even death could occur.
Bus driver in Swindon got just 16months for effectively deliberately running over a pedestrian, seems very lenient
south wales argus story mentions the price of the bike, but seems a lot harsher on the van bloke. So I don't think the £4000 bike theory stands.
Has this though "Mr Marshall, who was wearing a cycle helmet" - which is also relevant, as he was pushed into oncoming traffic. Christ, 2 years really isn't enough for someone who thinks this is suitable revenge for being shouted at.
So I don’t think the £4000 bike theory stands
I don't think anyone is saying it's universal, just the motivation for when it is stated.
Helmet comment is victim blaming.
Helmet comment is victim blaming.
In an article that doesn't blame the victim at all? Do elaborate.
It's just slightly crap writing/editing. There's a lot of it about you know.
It’s just slightly crap writing/editing. There’s a lot of it about you know.
If you read the article about the boy killed near Leeds earlier this week, you'd perhaps have a different view. It was both shockingly poor writing *and* victim blaming of the worst sort. In fact, a fair few of us complained and the BBC rewrote the article to make it more balanced and less overtly biased against the cyclist.
There's a horrible anti-cyclist perception in many parts of society at the moment and it bubbles up through events such as this and the articles that perpetuate the problem. "Them and us" is more than just a problem - it's absolutely at the core of the whole issue and the media has its part to play in changing it. If they want to, of course...
Probably in line with sentencing for similar assaults in non road rage incidents, so seems fair for a change.
If you read the article about the boy killed near Leeds earlier this week, you’d perhaps have a different view.
Saw that and totally agree, in that case.
Not in this one though. If I get time I'll pop back later and elaborate on how I believe that helmet detail made it into the copy here.
OK, so my take on it is that the "he was wearing a helmet" line came up in court as the victim was being painted as a conscientious person - and I'd contend it was most-likely used by the prosecution to make the point that "it could have been much worse otherwise... helmet might have saved his life", if you see where I'm going?
Calling it "victim blaming" is an unhelpful knee-jerk reaction IMO.
Is this the same person?
Unlikely as he looks different, has a different first name and should still be inside.
Is this the same person?
Erm. The punchy bloke is called Darren. That paedo is called David....
£56k on a Merc? I could nearly buy a bike for that
Where do we stand on trying to wrongly accuse someone of being a convicted paedophilie?
Chapa, that is conjecture on your part.
Where a cyclist is a victim I don't see the relevance of whether he/she had a helmet on. It only reinforces the idea that cyclists' collisions are inevitable when in fact they are down to other road users in the majority, and so they have to protect themselves.
Ie victim blaming.
Bus driver in Swindon got just 16months for effectively deliberately running over a pedestrian, seems very lenient
As they say if you want to murder someone do it in a motor vehicle.
The judge calls it a 'road rage' attack which somehow to trivialise it.
I feel that a good prosecution could have convicted these drivers of attempted murder since any reasonable person would know that running someone over in a bus, or pushing them into a busy road could result in death.
It's not enough to say you didn't intend to kill them. Like if you go into a busy mall blindfolded and spray a machine gun around and kill someone. The consequences could be reasonably foreseen.
But I guess the CPS want to guarantee the conviction so they go for the dead certain GBH charge. You can be sure if he'd run over or Prince William he wouldn't be doing 2 years of course.
It really pisses me off because people get more than 2 years for racist tweets.
There's a picture of this knuckle dragger on the DM website, the article says his defence was the cyclist had insulted his ugly whore of a wife.
^^ Starting to wonder if the forum will still be here tomorrow. 😁
I think mouth breather's everywhere have just found their poster boy! 🤤🤗
The wife must be really ugly if you'd choose to insult her rather than him.
and I’d contend it was most-likely used by the prosecution to make the point that “it could have been much worse otherwise
Totally agree. “... was wearing a helmet”, so fortunately wasn’t killed.