# It makes my blood boil!



## Beebo (12 Jul 2011)

Just read this article. 
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-and-8201-just-because-he-couldnt-overtake.do

The readers comments are the usual mix of motorist's vitriol.

The jist of the comments are that anyone on a bike deserves to be punched in the face!


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jul 2011)

I think that's unfair on the Standard's readership, and, it must be said, the Standard is doing the decent thing by putting the vid on their 'front page'.


----------



## gregsid (12 Jul 2011)

I'm almost(?) certain that it's the red light jumpers and pavement jockeys that have given ALL cyclists a bad image. Grossly unfair though it is.

EDIT: I'm refering to the readers' comments rather than the news item.


----------



## Beebo (12 Jul 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I think that's unfair on the Standard's readership, and, it must be said, the Standard is doing the decent thing by putting the vid on their 'front page'.




Dell, I agree that the Standard do a good job of promoting cycling in London, but the comments on the web page lend an arguement to the fact that a significant minority simply do not like cyclists, period. And there is little that can be done to change their view point.


----------



## chillyuk (12 Jul 2011)

So what were the other cyclists doing when their mate was assaulted? I hope I never have to rely on any of them.


----------



## david1701 (12 Jul 2011)

I guess the problem is comments tend to be polarised because you need to care enough one way or the other to have something to say and be bothered to say it. Tends to hide the middle ground of the membership, a la helmet debate


----------



## Markymark (12 Jul 2011)

As someone who reads the Evening Standard website often when bored at work, its not that there's anti-cyclists, its more that the people who tend to comment on it are serial commenters and usually idiots. I'm surprised the incident hasn't yet been blamed on immigrants or Gordon Brown!


----------



## jugglingphil (12 Jul 2011)

I haven't read the comments, but the vid is shocking. 
Have the Police done anything to find out who the driver was? If the car wasn't reported stolen surely it's the car owner's duty to say who was driving it.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Jul 2011)

chillyuk said:


> So what were the other cyclists doing when their mate was assaulted? I hope I never have to rely on any of them.



Funny I was thinking exactly the same thing.


----------



## HLaB (12 Jul 2011)

I can't be bothered reading the comments, it'll just be the same lot of tripe


----------



## crumpetman (12 Jul 2011)

chillyuk said:


> So what were the other cyclists doing when their mate was assaulted? I hope I never have to rely on any of them.



Trying to unclip their SPDs


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

This comment mad eme smile 

_I was sat in my car having dropped off some kittens at an old folk's home. A horde of lycra-nazis descended on my car and didn't eleventy million pounds of damage for no apparent reason. When I remonstrated, they punched the kitten, sawed my wife's head off, and laid waste to the entire town centre. Luckily, this was Lewisham so the property damage was less than £30. 

Get a grip you numpties, the total number of uninsured cars on our roads is higher than the total number of cyclist commuters. 

This was an outburst of thuggery, entirely unprovoked, that the cops have shrugged their shoulders at. Some of you posting have more in common with the skinhead thug in the clip than normal, humane, balanced people who realise the road is a shred space._


----------



## gambatte (12 Jul 2011)

So if having seen the video, he has no idea who was driving his car.... wasn't it 'taken without consent'?


----------



## Origamist (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This comment mad eme smile
> 
> _I was sat in my car having dropped off some kittens at an old folk's home. A horde of lycra-nazis descended on my car and didn't eleventy million pounds of damage for no apparent reason. When I remonstrated, they punched the kitten, sawed my wife's head off, and laid waste to the entire town centre. Luckily, this was Lewisham so the property damage was less than £30.
> 
> ...



That comment sounds very much like it was written by Spinners, late of CycleChat.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

gambatte said:


> So if having seen the video, he has no idea who was driving his car.... wasn't it 'taken without consent'?



That was my understanding of the law as well. Seems like a very flimsy excuse to hide behind. If he does not recognise the person driving the car then it must have been stolen. If he does know who was driving but refuses to say then I "think" that is perverting the course of justice.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Jul 2011)

gambatte said:


> So if having seen the video, he has no idea who was driving his car.... wasn't it 'taken without consent'?



No

I could consent to a group of people to drive my car, however it doesn't mean I necessarily know which one is driving at a particular time.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> No
> 
> I could consent to a group of people to drive my car, however it doesn't mean I necessarily know which one is driving at a particular time.



Would you recognise the people in the group? How many people would lone their car to complete strangers I wonder?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would you recognise the people in the group? How many people would lone their car to complete strangers I wonder?



Certainly not to a group in which I could not reasonably be expected to identify the driver; or at the very least, give full details of someone who could identify the driver.

I am guessing that the registered keeper knows full well who the driver is.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Certainly not to a group in which I could not reasonably be expected to identify the driver; or at the very least, give full details of someone who could identify the driver.
> 
> I am guessing that the registered keeper knows full well who the driver is.



I agree completely. Thus by not giving out those details he is breaking the law (I believe)


----------



## TheBoyBilly (12 Jul 2011)

Common Assault - 6 months in jail, I think. But let's hope his employers see his behaviour and decide to dismiss him.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

TheBoyBilly said:


> Common Assault - 6 months in jail, I think. But let's hope his employers see his behaviour and decide to dismiss him.



That would be great news wouldn't it.


----------



## twowheelsgood (12 Jul 2011)

> I believe the Police traced the driver, but he said that the car had been left with the keys in the ignition and it had be taken by someone else on the day, but returned later.



Damn, happens all the time, sometimes you even get a full tank of petrol, the inside vacuumed and a polite thank you note. Really, the owner should surely be done for obstructing a police enquiry.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

twowheelsgood said:


> Damn, happens all the time, sometimes you even get a full tank of petrol, the inside vacuumed and a polite thank you note. Really, the owner should surely be done for obstructing a police enquiry.



That happens to me as well. My bike is taken and then returned. It has new tyres, chainset and quite often a full service! When the driver is found and tied to the owner I hope they both go down. This is one of those times where facial recognition software would be a huge help.


----------



## Black Sheep (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That was my understanding of the law as well. Seems like a very flimsy excuse to hide behind. If he does not recognise the person driving the car then it must have been stolen. If he does know who was driving but refuses to say then I "think" that is perverting the course of justice.



''My car was left unlocked with the keys in it while at a funeral, I don't know who took it, but they returned it"

yeah right - why not charge the driver with as many things as you can think of:

no insurance (was the driver at the time insured? - my insurance is invalid if my keys are left in the car, so technically it's on the road uninsured...)
affray
aiding and abetting, 
obstruction 
etc



might suddenly remember who it was...


----------



## 400bhp (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would you recognise the people in the group? How many people would lone their car to complete strangers I wonder?



There will be circumstances where that is the case.


----------



## davefb (12 Jul 2011)

twowheelsgood said:


> Damn, happens all the time, sometimes you even get a full tank of petrol, the inside vacuumed and a polite thank you note. Really, the owner should surely be done for obstructing a police enquiry.



this is why there is TWOC'ing and not stealing...
apparently the guy who was in possession of my car hadnt nicked it, he'd found it with the keys in and the other person must have nicked it..


thing is... whilst i can understand theres a chance of this.... why arent they just laughed at ?


having said that,,, balance of probs works in civil court, so maybe since he's admitted it by making that tale up, the cyclists can sue for damages thru civil courts ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> There will be circumstances where that is the case.



You are far braver than I then.


----------



## downfader (12 Jul 2011)

Reference those abusive comments - use their report abusing function and fill the form in. Thats what its there for.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (12 Jul 2011)

gregsid said:


> I'm almost(?) certain that it's the red light jumpers and pavement jockeys that have given ALL cyclists a bad image. Grossly unfair though it is.
> 
> EDIT: I'm refering to the readers' comments rather than the news item.



The thing that I have to laugh at is that people will say that the actions of those cyclists "don't" or "shouldn't" reflect on the rest of us. The truth is that it does. They just use that as an excuse to justify their scofflaw behavior.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You are far braver than I then.



I didn't mention I would.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (12 Jul 2011)

Beebo said:


> Dell, I agree that the Standard do a good job of promoting cycling in London, but the comments on the web page lend an arguement to the fact that a significant minority simply do not like cyclists, period. And there is little that can be done to change their view point.



Exactly, I think that motorists can be divided into 3 categories:

a) motorists who think that they and they alone own the road and that we need to get out of their way
b) motorists who are ignorant of the law(s) as they apply to cyclists
....1) motorists who don't know how to drive around a confident/self-assured cyclist
c) motorists who do know the law, who do know how to drive around confident/self-assured cyclists


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That happens to me as well. My bike is taken and then returned. It has new tyres, chainset and quite often a full service! When the driver is found and tied to the owner I hope they both go down. This is one of those times where facial recognition software would be a huge help.



One would think so, but it sometimes doesn't work out so good. Over in Ybor City when they first installed CCTV cameras they identified a person as being on the run for (if I remember correctly) failure to pay alimony payments or some such. The problem is that the person identified wasn't the person who was wanted.


----------



## d87heaven (12 Jul 2011)

The afore mentioned video seems to have made the nationals and the bbc website now. Wonder if someone will come forward to help police with thier enquiries? Lets hope so.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

400bhp said:


> I didn't mention I would.



On rereading the quote I see that you did not


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> One would think so, but it sometimes doesn't work out so good. Over in Ybor City when they first installed CCTV cameras they identified a person as being on the run for (if I remember correctly) failure to pay alimony payments or some such. The problem is that the person identified wasn't the person who was wanted.



Granted no system is perfect (yet) but it might help. That said the video is so clear that somebody must know the person.


----------



## SportMonkey (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That was my understanding of the law as well. Seems like a very flimsy excuse to hide behind. If he does not recognise the person driving the car then it must have been stolen. If he does know who was driving but refuses to say then I "think" that is perverting the course of justice.



What's worse, after seeing the video there are 4 clearly defined faces. I mean, who steals a car, takes his mates out, punches a cyclist then returns it.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Granted no system is perfect (yet) but it might help. That said the video is so clear that somebody must know the person.



Agreed, that is one clear video and one would think that someone out there somewhere would recognize at least one if not both people who got out of that car.

And as with most here I do not believe for a second the owner's claim to "not knowing" who was driving their car. As much as the average car (even a used car in good to excellent condition) these days I would think that the owner would want to know who was driving their car and when.

I know that over here it works out that (unless there is a police report that predates an incident) that the owner is (or is suppose to be) responsible for anything happens with their car. If it's in a crash (as we know there really isn't such a thing as an "accident" as that implies that it was beyond someone's control) and there is property damage, injury or lose of life. The owner is on the hook, and should be.

Unless they can prove that it was stolen.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> What's worse, after seeing the video there are 4 clearly defined faces. I mean, who steals a car, takes his mates out, punches a cyclist then returns it.



It seems a little fishy doesn't. Lets hope that as this has had national press now the perpetrator will be recognised and given a good kicking brought to justice


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Agreed, that is one clear video and one would think that someone out there somewhere would recognize at least one if not both people who got out of that car.
> 
> And as with most here I do not believe for a second the owner's claim to "not knowing" who was driving their car. As much as the average car (even a used car in good to excellent condition) these days I would think that the owner would want to know who was driving their car and when.
> 
> ...



I like that system. You do get some things right across the pond it seems


----------



## SportMonkey (12 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It seems a little fishy doesn't. Lets hope that as this has had national press now the perpetrator will be recognised and given a good kicking brought to justice



Violence only begets violence.


As for: ''My car was left unlocked with the keys in it while at a funeral, I don't know who took it, but they returned it"
If I was the police I'd be looking at the funeral photos.

What really is interesting is the CDR in the passenger's hand. Now, why would a joyrider be quite tightly holding a recorded CD. Music for a funeral perhaps?


----------



## gregsid (12 Jul 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> If I was the police I'd be looking at the funeral photos.


What funeral photos?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jul 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Violence only begets violence.



I know. It was black humour


----------



## joebingo (12 Jul 2011)

addictfreak said:


> Funny I was thinking exactly the same thing.



Hobbling around on cleats?


----------



## SportMonkey (12 Jul 2011)

gregsid said:


> What funeral photos?



Yeah, I didn't think about this. Still, you might get some taken


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jul 2011)

chillyuk said:


> So what were the other cyclists doing when their mate was assaulted? I hope I never have to rely on any of them.


they were taken by surprise.

The cyclist hit will be known to quite a few on this forum. He's no lightweight - we did LEJoG in five days together. He's also a solicitor, and a tenacious solicitor at that.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> they were taken by surprise.
> 
> The cyclist hit will be known to quite a few on this forum. He's no lightweight - we did LEJoG in five days together. He's also a solicitor, and a tenacious solicitor at that.



Not the best person to assault then!!


----------



## Tynan (13 Jul 2011)

the police connive in this ridiculous evasion of case investigation by giving up at the earliest obstacle when it's one they can't be bothered with

does anyone think they'd give up easily if someone had done that to a copper?

no-one there moves a muscle other than the two chavs, that's hoe these things tend to happen, never mind being sat on a bike at the time


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> the police connive in this ridiculous evasion of case investigation by giving up at the earliest obstacle when it's one they can't be bothered with
> 
> does anyone think they'd give up easily if someone had done that to a copper?
> 
> no-one there moves a muscle other than the two chavs, that's hoe these things tend to happen, never mind being sat on a bike at the time



It is a very sad situation. I just hope that as the person assaulted is a solicitor he will drive the case forward.


----------



## TheBoyBilly (13 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not the best person to assault then!!



Indeed they were taken by surprise. And happily we live in a society where the majority don't take to fisticuffs whatever the provocation. If somebody had taken it upon themselves to go after one of these thugs, there's no telling where this could have ended up (I bet this carload of rubbish have been in a similar situation before). In a way it's better this way where, hopefully, the video evidence is enough to bring the assailant to book. But I still would prefer his employers to see this and then sack the violent tw*t. I hope the chap on the end of that 'punch' goes full out for justice.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (13 Jul 2011)

As a slight aside, what have his Employers got to do with it? Could they get rid of him as he's comitted an offence (hopefully they'll shop him to the Police too!) or could they only do that if the offence was against the firm itself? Genuine question.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> As a slight aside, what have his Employers got to do with it? Could they get rid of him as he's comitted an offence (hopefully they'll shop him to the Police too!) or could they only do that if the offence was against the firm itself? Genuine question.



Many firms don't like employees bringing them into disrepute. As such that kind of behaviour could lead to sacking,


----------



## SportMonkey (13 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Many firms don't like employees bringing them into disrepute. As such that kind of behaviour could lead to sacking,



I can't remember the last time that I worked at a company where "bringing the company in to disrepute" wasn't a given gross missconduct reason.


----------



## HLaB (13 Jul 2011)

Tynan said:


> the police connive in this ridiculous evasion of case investigation by giving up at the earliest obstacle when it's one they can't be bothered with
> 
> does anyone think they'd give up easily if someone had done that to a copper anyone else other than a cyclist?
> 
> no-one there moves a muscle other than the two chavs, that's hoe these things tend to happen, never mind being sat on a bike at the time



Altered that a wee bit  Call me cynical (CYNICAL, no need to shout) but if that been a copper the thug would probably be the victim of a dawn raid etc. Even if it was somebody else with that evidence they'd still throw the book at him but as its a cyclist nothing will be done


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

HLaB said:


> Altered that a wee bit  Call me cynical (CYNICAL, no need to shout) but if that been a copper the thug would probably be the victim of a dawn raid etc. Even if it was somebody else with that evidence they'd still throw the book at him but as its a cyclist nothing will be done



I have met some coppers who are very pro cyclists rights and some who think I am scum for using the roads. Like all walks of like there are good and bad. I am amazed that the person can not be identified though. I think I will take a video still and post it around facebook.


----------



## HLaB (13 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have met some coppers who are very pro cyclists rights and some who think I am scum for using the roads. Like all walks of like there are good and bad. I am amazed that the person can not be identified though. I think I will take a video still and post it around facebook.



I know what you mean.
There was a good still on Road.cc iirc unbelievably clear, yet they can't be identified!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

HLaB said:


> I know what you mean.
> There was a good still on Road.cc iirc unbelievably clear, yet they can't be identified!



Have just posted on FB as well.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Jul 2011)

TheBoyBilly said:


> Indeed they were taken by surprise. And happily we live in a society where the majority don't take to fisticuffs whatever the provocation. If somebody had taken it upon themselves to go after one of these thugs, there's no telling where this could have ended up (I bet this carload of rubbish have been in a similar situation before). In a way it's better this way where, hopefully, the video evidence is enough to bring the assailant to book. But I still would prefer his *employers* to see this and then sack the violent tw*t. I hope the chap on the end of that 'punch' goes full out for justice.



What makes you think he has a job?

I agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## downfader (13 Jul 2011)

reiver said:


> On You Tube many comments point to them being Gypsies / Travelers. If that is the case and they were in that area for a funeral, and now they are a few hundred mile away on a travelers site, there is not much chance of the police ever catching up with them, and one gypsy would never shop another, so no chance of the car owner ever talking. My one doubt about them being gypsies is that girly punch / slap. One thing gypsies excel at is fighting.




I saw those comments. I have a couple of gypsy relatives, married in to my family. They're not the Irish stock but the old Romani who came here around 100 years back. Nicest people on Earth.

Now some of the Traveller families seem to use the "Gypsy" tag, but I dont really know if they are.. "Pikey" is also a really derogatory term, as "gypsy" used to be. 

TBH theres only a really slim chance they're Travellers. The power of the web will hopefully find him, there have been similar campaigns by Crimestoppers and local newspapers that have found thugs like that.


----------



## Ellis456 (13 Jul 2011)

I watched the video and it was terrible what happened, I hope the thug gets his comeuppance!!. I used to live in Bexley and know the roads well, they are very narrow in Bexley village, sometimes trucks go the wrong way and they cant turn as it's so narrow. Glad it was caught on camera though!.


----------



## downfader (13 Jul 2011)

OK, I reported a few posts on the Evening Standard and the Mail website versions of this story. I felt it completely unnacceptable that people were allowed to distract from the assault to launch a tirade about cyclists or create conjecture.

So today I have recieved this from the ES team:



> It has come to our attention that you have been consistently spamming our comments with apparent reports of abuse.
> 
> Our abuse flagging function is there to allow users to inform us of inappropriate or abusive postings, and not to enable you to undermine those views and postings you happen to disagree with.
> 
> ...



I have replied asking why allowing such comment is acceptable? I have also pointed out that they would not tolerate such comment on any other story of violence be that normal assault or sexual, and I have strongly asked them to either screen more closely or turn off the commenting ability on such stories.

I'd like to know why they consider comments about buzzing cyclists acceptable, tirades about non existant taxes that all bear a) no relevance and b) just incite the idiots out there...!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> OK, I reported a few posts on the Evening Standard and the Mail website versions of this story. I felt it completely unnacceptable that people were allowed to distract from the assault to launch a tirade about cyclists or create conjecture.
> 
> So today I have recieved this from the ES team:
> 
> ...



Well done. If you get a response please post it


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (13 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I like that system. You do get some things right across the pond it seems



Occasionally we get it right.  Of course if the car owner or more correctly their lawyers can prove/plant the seed of reasonable doubt they'd get off.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Occasionally we get it right.  Of course if the car owner or more correctly their lawyers can prove/plant the seed of reasonable doubt they'd get off.



Somebody once said. American justice - The best that money can buy


----------



## downfader (13 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well done. If you get a response please post it




I kind of get the feeling I was the only one with the sense to report those comments. They as a Newspaper have an obligation to inform - not to give people a platform for their ill-conceived and wrong viewpoints, certainly in the wrong time and place.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> I kind of get the feeling I was the only one with the sense to report those comments. They as a Newspaper have an obligation to inform - not to give people a platform for their ill-conceived and wrong viewpoints, certainly in the wrong time and place.



To be honest I was so angry about the incident I didn't read the comments. They always seem to be cut and pasted from some book of anti-bike rants


----------



## asterix (13 Jul 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> As someone who reads the Evening Standard website often when bored at work, its not that there's anti-cyclists, its more that the people who tend to comment on it are serial commenters and usually idiots. I'm surprised the incident hasn't yet been blamed on immigrants or Gordon Brown!




Quite agree. Serial commenters are bored idiots. Oops could that be me!


----------



## downfader (13 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> To be honest I was so angry about the incident I didn't read the comments. They always seem to be cut and pasted from some book of anti-bike rants




I agree, but looking at some of them they are definately inciting, heres a selection of what I reported:



> It seems that the group of cyclists provoked the car driver by shouting at him. Sadly all too common behaviour by cyclists towards both moterists and pedestrians along with falling to stop at red lights, riding on the pavement. _Perhaps, the odd bit of "self help" by motorists may act a catalyst to help cystists become courtious and responsible road/pavement users!!
> _
> *- Mike, London, 12/07/2011 11:45*





> So what, Cyclists push us pedestrians out of the way on the pavements and they are very aggressive. But when it is done to them by a motorist they start crying: boo hoo, the nasty motorist hit my poor little hand.
> 
> *- Janet, London, UK, 12/07/2011 12:29*





> Looked like a very brave motorist,its a shame the cyclist wasn't able to knock this cowardly b##tard spark out.
> 
> *- bazza, London, 12/07/2011 12:40*





> Again, only listening to one side of the story. I don't condone violence but this is only a few seconds of the incident.
> 
> I hooted a cyclist one day coz he pulled out right in front of my car. He went absolutely berserk and then did £3k worth of damage on my car with a key back to front.
> 
> ...





> Somebody has to bring these unregistered bike riders to boot,wobbling around all over the road.
> I blame Boris.
> 
> *- Davey_Buoy, Chertsey, 12/07/2011 17:49*


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> I agree, but looking at some of them they are definately inciting, heres a selection of what I reported:



'Kin ' hell. I am amazed the paper would allow such comments. If they are not abuse I do not know what is!!!!


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2011)

Do you think perhaps that the ES people have a point? 

If those were the type of comments you flagged then I'm inclined to agree with the ES people. As ignorant as I find those posts too, it is just comment. Yes, comments provide a soup box for idiots to spout, and is in danger of reinforcing unacceptable behaviour, but the platform is equally there for you to balance that debate. Simply flagging posts you don't agree with as abusive is, well, a bit like running and crying to mummy... sorry, I wanted to phrase that a bit more tactfully but couldn't. 

I know it's frustrating (and why I very very rarely bother reading comments on any article) but sometimes you just have to take it in your stride. Sadly, there are idiots. Perhaps I am one too? I'm sure my comments will have some thinking so but, as I say, it is just comment that you can simply disagree with!


----------



## downfader (13 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> 'Kin ' hell. I am amazed the paper would allow such comments. If they are not abuse I do not know what is!!!!




The daily mail allowed a couple far worse. 



> Hardly a punch ! That would pass for a cuddle and a kiss where Im from ! - John Long, Liverpool, 12/7/2011 21:23





> Time to ban cyclists from our roads. They are a menace.
> - Philip, London, 13/7/2011 7:54
> 
> the day there is a cycle tax is the day I will give way to a cyclist
> ...





> Typical militant annoying cyclists, all big talk until he dropped like a wet rope.
> - Mike, UK, 13/7/2011 13:07
> 
> Hooray! Cyclists in my experience are pig ignorant, rude, aggressive and dress like confused clowns. Probably got exactly what he deserved had we been able to see the video from the beginning.
> ...



There was another 2 that admitted to deliberate close driving but I cant find them now. I hope they've been removed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> Do you think perhaps that the ES people have a point?
> 
> If those were the type of comments you flagged then I'm inclined to agree with the ES people. As ignorant as I find those posts too, it is just comment. Yes, comments provide a soup box for idiots to spout, and is in danger of reinforcing unacceptable behaviour, but the platform is equally there for you to balance that debate. Simply flagging posts you don't agree with as abusive is, well, a bit like running and crying to mummy... sorry, I wanted to phrase that a bit more tactfully but couldn't.
> 
> I know it's frustrating (and why I very very rarely bother reading comments on any article) but sometimes you just have to take it in your stride. Sadly, there are idiots. Perhaps I am one too? I'm sure my comments will have some thinking so but, as I say, it is just comment that you can simply disagree with!



Replace cyclist with a non Caucasian - You would be inciting racial hatred.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> The daily mail allowed a couple far worse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This world is Fugazi!!!!!


----------



## downfader (13 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> Do you think perhaps that the ES people have a point?
> 
> If those were the type of comments you flagged then I'm inclined to agree with the ES people. As ignorant as I find those posts too, it is just comment. Yes, comments provide a soup box for idiots to spout, and is in danger of reinforcing unacceptable behaviour, but the platform is equally there for you to balance that debate. Simply flagging posts you don't agree with as abusive is, well, a bit like running and crying to mummy... sorry, I wanted to phrase that a bit more tactfully but couldn't.
> 
> I know it's frustrating (and why I very very rarely bother reading comments on any article) but sometimes you just have to take it in your stride. Sadly, there are idiots. Perhaps I am one too? I'm sure my comments will have some thinking so but, as I say, it is just comment that you can simply disagree with!




If we dont tackle this it wont go away. Remember, their guidelines forbid "innappropriate or abusive comment". So by that are you in agreement that people cant rant off a load of invective that reinforces and encourages similar strains of thought? 

At times I do reply and correct, but this is beyond that. We have been targetted and unfairly, and as I said before it all serves to distract from the assault in question


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> So by that are you in agreement that people cant rant off a load of invective that reinforces and encourages similar strains of thought?



It's a difficult area. You can't control what people think. Imo you have to allow even repugnant views to have a voice even though they may be dangerous. You can't just simply force them to shut up. Their arguments have to be taken head on and taken apart in public - to show everyone else what dangerous idiots they really are. Remove the following rather than drive it underground.


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2011)

Thinking about it, I think I shouldn't have made my remarks. Not because it's not what I believe, but because I think it derails the more important issue. My views on the subject are less important than the debate on the incident itself.


----------



## SportMonkey (13 Jul 2011)

Well, yes, but imagine the vitriol if the cyclist had been a female, gay, black, muslim, immigrant on benefits?


----------



## downfader (13 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> Thinking about it, I think I shouldn't have made my remarks. Not because it's not what I believe, but because I think it derails the more important issue. My views on the subject are less important than the debate on the incident itself.




I respect your remarks a far greater deal than I do theirs.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> So today I have recieved this from the ES team:
> 
> "It has come to our attention that you have been consistently spamming our comments with apparent reports of abuse. "



It looks like you are wasting your time communicating with idiots. They don't even know what spam is (unsolicited commercial bulk email).


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> I kind of get the feeling I was the only one with the sense to report those comments. They as a Newspaper have an obligation to inform - not to give people a platform for their ill-conceived and wrong viewpoints, certainly in the wrong time and place.



That's a mistake. They as a newspaper have an obligation to maximise profits for their shareholders; nothing else. (Yes, I know it's wrong, but that's the way it is.)


----------



## downfader (13 Jul 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> That's a mistake. They as a newspaper have an obligation to maximise profits for their shareholders; nothing else. (Yes, I know it's wrong, but that's the way it is.)




Thats their business approach, which in fairness would be nothing without their readers.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

TheBoyBilly said:


> Indeed they were taken by surprise. And happily we live in a society where the majority don't take to fisticuffs whatever the provocation. If somebody had taken it upon themselves to go after one of these thugs, there's no telling where this could have ended up (I bet this carload of rubbish have been in a similar situation before). In a way it's better this way where, hopefully, the video evidence is enough to bring the assailant to book. But I still would prefer his employers to see this and then sack the violent tw*t. I hope the chap on the end of that 'punch' goes full out for justice.



Why? Was he wearing any sort of company uniform? Was he driving a company car? Was he on the company time?

I don't think that he was. As isn't part of the claim by the cars rightful owner is that he didn't know who was driving it?

If he was on the clock, driving a company car, I could him getting fired. But he wasn't, so why should his boss be involved in this?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> As a slight aside, what have his Employers got to do with it? Could they get rid of him as he's comitted an offence (hopefully they'll shop him to the Police too!) or could they only do that if the offence was against the firm itself? Genuine question.



Agreed, there's another web site that I'm a member of. A member posted about an encounter that he had with a woman who was walking her dog while he was riding his bike to work. He was riding on the sidewalk/pavement. He passes her with 5' or more to spare. She starts chasing him telling him that it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk/pavement (he's never told us where he is so we don't know if what she's saying is true or not). He calls her a "f*(#en b)(&^" and continues on his way to work. He works at McDonald's.

After being at work for about 30 mins the woman shows up, opens the door and motions for the manager to come out. Where she starts in about the employee (he was wearing his McDonald's uniform and parked/locked his bike in front of the restaurant that he works at) and the encounter that they had. When the manager makes it clear that she (I think it the manager was a she) isn't interested in something that didn't happen on the clock or company property she tries to say that the cyclist tried to steal her purse, which according to the poster she wasn't carrying at the time.

A few people feel that the manager should have fired him for his actions, even though it didn't happen on company time or on company property. Some felt that he should have a warning placed in his file.

Was he wrong for riding on the sidewalk? Not knowing where he lives we can't say. Was he wrong for cussing the woman out, yes. It would have been better if he had just passed her and continued on his way to work. Should he be fired for it, no. Should he have a warning placed in his file, no it didn't happen on the clock or while on company property.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> OK, I reported a few posts on the Evening Standard and the Mail website versions of this story. I felt it completely unnacceptable that people were allowed to distract from the assault to launch a tirade about cyclists or create conjecture.
> 
> So today I have recieved this from the ES team:
> 
> ...



So let's get this straight. It's okay for people to post comments calling for violence against cyclists and that's acceptable, but you flag those posts as being unacceptable and they chastise you? That's incredible.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Somebody once said. American justice - The best that money can buy



Sadly, at times it does seem like that.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> Do you think perhaps that the ES people have a point?
> 
> If those were the type of comments you flagged then I'm inclined to agree with the ES people. As ignorant as I find those posts too, it is just comment. Yes, comments provide a soup box for idiots to spout, and is in danger of reinforcing unacceptable behaviour, but the platform is equally there for you to balance that debate. Simply flagging posts you don't agree with as abusive is, well, a bit like running and crying to mummy... sorry, I wanted to phrase that a bit more tactfully but couldn't.
> 
> I know it's frustrating (and why I very very rarely bother reading comments on any article) but sometimes you just have to take it in your stride. Sadly, there are idiots. Perhaps I am one too? I'm sure my comments will have some thinking so but, as I say, it is just comment that you can simply disagree with!



I've made the "mistake" of reading the comments for some of these articles and sadly most of them seem to be one-sided. And a lot of them also seem to attack those who defend cyclists.

Given the violence that some of these comments advocate flagging them as abusive is appropriate.

As an aside one of the other web sites that I visit just now started talking about this.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> That's a mistake. They as a newspaper have an obligation to maximise profits for their shareholders; nothing else. (Yes, I know it's wrong, but that's the way it is.)



You mean it isn't about reporting the news in an unbiased manner?


----------



## fimm (14 Jul 2011)

Totally off topic, and highly pedantic, but may I point out that it is a Soap Box and not a Soup Box? (I do appreciate you could have made a simple typo.) Apparently soap used to come in large solid packing cases that, once emptied of their contents, were excellent for standing on to make a speech to a crowd.

Pedant moment over. 

(Edited for spelling, of course)


----------



## TheBoyBilly (14 Jul 2011)

Digital Cowboy, I don't know, obviously, if the assailant is employed or not. But if I were the head of a large company that relied on (amongst other things) image to attract my customers, and found that one of my staff was a known violent thug I would seriously question his value to my firm.
In my opinion this bloke could easily (especially as this case has now got national exposure) wind up with a criminal record for a violent offence. Would you want such a person on your books? What if the cyclist suffered severe injury? He was lucky in that he was wearing a helmet. But if he hadn't and his head had struck the kerb we could be looking at something far, far more serious. You just don't go round attacking people.
A lot of 'ifs' and 'buts' but I think losing his job would serve a far greater purpose than a likely community service order.

Bill


----------



## DamoDoublemint (14 Jul 2011)

Driver has handed himself in apparently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14150913


----------



## Nigeyy (14 Jul 2011)

Great, just don't think it will be a happy ending. Going by one of the previous threads he'll get 5 minutes community service with a 4 hour suspended sentence and a slap on the wrists with a wet noodle.

Sorry, just my jaded cynicism coming out here......

p.s. in all fairness, I didn't see what led up to this confrontation. As always, it's better to get a full picture of what happened. I'm in no way suggesting what this bloke did is right, but I do in all honesty wonder what happened to motivate his behaviour?



DamoDoublemint said:


> Driver has handed himself in apparently:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-14150913


----------



## wiggydiggy (14 Jul 2011)

Nigeyy said:


> Great, just don't think it will be a happy ending. Going by one of the previous threads he'll get 5 minutes community service with a 4 hour suspended sentence and a slap on the wrists with a wet noodle.
> 
> Sorry, just my jaded cynicism coming out here......
> 
> p.s. in all fairness, I didn't see what led up to this confrontation. As always, it's better to get a full picture of what happened. I'm in no way suggesting what this bloke did is right, but I do in all honesty wonder what happened to motivate his behaviour?



I'm guessing perhaps the car was stuck behind the cyclist for x amount of time where x was simply too long 

Good news on him handing himself in, wonder what influenced that? Wife perhaps (?) as cant imagine him just deciding out of the goodness of his heart.....


----------



## HLaB (14 Jul 2011)

Nigeyy said:


> Great, just don't think it will be a happy ending. Going by one of the previous threads he'll get 5 minutes community service with a 4 hour suspended sentence and a slap on the wrists with a wet noodle.



Do you think the judge will be that harsh


----------



## Origamist (14 Jul 2011)

A 29-year-old man has handed himself in to a south London police station in connection with the assault on cyclist Simon Page. 

John Nicholls of Dartford in Kent attended the police station accompanied by a solicitor, at which point he was arrested on suspicion of assault.

*At 13.34pm today he was charged with the offence of Common Assault by Beating and bailed to appear before Bexley Magistrates Court on July 25.*


http://road.cc/content/news/38853-breaking-bexley-video-attack-man-arrested


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

Origamist said:


> A 29-year-old man has handed himself in to a south London police station in connection with the assault on cyclist Simon Page.
> 
> John Nicholls of Dartford in Kent attended the police station accompanied by a solicitor, at which point he was arrested on suspicion of assault.
> 
> ...



Bloody Fantastic. Now do we have any Cycling Judges in the country?


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jul 2011)

oohhhh! I wonder if he's factored in the damages claim?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> oohhhh! I wonder if he's factored in the damages claim?



He had to go and punch a solicitor didn't he  I am so happy he did the right thing though.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

TheBoyBilly said:


> Digital Cowboy, I don't know, obviously, if the assailant is employed or not. But if I were the head of a large company that relied on (amongst other things) image to attract my customers, and found that one of my staff was a known violent thug I would seriously question his value to my firm.
> In my opinion this bloke could easily (especially as this case has now got national exposure) wind up with a criminal record for a violent offence. Would you want such a person on your books? What if the cyclist suffered severe injury? He was lucky in that he was wearing a helmet. But if he hadn't and his head had struck the kerb we could be looking at something far, far more serious. You just don't go round attacking people.
> A lot of 'ifs' and 'buts' but I think losing his job would serve a far greater purpose than a likely community service order.
> 
> Bill



Bill,

I understand what you're saying. But if the assailant is employed he isn't wearing any sort of uniform or shirt with an identifiable company logo. So even if he works for a company that relied on image how would anyone know what company that he worked for? Uh, shouldn't one do some sort of a background check before they hire someone? I know that over here in the States on most (if not all) applications there is a question about one's criminal background.

Agreed, and hopefully this bloke does end up with such a record. No, but again that's what the interview and application process are for. To learn about a person before they're hired. If the cyclist had suffered a severe injury how would the company suffer? They're not responsible for the actions of their employees when they're off of the clock and off of company property. And think about this, if the cyclist had suffered severe injury and the assailant is fired how is the assailant is going to pay to make reparations? And also if the assailant is married why should their family have to suffer what is possibly their primary breadwinner being fired an not being able to support them?

Again, agreed one doesn't go around just assaulting people. Over at the other web site we have a thread going on about a cyclist who has had "punk teenagers" on one day throw a mud ball at him, and than the next day they throw an egg at him. Some are advocating that member in question stoop to their level by finding where they live and either egging their car or their house. Given that more likely than not that they are teenagers it's a good chance that the car belongs to their parents and it is a safe bet that they don't own the house. So what would be the good of egging either?

Fortunately most are advocating that the member gather evidence and file a report with the police. It may take time but we have seen where doing so does get results.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Bill,
> 
> I understand what you're saying. But if the assailant is employed he isn't wearing any sort of uniform or shirt with an identifiable company logo. So even if he works for a company that relied on image how would anyone know what company that he worked for? Uh, shouldn't one do some sort of a background check before they hire someone? I know that over here in the States on most (if not all) applications there is a question about one's criminal background.
> 
> ...



In the UK most companies would treat such action as bring the company into disrepute regardless of him being in or out of uniform. When I worked for the DWP I was pulled for not having insurance on my car (a genuine mistake made in a very difficult time for me). I was given a verbal reprimand and told that I could have lost my job over it.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> I'm guessing perhaps the car was stuck behind the cyclist for x amount of time where x was simply too long
> 
> Good news on him handing himself in, wonder what influenced that? Wife perhaps (?) as cant imagine him just deciding out of the goodness of his heart.....



Agreed, or perhaps it was his girlfriend. It's amazing the effect that a wife/girlfriend can have on a hothead.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> He had to go and punch a solicitor didn't he  I am so happy he did the right thing though.



Eventually, that is. If he hadn't assaulted the cyclist in the first place, he wouldn't have had to turn himself in.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Eventually, that is. If he hadn't assaulted the cyclist in the first place, he wouldn't have had to turn himself in.



That's too logical


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In the UK most companies would treat such action as bring the company into disrepute regardless of him being in or out of uniform. When I worked for the DWP I was pulled for not having insurance on my car (a genuine mistake made in a very difficult time for me). I was given a verbal reprimand and told that I could have lost my job over it.



A government job (or a job in the healthcare field or relies heavily on public trust) I can see, one's off duty/clock activities effecting their job. But if it's just an "average run of the mill type job," then what they do when not on the clock shouldn't effect their job. Such as someone who "flips burgers" or wash dishes at the fast food joint/local pub shouldn't loose their job because of something that they'd done while off of the clock.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That's too logical



Sorry, at times I can be.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> A government job (or a job in the healthcare field or relies heavily on public trust) I can see, one's off duty/clock activities effecting their job. But if it's just an "average run of the mill type job," then what they do when not on the clock shouldn't effect their job. Such as someone who "flips burgers" or wash dishes at the fast food joint/local pub shouldn't loose their job because of something that they'd done while off of the clock.



I disagree. Would you want to employ somebody with a criminal record for assault?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (14 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Bill,
> 
> I understand what you're saying. But if the assailant is employed he isn't wearing any sort of uniform or shirt with an identifiable company logo. So even if he works for a company that relied on image how would anyone know what company that he worked for? Uh, shouldn't one do some sort of a background check before they hire someone? I know that over here in the States on most (if not all) applications there is a question about one's criminal background.
> 
> ...



Bill,

Sorry, also meant to say that it is also going (albeit on a lessor scale) international.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

reiver said:


> Looks like he is a self employed Farrier, so unlikely to sack himself.



Might lose some customers though?


----------



## timmcp (14 Jul 2011)

A farrier, idiot wouldnt want him touching a horse that played up


----------



## downfader (14 Jul 2011)

Lets take a slightly different road on this thread...

..I did a quik scan of the forums online to see if and how this story has been seen. If there was ONE thing that should come ot of this it SHOULD be that assault is wrong and people SHOULD at the very least start to show a little sympathy for cyclists who get caught up in such a scenario.

However the truth is VERY different. We are universally hated it seems. And I'm talking far worse than a few years back with the Howard case. There is no justification for assault but people are putting it about that we deserve this kind of treatment, or that we deserve this because we're freeloaders.  

There has been a real backlash. We're screwed.

I had a reply from the Evening Standard this morning. The guy shifted responsibility saying I should engage with anticyclists. I dont see how I or anyone else can. We're in a minority with a very loud and vociferous majority now shouting us down and drowing us out. I've tried to engage but theres no longer any reasoning. They take every opportunity to chip-chip-chip away. 

Its depressing, tbh. It leads me to think that whatever outcome from this case that the public will side with the driver just as they have on the many, many internet sites. If a jury is swayed in such a way will he be convicted? 

So the big question is really this... have we lost? I really hate writing this but its the way I think its going.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> Lets take a slightly different road on this thread...
> 
> ..I did a quik scan of the forums online to see if and how this story has been seen. If there was ONE thing that should come ot of this it SHOULD be that assault is wrong and people SHOULD at the very least start to show a little sympathy for cyclists who get caught up in such a scenario.
> 
> ...


I have had to fight all my life because I was always a little different. The one thing it has taught me is never to give in to bullys. Once you back down you have lost. If this guy gets a stupid sentence then maybe a critical mass ride is in order?


----------



## SportMonkey (14 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have had to fight all my life because I was always a little different. The one thing it has taught me is never to give in to bullys. Once you back down you have lost. If this guy gets a stupid sentence then maybe a critical mass ride is in order?



That fight is a great attribute, it makes you a stronger person.

A critical mass ride sounds like a good idea for the lenient sentence of the hit and run driver though.


----------



## MockCyclist (14 Jul 2011)

In my view the tipping point was when the cyclist slapped the car. The driver's personal space was invaded and something about having his vehicle "touched" whilst it was occupying "his piece of road" caused him to seek revenge. I can imagine quite a lot of car owners / drivers sympathising with that. "Dare to touch my car in anger, you're gonna know about it - even if you think I'm forcing you off the road."


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> That fight is a great attribute, it makes you a stronger person.
> 
> A critical mass ride sounds like a good idea for the lenient sentence of the hit and run driver though.


If one is organised I will do my best to be there.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

MockCyclist said:


> In my view the tipping point was when the cyclist slapped the car. The driver's personal space was invaded and something about having his vehicle "touched" whilst it was occupying "his piece of road" caused him to seek revenge. I can imagine quite a lot of car owners / drivers sympathising with that. "Dare to touch my car in anger, you're gonna know about it - even if you think I'm forcing you off the road."


I guess if it was hit with enough force it could be classed as criminal damage.


----------



## marinyork (14 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> Lets take a slightly different road on this thread...
> 
> ..I did a quik scan of the forums online to see if and how this story has been seen. If there was ONE thing that should come ot of this it SHOULD be that assault is wrong and people SHOULD at the very least start to show a little sympathy for cyclists who get caught up in such a scenario.
> 
> However the truth is VERY different. We are universally hated it seems. And I'm talking far worse than a few years back with the Howard case. There is no justification for assault but people are putting it about that we deserve this kind of treatment, or that we deserve this because we're freeloaders.



We live in a very macho society that has a predilection for violence. You'd get a broadly similar amount of piling in with almost any case. It is true that we're an outgroup that makes it a lot worse, but you'd get similar comments. You tend only get to sympathy if it was say a 'war veteran pensioner', police officer or some other group. We have an image problem, but then so did say teenagers who were the victims of gang violence. The media totally changed this, ten years ago you'd get a lot of people not sympathising. After some horrific shootings and stabbings of teenagers the media changed their tune and people now actually see these teenagers as real human beings and victims.


----------



## d87heaven (14 Jul 2011)

I too came across a few comments on forums about this and the overriding comments aimed at cyclist was
- they are annoying because they hold us up
- I pay road tax, they don't so they have no place on the road
- They are a law unto themselves
- Serves them right, effin cyclists are scum
- The cyclist probably provoked him, it happens all the time with cyclists.
- I would have punched him (the cyclist) too if he touched my car.
- Why don't they use the road.
- Shame he wasn't punched harder, effin cyclists.
- Serves them right for riding 2 abreast holding all the traffic up all the time

There were one or two voices of reason but they seem to be ignored.

We are all doomed...dooooomed I tell ya!





downfader said:


> Lets take a slightly different road on this thread...
> 
> ..I did a quik scan of the forums online to see if and how this story has been seen. If there was ONE thing that should come ot of this it SHOULD be that assault is wrong and people SHOULD at the very least start to show a little sympathy for cyclists who get caught up in such a scenario.
> 
> ...


----------



## marinyork (14 Jul 2011)

I'm glad the BBC posted the video after a while. Good on them and the Daily Mail. It means it can get on to a conclusion to the matter.


----------



## downfader (14 Jul 2011)

I agree that we should never give in to bullies. But this is different, this is now institutionalised bigotry. 

It never used to be this way, I've seen it change over the past few years, slowly creeping in, perhaps unhindered by us as we stood by and ignored much of the comment that was made. Its not just a viewpoint.... its a "recieved wisdom" in the same way racist Fathers and Mothers "teach" their kids to hate.

With the newspaper comments, it appears to me that the admin teams dont mind that any story is taken over as a spring board to slag anyone off. I agree with Marin, teens do still get it in the neck, and I wonder how these people would feel if someone went on a news story about a teen being stabbed after a robbery and left a load of sh*t about "kids do this, kids do that, its their own fault!"

I feel like printing up a shirt that says: "I am not a law breaker!"


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> I agree that we should never give in to bullies. But this is different, this is now institutionalised bigotry.
> 
> It never used to be this way, I've seen it change over the past few years, slowly creeping in, perhaps unhindered by us as we stood by and ignored much of the comment that was made. Its not just a viewpoint.... its a "recieved wisdom" in the same way racist Fathers and Mothers "teach" their kids to hate.
> 
> ...


I wonder if any TV programme makers would be interested in this?


----------



## pshore (14 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> We are universally hated it seems.



I think a big problem online is anonymous comments that gives a voice to cowards. I see similar styles of bigotted comments on a variety of issues such as: students, unemployed, public sector workers, travellers - not just cyclists. 

The problem is that lower life newspapers love creating an argument so they can generate page hits and more revenue. The higher end newspapers are not clean on this either but you do see a lot of removed comments and they are more likely to have threaded comments so you can foster good discussion.

The newspapers are responsible for content published on their sites so if they can be shown to be irresponsible, an external body might be able to punish them. The recent hacking story might be the catalyst for reigning in these papers.


----------



## TheBoyBilly (15 Jul 2011)

Digital Cowboy, I take all your points on board (though I disagree with most) but I cannot take seriously your opinion about the assailant's family and any suffering they may or may not feel from any legal procedings. That is surely a matter for the concience of the assailant himself, and nobody else. Sometimes people just have to accept some responsibilty for themselves. Un-PC I know but life is hard. (Lefties take note)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

TheBoyBilly said:


> Digital Cowboy, I take all your points on board (though I disagree with most) but I cannot take seriously your opinion about the assailant's family and any suffering they may or may not feel from any legal procedings. That is surely a matter for the concience of the assailant himself, and nobody else. Sometimes people just have to accept some responsibilty for themselves. Un-PC I know but life is hard. (Lefties take note)


Agreed. If that was a consideration no one would ever be punished!


----------



## The Jogger (15 Jul 2011)

If the car had of been caught on camera speeding, do you think the excuse ' I don't know who was driving it' would have been accepted or do you think a fine would be issued to the owner but as it's just a cyclist, it's a case of the old bill not doing their job right again.


----------



## downfader (15 Jul 2011)

pshore said:


> I think a big problem online is anonymous comments that gives a voice to cowards. I see similar styles of bigotted comments on a variety of issues such as: students, unemployed, public sector workers, travellers - not just cyclists.
> 
> The problem is that lower life newspapers love creating an argument so they can generate page hits and more revenue. The higher end newspapers are not clean on this either but you do see a lot of removed comments and they are more likely to have threaded comments so you can foster good discussion.
> 
> The newspapers are responsible for content published on their sites so if they can be shown to be irresponsible, an external body might be able to punish them. The recent hacking story might be the catalyst for reigning in these papers.




Students, public sector workers etc all blend in with the crowd. Get on a bike and you're pretty exposed. It does make me wonder - will some poor sod encounter one of these cowards whilst out and about?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (15 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> I agree that we should never give in to bullies. But this is different, this is now institutionalised bigotry.
> 
> It never used to be this way, I've seen it change over the past few years, slowly creeping in, perhaps unhindered by us as we stood by and ignored much of the comment that was made. Its not just a viewpoint.... its a "recieved wisdom" in the same way racist Fathers and Mothers "teach" their kids to hate.
> 
> ...



I too agree that we should stand up to bullies. And it pisses me off when I read comments that advocate for violence against cyclists. Sadly cyclists are the only "minority" group that it is not only fashionable but acceptable to advocate violence against.

Also sadly, all of those cyclists who break the law while riding i.e. riding against traffic (salmon riding), riding without lights (ninja riding), etc. are not helping the cause any. And I have to laugh at those people who think that the actions of one person doesn't reflect on others. Sadly, it does.

Education and punishment are really toe only way that we're going to change things.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (15 Jul 2011)

TheBoyBilly said:


> Digital Cowboy, I take all your points on board (though I disagree with most) but I cannot take seriously your opinion about the assailant's family and any suffering they may or may not feel from any legal procedings. That is surely a matter for the concience of the assailant himself, and nobody else. Sometimes people just have to accept some responsibilty for themselves. Un-PC I know but life is hard. (Lefties take note)



TBB,

I appreciate your honesty. I was just trying to point out that it is likely that there is the possibility of other innocent victims. And that in seeking justice that we should be careful not to inflict any kind of damage on them.

And I fully agree with you that people need to learn to accept responsibility for their actions, and I don't think that that is being "un-PC." And actually, I find being "PC" to be "un-PC." When people are afraid to speak their mind because it might "offend" someone how have we benefited from that?

As an example, I'm sure most of us are aware of the crash that accorded during the Tour and a French media vehicle over the weekend. A reporter with ESPN (a cable sports network here in the states) had tweeted that he thought that that crash was humorous.  Which has sparked a furor of "PC" backlash. Calling for the reporters resignation or his firing. At least one saying that if the reporter had made a sexist remark about women that there would be all kinds of backlash over that. And that there'd be no question as to whether or not he should be fired.

The way that I think that this should be handled is that he should be suspended for several weeks, and/or fined, as well as having a written letter of reprimand placed in his personal file. If he screws up again with the next year or so use that incident along with this one as grounds for dismissing him. And when it comes time to renegotiate his contract use that letter as grounds to either not rehire him or to demote him.

Now if he was openly calling for violence against cyclists or any other group yes, that would be a different situation and dismissal would not be uncalled for. But calling for his dismissal simply for speaking his mind (even though some thoughts are better left unsaid/tweeted/shared, is going too far.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> TBB,
> 
> I appreciate your honesty. I was just trying to point out that it is likely that there is the possibility of other innocent victims. And that in seeking justice that we should be careful not to inflict any kind of damage on them.
> 
> ...



Your well reasoned argument here says nothing about the impact a punishment would have on family members. Did you lose track in the thread or is this a backtrack?


----------



## abo (15 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> A government job (or a job in the healthcare field or relies heavily on public trust) I can see, one's off duty/clock activities effecting their job. But if it's just an "average run of the mill type job," then what they do when not on the clock shouldn't effect their job. Such as someone who "flips burgers" or wash dishes at the fast food joint/local pub shouldn't loose their job because of something that they'd done while off of the clock.



The guy is a farrier, someone has already posted on the Youtube clip that they will be taking their business elsewhere. Can be quite a close-knit passtime horseriding too, if word gets round then he might lose more...


----------



## pshore (15 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> Students, public sector workers etc all blend in with the crowd. Get on a bike and you're pretty exposed. It does make me wonder - will some poor sod encounter one of these cowards whilst out and about?



These anonymous postings do enable us to see what some people are thinking but most are cowards hiding behind anonymity. Very few of them will threaten violence against someone over this when face to face because they know they are wrong.

I do meet drivers on my commute who have buzzed me on purpose. I make a point of tapping on their window and talking to them in a very polite and civilised way. (actually most of them are expecting violence as I turn up and so extreme politeness puts them on the back foot). I can say that every driver I have managed to have a conversation with has been converted when I tell them I am just trying to make it home to my children. All petty arguments vanish as they realise what they have done. So, there is hope.

You might be right about losing this battle but we have not lost the war. This story has attracted more thugs than normal. On other stories we have made a difference together. For example, on my local paper, the bigotry is always countered by reasoned and sensible arguments and I can tell you that incidents of "you don't pay road tax" is now close to zero. This is real progress.

So don't be disheartened, your dedication to the cause is inspiring and is having a real and positive effect.

Phil.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

reiver said:


> If he is a good farrier they won't. In any case it would be tough justice for him to lose his livelihood because of his moment of madness. May be 6 months of his income would be fair, and a years suspended sentence to stay with him forever. But he shouldn't be crucified.



I did say *some*


----------



## abo (15 Jul 2011)

reiver said:


> If he is a good farrier they won't. In any case it would be tough justice for him to lose his livelihood because of his moment of madness. May be 6 months of his income would be fair, and a years suspended sentence to stay with him forever. But he shouldn't be crucified.



**** him, he shouldn't have done what he did. And I'm not saying that because I ride a bike and the guy he 'punched' was a cyclist. There is too much unpunished thuggery in this country so if he loses his business then tough. Hopefully in the near future this guy will be looking for a job and the person doing the interviewing will remember his unintentionally public neanderthalims and pass him over for someone more deserving.


----------



## Ste T. (15 Jul 2011)

reiver said:


> hmmm .... actually I think your'e probably right.




reiver,reiver,reiver......What are you thinking of. You won't last long rethinking something and then admitting you may have been wrong. Don't you know, you're supposed to paint yourself into a corner and argue till bedtime


----------



## downfader (15 Jul 2011)

My Mother has just said this has been mentioned on the Jeremy Vine R2 show today


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> My Mother has just said this has been mentioned on the Jeremy Vine R2 show today


This?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Agreed. If that was a consideration no one would ever be punished!



I'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished. I'm just saying that he shouldn't be punished to the extent that if he has children that he can't provide for them. That isn't asking too much is it?

I mean if he has children and he is punished to such an extent that he can't provide for his children what do you think is going to end up happening?

As I said, yes let's punish him, but not to the extent that he cannot afford to take care of his other obligations. Isn't that reasonable?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (15 Jul 2011)

The Jogger said:


> If the car had of been caught on camera speeding, do you think the excuse ' I don't know who was driving it' would have been accepted or do you think a fine would be issued to the owner but as it's just a cyclist, it's a case of the old bill not doing their job right again.



Very good point, or if it had been involved in a hit and run. If the owner wasn't willing to identify who was driving they'd be the one charged with the hit and run.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Your well reasoned argument here says nothing about the impact a punishment would have on family members. Did you lose track in the thread or is this a backtrack?



Sorry, I guess I did.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (15 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> The guy is a farrier, someone has already posted on the Youtube clip that they will be taking their business elsewhere. Can be quite a close-knit pastime horseriding too, if word gets round then he might lose more...



Given that he's self-employed that would be fitting. As he's metaphorically has shot himself in the foot. And I don't see too many people being willing to trust their horses to him.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished. I'm just saying that he shouldn't be punished to the extent that if he has children that he can't provide for them. That isn't asking too much is it?
> 
> I mean if he has children and he is punished to such an extent that he can't provide for his children what do you think is going to end up happening?
> 
> As I said, yes let's punish him, but not to the extent that he cannot afford to take care of his other obligations. Isn't that reasonable?


Trust me he will not get a huge sentence. At most 6 months and a fine. That said if the punishment were harsher he and others may think twice about doing the same thing.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jul 2011)

downfader said:


> *We are universally hated it seems.*.


absolutely not true. If anything the respect you get from other people on the road has risen in the past few years


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (15 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> **** him, he shouldn't have done what he did. And I'm not saying that because I ride a bike and the guy he 'punched' was a cyclist. There is too much unpunished thuggery in this country so if he loses his business then tough. Hopefully in the near future this guy will be looking for a job and the person doing the interviewing will remember his unintentionally public neanderthalims and pass him over for someone more deserving.



Agreed, as has been said, too many people feel as if they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. Or blame the other person, as in this case the road was too narrow for the motorist to overtake the cyclists so the motorist felt "justified" in punching the cyclist out. That ranks up there with "those cyclists 'forced' me to pass them in an unsafe manner." Last time I checked when a motorist passes a cyclist in an unsafe manner there wasn't anyone holding a gun to their head forcing them to do so. So how is it that we "forced" them to pass us in an unsafe manner?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Trust me he will not get a huge sentence. At most 6 months and a fine. That said if the punishment were harsher he and others may think twice about doing the same thing.



I agree that sadly more often than not that the punishment in these cases, is too lenient, and needs to be harsher.

A good example would be to take away his drivers license and force him to ride a bicycle for transportation. And given that he is a farrier with the possible exception of an anvil he should be able to carry all of his tools in a bicycle trailer. Or even given that he is a farrier make him use a horse and buggy/wagon/buckboard as his mode of transportation and then he can still carry his anvil.


----------



## david1701 (15 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I agree that sadly more often than not that the punishment in these cases, is too lenient, and needs to be harsher.
> 
> A good example would be to take away his drivers license and force him to ride a bicycle for transportation. And given that he is a farrier with the possible exception of an anvil he should be able to carry all of his tools in a bicycle trailer. Or even given that he is a farrier make him use a horse and buggy/wagon/buckboard as his mode of transportation and then he can still carry his anvil.



one that comes to our horses has a whole forge in there. I'm a massive cycling advocat but its just not viable for some people to do without a car


----------



## downfader (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This?




The assault incident. 

EDIT: I only had 2 hours sleep last night, not fully with it now..


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (16 Jul 2011)

david1701 said:


> one that comes to our horses has a whole forge in there. I'm a massive cycling advocat but its just not viable for some people to do without a car



Exactly, which is why several of us who support the car-free lifestyle have suggested renting a car or a truck for those times that a person needs to haul something that they can't on their bike.


----------



## abo (17 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Exactly, which is why several of us who support the car-free lifestyle have suggested renting a car or a truck for those times that a person needs to haul something that they can't on their bike.



Ah I still like having a car of my own even though I rarely drive at at the moment. It's just nice to be able to do something which needs it on a whim. Still, Insurance is next to nothing, tax is something daft like £60 and I service it myself so it isn't costing me a great deal to have it sat ready for action.

The only regular trip it makes is on a Tuesday evening when I take the kids over to my mum's house for dinner. Everything else was local which I've largely replaced with the bike.


----------



## Pennine-Paul (18 Jul 2011)

He's apparantly been bailed till next Monday (25th July)


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (19 Jul 2011)

abo said:


> Ah I still like having a car of my own even though I rarely drive at at the moment. It's just nice to be able to do something which needs it on a whim. Still, Insurance is next to nothing, tax is something daft like £60 and I service it myself so it isn't costing me a great deal to have it sat ready for action.
> 
> The only regular trip it makes is on a Tuesday evening when I take the kids over to my mum's house for dinner. Everything else was local which I've largely replaced with the bike.



For some I'm sure that that makes sense, but for others I'm sure that it makes more sense to rent a car when needed.

Like, if a person only needs a car once a month or less it makes more sense to just rent one rather than to keep one in the "storage shed" out back, doesn't it?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (19 Jul 2011)

I want to play devils advocate for a moment.

Let's say that if these two blokes instead of being a cyclist and motorist were just two blokes walking down the pavement. The first bloke (the one that was the cyclist) is in front and the second bloke (the motorist) is behind. He can't get around the first bloke, and when he finally does he stops and punches the first out.

What would be the punishment? Depending on if it's their first offense or not, a month or two in jail and/or a fine, right? So just because they were a cyclist and motorist why should the motorist have to face a harsher punishment? I mean it's not like he used his car to assault the cyclist, right? He just got of his car and punched the other bloke out.

Yes, it was wrong, and he should be punished. But the question is what should the punishment be?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> I want to play devils advocate for a moment.
> 
> Let's say that if these two blokes instead of being a cyclist and motorist were just two blokes walking down the pavement. The first bloke (the one that was the cyclist) is in front and the second bloke (the motorist) is behind. He can't get around the first bloke, and when he finally does he stops and punches the first out.
> 
> ...


The punishment should be one that befits the charge of assault. Ottomh I think max 6 months jail time.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Jul 2011)

I think Angelfishsolo is probably right. It'll be a small sentence, probably all suspended. I dunno, IANAL.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I think Angelfishsolo is probably right. It'll be a small sentence, probably all suspended. I dunno, IANAL.


Almost certainly if he has no previous.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Almost certainly *if he has no previous*.


I'd be amazed if this was the case given that he seems to have issues with his temper!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I'd be amazed if this was the case given that he seems to have issues with his temper!



True. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the case.


----------



## d87heaven (20 Jul 2011)

I expect it will be a case of 'I was provoked' or 'I am having a difficult time' . What really gets my goat is when they mitigate to not lose their licence if its a driving offence, if your livelihood depends on your licence then be a bit more carefull. I just hope whatever happens he changes his ways, sadly some people just don't care though.


----------



## BentMikey (20 Jul 2011)

Well, we shouldn't have too long to wait, he's due in court on Monday.

What interests me much more is the registered owner - I want to know if they are going to be charged with some sort of offence for obstructing justice or whatever it's called. I bet they knew the assailant all along.


----------



## d87heaven (20 Jul 2011)

Ooooh you are cynical Mikey


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Almost certainly if he has no previous.



It'd be nice if in a case like this, where a person has no previous history that they were at least sentenced to do some community service. And it'd be nice if that community service was either spent working at some sort of bicycle event, or in a trauma ward.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Jul 2011)

d87heaven said:


> I expect it will be a case of 'I was provoked' or 'I am having a difficult time' . What really gets my goat is when they mitigate to not lose their licence if its a driving offence, if your livelihood depends on your licence then be a bit more carefull. I just hope whatever happens he changes his ways, sadly some people just don't care though.



Even though unfortunately all to often they get used as an excuse along with the "I didn't see him/her" or "they swerved right into my path," for their dangerous/illegal behavior it isn't an excuse.

It'd be nice if when a motorist uses either of those last two excuses if the police would take those statements down and use them as evidence that the motorist(s) in question weren't paying attention to their driving.


----------



## Tommi (21 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Even though unfortunately all to often they get used as an excuse along with the "I didn't see him/her" or "they swerved right into my path," for their dangerous/illegal behavior it isn't an excuse.


I fully agree with you that the excuse "I wasn't paying attention" should be treated as an immediate admission of not paying attention.

Swerving into your path is more like driving too fast or too close for the situation...


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (21 Jul 2011)

Tommi said:


> I fully agree with you that the excuse "I wasn't paying attention" should be treated as an immediate admission of not paying attention.
> 
> Swerving into your path is more like driving too fast or too close for the situation...



Exactly, sadly too many motorists grossly underestimate our speed. That's how they end up cutting us off. They've underestimated our speed and thought that they'd miss us and don't.

And then they use one of those weak ar$se excuses:

"I didn't see him/her."

or

"They just 'swerved' into my way."

Or any of hundred or so other dumbass excuse that they use to defend/excuse their actions. Why can't people just accept responsibility for their actions and adimt when they've smegged up? Why do they have to look for ways to blame the victim? Other than of course it's easier to blame the other guy.


----------



## Gandalf (21 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Exactly, sadly too many motorists grossly underestimate our speed. That's how they end up cutting us off. They've underestimated our speed and thought that they'd miss us and don't.
> 
> And then they use one of those weak ar$se excuses:
> 
> ...



You omitted my favourite "he/she came out of nowhere".


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (22 Jul 2011)

Gandalf said:


> You omitted my favourite "he/she came out of nowhere".



Yeah, don't ya hate it when your cloaking device fails?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (22 Jul 2011)

Mine was the opposite

"You were hidden behind the other car. I THOUGHT YOU'D GONE"

I never worked out where he thought I had "gone" to and how.

We cyclists must be truly amazing, the way we go switching in and out of different realities and alternate universes on a whim


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (23 Jul 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Mine was the opposite
> 
> "You were hidden behind the other car. I THOUGHT YOU'D GONE"
> 
> ...



Do ya think we should tell them where:

a) the wormholes are
b) the transwarp corridors are
c) that we're not actually riding bikes but TARDIS' with working chameleon circuits


----------

