# BBC Look East - "run em down"



## g00se (21 May 2010)

Grrrr.....

http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=399

"Dear Mr BBC, why oh why oh why are your viewers such t**ts..." email has been sent.


----------



## HJ (21 May 2010)

What is it with the BBC which make them so Pro car and anti bike?? What ever happened to Inform, Educate and Entertain?


----------



## g00se (21 May 2010)

Sorry - that should have been "viewers" not "views"... I think.... 

I've edited the original.


----------



## wafflycat (21 May 2010)

Grr.... an email has been sent to Look East..


----------



## mickle (21 May 2010)

Carlton is doing a grand job, he should be applauded.


----------



## downfader (21 May 2010)

*BBC Look East on cyclist who was rear ended*

Carton Reid, many of you will know, has been reporting on issues that affect cyclists for sometime, both on his many websites and within youtube video. 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiWji4osR0


The original video can be found HERE

I'm getting so sick of the media failing to address the myths around cyclists and constantly banging on about the bad cyclists when the real issue here is MPJ who was hit that I have written the following email to Look East:



> I have had this brought to my attention as a keen cyclist that you recently did an interview with Paul Jones the cyclist after he was rear ended by a driver. I have subsequently seen the video in question on your website.
> 
> Firstly can I ask why no castigation of those who moan about "road tax"? Drivers pay for the pollution their vehicle causes under the Statutes agreed within the licence. Why was this not addressed within the show to help educate people (something I feel the News corporations have an obligation to do under reason of logic)? Failure to do so merely increases animosity between cyclists and motorists.
> 
> ...



Yes I know its largely a rant but I felt I needed to get it out of my system. I think the media does have obligations and they've failed here imo. They've painted a picture of cycling as largely negative and had I been the cycle shop owner I might have booted them out of the door.


----------



## gaz (21 May 2010)

Saw carltons video this morning and mpj's the othe day.
The way the media don't even try to educate people is disgusting and feeding fuel into the fire. Some cyclists do break the law and 99 times out of 100 they are putting themselfs in harmsway and no one else


----------



## HJ (21 May 2010)

This is already a thread on this in the Café.


----------



## Tinuts (21 May 2010)

Please post the relevant BBC email address. I (and perhaps some other CC'ers) would like to join you in sending in an opinion on their program!


----------



## HLaB (21 May 2010)

HJ said:


> What is it with the BBC which make them so Pro car and anti bike?? What ever happened to Inform, Educate and Entertain?


+ 1 
Similary, yesterday's BBC Scotland news story on MacIntyre was terrible.


----------



## HJ (21 May 2010)

Tinuts said:


> Please post the relevant BBC email address. I (and perhaps some other CC'ers) would like to join you in sending in an opinion on their program!



Here's the contact details for BBC Look East, if you want to get in touch:

CONTACT US
Telephone: 08457 630630
E-mail: look.east@bbc.co.uk
BBC Look East
The Forum
Millennium Plain
Norwich
NR2 1BH

As well as emailing Look East may I suggest as many as possible make a formal complaint via the BBC complaints procedure (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/).


----------



## ianrauk (21 May 2010)

Peeps, have merged the 2 threads into this one.


----------



## HJ (21 May 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Peeps, have merged the 2 threads into this one.



I wonder what had happen...


----------



## hackbike 666 (21 May 2010)

I bet a few of these BBC hypocrites break a few rules of the road when they feel like it.


----------



## downfader (21 May 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Peeps, have merged the 2 threads into this one.



Thanks! I did look earlier but I guess threadtitles can be misleading

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have emailed in. HJ - you beat me to it! As did Goose


----------



## DrSquirrel (21 May 2010)

Emailed too.


----------



## AndyCarolan (21 May 2010)

As a human (Ive checked and I do fall within the category), it makes me sad that there appears to be a total disregard for his wellbeing. This incident, at its simplest level involves a person being hit by a large, heavy, moving machine. It could have been a far worse outcome if he had fallen badly, bumped his head etc - Would people's attitude still have been one of financial concern over perceived road ownership?


----------



## HJ (21 May 2010)

Probably... the BBC would be airing the view that as a cyclist he shouldn't have been there in the first place


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (21 May 2010)

Copied from Sheffield Forum (not my post) where the monthly "but they don't pay road tax and ride on the road when there is a cycle path" thread is going round and round in its usual circles.



spindrift said:


> to:
> 
> look.east@bbc.co.uk
> 
> ...


----------



## downfader (21 May 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Copied from Sheffield Forum (not my post) where the monthly "but they don't pay road tax and ride on the road when there is a cycle path" thread is going round and round in its usual circles.



I've seen that forum. Found it in one of my google searches for interesting cycling stories.  Spindrift.. username rings a bell, cant remember why.


----------



## iamanidiot (21 May 2010)

HLaB said:


> + 1
> Similary, yesterday's BBC Scotland news story on MacIntyre was terrible.


What story is this? Got a link?


----------



## HLaB (21 May 2010)

iamanidiot said:


> What story is this? Got a link?


The text was in cafe but there was also a piece on tv in the Scottish news; I could't believe the BBC broadcast it. I'll have a look to see if I can find any links.

The beeb link


----------



## snorri (21 May 2010)

"Well, it was you lot that killed Diana"
It might be a little sick, but that retort to any motorist having an anti-cyclist rant takes a bit of beating.


----------



## Downward (21 May 2010)

"They" so I am now classed as a They when I cycle but an equal when driving ? Cheeky gets, I pay more VED then most of these misinformed fools and I'm getting less for my money too (20 miles per week tops costing me £210 Tax, £400 Insurance and £5 per week Petrol)


----------



## Crankarm (21 May 2010)

g00se said:


> Grrrr.....
> 
> http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=399
> 
> "Dear Mr BBC, why oh why oh why are your viewers such t**ts..." email has been sent.



The calibre of BBC editorial staff has fallen dramatically. This article doesn't surprise me. What should have been a human interest story, a cyclist knocked down was turned into a one sided irrelevant attack by the BBC on cyclists. I'm sure they could have sought comment from RosPA, the CTC, a few cycling clubs, even the IAM. The Editors of BBC Look East are obviously as thick as pig sh1t to broadcast such rot which has NO relevance to the cyclist being knocked off, but re-enforces negative stereotypical views against cyclists and cycling. But unfortunately it seems par for the course for the BBC who have a cycle hating agenda. Afterall they endorse and promote the chef James Martin who has advocated running cyclists down for a laugh! I don't believe anyone at the BBC rides a bicycle .

I complained about that awful Jeremy Vine show following the most recent article featuring the cyclist who was dangerously close passed and abused by a driver driving a company van. The cyclist contacted the company who then after an investigation sacked the driver. I complained about the comments the editors of that show selected to be read out, one comment, a particularly nasty comment, read out by JV in a sneering fashion that "cyclists should not be on the road as their rights are void.."

I complained on the grounds that it was offensive, incited motorists to drive dangerously around or at cyclists, promoted a negative view of cyclists and cycling, was totally irrelevant to the instant story, fell well below the standards of editorial direction that the BBC as a public broadcastor strives to achieve and does not promote the safety of minority groups of road users such as cyclists. I pointed out that cyclists are very vulnerable on the roads and there have been instances where cyclists have been deliberately run down and killed. The instant story was a case in point where the driver was sacked. I also queried why only 6 minutes was allotted to the story while we had 50 mintues previously of the respective party politicians bickering about education, after which I was still none the wiser as to what each was proposing.

This is the response I received from the BBC,



> Thanks for your e-mail about 'Jeremy Vine' broadcast on 13 April.
> 
> I understand that you were unhappy with the item about the van driver who was sacked after being reported to his company for his driving and behaviour by a cyclist - you suggest that our standards of reporting have slipped. I note that you believe that Jeremy introduced the item as "the cyclist who got an employee sacked" which you felt was incorrect and you feel this perpetuates negative images of cyclists.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately I do not have a copy of my complaint to the BBC.


----------



## shippers (21 May 2010)

Here's mine...

With regards the report featuring a cyclist being knocked from his cycle, in broad daylight whilst cycling down a wide, open road and submitting the footage, it appeared that the presenter comment, and the seection of comments from the public were consistantly anti-cyclist.
Cyclists don't pay road tax so shouldn't be on the roads, etc.
It would have been nice to have some recognition of the numbers of cyclists killed or injured on UK roads- 820 in the second quarter of 2009 alone- and the ecidence in the footage shows that this was clearly the fault of the driver.
Indeed, your presenter then goes on to read out- unchallenged- a comment along the lines of "Why do cyclists think they have the right to complain about cars"!!
I feel this incredibly one sided reporting feeds the anti-cycist feeling on the roads and will only lead to more accidents as motorists will see cyclists as a problem on the roads rather than an equal road user. 
Quickly covering the "Road tax" argument.
1- Road Tax was abolished many years ago, and replaced with Vehicle Excise Duty.
2- This is charged on how polluting your vehicle is- some cars don't incur duty yet are accorded respect on the roads
3- most cyclists also own cars and so pay VED; using their cycle rather than the car simply wears the road out less.
Thank you.


----------



## dondare (21 May 2010)

shippers said:


> Quickly covering the "Road tax" argument.
> 1- Road Tax was abolished many years ago, and replaced with Vehicle Excise Duty.
> 2- This is charged on how polluting your vehicle is- some cars don't incur duty yet are accorded respect on the roads
> 3- most cyclists also own cars and so pay VED; using their cycle rather than the car simply wears the road out less.
> Thank you.



Leave out no. 3.
Rather say that cyclists pay the taxes that pay for the roads irrespective of whether they own a car or not. 

"Road tax" does not pay for the roads and is therefore irrelevant.


----------



## Fixedwheelnut (21 May 2010)

e-mail sent


> Dear Look East
> I am writing in disappointment and shear disbelief at the poor reporting and responses to the footage of Paul Jones being knocked from his bike.
> Only today my club mates and I have buried one of our long serving members Peter Stubbs who was knocked off and killed in a similar incident, hit from behind on a straight road.
> His Obituary can be seen on the club homepage here  http://www.catfordcc.co.uk/
> ...


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 May 2010)

There's some sort of hatred thing going on out there towards cyclists...im sure it wasn't like that in the 1980's.

Of course this "road tax" thing totally seems to justify people being complete arses.

Plus the fact it's a car obsessed society so the car wins every time.


----------



## PBancroft (22 May 2010)

10 PRINT Media says something unfair/untrue about cyclists.
20 PRINT Cyclists complain to media
30 PRINT Media sends standard apology letter to cyclists
40 GOTO 10


----------



## downfader (22 May 2010)

Kaipaith said:


> 10 PRINT Media says something unfair/untrue about cyclists.
> 20 PRINT Cyclists complain to media
> 30 PRINT Media sends standard apology letter to cyclists
> 40 GOTO 10



Thats what I think will happen. We need noncyclists to start chipping in too I reckon, and I've met a few like-minds who are noncyclist online. Possibly someone will have some common sense at the Beeb and make an on-air statement.... small chance though.


----------



## Fab Foodie (22 May 2010)

Fixedwheelnut said:


> e-mail sent



Sad news about you clubmate FWN, but beautifully crafted email.




If we could achieve ONE thing, it would be to get the BBC/ITV to actually get their reporters and presenters to stop pedaling the whole 'ROAD TAX' innacuracy, it's really important that people realise what VED is for and how roads are funded. Time and time again I hear the BBC talking about 'ROAD TAX' and somehow I find myself screaming at the radio...


----------



## PBancroft (22 May 2010)

downfader said:


> Thats what I think will happen. We need noncyclists to start chipping in too I reckon, and I've met a few like-minds who are noncyclist online. Possibly someone will have some common sense at the Beeb and make an on-air statement.... small chance though.



Small chance indeed. Why would they? They were only airing opinions shared by many of the great British public. It doesn't matter that those opinions are factually incorrect and set a dangerous example.

It would be different if the presenter said that cyclists shouldn't have any rights on the road, which didn't happen.


----------



## downfader (22 May 2010)

Kaipaith said:


> It would be different if the presenter said that cyclists shouldn't have any rights on the road, which didn't happen.



Trouble is they've said it by proxy by airing the views of the ignorant, which to me is the same.


----------



## Bollo (22 May 2010)

The road tax non-issue is just a hook to hang the out-group prejudices that some people hold about cyclists. If we were to pay a cycling road tax tomorrow, it "wouldn't be enough" or we'd "think we owned the roads". It wouldn't do a thing to change attitudes - the prejudice would just find a new sore to pick.

More recently a motorists' victim culture seems to have evolved, fed by the right-wing press in particular, where the poor driver is assailed on all sides by 'unfair' increases in petrol prices and stealth tax speed cameras. I think some drivers project their perceived grievances on those they think are anti-car and who do not share their 'burden'. Someone MUST be to blame (right-wing press again) and cyclists are a convenient and out-enough group on which to attach that blame.




Kaipaith said:


> 10 PRINT Media says something unfair/untrue about cyclists.
> 20 PRINT Cyclists complain to media
> 30 PRINT Media sends standard apology letter to cyclists
> 40 GOTO 10



You're still using BASIC at the castle!!! No wonder my council tax bill is so high!

(I think a variation of this software is in use by the Inland Revenue automated telephone service)


----------



## BSRU (22 May 2010)

Bollo said:


> More recently a motorists' victim culture seems to have evolved, fed by the right-wing press in particular, where the poor driver is assailed on all sides by 'unfair' increases in petrol prices and stealth tax speed cameras. I think some drivers project their perceived grievances on those they think are anti-car and who do not share their 'burden'. Someone MUST be to blame (right-wing press again) and cyclists are a convenient and out-enough group on which to attach that blame.



Plus all these websites set up to help motorists avoid prosecution for there bad driving, never their fault. One website stated how it got a woman off a fine for driving in the bus lane because the occurrences of the words "BUS LANE" were slightly more than 300 metres apart.


----------



## PBancroft (22 May 2010)

downfader said:


> Trouble is they've said it by proxy by airing the views of the ignorant, which to me is the same.



It is, but it also gives them a handy getout clause.



Bollo said:


> More recently a motorists' victim culture seems to have evolved, fed by the right-wing press in particular, where the poor driver is assailed on all sides by 'unfair' increases in petrol prices and stealth tax speed cameras. I think some drivers project their perceived grievances on those they think are anti-car and who do not share their 'burden'. Someone MUST be to blame (right-wing press again) and cyclists are a convenient and out-enough group on which to attach that blame.



The thing is that it isn't just drivers. I think its human nature to not want to accept culpability. How often do you see people squirm and fidget and lie in order to avoid blame for some demeanour, no matter how trivial?

Its a helluva lot easier to project the image of the "bad guy" onto someone else than to accept it might actually be you. Heck, sometimes we are even guilty of that on this very forum.


----------



## martint235 (22 May 2010)

I think we need tougher penalties across the board and no excuses. "My disabled badge was upside done and I got fined", how difficult is it to put it the right way up. "But my wheel was only 2 inches outside the parking bay", again you know the rule, follow it. "It was an important call, I had to take it", so pull over. And my personal favourite, "I had to go through the red light to feel safe". 

Let's start punishing people in a way that means something. Let's enforce the idea that these things are done by choice, not necessity and they certainly aren't someone else's responsibility. Go through a red light, £200 FPN. Driving whilst on your mobile, 6 months mandatory ban. Parking ticket, £200. Keep doing it till it hurts and people notice.

Sorry, got into a rant but this really does bug me.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 May 2010)

We had a particularly odious member of staff who used to spout the "Road tax" argument daily if he felt a cyclist had in any way held him up.

One day, he was using the usual argument when I asked him about road tax and how he thought it was assessed.

Then educated him that it was VED and paid on pollution... He became most upset when I also pointed out that if I was assessed under the present scheme my cycle was in Band A and I already paid the full amount for a BAnd A vehicle - NOTHING.

So the choice he was left with was whether to raise the VED Band tariffs or wind his neck in..... he hasn't mentioned "Road Tax" in my presence since


----------



## brokenbetty (22 May 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> So the choice he was left with was whether to raise the VED Band tariffs or wind his neck in..... he hasn't mentioned "Road Tax" in my presence since



Road tax pays for the roads like tobacco tax pays for cigarettes


----------



## martint235 (22 May 2010)

I have just got my "I pay road tax" cycling jersey, expect to see it on SE London roads soon!


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (22 May 2010)

martint235 said:


> Let's start punishing people in a way that means something. Let's enforce the idea that these things are done by choice, not necessity and they certainly aren't someone else's responsibility. Go through a red light, £200 FPN. Driving whilst on your mobile, 6 months mandatory ban. Parking ticket, £200. Keep doing it till it hurts and people notice.



Points then

So many bosses or company execs just view FPNs especially for parking as an expense to go through accounts.

financial penalties hurt some but the most arrogant offenders remain untouched


----------



## wafflycat (22 May 2010)

Has anyone who has emailed Look East had anything other than the bog-standard holding response?


----------



## martint235 (22 May 2010)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Points then
> 
> So many bosses or company execs just view FPNs especially for parking as an expense to go through accounts.
> 
> financial penalties hurt some but the most arrogant offenders remain untouched



ST I agree, if it takes points lets do it. We have to get into the public conscious that these things are wrong. Not just wrong but illegal.


----------



## Crankarm (23 May 2010)

Since when did a journalist report anything correctly? _Most_ (not all) are as thick as pigsh1t .


----------



## downfader (23 May 2010)

martint235 said:


> ST I agree, if it takes points lets do it. We have to get into the public conscious that these things are wrong. Not just wrong but illegal.



Have recently favoured the idea of 3strikes and you#re out. Too many people can easily afford the fines that it just doesnt even bother them. Others see the points on their license as something to brag about, or to whine about as if they're the victim.

So my philospophy is this:

-Minor motoring offence (bad parking, 5-10% over the speed limit threshold, lack of indication etc) = 1 strike

-middle ground offence: late light running (the type that go "it's only just changed), blocking access, box junctions, seatbelt and phone infringements, etc = 2 strikes

-very serious offence: driving that results in injury or death to another party (even if in the same car), completely excessive speeding, blatant red light jumping, driving on pavements, etc = a 3 strike event that sees the license stripped and an immediate retest called for (at the drivers expense).

Ofcourse I also now think theres something to be said for suspending the license whilst death and injury are investigated, the strike system would in this case be involved after said investigation. Other offenses are easier to prove and see.


----------



## dondare (23 May 2010)

downfader said:


> Have recently favoured the idea of 3strikes and you#re out. Too many people can easily afford the fines that it just doesnt even bother them. Others see the points on their license as something to brag about, or to whine about as if they're the victim.
> 
> So my philospophy is this:
> 
> ...



Is "speed limit threshold" the same as speed limit? 
I'd definately put phone use in a more serious category than box junction infringement. 
In all, a five tier system would be better. 
IMAO.


----------



## downfader (23 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Is "speed limit threshold" the same as speed limit?
> I'd definately put phone use in a more serious category than box junction infringement.
> In all, a five tier system would be better.
> IMAO.



I tend to think simple systems work best and thats why a 3 strikes system. Adding extra tiers to it makes it more complicated and road users know less of where they stand.

With the threshold I was refering to the speedometer of cars not being 100% accurate and the threshold allowed on most speed cameras.


----------



## dondare (23 May 2010)

I have been told that the margin for error is 10% + 2.
So in a 30 mph zone the enforced limit is 35; in a 70 mph zone it would be 79.


----------



## downfader (23 May 2010)

dondare said:


> I have been told that the margin for error is 10% + 2.
> So in a 30 mph zone the enfoced limit is 35; in a 70 mph zone it would be 79.



Pretty much what I read. 

RIIGHHT!

Everyone listen up. Lets take this whole issue to government!

http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/contact-us Halfway down the page theres a link for a email form to email the PMs office! Flood them with requests on cycling matters, this "road tax" get-out-of-jail card motorists keep playing and so on.

Get the ball moving. No good complaining if we cant try and do something bout this!


----------



## PBancroft (23 May 2010)

I completed that form and was told my message was invalid.

Says it all really.


----------



## downfader (23 May 2010)

Kaipaith said:


> I completed that form and was told my message was invalid.
> 
> Says it all really.



You're invalid? 

Seriously though. Did you use the drop down bar and select contact PM rather than the air/volcano bit..?


----------



## HJ (23 May 2010)

HLaB said:


> The text was in cafe but there was also a piece on tv in the Scottish news; I could't believe the BBC broadcast it. I'll have a look to see if I can find any links.
> 
> The beeb link





> Sheriff Small said the accident might have been avoided if Mr MacTaggart had driven with greater care and attention...
> 
> In making his recommendations, Sheriff Small said: "That although Jason MacIntyre's death could not have been avoided by him wearing a helmet at the time of the accident all cyclists, including cyclists in training, should wear a helmet when on public roads." "That although Jason MacIntyre's death could not have been avoided by him wearing a helmet at the time of the accident all cyclists, including cyclists in training, should wear a helmet when on public roads."



Unfortunately Sheriff Small fails to understand the concept of logic. It wasn't the failure to wear a helmet that killed Jason MacIntyre it was a careless driver. If the judiciary stopped blaming the victims and did their job properly, we could save hundreds of lives a year!


----------



## soulful dog (23 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> There's some sort of hatred thing going on out there towards cyclists...im sure it wasn't like that in the 1980's.


Bottom line is people are so often in a hurry nowadays, 'get out of my way, I'm in a rush and no one else matters' seems to be the attitude. So if you add the fact that there are a heck of a lot more cars on the road (and therefore a lot of aggressive drivers!), the seemingly widely held belief that these pesky cyclists don't pay road tax so shouldn't be on the road anyway, and then to top it all off, the gits that merrily cycle through red lights (and some drivers seem to take that as deliberate goading)...


----------



## BSRU (24 May 2010)

dondare said:


> I have been told that the margin for error is 10% + 2.
> So in a 30 mph zone the enforced limit is 35; in a 70 mph zone it would be 79.


It is true in general but not always, I know someone done for doing 34 in a 30 zone. The reason they used was your speedometer always exaggerates your speed, so if your done for 33 you thought your were going a lot faster.


----------



## Coco (24 May 2010)

HJ said:


> Unfortunately Sheriff Small fails to understand the concept of logic. It wasn't the failure to wear a helmet that killed Jason MacIntyre it was a careless driver. If the judiciary stopped blaming the victims and did their job properly, we could save hundreds of lives a year!



Methinks the report has distorted what the Sherriff said:



> Sheriff Small said the accident might have been avoided if MacTaggart had driven with greater care and attention, and had kept a proper lookout on the road ahead of him.
> In his ruling, he said: "*I am of the opinion that no cause, apart from a failure on the part of Mr MacTaggart to see Mr MacIntyre, can be identified.*
> "I am satisfied that Mr MacTaggart's failure arose as a consequence of him not keeping a proper lookout of the road ahead of him when he turned across Mr MacIntyre's path."
> The inquiry heard that Mr MacIntyre was wearing a grey jacket and a blue-and-white top on the day of the crash.
> ...



There's nothing in there that says the cyclist was to blame.


----------



## HJ (24 May 2010)

If it have been a collision to motor vehicles (and there are plenty of fatal examples to choose from) would he have suggested that the collision could have been avoided if the vehicle on the major road was painted a brighter colour? No. 

Driver error is known to be the cause of over 95% of all fatal collision involving motor vehicles, it is a major killer, but it is tolerated when it shouldn't be. Yes we make mistakes sometimes, but driving is regarded with an increasingly causal attitude and not the dangerous activity which it is. If a zero tolerance attitude was taken driving offences, we would all be safer and better off.


----------



## sheddy (24 May 2010)

I expect the BBC to represent cycling, as I always pay my TV Tax


----------



## dondare (24 May 2010)

sheddy said:


> I expect the BBC to represent cycling, as I always pay my TV Tax



The only tax in Britain tha treally is hypothecated.

Which means that you have every right to demand that non-taxpayers turn the radio off so that you can hear the TV.


----------



## Coco (24 May 2010)

HJ said:


> Driver error is known to be the cause of over 95% of all fatal collision involving motor vehicles,



And that's what the Sheriff concluded. The accident was caused because the driver failed to see the cyclist.

From the actual FAI determination:


> [57]Having made a determination under Section 6(1)( that the cause of the accident was a failure on the part of Mr MacTaggart to see Mr Macintyre by not keeping a proper lookout, the question of whether the wearing of high visibility clothing as a reasonable precaution "might" have avoided the accident resulting in the death falls to be considered under Section 6(1)(c).
> [58]It is helpful when considering the provisions of this section to bear in mind what is said by Ian Carmichael (_supra_) at paragraph 575. In that regard he states:
> "What is required is not a finding as to the reasonable precaution whereby the death or accident resulting in a death "would" have been avoided but whereby the death or accident "might" have been avoided... What is envisaged is not a probability but a real or lively possibility that the death might have been avoided by the reasonable precaution."
> [59]In my opinion notwithstanding that Craig MacDonald, who was driving behind Mr MacTaggart, saw Mr Macintyre and notwithstanding the evidence of Mr Riley (_supra_) there is a "real or lively possibility" that Jason Macintyre's presence on the road might have been brought to Mr MacTaggart's attention and the death might have been avoided had he been wearing high visibility clothing. I have made an appropriate determination and recommendation under Section 6(1)(c) to that effect.



It would seem common sense that if the cyclist wasn't seen that being more visible might increase your chance of being seen. It doesn't excuse the driver or apportion blame towards the cyclist.

Incidentally, the highway code also says:



> *59*
> 
> 
> Clothing. You should wear
> ...


I see it as advice and not some way of putting the blame on me if I get hit by a car. Same for the Sheriff's statements.

I'll refer you to the Right Honorable Crankarm's views on journalists for my thoughts on how this has been reported.


----------



## downfader (24 May 2010)

Argh. Sometimes I HATE youtube.

%&*£ing thing wont let me reply to messages on Carlton's youtube vid clip. Its filled up with morons too. Eugenics for everyone!!!


----------



## bottlemsher (24 May 2010)

'cyclist fight back' report on Look East now


----------



## g00se (24 May 2010)

Not on iplayer yet - what did they show?


----------



## dondare (24 May 2010)

downfader said:


> Argh. Sometimes I HATE youtube.
> 
> %&*£ing thing wont let me reply to messages on Carlton's youtube vid clip. Its filled up with morons too. Eugenics for everyone!!!



Well, you got a few in.


----------



## g00se (24 May 2010)

Just found it here - you're all to wind half way through:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...16x9&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1

OK- humble pie and all that. Road tax explained. I even got a name check...


----------



## HLaB (24 May 2010)

16minutes


----------



## downfader (24 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Well, you got a few in.



Haha! Yeah a few.  Half of it was arguing the toss with Chew1047 (who I dont think is right in the head - have you seen his rat torture video ???) and one other guy.


----------



## downfader (24 May 2010)

g00se said:


> Just found it here - you're all to wind half way through:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...16x9&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1
> 
> OK- humble pie and all that. Road tax explained. I even got a name check...



Yes! That is so much better, it never needed to come to this. Though I dont really blame the presenter (cant remember if I did earlier though)


----------



## Crankarm (24 May 2010)

g00se said:


> Just found it here - you're all to wind half way through:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...16x9&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1
> 
> OK- humble pie and all that. Road tax explained. I even got a name check...



Link doesn't work for me - just brings up an empty BBC media player saying loading media which it isn't. Not available on iPlayer. Has anyone put it on Youtube?


----------



## g00se (24 May 2010)

Try this - scroll down to the 'watch the latest programme':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj5w


----------



## Crankarm (25 May 2010)

g00se said:


> Try this - scroll down to the 'watch the latest programme':
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj5w



Yep that's the link to 'watch the latest programme' that I've been using. Doesn't work. Still as long as the piece is suitably contrite and grovellingly remorseful as you guys say then I won't lose sleep over not seeing it.


----------



## NigC (25 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Yep that's the link to 'watch the latest programme' that I've been using. Doesn't work. Still as long as the piece is suitably contrite and grovellingly remorseful as you guys say then I won't lose sleep over not seeing it.



Link not working for me either 

Would like to see it though - anyone know if it can be found elsewhere?


----------



## wafflycat (25 May 2010)

g00se said:


> Just found it here - you're all to wind half way through:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...16x9&bgc=C0C0C0&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1
> 
> OK- humble pie and all that. Road tax explained. I even got a name check...




hahahaha! I'm quoted too!


----------



## ufkacbln (25 May 2010)

dondare said:


> I have been told that the margin for error is 10% + 2.
> So in a 30 mph zone the enforced limit is 35; in a 70 mph zone it would be 79.



There is a guide by ACPO

79 mph is a fixed penalty, 96mph is a Summons

For other speeds:

20 limit FP 25 Summons 35
30 limit FP 35 Summons 50


----------



## NigC (25 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Link not working for me either
> 
> Would like to see it though - anyone know if it can be found elsewhere?



Aha, the link finally worked 

It's good to see they balanced out the comments and the "Road Tax" issue - although they could've explained more about how roads are funded as this is likely to confuse people even more now. But all-in-all it was good to watch 

EDIT: VED was explained - got interrrupted while watching it the first time and missed that bit


----------



## wafflycat (25 May 2010)

NigC said:


> Aha, the link finally worked
> 
> It's good to see they balanced out the comments and the "Road Tax" issue - although *they could've explained more about how roads are funded* as this is likely to confuse people even more now. But all-in-all it was good to watch
> 
> EDIT: VED was explained - got interrrupted while watching it the first time and missed that bit



Well to be fair, they did say that roads are funded through general taxation, which is the case.


----------



## NigC (25 May 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Well to be fair, they did say that roads are funded through general taxation, which is the case.



I know - I missed it the first time I watched it as my boss walked in


----------



## dondare (25 May 2010)

The explanation was too hurried, and the apology was not sincere. 
I would guess that all the ignoranters still think that motorists have more right to use the road than cyclists because they pay and cyclists don't.


----------



## Riding in Circles (25 May 2010)

dondare said:


> The explanation was too hurried, and the apology was not sincere.
> I would guess that all the ignoranters still think that motorists have more right to use the road than cyclists because they pay and cyclists don't.



I agree, the guy is a trash reporter.


----------



## Tompy (25 May 2010)

dondare said:


> The explanation was too hurried, and the apology was not sincere.
> I would guess that all the ignoranters still think that motorists have more right to use the road than cyclists because they pay and cyclists don't.



They'll always think that though. Some local news bod isn't going to change their tiny minds.

I was quoted too.


----------



## AndyCarolan (25 May 2010)

The "calming" music didn't help :/


----------



## Crankarm (25 May 2010)

I always thought BBC LE was a crap programme preferring ITV's local news offering instead. But since I don't watch TV anymore, almost a year now, I am not bothered. 'Am I bovered ?


----------



## Glow worm (25 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I always thought BBC LE was a crap programme preferring ITV's local news offering instead. But since I don't watch TV anymore, almost a year now, I am not bothered. 'Am I bovered ?



And I don't get Look East's coverage areas. Here on the Suffolk border- most 'local' news we get on the BBC is about Milton Keynes, Northampton and flamin' Corby. Corby FFS! That's half way to Wales. Luckily on Sky we can get proper East Anglian news on channel 981, (Look East Norwich) but it must piss you off if you live hereabouts and can only get nonsense about Milton Keynes and the like. Frankly though, ditching the telly altogether sounds like a fine idea!


----------



## HJ (25 May 2010)

BBC Look East forced to set the record straight on 'road tax' … er, VED + Video here.


----------

