Suspended sentence for Bristol driver who punched cyclist unconscious

[roubaixtuesday]

it looks like the whole incident could have easily been avoided if the cyclist had moved to his left and slowed down a little to use the gap before the car parked on the left side footpath. Instead he chose to come into conflict with the van driver,

Words fail me.

 

[Alex321]

Pathetic sentencing apart - from the video of the incident, it looks like the whole incident could have easily been avoided if the cyclist had moved to his left and slowed down a little to use the gap before the car parked on the left side footpath. Instead he chose to come into conflict with the van driver, who was (in his defence) as far in to the parked cars on his side of the road as he could be. Doesn't excuse what followed though.

The cyclist was in exactly the position he should have been.

The van driver is the one who should have been giving way, both because of the new "Hierarchy of Road Users" section of the Highway code (which he probably hasn't read), and because he was the one whose vehicle was partly in the opposite lane.

 

[Brandane]

Words fail me.

The cyclist was in exactly the position he should have been.

The van driver is the one who should have been giving way, both because of the new "Hierarchy of Road Users" section of the Highway code (which he probably hasn't read), and because he was the one whose vehicle was partly in the opposite lane.

When it comes to self preservation, I don't really care about whether I am "right" or "wrong". The plain fact of the matter is that holding your line on a 10kg bike versus a 3 tonne van is never going to end well.

The court may well have decided the van driver was in the wrong, but that's little consolation when you are lying in the mortuary, or stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of your days.

For those reasons, I personally would have taken avoiding action and moved out of the van driver's way. It wouldn't have taken much effort for either person involved here to have prevented this situation, but when 2 entitled nobbers come together, the result can sometimes be that which happened here.

 

[T4tomo]

The only question is why she felt it appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence. We really don't have sufficient evidence to know the answer to that.

This is where I got to reading the article. Second time similar offence, hadn't learned from previous caution, so give him a bit of jail time to think, but there maybe other non reported factors or restrictions as to why the judge thought suspended was the way to go.

 

[matticus]

That is not an insult, it is simple fact.

We don't have access to all the evidence presented to the trial, therefore we are ignorant of the facts.

We can of course, form a reasonable opinion based on the facts we do know. But we can't dogmatically say she was wrong, because we simply do not know what additional factors may have lead to her sentencing decision.

Am I ignorant of the facts? Which facts? Many relevant facts are now public record - and I know at least some of these. The judge will probably (assuming they weren't simply lied to!) know more facts about the case, but will still be ignorant; many facts will only be known to the players on the pitch. Some "facts" will be evidence presented by parties with a lot to gain (or lose).

So calling me ignorant contributes nothing to the debate. Unless @Baldy was just trying to get a rise out of me. Either way, I think I can safely ignore his posts on the subject of ignorance. 👍

 

[Brandane]

many facts will only be known to the players on the pitch. Some "facts" will be evidence presented by parties with a lot to gain (or lose).

Exactly. Anyone who believes that a court of law has some sort of superpower to extract "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" from witnesses (often hostile witnesses) is living on a different planet. Courts can only make decisions based on the evidence presented to them, and that evidence is not always facts.

 

[Alex321]

Am I ignorant of the facts?

Yes of course. All of us who weren't in court that day are, since no news report will contain ALL of the facts taken into consideration.

Which facts?

If we knew that, we wouldn't be ignorant of them.

Many relevant facts are now public record - and I know at least some of these. The judge will probably (assuming they weren't simply lied to!) know more facts about the case, but will still be ignorant; many facts will only be known to the players on the pitch. Some "facts" will be evidence presented by parties with a lot to gain (or lose).

So calling me ignorant contributes nothing to the debate. Unless @Baldy was just trying to get a rise out of me. Either way, I think I can safely ignore his posts on the subject of ignorance. 👍

Nobody is "calling you ignorant".

Stating that you are ignorant of the facts (as am I) is not in any way similar to generally calling you ignorant.

 

[matticus]

Nobody is "calling you ignorant".

Stating that you are ignorant of the facts (as am I) is not in any way similar to generally calling you ignorant.

Nice to know I'm in good company! 🫂

 

[roubaixtuesday]

entitled nobbers

alternatively "perpetrator and victim of brutal assault"

 

[matticus]

For those reasons, I personally would have taken avoiding action and moved out of the van driver's way. It wouldn't have taken much effort for either person involved here to have prevented this situation, but when 2 entitled nobbers come together

EDIT: the following was for rhetorical effect. It might need further explanation to comrade Brandane, to whom I mean no harm ...

One of those "nobbers" is a good mate of mine.

I'm gonna come up there and punch your lights out. That'll teach you to keep your mouth shut.

 

[Brandane]

I'm gonna come up there and punch your lights out. That'll teach you to keep your mouth shut.

Welcome to try.
Just because he's a mate of yours doesn't mean he is beyond criticism.
Oh, and tell him to learn how to drive a van.... or ride a bike, whichever one is your mate.

P.S.. Threats of violence are never acceptable, in this case just because someone has dared to disagree with your POV... Screen grab taken for future reference, as it will no doubt be deleted by management shortly.

 

[matticus]

Welcome to try.
Just because he's a mate of yours doesn't mean he is beyond criticism.
Oh, and tell him to learn how to drive a van.... or ride a bike, whichever one is your mate.

P.S.. Threats of violence are never acceptable, in this case just because someone has dared to disagree with your POV... Screen grab taken for future reference, as it will no doubt be deleted by management shortly.

Please be assured, I mean you no harm.

I was trying to make the point that by persisting with a dispute (online in this case), you might bring physical harm on yourself, if you happened to pick a sufficiently entitled nobber to argue with. Do you see the link with the Bristol Cyclist case?

If that happened, how much sympathy would you expect?

 

[T4tomo]

oh dear, one of you misses the badly made point and the other has a largely irrelevant analogy, because the cyclist did not "persist" with any dispute, he got clipped by a wing mirror and punched for his troubles.

he cyclist didn't have to, but could quite easily has slowed and stayed behind the car on his side, as the van driver was committed to passing the large line of parked cars on his side. As pointed out its hard to argue who's right when your dead.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

he cyclist didn't have to, but could quite easily has slowed and stayed behind the car on his side, as the van driver was committed to passing the large line of parked cars on his side. As pointed out its hard to argue who's right when your dead

Sure, we can all improve how we behave on the roads in every circumstance.

But I'm *really* struggling to see how this is relevant to a brutal and deliberate assault.

What next? If I fail to set off immediately at the lights I've brought on being rear ended then assaulted?

It's classic victim blaming.

 

[T4tomo]

Sure, we can all improve how we behave on the roads in every circumstance.

But I'm *really* struggling to see how this is relevant to a brutal and deliberate assault.

What next? If I fail to set off immediately at the lights I've brought on being rear ended then assaulted?

It's classic victim blaming.

Its completely irrelevant, as i posted earlier, I think the driver should have been banged up, and no way am I blaming the cyclist for the assault.

It would have been relevant if he'd been hit by a car on the initial pass though