Forum Topic

BMW driver kills man on pavement

23 year old law student ploughs into and kills a 59 year old man in her BMW on the pavement on Hayes Road, Southall, lies to the police claiming that the victim had walked into the middle of the road in front of her and gets a one year driving ban and 150 hours of community service.https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/03/london-student-killed-man-in-her-bmw-after-hitting-accelerator-instead-of-brake-15535654/

Paul Campbell ● 1803d188 Comments

Poor girl. My heart goes out to her. This will have an impact on her for the rest of her life and it is not surprising that “ This has plainly had a dramatic effect on the defendant’s mental health.”

Steve Taylor ● 1803d

Indeed. The woman has received a torrent of racist and misogynist abuse following this case. Google her name if you want to get a flavour of it but I'd advise you not to.There is no suggestion she was speeding, she hadn't been drinking. She made a momentary error of judgement, of the kind that every driver will have made at some point particularly if they had not long qualified, and by the cruellest twist of fate she happened to hit a pedestrian on a deserted road. The consequences are far worse for the poor man she hit and his family but they will still be terrible for her.Unless Paul Campbell was in court for the trial, rather than try and shoehorn these terrible events into a narrative that supports some argument he is attempting to win on social media, he should show a bit of compassion and trust the judge's conclusion that this was a double tragedy.

Felicity Caborn ● 1803d

ST: "Poor girl. My heart goes out to her."FC: "She made a momentary error of judgement"Did either of you actually read the link provided? Including the bit which says:"The court heard how she had initially tried to blame Mr Khaira for the crash, claiming he had walked out into the middle of the road.In her first police interview she said: ‘The guy was literally in the middle of the road and I tried to avoid him and I just swerved.’But CCTV showed this was not the case"We can all experience "a mometary lapse" etc and should be grateful that it doesn't usually have such far-reaching consequences.But to lie to the police in order to save her own skin, and instead blame an entirely innocent victim for his fate, goes far beyond "momentary" and into the realm of coldly calculating.She should be very grateful that she was up before a judge who possesses the compassion which she appears to lack.Imo she should have gone to jail, not for the lapse, but for the subsequent deceit.

Richard Cathcart ● 1802d

I agree,Richard.That she mowed down and killed a pedestrian is awful enough, but to lie and try to avoid being held responsible is despicable and unforgiveable and shows no remorse or humuilty.Three years in prison and a five year driving ban,subject to a test resit after those five years.

Keith Iddon ● 1802d

She was in shock and should NEVER have been questioned by the Police when she was in such a state. She simply said what her passenger thought  she saw. Fortunately the Judge understood that and imposed a realistic sentence.  I don’t believe the Judge accepted that she intentionally  “lied”.  The poor girl will now suffer for the rest of her life so leave her be and drop it.  Nobody on a little insignificant forum should be dictating what the terms of her sentence should have been. That is blatant disrespect, if not contempt, of the Court.

Steve Taylor ● 1802d

And that's judgmental drivel.

Keith Iddon ● 1802d

Drop it!  The Judge has ruled. End of!  Case closed.

Steve Taylor ● 1802d

When Keith Iddon talks of 'judgemental drivel' I can only assume he has had a fleeting moment of self-awareness. While I'll reserve comment on whether he was talking drivel, his earlier post was the dictionary definition of judgemental.As for the argument that the driver deserves no sympathy because she lied, firstly, as anyone who has any experience of a traumatic event can tell you, memory is not reliable in such circumstances. Secondly, a judge who heard her testimony and the testimony of her passenger decided she did deserve compassion even taking into account the inconsistencies in her original statement. As I said at the start, if you weren't at the trial then you have no grounds for questioning the judge's conclusions other than prejudice.

Felicity Caborn ● 1802d

I know nothing about this case.I do know, however, that chaotic incidents result in chaotic interpretations or memories of the incident. This does not mean that someone is lying if their account of what happened is objectively inaccurate.  Being wrong is not the same as lying. And (having sat through many trials, civil and criminal) the process works well in getting to the truth.  And the judges in the higher courts are generally (but of course not always) very good at it. Of course, they will have spent two decades as practising lawyers- and understand that the easy answer is not always the correct one.

T P Howell ● 1802d

I’ve just read this thread and my one question is why did you post this link Paul? I’m sure you will ignore my question or tell me that you don’t have to answer to me, but I thought I would ask. Over to you Paul.

Kieran Fox ● 1802d

Paul Campbell started this post. The way he phrased it was worthy of a lowest sensationalist News of World headline. Intended to stir up outrage playing on all the nasty prejudices that certain people have.Sadly, I think he has been bitterly corrupted during his "fight for cycling" and lost all sense of humanity and compassion.I imagine he is not a nice person to be around and this is probably having an effect on his relationships and those around him. Maybe he needs to take time to reflect on himself and his approach to others over the Christmas break.

Richard Potts ● 1802d

Richard, I 100% agree with you about Mr Campbell, his motives for starting this thread are wholly malicious, as well as hypocritical - after all he's also a car driver and owner, unless he's recently ditched his car...

Loraine Pemberton ● 1802d

I don't agree. I believe Paul is basically a decent person. Like every individual who is holding a pitchfork in a mob he believes he is doing the righteous thing. This has led him to say things that were apparently very callous like when he bemoaned older people being advised to avoid the transport network at the very beginning of the pandemic. He doesn't say things out of malice but because his rather blinkered one-dimensional view of the world gives him a simplistic notion of what is right or wrong.

Francis Rowe ● 1802d

Meanwhile,a completely innocent person has been killed by someone driving a lethal machine without due care and attention,and has tried to distort the facts of the matter in order to escape responsibility.There may well be many people bereaved,partner, children, friends and other family members.I am not so sure they will feel so symapthetic as some on here to the semingly made up story of an obviously dangerous driver and will probably feel that justice has not been served..If she had held her hands up, admitted her guilt and shown due remorse, then my attitude would be quite different.To compound the horrific incident by trying to wash her hands of it, after having sevceral weeks to think about it, is indicative of her lack of remorse and humility in my opinion.

Keith Iddon ● 1802d

Are we talking about the same case? The woman did show remorse and has admitted her guilt. Where is it reported that she 'tried to wash her hands of it' after several weeks? Why do you think the judge is wrong about her?

Francis Rowe ● 1802d

In hindsight,you are correct and I harsh.She does needs to resit her driving test before she is allowed behind a wheel again though, and this may well be part of the terms of her sentence.

Keith Iddon ● 1802d

But I wonder if there had been no cctv evidence..

Keith Iddon ● 1802d

Personally I could do without the widely held and unquestioned prejudice against BMW drivers.  As a matter of fact Vauxhall Astra and Zafira drivers come out top for accidents in the U.K.  And the one BMW driver I know happens to also be the very safest and most considerate.  And no, this is not the ‘exception that proves the rule’ it’s a plea for fairness.  There are good drivers and bad drivers of all brands of vehicle.

Alastair Banton ● 1802d

That never crossed my mind.

Keith Iddon ● 1802d

On Monday this week MPs debated sentencing for road traffic offences resulting in fatal collisions. Here is a link to the transcript of the debate. Warning: it makes for uncomfortable reading with details of fatal incidents and powerful testimonies from family members of victims who were present at the debate as well as from MPs with their own personal experiences:https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-11-15/debates/2F33B858-4F79-42CA-9544-790886B089C1/RoadTrafficOffencesFatalCollisionsThere is a focus on failing to stop at the scene of an incident (I am aware of two such examples of this in Chiswick in the past few weeks - both reported to the police) but the debate is wide ranging, covering death by both careless and dangerous driving. As is the government's response and statement that road crimes and sentencing have been reviewed and, for more serious offences, measures are being brought forward under the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.Ruth Cadbury speaks in the debate and mentions an incident in Chiswick.There is too much complexity and nuance in the debate for me to summarise in a single forum post. For those expressing strong opinions on road safety on this thread and others on this forum, and for those outraged by my original post and link to a story of a fatal collision not far from here which has resulted in some discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of the sentence and which was deemed newsworthy enough to be reported on by a number of media outlets, I recommend sitting down with a cup of tea and reading the full transcript. Ben Bradshaw's opening statement provides a good summary of the sentiment and content of the debate:"I congratulate the petitioners who brought this subject to Parliament for debate, which reflects a growing concern in the country and, indeed, the House about how, increasingly, when it comes to road crime, the punishment does not fit the crime. Offenders all too often get off with a paltry fine, a suspended sentence or a ridiculously short driving ban, if they get a ban at all, while the loved ones of the victims are left devastated and grieving for the rest of their lives."

Paul Campbell ● 1802d

This is a different issue - it is about failure to stop at the scene which the woman in the case you raised originally was not guilty of.Nobody would seriously dispute the case made in the debate that sentencing for hit and run drivers involved in fatal collisions is inadequate.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1802d

Paul.  An interesting post worthy of debate.  Maybe this could have been the opening post rather than the original?

Kieran Fox ● 1802d

Good point Kieran, but then that wouldn't be the divisive, hyperbolic tripe that is Mr Campbell's stock in trade.

Mark Warburton ● 1802d

As I said the debate is wide-ranging and covers much more than failing to stop. For example it also covers enforcement in general. "I also met virtually with Alison Hernandez, who is the police and crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and the road safety lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. Alison launched a strategy in 2018 to create the safest roads in the UK. A 2020 APCC road survey received 66,266 responses from across England and Wales, and 81% of respondents believed that road offences required more enforcement.Sentencing for dangerous driving and concerns with the CPS' charging for the lesser crime of careless instead of dangerous driving:"In October 2017, following a consultation in which 70% of respondents thought that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased from 14 years to life imprisonment, the Government announced that they would do so when parliamentary time allowed. A one-clause Bill would have had widespread support across the House and from the public, but the Government failed to find any parliamentary time. Nearly three years later, on Tuesday 21 July 2020, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), introduced a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment, and for connected purposes."Sentencing for a range of lesser road crimes:"In the last 10 years, 80,000 cases have occurred where road criminals should have received a ban but were let off after pleading exceptional circumstances. Courts have accepted as exceptional circumstances the need to do the school run and the effect a ban might have on a relationship—that brings the law into disrepute."I think that there are plenty of opportunities for people to take different views to mine on this debate and focus on different aspects of it with their own choice of excerpts but spending the time to read and reflect on it will help them to construct their arguments.

Paul Campbell ● 1802d

I can't work out the relevance of specifying the make of vehicle involved in the original post. Is it playing to some sort of prejudice?

Bruce Hammal ● 1802d

Richard Potts is 100% correct

Steve Taylor ● 1802d

Mark Warburton is 100%.    Campbell’s posts are always divisive and intended as such. There is no compassionate motive at all. Not a nice person.

Steve Taylor ● 1802d

Yes, see my post of 10.57.

Alastair Banton ● 1802d

Apologies for the duplication Alastair. I seem to have missed your post in this morning's avalanche. I seem to recall that there was a time when Smart car drivers were supposedly the worst, then for a while it was Audi TTs. Currently I think that anything classified as "SUV" marks the driver out as a monster.  Anyway this is a side-issue. A bad driver is a bad driver no matter what the vehicle.

Bruce Hammal ● 1802d

"Campbell’s posts are always divisive and intended as such. There is no compassionate motive at all. Not a nice person. "Yeah, Campbell's posts are intended to rile certain people up.We have to ask the question, why won't cyclists just get back in their box, allow the cycle lanes to be ripped up, stop trying to self righteously and falsely claim they're helping improve air quality or reduce traffic and stop giving moral backing to a government that is only interested in finding new ways to tax and fine drivers under the false premise that they're fighting climate change?Thank heavens for normal, balanced people like Steve "Cyclists are Scum" Taylor for pointing out how horribly divisive PC is.  In other news, driver who lost control at that mini roundabout and killed a guy didn't do anything wrong.  Anyone could lose control of their car at 20mph and mow down a man, child or entire family, and surely we should feel compassion for everyone, especially the young driver.Bit different if it is a man who mows down and kills two cyclists though....roads are for cars people, so if they want to put themselves in harm's way, they and their families should be prepared for the inevitable consequences.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10201213/Fury-company-director-61-mowed-killed-two-cyclists-56-52-walks-free.htmlAnd definitely different if it is a cyclist who kills a pedestrian - that's at least manslaughter if not murder and no-one's interested in their performative demonstrations of remorse.  18 months prison time is a slap in the face for the families. 

Ed Saper ● 1802d

Do you need to see Nurse, Ed?

Mark Warburton ● 1802d

Feeling much better now, thanks!It shouldn't be that hard to condemn anyone who kills another person.Whatever petty squabbles we have on how much road space to allocate to cars, bikes and pedestrians, that shouldn't lead us to have double standards when it comes to the innocent deaths of real people.

Ed Saper ● 1802d

'It shouldn't be that hard to condemn anyone who kills another person.'Yet the judge in this case declined to do so and expressed sympathy for the 'killer'. From what I can see of the facts of this case, what happened to this unfortunate young woman is something that could have happened to you, me or a member of our families. Obviously she is better off than the man who died but she has been given a life sentence of a sort and that is probably punishment enough.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1802d

That rather depends on why the killing was done, surely?In the case posted by the ever-annoying Paul Campbell, it's hard to ascribe malicious motivation to the killing.Actions subsequent to accident in question didn't cover her in glory, but they have been covered at length above & as the latest post in this thread suggests, there is a life sentence being served mentally by the driver, which will be far more effective than anything the courts could hand down.None of that is to say that there shouldn't be more stringent penalties for some driving offences, for example, vehicular manslaughter needs to become a thing & attract commensurate punishments, however it is important to draw a distinction between genuine accidents and those incidents where a driver, or a pedestrian, or a cyclist is at fault.For example, if one was to be driving entirely legally & responsibly and a pedestrian decides to commit vehicular suicide, then of course there zhould be both no punishment of the driver, nor should there be an ounce of condemnation. There are shades of grey & I think you've rather turned a blind eye to them.

Mark Warburton ● 1802d

One can hardly doubt the driver will feel guilt for this offence for the rest of her life but sentencing should also include a deterrent element for others.The judge seems to have a bit of "there but for the grace of god go I" about him and issued a minimal punishment. A more callous dangerous driver reading about the case is unlikely to modify his behaviour when he considers the minimal consequences.

Will Watson ● 1802d

Sorry Will but that makes zero sense. You can't deter people from unintentionally killing someone.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1802d

You can deter them from driving in a manner that might lead them to unintentionally kill someone.

Will Watson ● 1802d

In other words you mean 'dangerously' as defined by the law which already attracts stiffer sentences. In this case the offence was 'carelessly' because she made a driver error i.e. no conscious choice was made on her part and therefore no deterrent would have been effective.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1801d

The facts as reported are that a young driver lost control of her car at a mini roundabout, then accelerated instead of braking and hit and killed a man.  When interviewed by police, she blamed the victim for being in the middle of the road, before retracting when shown CCTV and blaming her passenger for giving her false information and then blaming the police for interviewing her when she was in shock.  Regardless of what the judge decided, if it had been a cyclist who hit a man on the pavement or even on the road, didn't brake and blamed the victim and everyone else for her actions, I suspect that several people on this thread would be quite voluble in their criticism of the cyclist.Indeed, there would be demands for the laws to be changed in order to increase prison sentences, because 18 months is not enough:"Suggest you ask Matthew Briggs what his take on Cyclists is and why he, and others, need the Laws changed. The cycling moron Charlie Allister who was riding a 'fixie' bike and who killed Kim Briggs, or to use one of your favourite words murdered, got 18 months ...."It appears that the sympathy for the person who killed someone only applies if they were driving a car.  Hence why I suggested some of you have double standards.

Ed Saper ● 1801d

I am not sure about anyone else here but I have been driving for 40 years and know many friends who have been driving the same or a higher number of years and we have never mounted a kerb in a car and injured, maimed or killed anyone, yet at least.I still wonder what the story would have been without cctv.

Keith Iddon ● 1801d

Ed, I think you are mischaracterising this debate if you are going to frame it as between those who believe 'cyclists bad, drivers good' and those who don't. That is a culture war construct that doesn't exist in the real world.The division here is between those who believe they are better qualified to reach a determination on this case than a judge who heard all the detail of the evidence and those who are willing to accept his verdict.You talk about 'facts' but you've extrapolated information from a brief newspaper report on the case and reached conclusions that you can't possibly know to be true and put a spin on the available evidence to present this woman in the worst possible light. Paul Campbell uses the word 'lied' about this woman when this is not stated in the article he linked to.I know no more than you about this case other than I had some familiarity with the road on which the accident occurred and I think I can identify the location. The road runs through and industrial estate and is not particularly well lit. It is curved at the point where the collision might have happened and the kerb is very low. Late at night there would be little reason to expect pedestrians.A likely scenario is that this woman was driving with dipped headlights on a bend when suddenly the unfortunate man appeared in the lights probably only a few yards ahead. In that split second she made the fatal error of pressing the wrong pedal. Given that the kerb would not have been visible to either her or the passenger and that it was so low that there would have been no audible sound as it was crossed combined with the curve in the road, it is entirely credible that the driver and her passenger may have formed the impression that the victim was in the middle of the road. Ultimately we will never know the truth but it is impossible to say categorically that they were lying.Maybe she and her friend were trying to minimise her culpability but the judge was willing to give her the benefit of any doubt and I trust that this is based on his assessment of the detailed accident report that would have been prepared in evidence. Your own determination to present this woman as some sort of villain seems motivated, not by a desire to see justice done, but to gain an extra point in an argument that is taking place elsewhere.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1801d

“It shouldn't be that hard to condemn anyone who kills another person.”And thank the Lord we have experienced, intelligent judges who listen to ALL evidence, rather than people like Ed who are totally biased and unable to think outside the box. For Ed it would be all too easy to pack this poor young lady on a convict ship to the Antipodes.

Steve Taylor ● 1801d

“A more callous dangerous driver reading about the case is unlikely to modify his behaviour when he considers the minimal consequences.”What nonsense. The “more callous dangerous” driver would need to be totally thick to not understand the mitigating circumstances in this case.

Steve Taylor ● 1801d

Jeremy Parkinson is correct. How can you deter someone from an unintentional accident which wasn’t caused by intentional negligence.

Steve Taylor ● 1801d

“ The division here is between those who believe they are better qualified to reach a determination on this case than a judge who heard all the detail of the evidence and those who are willing to accept his verdict.”Totally agree!!

Steve Taylor ● 1801d

“ Your own determination to present this woman as some sort of villain seems motivated, not by a desire to see justice done, but to gain an extra point in an argument that is taking place elsewhere.”Yes I believe that’s an accurate assessment of Ed’s motivation! It is sad that he tries to drag this very unfortunate accident, which has affected at least two families,  into the argument!

Steve Taylor ● 1801d

No Steve.  I'm calling out the bias of those who have one standard for someone who kills a pedestrian with a bike, and another for someone who kills a pedestrian or a cyclist with a car.I am saying that they are all equally bad and should be treated in a similar way.  I haven't called for harsher punishments for this particular driver or anyone else.  If you feel my view is biased or that I'm being unfair on drivers who kill pedestrians or cyclists, then you are mistaken and perhaps misled by your antipathy towards PC and "cyclist scum", as you've referred to them in your evenhanded way.

Ed Saper ● 1801d

Never heard of confusing the brake with the accelerator.

Janice Evans ● 1801d

A friend of a friend ( not someone I knew well) lost his wife to an elderly driver who confused the accelerator and brake. She was killed on the pavement and her last act was to push her pram out of the way. It does happen unfortunately.

Ed Saper ● 1801d

Janice Evans explained" Never heard of confusing the brake with the accelerator."From the Toronto Starquote: There have been thousands of cases of accidents occurring when drivers hit the gas but are convinced they are applying the brakes and researchers believe it is the result of a glitch in our sensory motor response.“There’s always a degree of error in the actions we undertake,” said Luc Tremblay, associate professor and associate dean of research at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Kinesiology.His area of expertise is multi-sensory integration.“So in this particular case, [confusing the twopedals] if the receptors in your leg are interpreting your foot on the brake, you cannot think you’re actually on the gas pedal. You think the car is not responding to you pressing the brake and you end up pressing even harder on the gas because it feels like the limb is on the brake pedal.”unquote:https://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/11/13/braking-bad-unintended-acceleration.htmlAs to the matter of paying attention, the problem is people giving their undivided attention to one thing and totally missing another as was demonstrated in the famous gorilla experiment. Where in a video a man dressed in gorrilla costume ran across a basketball court where students were passing a ballamongst themselves and was totally missed by large numbers of viwers of the video who'd been asked to count the number of passes made by the two groups of studentshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Gorillamichael adams

Michael Adams ● 1801d

scary, wouldn't want to drive anymore if that happen to me.

Janice Evans ● 1801d

Mr Saper. When have I ever referred to "cyclist scum" ?????  I am a cyclist myself!!  You must be confusing me with someone you think you know!

Steve Taylor ● 1800d

'if that HAPPEN to me'?

Anne England ● 1800d

In Canada most cars are automatic so it is probably a more common mistake to confuse brake and accelerator??

Steve Taylor ● 1800d

When you've only got two pedals and one is massively bigger than the other I can see why it would be easy to get confused.

Will Watson ● 1800d

You are generous with your use of the term "scum":"many cyclists are scum and things will not change until they are registered, regulated, taxed and criminalised for breaking the law""there are so many moronic or scum cyclists about riding on pavements and shooting through red lights. "You helpfully define the word scum in one of your posts:"'Scum' is a very harsh word to use lightly....Possibly the worst word you can have your name associated with....It is hard to define the word, but it is basically used to describe someone so disgraceful that they are seen as the lowest form of life. "Worthlessness", "waste of skin", "dirt". "Nothing". Far worse than most other insults, where the victim is often just referred to as genetalia."

Ed Saper ● 1800d

Are you. O.K Anne

Janice Evans ● 1800d

Are those selected quotations from some of Steve’s previous posts Ed?

Andrew Jones ● 1800d

Yes, he is being selective. He has implied on this thread that I referred to cyclists as scum. Selective generalisation I’d call it. Pathetic really because this thread isn’t about cyclists. It’s about the poor lady who sadly, and accidentally,  killed a pedestrian.

Steve Taylor ● 1800d

It was a poor pedestrian killed by a lady.

Keith Iddon ● 1800d

Steve - you denied ever having referred to "cyclist scum".A quick search of this forum shows you had on multiple occasions - I quoted a couple and if you have a problem with what I chose to accurately quote, you shouldn't have denied ever using the term and challenged me to prove that you had!  As for context, there's a long treatise from you about how the word "scum" is the worst insult you can apply to anyone.You ask us to have compassion for the real victim - the "poor lady" who killed the pedestrian.She is NOT the victim here.  The man who was mown down by her 1.5 tonne vehicle which she drove negligently and dangerously.You, the judge and other commentators all seem to have a "but for the grace of god go I" attitude - it could have been you driving the car.  Well, it could have been you walking down the street with your family hit by a young girl in a car far more powerful than she could ever need, or a boy racer, a van driver on the phone or an elderly man who confused his pedals.You should spare some compassion for those maimed and killed on the roads - and maybe then you'd have some sympathy for those who want to protect vulnerable road users rather than your scorn and insults.

Ed Saper ● 1800d

Ed, can you please cover Steve's erotic fantasies about men in Lycra for your next instalment?

Paul Campbell ● 1799d

Sorry, but all this talk of compassion for the victim is a red herring. The thread wasn't started out of compassion for anybody. It was merely a dog whistle in the great Chiswick cycle wars.Incidentally, although the lady was without doubt negligent, I can understand how she hit the wrong pedal in an emergency. A few years back, whilst queuing for petrol at the filling station on the corner of Acton Lane and South Parade, I gave a discreet tap on the horn to warn a lady who was reversing away from the airline straight towards the front of my car. Result: obviously flustered, she hit the accelerator instead of the brake, and reversed at speed into my car! It's easily done under pressure.

Robert Fish ● 1799d

Ed still doesn’t get it. He implies that I referred to all cyclists as being scum. I clearly said that many cyclists are scum and ride on pavements and jump red lights etc etc.  As a regular cyclist I stand by that assertion.  As for Campbean’s childish challenge to research how many times I have referred to the Lycra Bums or the fact that the Lycra may stifle the oxygen flow to their “brains’, go for it. Indulge Campbean’s erotic fantasy. You know you want to!!

Steve Taylor ● 1799d

Steve still doesn't get it.  I don't care that you referred to cyclists as "scum". It speaks only to your bias.I care that you think the victim is the girl who drove dangerously and killed the pedestrian.The victim is the person who died because of her dangerous driving.The victim is sullied by you and those who seek to explain away or play down her culpability in his death.I wish you could get over your bias and see what matters, but you're incapable of seeing that you even have any bias.  You think you're under attack from a member of the cycling lobby pushing a political agenda.I'm criticising you because you can't see past your own political agenda to realise that any death on the road (or pavement) is a tragedy - whether killed by bike or by car.I don't care - and didn't know and am certainly not surprised - about your casual insults against "lycra bums" or your prejudice against cyclists in general.  It wouldn't be any worse than what we get daily from some of our neighbours.For anyone reasonable, there is genuine common ground.  Cyclists who act dangerously and harm or kill people should be condemned.  So should any driver who harms or kills someone.

Ed Saper ● 1799d

'He implies that I referred to all cyclists as being scum.'Really? What exactly did Ed write that suggests this?You on the other hand have admitted that you describe many cyclists as scum. Is that 'many' as in a high proportion, or many as in a high number?And why try to throw people off the scent by going off on a tangent and talking about Paul Campbell?Ed's comments were about what you wrote and think, not about Paul Campbell.

Andrew Jones ● 1799d

Ed Saper, when you say of this lady, "The victim is sullied by you and those who seek to explain away or play down her culpability in his death" this would necessarily include the judge who did exactly that in his summing up. Could you explain to us how, presumably without having been in court or seen the transcripts, you can have reached such a fixed conclusion about the degree of her culpability that goes beyond what the court decided?In your determination to condemn this woman you are ignoring the fact that the court did not find that she drove dangerously, a claim that you repeat several times. The offence she committed was careless driving which can cover the kind of involuntary error seen in this case.As far as I can see, while you accuse others of bias and not been able to recognise they are biased, it is you that most clearly demonstrate these characteristics.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1799d

Paul, while erotica knows no bounds, surely surely I'm the one in the room who can lend some expertise when it comes to homoerotic Lycra fantasies. Wouldn't you agree?That said, there is a part of me that wonders what side of the homophobic line your comment treads. Because you seem to be on the verge of weaponizing gay fantasy for the purpose of denigrating someone whilst advancing yourself.Color me unsurprised.

David Lesniak ● 1799d

"The victim is the person who died because of her dangerous driving." Here is an article written by the mother of a woman who was killed by a driver in Brixton. She writes about her sense of injustice from a flawed system. The driver had previous convictions including for driving under the influence of drugs.   "Nothing can bring my daughter back, but perhaps I can do something small to change the system because, like a bad parent, it seems to enable the driver to escape taking responsibility for what he has done. It’s a huge task, and the system itself, like many things in this country, is crumbling. I don’t have much optimism. Systemic issues are the most difficult to tackle, as we know with women and work, but that is not a reason to give up." https://www.workingmums.co.uk/flawed-justice-system/

Paul Campbell ● 1799d

As I said when I first posted on this, you could get a bit of perspective on the abuse that this young woman has received by Googling her name. The vile racist, misogynist filth she has been subjected to is horrific but sadly become has become commonplace on social media. The justifications used by Paul Campbell and Ed Saper that she lied (which can't be confirmed) or that she drove dangerously (which the judge concluded she didn't) are the same used by the Neanderthals to excuse their intemperate animosity. I don't see any evidence that the determination of these two to condemn her has anything to do with her being a woman of South Asian heritage and probably a Muslim but it seems perverse all the same. Presumably it has something to do with cycling and a cult like attachment to a particular way of thinking about this kind of case but I can't begin to understand how they believe it might make things better.

Felicity Caborn ● 1799d

Felicity, as a result of your post I Googled the young lady, and amongst other disgusting and racist items I found this:-https://bit.ly/3kYlhdUTruly despicable and disgusting

Loraine Pemberton ● 1799d

Shocking, hateful, racist, mysogynistic filth. I wish I hadn't looked at the site. I suggest it's best to leave well alone.

Robert Fish ● 1799d

Yes, that is bad,awful.But it does not exclude her or anyone else who commits acts like this from legitimate criticism and discussion on this forum.My remarks are directed at her actions and behaviour, not her gender or ethnic or religious background.Because someone else makes umwarranted and despicable remarks and criticism, that does not ring fence the issue.

Keith Iddon ● 1799d

Err. Not really difficult to understand, Andrew.  I have opined that many cyclists are scum. That is my opinion as a cyclist and pedestrian who sees the way these people behave on pavements and jumping red lights, riding across zebra crossings etc. The fact that Ed elected to remove the word ‘many’ when he pretends to quote me, is disingenuous to say the least. Regarding ‘many’ as being in proportion or in numbers, go figure. Those who agree with me that many cyclists break the law and ride arrogantly or dangerously or selfishly, will know whether it is a proportion or a number depending on the areas they witness the crime. Those who don’t accept it, like you, will continue to be in denial!  That is the problem!

Steve Taylor ● 1799d

Jeremy, I define dangerous driving to include driving at speed onto a pavement and killing a pedestrian - which is what happened here.  From what was reported, there were no other circumstances - e.g. other traffic, pedestrians in the road, distractions, poor weather conditions, oil on the road, driver health conditions or visibility issues other than it being in the evening - that contributed to the accident.I would also say it is dangerous driving to knock over a man who is crossing or in the middle of the road, as the driver initially (and falsely) claimed of the victim.I have not painted an elaborate and evidence free fantasy of what she or her passenger saw, the position of her headlights, the visibility in the road or even the exact location of the car and pedestrian - that's what you did.  As a result of your narrative you conclude that not only does the driver bear little responsibility but you also explain away why the driver initially told the police the pedestrian was in the middle of the road and her statement that she swerved to avoid him, which CCTV showed was not the case.However, my point throughout is that there is a double standard applied to deaths on the pavement and roads.  I pointed out the bias displayed by Steve Taylor who calls cyclists "scum" and is determined to treat this driver as the victim.I see that Loraine and Felicity have posted a link to disgusting racist and misogynistic content and suggested the arguments I make are coloured by an anti-islamic and misogynistic bias - all attempts to smear me with words I have never written, spoken or thought.But as an example of a double standard, this is what Loraine posted about the case where a dangerous cyclist killed a pedestrian:"What would you call Charlie Allison who killed Kim Briggs after verbally abusing her before he deliberately ran into her and afterwards when she lay on the ground dying ?"Needless to say this is a Jeremy Parkinson style flight of fantasy - in this case to demonise a cyclist rather than defend a driver.As I have said consistently, these cases are similar - they should be treated in similar ways by the courts.  I do not excuse dangerous cycling.  I am frustrated that many of you excuse dangerous driving that leads to the death of a pedestrian on a pavement mainly because the means of his death included a car and your identity politics does not allow you to hear any criticism of drivers, even those who kill people.

Ed Saper ● 1799d

"I have opined that many cyclists are scum. That is my opinion as a cyclist and pedestrian who sees the way these people behave on pavements and jumping red lights, riding across zebra crossings etc. The fact that Ed elected to remove the word ‘many’ when he pretends to quote me, is disingenuous to say the least."Here's what I quoted:"many cyclists are scum and things will not change until they are registered, regulated, taxed and criminalised for breaking the law"I didn't remove the word "many".  I have no need to misquote or misleadingly quote.  You denied ever calling any cyclists "scum".  You have on many occasions.But look at the second part of the quote:"things will not change until they are registered, regulated, taxed and criminalised for breaking the law"You're obviously not talking about "many" cyclists here, but all cyclists.  As I said later, I don't care about your biased opinion of cyclists - you're in good company on this forum.  I care that your animosity towards cyclists excuses dangerous driving and leads you to minimise the deaths of pedestrians on the pavements where they should be safe.

Ed Saper ● 1799d

To the pro- and anti- cyclist warriors, a plague on both your houses. You are being played by the OP, who provided the bait that has been taken with such alacrity.

Robert Fish ● 1799d

Ed,there's a difference between Kim Briggs/ Charlie  Allison case and this one, to whit he was riding an illegal 'fixie' bike.Careful Ed, your paranoia is showing the link I posted was not aimed at you or anyone else on this thread, merely to demonstrate the shocking abuse the driver is now being subjected to.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1799d

Loraine, I'm calling out both your double standard and your and Felicity's disgusting attempt to smear me as a racist.Yes, she said:"I don't see any evidence that the determination of these two to condemn her has anything to do with her being a woman of South Asian heritage and probably a Muslim"So why say it, other than to suggest that's exactly my motivation?You can hide behind the choice of words as saying you didn't directly accuse me, but that's just game playing (and possibly a sensible decision to dodge a libel.)You posted the link in response to Felicity's attack on me to pile on with some flavour of the abuse she was receiving.

Ed Saper ● 1799d

Ed, grow up and stop playing the victim !If you actually comprehended my post when I said as a result of Felicity's post I Googled Raveena R and was shocked / appalled etc at the abuse she's received  - absolutely nothing to do with or aimed at you.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1799d

Hi Robert. I am pro cyclist but anti scum.

Steve Taylor ● 1799d

I have accurately quoted the smear Felicity made against me and PC and referenced your response.  She isn't the first person to allege that any criticism of a driver who killed a pedestrian must be down to misogyny and racism.  I have called you out on it Loraine.  If you don't like being accused of this sort of thing, then don't pile on with Felicity.I note you haven't condemned what she wrote.  And you never will.  I am not the victim here.  Nor are you or car drivers in general.  The victim is the man who was mown down on the pavement.

Ed Saper ● 1799d

Here you go again, Ed. Being disingenuous yet again. You just can’t help yourself. You only confirmed that I had said ‘many cyclists are scum’ when I challenged you to quote me on where I had asserted that cyclists are scum. You specifically elected to exclude the important word ‘many’. Anyway, I am not going to debate this issue with you any longer because you aren’t worth it and you are not truthful. Have a good day. I am going for a cycle!!  Hopefully I won’t come across too many scum cyclists.

Steve Taylor ● 1799d

“ Shocking, hateful, racist, mysogynistic filth.”Totally agree with Robert Fish on this one. Surely that post is a criminal offence for stirring up racial hate? 

Steve Taylor ● 1799d

Ed, so stop playing the 'victim' ! Sheesh you really are, you say you've 'called me out' but for what ? Highlighting the racial and sexual abuse this woman has subsequently suffered ? What, you know better than the Judge  ? Pardon me for saying this but you don't, unless of course you were in the Court Room and actually heard the case ?FYI, I'm not defending her, but you're being unreasonable, along with Mr Campbell, whose OP was posted to be provocative as many others have stated. You know the car driver whose a hypocrite - unless he's ditched his car ? Hmmmm

Loraine Pemberton ● 1799d

People have been permanently banned from this forum this year for far less than providing a link like this to abhorrent content. I will ask the Editor to remove it and assume an error of judgment on the part of the poster. I won't dignify Felicity's post by providing any further response to Ed's accurate assessment above. All of this in response to a post about a mother grieving for the daughter she lost to road violence and her campaign against what she describes, rightly in my view and of that of the MPs who debated the issue on Monday, as systemic issues with the justice system that harm victims and their families.

Paul Campbell ● 1798d

What exactly am I in denial about Steve?

Andrew Jones ● 1798d

"I won't dignify Felicity's post by providing any further response to Ed's accurate assessment above." Ed's assessment, far from accurate, was a deliberate misinterpretation of what Felicity said. She clearly thought there was an ulterior motive to your original post (a swipe at motorists in the context of the interminable war on this forum?), which Ed obviously picked up on. However, she made it abundantly clear that there was no suggestion the motive was either racist or misogynistic. Ed's suggestion this was a smear is merely playing the (wo)man instead of the ball.

Robert Fish ● 1798d

Today is the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims and the launch of the new Decade for Action for Road Safety. You can read further via these links and headline synopsis below:https://worlddayofremembrance.org/#infohttps://www.un.org/en/observances/road-traffic-victims-day"Last year we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the international observance of this Day dedicated to remembering the many millions of road traffic victims throughout the world – begun by the European Federation of Road Traffic Victims (FEVR) in 1995 and adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 60/5 on 26th October 2005 as an “appropriate acknowledgement for victims of road traffic crashes and their families”.This year marks the start of the new Decade of Action for Road Safety 2021-2030, during which the World Day will play a very important part – through highlighting the very reasons for all the necessary actions during this coming Decade.As every year, the objectives of WDoR 2021 are to provide a platform for road traffic victims and their families to:remember all people killed and seriously injured on the roadsacknowledge the crucial work of the emergency servicesdraw attention to the generally trivial legal response to culpable road deaths and injuriesadvocate for better support for road traffic victims and victim familiespromote evidence-based actions to prevent and eventually stop further road traffic deaths and injuriesWDoR 2021 puts the spotlight on the reduction of traffic speeds – Low speeds, which have the potential to prevent many deaths and serious injuries, in particular those of pedestrians and all other vulnerable road users – children, elderly and the disabled."

Paul Campbell ● 1798d

But you are also a motorist, so this could potentially happen to you.

Maggie Dodge ● 1798d

Ppsted in absolutely the best of faith, no doubt, eh Troll-y?

Mark Warburton ● 1798d

Haha, or even in goode feyth!

Robert Fish ● 1798d

What about victims of every other sort, too numerous to mention.

Maggie Dodge ● 1798d

This a difficult scenario. And thus a difficult judgement.On one hand a tragic accident that deserves sympathy for both inadvertent cause and tragic victim. Or, on the other hand, a case of guilt due to the concept of ´could and should have done better’ and ´own your decisions and errors’ that led to tragedy. That the person who acted badly really should hold their hand up and accept ´mine, my error, my wrong’.Maybe looking at comparisons helps? Say, as an example, I walk down the street with a long ladder over my shoulder. I forget its length as I turn to cross the road and accidentally hit a cyclist so hard that they spin off into traffic. Am I guilty of manslaughter? Or simply careless ?But driving requires a licence and tests and certification. These factors recognise the dangers and risks of taking control of a vehicle. Does that change the above?Note: it’s best to forget the cycle (scum) issue, or the other distracting posts that have dominated this thread. The only pertinent thing is about whether this was guilt from bad, even if misjudged, action or pure, unavoidable accident.

Alan Clark ● 1798d

I think PC raises a good point about the legal system failing the victims.  The perception of victims is that it is too "light touch".Prison is an option and sometimes society demands a punishment, but it serves no rehabilitative purpose and isn't always appropriate in the case of accidents, even if they include fatalities.The other purpose of prison is to take people out of circulation in order to protect the rest of us, but you don't need to lock someone up to stop them driving.One of the most frustrating aspects of this case and many others like it is how short a period the license is revoked.In this case only one year, in other cases, a license won't be taken away if the convicted person makes a case for keeping it - for work, the school run, even just to maintain a relationship.In my opinion, in this particular case where poor driving ended up with a fatality, losing a license for at least 5 years is more appropriate. If that causes inconvenience or impacts a person in a way that feels like a punishment, then so much the better, but mainly it is to protect the rest of us.I know a really terrible driver - he caused multiple accidents, wrote off several cars and luckily never hurt or killed anyone.  His driving was appalling (actually terrifying!) for years, his first crash only 15 minutes after picking up his first car - when he finally lost his license after clocking up over 20 points, it was for just 6 months.  I make the point because he would blame a momentary lack of concentration, road conditions or, more usually, he blamed other people and he had a good lawyer who talked a court out of disqualification for longer.  He was an accident waiting to happen as I suspect are many drivers who end up killing people, despite any arguments they may persuade a judge to accept. With drivers like that, losing a license earlier or for longer would protect the rest of us.

Ed Saper ● 1798d

driving licence

Anne England ● 1798d

Ed, you might have your own private definition of what constitutes dangerous driving but this isn't the one that applies in a court of law. A distinction is made between careless and dangerous. Experienced road traffic collision examiners will have looked at the scene of this crash and the judge will have read their report. His conclusion was this was a double tragedy.Neither you and I have seen the report but I tried to put forward one possible scenario which might explain what happened having driven on that road at night.You clearly aren't going to change your mind on this but I have to say your attitude comes across as vindictive and judgemental and lacking in any compassion.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1798d

Ed, victims are a notoriously unreliable source when considering what sanction the perpetrator of their misfortune should receive. That is why we have independent judiciary and sentencing guidelines.For what it's worth, I think some of the sentencing guidelines for causing injury/death by way of a vehicle (any vehicle) are too lenient, but they are what the experts consider to be correct, however much I disagree.For example, the asshat that fractured my spine in 3 places by turing across my right of my way on his moped, should have lost his licence and probably got some sort of community sentence, rather than being able to plead guilty and receive the equivalent of a stern telling off.In the example that you give, I loathe the school run argument, however it is there so that children are not punished for the parents errors. Punishing multiple generations for an individual's error is something that North Korea does, rather than civilised society.You make a fair point about some drivers being an accident waiting to happen, some are & I honestly believe that there should be a maximum number of attempts at gaining a licence & that re-testing should be mandatory every decade - a lot would lose their licence. But then, by the same token, I support testing/licensing/insuring/number plating cyclists too, so maybe I just think that anyone on the road should have to prove their competence to be on it.

Mark Warburton ● 1798d

You have to realise its not always the driver that took the test,a person once offered me payment to take the test for them whichI refused to do and just wish others would refuse to do it, this is howwe end up with dangerous drivers.

Janice Evans ● 1798d

OhAnother twist to add to the heads and tails of a typical thread created for a purpose to create confrontation. Luckily on this platform you dont get cancelled out for not liking something God help us all

Julian Pavey ● 1798d

Jeremy Parkinson is 100% correct!

Steve Taylor ● 1798d

yes but you have to let them know what's going on out there.

Janice Evans ● 1798d

Mark, I agree that victims (or their families) tend to want much higher sentences - they want someone to be punished.The justice system has to balance the need for punishment with what is fair on the person and good for society as a whole.However, if the punishment is too light or unfairly / inconsistently applied, the state will lose its legitimacy and people will take matters into their own hands, which is bad for everyone.  How society and the justice system views a crime and the appropriate sentence changes over time.I would disagree that just because experts see a punishment as appropriate that means it is.Sentences for rape and sexual assault have dramatically increased over the last 50 years for example.  While sentences for drug possession have decreased and even become decriminalised.  Often the "experts" setting sentence guidelines lag behind society.Like it or loath it (mainly loath on here!), there is a societal change happening that views punishments for careless or dangerous driving that result in death or serious injury as too lenient. There is also wide disparity in sentences that don't appear to make sense.  I mentioned the two cyclists who received 18 months in prison for killing a pedestrian, the company director who killed two cyclists didn't go to prison, and neither did the person mentioned in this thread.In the case of Desreen Brooks-Dutton, the 85 year old who confused the brake with the accelerator and killed her on the pavement received 18 months in prison and a lifetime driving ban.  I am not objective when it comes to Desreen as I knew her - not well - but reading the news reports again this morning, I am still angry.  Her husband campaigns for mandatory retesting of the over-70s and that's something I support, as well as removing driving licenses earlier and for longer from bad drivers, particularly those who maim or kill other road users.I realise you see a quid pro quo - if cyclists want to be on the road, they need to follow the exact same rules and be licensed, insured and number plated.I have an open mind on electric bikes - that perhaps they should be treated more like mopeds.  I don't necessarily see your proposal for all cyclists as either workable (my 6 year old needs to wear a numberplate?!) or necessary - bikes are much less dangerous than vehicles.  Cyclists need protection from vehicles more than pedestrians need protection from cyclists.  Where a cyclist kills a pedestrian by cycling dangerously (and perhaps there needs to be a new law for that), they can and should be punished - as should a driver who kills a pedestrian or a cyclist. No-one really disagrees with that in principle, although in practice, particularly on here where there are a lot of drivers, one group tends to get more sympathy and compassion than the other, with mitigating / aggravating circumstances given outsized consideration to the point where people argue they're not similar cases at all.    Indeed, if I had suggested (which I didn't) that the driver mentioned by the OP should have got 18 months and a lifetime ban, I think I'd have copped a lot more flack than I did.

Ed Saper ● 1798d

Ed, that's the thing about experts, they tend to know more than society as a whole. It's why they're called experts.I have no like/loathe opinion on sentences for careless/dangerous driving resulting in death (or injury). Sentences ought to be appropriate both to the level of harm caused and, as in the case that the board's resident troll posted in the first place, the circumstances of the incident. So long as sentencing guidelines are consistently applied, then I doubt many reasonably minded people would object to sentences handed down.Whilst I am broadly in support of mandatory re-testing, I think you posit a very black and white position about 'maiming and killing' other road users - it is entirely possible to do either and be completely faultless as a driver, but the impression you have left from your posts is that you believe there to be no shade of grey that can be applied if injury or death is visited upon someone.The proposal is entirely workable. Start with registering each new bike sold and work from there. I also maintain that some sort of test should be passed before cycling on the public highways, which could very well be similar to the cycling proficiency that I did 35 years or more ago.Given that everyone on the road is required to follow the same set of rules, it seems in no way unreasonable to have a means by which to identify transgressors/identify those who have not demonstrated a reasonable working knowledge of safety/laws.The requirement to be identifiable is not solely related to the harm that the vehicle can cause directly.Many motorists break the law and, rightly, are punished as they are identifiable. Many cyclists,e-bikers/e-scooterers - particularly the sodding e-scooterers (is that the right adjective?) also break the law and are anonymous. It's an imbalance that needs addressing, particularly given the regular exhortations about sharing the road.It's not just about the likelihood of causing death via the vehicle that you're on, the likelihood of injury has to be taken into account, as does the likelihood of causing someone else to cause harm.

Mark Warburton ● 1798d

"driving licence"In the UK that is quite correct for a noun.

Steve Taylor ● 1798d

"Many cyclists,e-bikers/e-scooterers - particularly the sodding e-scooterers (is that the right adjective?) also break the law and are anonymous. It's an imbalance that needs addressing, particularly given the regular exhortations about sharing the road."and that is becoming a bigger problem. e-bikes and e-scooters should be confined to the cycle lanes.

Steve Taylor ● 1798d

"that's the thing about experts, they tend to know more than society as a whole. It's why they're called experts."And thank the good Lord that we have them.

Steve Taylor ● 1798d

Given that so many e-scooters are illegal and can reach higher speeds than your average cyclist, why channel all these illegal vehicles into cycle lanes? Also, you may not have read my post of 18.45 on 21/11/21 but  just pointing out that haven't answered my question about what you think I am in denial about. I'd be interested in what you think I am in denial about, and if you are going to answer my question please don't reply with something like "it's obvious!"Thanks.

Andrew Jones ● 1798d

"Given that so many e-scooters are illegal and can reach higher speeds than your average cyclist, why channel all these illegal vehicles into cycle lanes?"Because it is safer for them to be in cycle lanes rather than swerving and dodging motorcars and trucks i.e. one to two ton chunks of metal. Obvious innit?  Also note that most cycle lanes are virtually unused whilst roads are pretty much full up around most of London.

Steve Taylor ● 1798d

Andrew, if you agree with me that many cyclists break the law and ride arrogantly or dangerously or selfishly, you will know  whether it is a proportion or a number depending on the locality / areas where the crimes occur. If you don't agree with with me, and I would suggest you don't simply because of the fact that you asked the question on proportion or numbers, then you in denial! If you can confirm to me that you agree that many cyclists break the law regularly and blatantly, with impunity, I will withdraw my inclusion of you within the 'denier' grouping with my apologies!

Steve Taylor ● 1798d

X is an unknown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

Keith Iddon ● 1797d

Mark, I suggested that "bad drivers" who maim and kill should lose their licenses earlier and for longer.  Like anyone reasonable, I don't think anyone who was in accident that resulted in injury and wasn't culpable or was partially culpable should be treated the same as someone who was fully culpable."Many motorists break the law and, rightly, are punished as they are identifiable."I understand you want all new bicycles to be fitted with a numberplate because it is unfair that cyclists cannot be identified or be held responsible for accidents they cause.I think there are significant practical difficulties in doing that - and I don't think it will necessarily work - only 8-10% of hit and runs with a vehicle are solved and that's with large illuminated number plates front and back and in built up areas a large network of ANPR cameras.  In fact cyclists are advised to carry cameras to help identify vehicles that close pass or knock them off because it is so difficult to identify a motorist.If the aim is to make roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, then this doesn't actually help much.You may disagree, but I think fewer dangerous drivers on the roads would help, because the chance of a pedestrian or cyclist dying or being seriously injured is much higher when a vehicle driven by a poor driver hits them.Segregated routes for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles would help too, particularly in areas where there are a lot of pedestrians and cyclists.I don't disagree that cyclists should do a road proficiency test - I did one (not on a bike though!) and I think it should be part of the curriculum in schools.  Most adult cyclists (over 85% I recall) have a driving license so it probably won't change much, but as fewer young people drive, it makes sense to ensure they have a basic proficiency.  Re. your comment about always listening to and deferring to the wisdom of "experts" - that might make you a bit unpopular on here!  If we'd listened to the "experts", we wouldn't have BREXIT....the campaign was famed (infamous) for denigrating expertise.  It is the experts in the civil service and Parliament who create laws and sentencing guidelines....and in other departments and agencies, it is the experts who plan and implement cycle lanes among other things!

Ed Saper ● 1797d

Not safer for the cyclists in the cycle lane though is it?I presume you don't suggest or condone cyclists cycling on the pavement when it's not allowed even if it might be safer for them, so why suggest that illegal e-scooters should only drive illegally in cycle lanes (rather than also driving illegally on the rest of the road) for their safety. Strikes of double standards. And you still haven't answered my question about what you think I am in denial about.

Andrew Jones ● 1797d

Mmm. So now you are implying that Judges are drips under pressure!  Nice one! BTW  an x is a hasbeen rather than an unknown element!

Steve Taylor ● 1797d

"so why suggest that illegal e-scooters should only drive illegally in cycle lanes (rather than also driving illegally on the rest of the road) for their safety. Strikes of double standards."Nope..not double standards. Just common sense. We all know that e-scooters are illegal on all public roads unless hired under various local authority schemes. However, we all also know that the police turn a blind eye to this fact so we all have to learn to live with them. Hence, it is much safer for them to be on cycle tracks rather than risk being hit two ton lumps of metal as they swerve around on roads. It is also safer for pedestrians if these scooters keep off the pavements and stick to the cycle lanes. Plenty of space on the cycle lanes!!

Steve Taylor ● 1797d

Jeremy, I wasn't debating the finer points of careless vs dangerous driving offences - I realise you want to disappear down that rabbit hole because it suits you to claim that since the driver pleaded guilty to careless driving, she cannot be said to have done anything dangerous - cos it's "careless" isn't it.Since when was driving a car at high speed onto a pavement not dangerous to those walking on the pavement?By your tortured reasoning, we can't call a cyclist dangerous if he's convicted of killing a pedestrian as there's no such offence as "Dangerous Cycling"!You call me "vindictive and judgemental and lacking in any compassion" for maintaining, in the face of abuse from your side (racist, misogynist, anti islamic, neanderthal, cultish), that the actual victim was the person who died - killed by a driver who lost control of her car.You say: "she is better off than the man who died but she has been given a life sentence of a sort and that is probably punishment enough".I say: the "life sentence" is for the family of the victim.And that's the fault line here - some of us see the victim as the pedestrian, some of you see the real victim as the "poor girl" with the life sentence. I wonder if the victim (actual) had been a young woman whether you might have found some compassion for her and perhaps been less sympathetic if the older, male driver had falsely claimed the accident was the victim's fault*.  I would say we'll never know, but actually, we probably won't need to wait very long.  Unfortunately.*The point made by the prosecution as an aggravating factor in this case.

Ed Saper ● 1797d

"And you still haven't answered my question about what you think I am in denial about."Andrew - keep up!! I have replied to you but you haven't responded!!

Steve Taylor ● 1797d

Steve, it's a phrase my old Dad, who was a plumber, used to use.Lighten up a bit, if that's at all possible.

Keith Iddon ● 1797d

Are you really trying to use Brexit, as a gotcha?I'd rethink that one if I were you.

Mark Warburton ● 1797d

Duh. I am lit up mate! I was trying to make a joke of it because I have used it for yonks since I first heard it on the Goon Show!!

Steve Taylor ● 1797d

Nah, just saying that sometimes people on here choose not to listen to the "experts".  Sometimes they choose to.

Ed Saper ● 1797d

The same 'experts' who reckoned feeding cows to cows was a good idea.

Keith Iddon ● 1797d

I was thinking of the experts who managed the Covid outbreak.

Ed Saper ● 1797d

In all fairness, I don't think any of those experts have much input into the creation of sentencing guidelines.

Mark Warburton ● 1797d

Who writes those? Civil servants and MPs? Anyway, you made a point of not just listening to, but deferring entirely to experts, because they are the experts. Maybe walk that back a bit - listening to experts is important, but they don’t always get it right?

Ed Saper ● 1797d

Ed, I know you were referring to the Covid experts, my point was that experts, in whatever field, sometimes get it very wrong so public scepticism is unsurprising.

Keith Iddon ● 1797d

Sometimes the experts take time to catch up with developments that change society for the worse. Civil servants and legislators have only in the past week moved to specifically ban use of mobile phones at the wheel of cars for filming, taking photos, scrolling through music, gaming following an acquittal by the High Court of a driver who was prosecuted for filming in 2019. Meanwhile private electric scooters limited to 15mph remain illegal. How long for?https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-government-and-legislation/government-tightens-rules-mobile-phone-usage-whileThe transcript of the MPs' debate on road crime (linked above) illustrates that legislators and civil servants believe that there are systemic failures in the criminal justice system and there are moves underway by the Department for Transport to correct those through new legislation and changes to the Highway Code. Many experts want much more than that including increased funding for enforcement.Likewise the government, local authorities and traffic engineers recognise that technology and other developments have changed and exacerbated the negative consequences of how we move around our towns and cities. Meanwhile scientists reinforce the need to take corrective action on transport to tackle climate change and public health challenges. And so action is being taken under the legislation, instruction and guidance of experts to change the status quo after many decades of car-centric urban planning. I am not aware of any experts seriously advocating for licensing and registration. The DfT dismissed the idea in its Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy: Safety Review in 2018 on page 40:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/758519/cycling-walking-investment-strategy-safety-review.pdf"6.43 The issue of the registration and licensing of cyclists has been raised by some respondents. The safety case for a testing/licensing system for cyclists is not as strong as that for drivers since, by contrast with motor vehicles, bicycles involved in collision on the highway are far less likely to cause serious injury to other road users.6.44 Furthermore, cycling has clear benefits for cyclists themselves, particularly in terms of health, and for wider society, such as tackling congestion, reducing CO2 emissions and improved air quality. The introduction of a registration and licensing system would deter people from cycling and so significantly reduce these benefits, especially over the short-term.6.45 Accordingly, the Government has no plans to introduce a registration and licensing regime for cyclists because the costs and complexity of introducing such a system would significantly outweigh the benefits."

Paul Campbell ● 1797d

Ed, it is very easy to for you to convince yourself you are right if you attribute opinions to those that disagree with you that they don't hold.The fault line here is between those who are happy to accept the judge's conclusions in this case and those, for whatever reasons, refuse to do so. Your determined animosity towards this young woman does you no credit.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1797d

Yawn, yawn, troll, troll, cars are bad, bicycles are the best, yadda, yadda. No-one cares Paul, we all recognise you as a divisive troll at best

Mark Warburton ● 1797d

Yes shame on Paul for quoting the governments strategy and putting together a coherent post, such a troll.

Matthew Swain ● 1797d

Mark, he's quoting the very experts who you told us to defer to.  When someone posts an opinion that you disagree with, that doesn't make them a troll.Especially if that person does not use insults or inflammatory language and backs up their opinions with reasoned argument and quotes from well regarded sources or experts.The term "troll" is an insult - when you don't engage with the subject (as you were doing above with me) and instead insult people that you don't like or disagree with, that is trolling - or technically "reverse trolling".  I realise you have a strong opinion about the mandatory registration of bicycles or cyclists and there are arguments for and against.  So engage and argue why the OP and the experts are wrong.  And if you can't or don't want to, then either adjust your views or post on another subject, don't just hurl insults because someone has a different opinion to you.

Ed Saper ● 1797d

Matthew, tbh, I barely skim read Paul's rubbish any more. 99% of what he posts is designed to cause division, so unfortunately for him, the 1% of useful stuff goes by the wayside.

Mark Warburton ● 1797d

Ed, as I said to Matthew, I barely skim Paul any more, as he has such a long, inglorious history of posting deliberately inflammatory content, in extremely poor faith.So, yes, "troll" is an insult, however it also fits perfectly, Paul's posting history.I will probably read the links at some point, because I do like to be well informed, however, Paul has lost all assumption of posting to be informative and helpful long ago & not just from me. Not by a long way.

Mark Warburton ● 1797d

it's really very similar to the tale of the boy who cried wolf.

Mark Warburton ● 1797d

So they are experts who are still gathering information? That's not an expert, it's someone who is giving their opinion without the relevant information.

Keith Iddon ● 1797d

For PC.

Keith Iddon ● 1797d

"putting together a coherent post"Aw Matthew, how sweet of you to support Paul. Funnily enough, when anyone else should put together a coherent post shining a light on any aspect other than those you all seem to obsess over one/many/all of you find a way to denigrate it and/or smear the person making the coherent post. Come to think of it, we haven't heard from Ken Munn in a while with his TLTR retorts. Hope all is well with him.

David Lesniak ● 1797d

See government consultation on the establishment of a Road Collisions Investigation board:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-consultation-on-road-collision-investigation-branchThere are equivalent boards for rail, sea and air transport.It is illustrative that fatalities, injuries and even near misses are considered unacceptable for rail, sea and air transport and there is an ongoing systematic approach to address incidents however on public roads, the attitude has tended to be a shrug of the shoulders and oh dear, what a pity, accidents will happen.

Michael Robinson ● 1797d

Jeremy, since you didn't mention it, it appears you now accept that we can say it is dangerous to drive at speed on a pavement and kill a pedestrian.(I've just read that statement back....how incredible that I even have to argue that point to you or anyone!) I ask because Steve is talking about dangerous cyclists below and as far as I can tell, none of the cyclists were convicted of any crime, let alone "dangerous cycling".Will you be chastising him for bypassing the due legal process?  Perhaps if a cyclist kills someone, you can weigh in with "could have happened to any of us" and "the cyclist has been given a life sentence of a sort and that is probably punishment enough".  I'll look forward to that....I'll bring popcorn!What about if I'd said the driver was a "moron", "murderer" and had deliberately tried to hit him or invented an allegation that she had verbally abused the victim as he lay dying?I didn't of course, but I posted quotes to you of Loraine doing that in another case.  Any thoughts or comments about "animosity" (full of) or "compassion" (lack of)?  Nope? Nada?Quick question - Tequila - always a double?  Partial to a double cheeseburger?  I ask, because when it comes to standards, you do like to double up.

Ed Saper ● 1797d

Which experts are you referring to Keith? In some of the examples I cited the information was gathered and the decision made e.g. ban on specific uses of mobile phone; no licensing or registration scheme for bikes. For the legislation and Highway Code changes the experts have completed two reviews and are incorporating their findings into a new Bill for Parliament.  Andrew Stephenson, Minister of State for Transport concluded the MPs debate on road traffic offences with a statement on that. But also, in line with your thoughts, that Baroness Vere is considering further steps as well. "As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Government committed to carry out this review of road traffic offences in 2014. A review of the most serious offences was carried out in 2017; the outcome of that review has fed into the measures that we are bringing forward as part of the police, crime, sentencing and courts Bill that was referred to by a number of hon. Members. Baroness Vere is looking at that and seeing how we could potentially go further. The further call for evidence would seek to build on the measures that we have already identified, and are bringing forward as part of the Bill—that would be in addition to the steps we have already taken."I guess experts are always working on the next thing until they stop for good. I agree not every expert is always right as well and that things change which require new reviews.

Paul Campbell ● 1797d

The driver in this case wasn't speeding. Please stop making up things about her.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1797d

I am referring to the seeming deference given to anyone who is referred to or who calls themselves an expert, rather than to any expert in particular.It's a little like the mystique and deference that used to be given to doctors and surgeons in the middle ages when many of them were barbers or the like.Sometimes I many 'experts' are people who just like to get their face on TV for the kudos.Many are correct in waht they say,some just come out with obvious common sense which you don't have to be an 'expert' to know,and some say a complete load of old rubbish.To take them all seriously is daft.

Keith Iddon ● 1797d

Before I comment on what you said in your last post, I'll comment on what you didn't say:No comment on your double standard of how it is fine for Loraine to call the accidental killing of a pedestrian a “murderer” and to make up nasty untrue allegations about the person who was convicted of killing her.  You said that in my last post I accused the driver of speeding, that I made that up because she wasn't - and you're "please stop" comment refers back to your accusation of a lack of compassion.I didn't say that.  I said: “ it is dangerous to drive at speed on a pavement and kill a pedestrian”. That is an accurate and self-evidently true statement. Secondly, it is general and refers to anyone operating a vehicle.  Thirdly, in this specific case,  the driver herself claimed she lost control and hit the accelerator when she meant to brake, so was obviously going far faster than she should have been when she was on the pavement. A version of events that the court accepted. What you like to do is create a fallacious legal argument with very narrow criteria that allows you to claim I said something that I didn't in this case and then argue that I am a terrible person as a result of the thing I didn't say.  Because the driver was not convicted of a speeding offence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and/or speed was not mentioned as an aggravating factor in a conviction, then you declare that no-one can mention the word speed, either specifically to do with this case or even in general.You tried exactly the same ploy by banning the word "dangerous" to describe anyone operating a vehicle unless they'd been specifically convicted of the offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.  When I pointed out that your mate Steve was calling cyclists "dangerous" both without a conviction and no applicable law, you did at least drop that one.  The main issue here - and the OP put it better than I - is that people do a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders when a driver kills a pedestrian or cyclist - could have happened to anyone and the poor driver has her own life sentence as you have argued consistently.The "cycle lobby" (actually the government as well, but some think they're one and the same!), think roads should be safer for vulnerable people - pavements too actually.  They want to shift perception that road deaths are just an acceptable part of mass car use and that reducing deaths on the roads should be treated with the same priority as reducing deaths on the railways for instance. You don't like that.  You see any attempt to hold drivers responsible for killing people as an assault on your entitlement - the ultimate entitlement actually, the freedom to kill other people with negligible consequences.That's your political agenda.  That's why you accuse me of lacking compassion, why many have called PC a troll, why some have accused us both of being racist, misogynistic, anti Islamic, neanderthals, cultists and more and particularly explains why you are unable to engage in reasoned argument and instead make fallacious appeals to authority or legal statute to shut down any discussion of this appalling accident and the role the driver played in it. 

Ed Saper ● 1797d

Can somebody please confiscate Ed's spade?

Francis Rowe ● 1797d

The expert Judge got it right in this case.

Steve Taylor ● 1796d

Matter of opinion.

Keith Iddon ● 1796d

My experience of BMWs in the past was that they were cars which often cut you up.  They used to be company cars when there were lots of company cars and the drivers took risks with cars they did not own.It took a long time but I've searched and found a more recent experience I've had - a post I made on 7 September 2020."We were on the M25 a week or so ago and realised that there were about 12 BMWs racing each other weaving in and out of the other traffic.  It felt like we were in the middle of a Grand Prix."They were all around us and it wasn't fun.  It was frightening. 

Philippa Bond ● 1796d

A Judge doesn’t opine. He or she judges and rules based on the facts presented.

Steve Taylor ● 1796d

He interprets the facts as he/she sees fit, the sentence he/she gives is an opinion of how serious he/she feels it is.We will never agree,so  will leave it there.

Keith Iddon ● 1796d

If a judge always got it correct or 'right' there wouldn't be much use for a court of appeal would there?

Andrew Jones ● 1796d

The problem lies more with the sentencing council than with the judge. He has very little judgement to do - he just follows the guidelines and comes up with a cookie cut punishment.

Will Watson ● 1796d

Ah, finally come across this post Steve - thank you.For what it's worth, I agree that many cyclists break the law e.g. go through stop signals. I wouldn't agree that many cyclists ride arrogantly, dangerously or selfishly - some undoubtedly do, but it's a small minority as far as I'm concerned. There is also (IMHO) a bit of confirmation bias going on here i.e. if someone believes that many cyclists ride arrogantly and spots one doing so, that 'confirms' their belief, even if they have seen hundreds of cyclists behaving entirely correctly in the interim. I think my stating the above will still make me a 'denier' in your mind, but I'm fine with that.

Andrew Jones ● 1796d

Apologies Steve, I found your reply, eventually and did reply. I suspect you will put me in the 'partially in denial' camp!

Andrew Jones ● 1796d

The prejudice against BMW drivers isn't really born out by the data. The table below is for figures calculated by an insurance company. You probably notice bad driving more in BMW's because of the distinctive badge and design. You'll have been cut up more by Vauxhall's and Renaults but because of their sameness you may not be registering what the model is. It's the way unconscious bias works.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1796d

In this case the Judge saw no evidence of any serious crime. It was a very unfortunate ACCIDENT  which has caused much sadness and distress for two families. There are no winners. We will leave it there!

Steve Taylor ● 1796d

Those are very interesting stats, Andrew.  I would also suggest that annual mileage plays a part.  i.e.  to determine experience of the driver or but on the other hand vehicle usage is important too. We can generalise that Vauxhall Zaffira’s, or any ‘people carriers’ are normally owned by mini cab drivers doing high mileage, so chances of accidents are increased, or by people with large families or doing school runs so chances of distraction by passengers is somewhat higher.

Steve Taylor ● 1796d

That's a good point. It would also explain the slightly odd appearance of the Toyota Yaris on the list.  These are national figures so the London numbers are likely to be far more dominated by the type of cars used by Uber drivers who make up a very significant proportion of traffic now.  This doesn't mean they are bad drivers but, as you say, the more you drive, the greater the chances are that you will have an accident at some point.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1796d

Andrew,As these figures are from an insurance company, I assume they primarily cover collisions between vehicles.Will the insurance company be informed of collisions with a pedestrian or cyclist so do the figures cover these? I genuinely don't know as (fingers crossed, touch wood...) I haven't been involved in such a collision as a driver, pedestrian or cyclist.

Michael Robinson ● 1796d

My point wasn't really to do with accidents with a particular car it was more to do with the type of people driving them at any particular point in time.  I know some more sedate drivers of BMWs now but after my experience of them last year I wondered if they are currently a favourite or aspirationtal car of racers?  There certainly must have been a problem of people hiring fast cars just to race them as I remember a Private Member's Bill.

Philippa Bond ● 1796d

"Will the insurance company be informed of collisions with a pedestrian or cyclist so do the figures cover these?"I a cyclist smashed into my car, I would be aware that the cyclists isn't insured and would probably just ride off into the dust so I would have to assess the damage to my car and decide if it is worth the excess and the loss of no claims bonus. That is why the government needs to address the issue of registering cyclists and making insurance compulsory for them.

Steve Taylor ● 1796d

"I think my stating the above will still make me a 'denier' in your mind, but I'm fine with that."Absolutely not,Andrew, I think you are a pragmatist. Thank you.

Steve Taylor ● 1796d

Yes, if it is an RTC, your insurance company should be informed. That it is down to the individual to report, makes it self-policing and therefore somewhat self-defeating as a system.The idiot that clobbered me certainly reported it, but then I did sue him.If there's any claim against you, you'd be a fool not to - it's not just the damage to your vehicle, it's the potential personal injury claim liability also.

Mark Warburton ● 1796d

"I a cyclist smashed into my car"You ought to keep a better look-out. Still, if you want to damage your own property, that is your problem.

Richard Greenhough ● 1796d

I thought it was easy to get insurance through the London Cycling Campaign and that was a good reason for joining.https://www.lcc.org.uk/membership-benefits/

Philippa Bond ● 1796d

British Cycling members are insured as part of their membership.

Christopher Shea ● 1795d

“ I a cyclist smashed into my car”Any non-dullard would have understood that it was a typo.  Should have read  ‘If a cyclist smashed into my car’!!!!If a cyclist did indeed smash into my car the inference is that the cyclist was not being careful and should be punished severely and possibly have his weapon of destruction confiscated.

Steve Taylor ● 1795d

Yes I am insured through British Cycling. £20m of insurance cover for 3rd party liability is extremely cheap for cyclists for obvious reasons. So it is easy to bundle it into a low cost membership scheme.

Paul Campbell ● 1795d

Only a dullard would press "Submit Reply" without checking his typing first.

Richard Greenhough ● 1795d

Only a dullard or very insecure person would need to check their spelling. I am normally perfect.

Steve Taylor ● 1795d

What if the cyclist was driving a car and carelessly smashed into people, other vehicles or property?Should the cyclist be "punished severely" and have their "weapon of destruction confiscated"?

Ed Saper ● 1795d

Sorry - just read that back, by "weapon of destruction" I'm obviously referring to their bike and not their car!  Apologies for any confusion.

Ed Saper ● 1795d

Steve Taylor is 100% silly.

Richard Greenhough ● 1795d

The obvious reasons being when a cyclist scratches your car or smashes your wing mirror when squeezing through a non existent gap or knocks into a pedestrian or basically causes any damage in any form, then 99 times out of 100 they just bugger off untraceable so said insurance is very rarely, if ever, claimed upon.

Mark Talbot ● 1795d

Correct, Mark. I would imagine though it is used 100% of the time if the bike is stolen or damaged in any way and sod the rest of us who may be injured or have cars damaged by them.Car drivers effectively have their names and addressed writ large at the front and rear of their vehicles,so if a cyclist chooses not to take responsibility for cycling recklessly there is nothing we can do.It needs addressing in my opinion.

Keith Iddon ● 1795d

" I would imagine though it is used 100% of the time if the bike is stolen or damaged in any way"Incorrect, it is only 3rd party insurance.

Will Watson ● 1795d

If fully comp is not available to a cyclist, why don't they stop at the scene of an accident if they are culpable as their insurance will still deal with the third party insurance? Perhaps not having any identifying marks on the bike has something to do with it. I doubt very much that the majrity of cyclists have any insurance at all,I can't see what the incentive to have any is if they will not benefit from it in some way.

Keith Iddon ● 1795d

I have no experience of cyclists doing what you describe i.e. causing damage and taking no responsibility for it.The "incentive" to have 3rd party insurance is to protect yourself from a claim - particularly a personal injury claim that could easily run into tens of thousands of pounds.

Will Watson ● 1795d

Aren’t 9 in 10 hit and runs never solved? So those who chose to run away rarely get caught. Is the assumption that cyclists are much more likely than drivers to try it on?

Ed Saper ● 1795d

Drivers have a greater "incentive" to try it on.They will lose their non claim bonus.Cyclists' third party insurance is a flat rate whether you claim or not.

Will Watson ● 1795d

“ Should the cyclist be "punished severely" and have their "weapon of destruction confiscated"?”100% YES!

Steve Taylor ● 1795d

“ Is the assumption that cyclists are much more likely than drivers to try it on?”I believe the assumption is that if cyclists scratch your car or knock off your wing mirror, they are likely to scarper because there is little likelihood of ever being caught. Hence the call for bicycles to have number plates so that these criminals can be prosecuted.

Steve Taylor ● 1795d

I know a lot of people who were prompted by the case of Robert Hazeldean to acquire third party liability insurance:https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/24/cyclist-settles-for-30000-pounds-after-hitting-pedestrian-who-was-looking-at-phone

Paul Campbell ● 1795d

We've lost wing mirrors and had the car scratched about 4 times after leaving it parked outside - none of the drivers stopped to leave their details. But how can we be sure it was drivers....might have been cyclists...The other day (well, probably about 5 years ago now) a car being parked by a dad with his family in it misjudged the space and went into the back of another car with a fairly big crunching sound.He immediately pulled out to drive off, but as I'd ostentatiously pulled out my mobile to film him, he stopped, wound down his window, politely shouted "no damage" at me while his wife covered her face and proceeded to drive off at speed.As it was an honest mistake that could have happened to anyone, and it was obvious he had every intention of stopping and leaving his details if there had been damage, I of course showed compassion to a fellow driver.I did take a look at the car he hit - it was pretty banged up already so hard to tell in the dark if he had damaged it.  Obviously it had been hit by a number of cyclists already.

Ed Saper ● 1794d

'... while his wife covered her face and proceeded to drive off at speed' - that was no mean feat!

Anne England ● 1794d

Ed I have commuted into central London by scooter since 1996. I have many times witnessed bicycles go for a gap between stationary cars I wouldn’t dream of attempting and promptly proceed to scrape a car and / or bash into a wing mirror without a care in the world and just carry on leaving the car owner facing a repair bill. I see a huge number of bicycles jump red lights, mount the pavement and generally cycle without a scrap of care for any other road user. As a motorised 2 wheeler I find cyclist far more likely to cause me a problem than any 4 wheeled vehicle. I have a car, a Vespa and a bicycle and am just relaying my 25 years of experience on the Chiswick to west end commute through Notting Hill, Lancaster Gate etc.

Mark Talbot ● 1794d

Your experiences of 25 years are the same as many of us experience daily. It’s getting worse as cyclists are becoming more and more arrogant and self righteous in thinking that they own the roads. They know they can commit such crimes with impunity.

Steve Taylor ● 1794d

Are you saying that as a driver you haven't increasingly had to stop, brake or take avoiding action because an arrogant driver approaching you in the opposite is dangerously blocking your way while overtaking a cyclist?  Many many drivers don't know the width of their cars and travel too fast for the situation putting others in danger.

Philippa Bond ● 1794d

He's saying that any cyclist that thinks they have a right to be on the road is very mistaken.

Ed Saper �