On 31/12/2023 07:25 am, Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
On August 9 this year, Suffolk police stopped the car he was driving, a Renault Megane, on Thorney Way in Stowmarket, after he pulled out in front of two other vehicles. ENDS

What's the chav-bike connection?

Didn't the twats who said that the idiot who pulled out of a junction hitting a woman cyclist, seriously injuring her, say that the driver was blameless?

I am sure that nobody said that. You have simply made it up. Again. M'Lud.

What someone did say was that approaching a junction is best done
cautiously, as per the much-vaunted Highway Code.

Rule 146 if you're interested:

"146

... take the road and traffic conditions into account.

Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations ...

where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging ..."

And in addition to that, remember that standing on your rights won't
always be the safest tactic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

On 31/12/2023 07:25 am, Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
On August 9 this year, Suffolk police stopped the car he was driving, a
Renault Megane, on Thorney Way in Stowmarket, after he pulled out in
front of two other vehicles. ENDS

What's the chav-bike connection?

Didn't the twats who said that the idiot who pulled out of a junction
hitting a woman cyclist, seriously injuring her, say that the driver was blameless?

I am sure that nobody said that. You have simply made it up. Again. M'Lud.

What someone did say was that approaching a junction is best done
cautiously, as per the much-vaunted Highway Code.

Rule 146 if you're interested:

"146

... take the road and traffic conditions into account.

Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations ...

where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging ..."

Someone ought to tell that to the West Midlands Police, who seem to be studiously ignoring it.

And in addition to that, remember that standing on your rights won't
always be the safest tactic.

One wonders if the lady’s bicycle was electrically assisted… but the West Midlands Police are carefully avoiding that too.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/12/2023 01:29 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 7:25:11 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:

QUOTE:
On August 9 this year, Suffolk police stopped the car he was driving, a Renault Megane, on Thorney Way in Stowmarket, after he pulled out in front of two other vehicles. ENDS

Didn't the twats who said that the idiot who pulled out of a junction hitting a woman cyclist, seriously injuring her, say that the driver was blameless? Funny how the police always see the true perps - car drivers.

What DID happen to that twat of a driver?
Oh yes, he got JAILED and BANNED.

QUOTE: The driver of the car, Thomas Freeman, 29, of Torrington Avenue, Coventry, has been jailed for a year after he admitted causing serious injury by careless driving. He was also banned from driving for two years when he appeared at Warwick Crown

Court on December 21, following a probe by West Midlands Police's Traffic Investigations Unit. T/Sgt Jordan Keen, from the unit, said: “This was an appalling piece of careless driving which left the cyclist badly injured. ENDS

The driver got jailed after he ADMITTED the charge.
QED.

The self-confessed blameworthiness of that driver (who may well have
been badly advised, or even unadvised, when considering his response to
the charge and probably isn't as legally savvy as a learned High Court
judge like you, M'Lud) does not mean that other parties were
automatically devoid of contributory negligence. Following the Highway
Code (all parties, not just him) *might* have led to a different, and
rather better, outcome.

Would you rather be technically in the right and be badly injured/worse
OR would you rather yield to the circumstances, be cautious and survive uninjured?

I know which one I'd rather be.

But you, as we know from recent-ish history, might not have the same
sense of priority and self-preservation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/12/2023 05:06 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

What DID happen to that twat of a driver?
Oh yes, he got JAILED and BANNED.

QUOTE: I hope that drivers who see this footage know that they have a responsibility to more vulnerable road users out there, such as cyclists and pedestrians.'ENDS

I think the prison sentence and the driving ban will serve as more of a warning to dangerous drivers than footage of cyclists getting mown down by morons. They seem to think it's funny until someone lobs a breeze block at them from a motorway bridge.

You really area a sad case, aren't you?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/12/2023 06:38 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

This sentence seems bizarrely harsh, given what normally gets handed out for mowing down cyclists with far more aggravating factors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps it just seems bizarrely harsh because the sentences normally handed out are bizarrely lenient. I do agree there may have been more to it than meets the eye though, the guilty plea seems to imply it. It would be interesting to see the judge's

sentencing remarks, which don't seem available anywhere.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you'd prefer the 6 fixed penalty points and £240 fine that the dude who knocked me off my bike got?
After all, I only broke 11 ribs, left ulna, dislocated left elbow, a TBI, 3 fractured vertebrae, punctured lung, internal bleeding, and a kneecap that what smashed in to four pieces.

I don't know (and how could I?).

What DID smash it into four pieces?

BTW: What is a "fixed penalty point"?

I mean ... 6 points seems like a fair trade when the person you hit can't walk or use their arm for 4 months and is off full time work for 18 months.
£240 fine seems quite *reasonable* when the person you hit is left with permanent brain damage, limited mobility and increased risk of early onset dementia.

I couldn't possibly comment.

Or maybe I've read your post wrong ... ?

Observing the date, a very Happy 2024 to you!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/01/2024 02:04 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

Bungle_52 replied to Oldfatgit | 1 day ago
1 like

There is no doubt in my mind that sentences for motoring offences against cyclists have been far too lenient in the past. I hope that what @pdw was trying to say is that this sentence is a move in the right direction and I personally hope it continues

along the same path. As others have pointed out we rarely get to hear the whole story behind these trials and sentences but on the face of it this is good news.

reply quote

Avatar
mctrials23 replied to Oldfatgit | 1 day ago
3 likes

I read it as nothing more than an observation on the fact that someone can be caught high, banned and a repeat offender and still not end up in jail after hitting a cyclist. I don't think they were suggesting it was correctly lenient.

The sentence is not harsh but on the face of it relative to other tripe sentences that get handed out it seems unproportionate. We are only seing a 48s clip however, and I suspect the judge was weighing up bigger factor. Im no legal eagle but I think

the fact it was a Crown Court means it has went beyond the Magistrates level.

"...the fact it was a Crown Court means it has [sic] went beyond the Magistrates level..."?

Gerraway!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

On 01/01/2024 02:04 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

The sentence is not harsh but on the face of it relative to other tripe
sentences that get handed out it seems unproportionate. We are only
seing a 48s clip however, and I suspect the judge was weighing up bigger
factor. Im no legal eagle but I think the fact it was a Crown Court
means it has went beyond the Magistrates level.

"...the fact it was a Crown Court means it has [sic] went beyond the Magistrates level..."?

Gerraway!

Pancho to The Cisco Kid: “Let’s went!”.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/01/2024 03:56 pm, Spike wrote:

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

On 01/01/2024 02:04 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

The sentence is not harsh but on the face of it relative to other tripe
sentences that get handed out it seems unproportionate. We are only
seing a 48s clip however, and I suspect the judge was weighing up bigger >>> factor. Im no legal eagle but I think the fact it was a Crown Court
means it has went beyond the Magistrates level.

"...the fact it was a Crown Court means it has [sic] went beyond the Magistrates level..."?

Gerraway!

Pancho to The Cisco Kid: “Let’s went!”.

I loved the theme tune, by the way. I could hum it to myself all the way through my teen years, but could never remember where I'd heard it.
Seeing a DVD in my fifties brought it all back.

"Here's adventure... Here's romance..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/01/2024 03:56 pm, Spike wrote:

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

On 01/01/2024 02:04 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

The sentence is not harsh but on the face of it relative to other tripe
sentences that get handed out it seems unproportionate. We are only
seing a 48s clip however, and I suspect the judge was weighing up bigger >>> factor. Im no legal eagle but I think the fact it was a Crown Court
means it has went beyond the Magistrates level.

"...the fact it was a Crown Court means it has [sic] went beyond the Magistrates level..."?

Gerraway!

Pancho to The Cisco Kid: “Let’s went!”.

:-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/01/2024 04:39 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

So they missed the bit about how the person already on the main road and going straight having priority?

It's amazing how these people change their opinions of roadcraft based on the type of vehicle, or at least have dual standards. If you replace a bike with a bus and replay the scenario, they would completely change their opinion of the driver - "that

idiot just drove in front of a bus without looking".

===================
Quite.

You can't see that there are several big differences between buses and chav-bikes?

Can a bus be masked by a Transit van?

A chav-bike certainly can be.

Ever seen a bus being driven at night without a thousand watts of lamps showing?

We've all seen chav-bikes without as much as half-watt.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

On 01/01/2024 03:56 pm, Spike wrote:

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

On 01/01/2024 02:04 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

The sentence is not harsh but on the face of it relative to other tripe >>>> sentences that get handed out it seems unproportionate. We are only
seing a 48s clip however, and I suspect the judge was weighing up bigger >>>> factor. Im no legal eagle but I think the fact it was a Crown Court
means it has went beyond the Magistrates level.

"...the fact it was a Crown Court means it has [sic] went beyond the
Magistrates level..."?

Gerraway!

Pancho to The Cisco Kid: “Let’s went!”.

I loved the theme tune, by the way. I could hum it to myself all the way through my teen years, but could never remember where I'd heard it.
Seeing a DVD in my fifties brought it all back.

I can’t recall the theme tune, but a swift visit to You Tube should sort
that out.

"Here's adventure... Here's romance..."

Those were the days…


--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)