"Paint won't save your life": Road cops tell cyclists to ignore dangerous door zone bike lanes; Anti-cyclist bingo: London taxi driver edition; National champs or club 10?; Cav eyes Tour; Pro rider catwalk; Hit-and-run driver + more on the live blog

Troon wrote:

Why was he forced to overtake?

Must have been some kind of explosive device fitted to his vehicle that explodes when his average speed goes below some value

brooksby wrote:

Fun one on the Metro website today:

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/14/cheshire-farmer-attacked-cyclist-in-row-o...

Quote:

Prosecutors said (Robert) Fell was driving his van on the rural Chester Road when he was forced to overtake Mr Smith, who is in his 30s, on the outskirts of Knutsford, Cheshire.

The cyclist had chosen to ride his £2,950 bike on the road, ignoring an expensively-built tarmacked bicycle lane which runs alongside it.

Mr Smith shouted ‘you’re too close’ as Fell drove past to which the farmer wound down his window and retorted: ‘Well get on the cycle path then.’

The argument continued when Mr Smith followed Fell to his nearby farm in the tiny hamlet of Millington, the court heard.

The cyclist ignored a ‘Keep Out’ sign and confronted the elderly farmer in his yard, saying: ‘Why are you speaking to me like that?’

Fell told him to ‘get off my lane’ before grabbing a billhook, used to trim tree saplings, and throwing it in his direction.

Makes me wonder what is wrong with that 'expensively built tarmacked bicycle lane', if nobody is using it.

 

has the metro added the comment aboutt he va;lue of the bike and the cycle lane, or was tht stated by the prosecution?

Also very dissapointing that the prosecutor stated the driver was 'forced' to overtake the cyclist, especially as it seems they arrived at the drivers destination at roughly the same time.

wycombewheeler wrote:

....

Also very dissapointing that the prosecutor stated the driver was 'forced' to overtake the cyclist, especially as it seems they arrived at the drivers destination at roughly the same time.

It would be interesting to know if they actually did - it isn't a direct quote, and judging by the implicit bias through the rest of the piece I suspect is an embellishment by teh "journalist". The Prosecutors appear to have done well to get this to court - I'm surprised that they achieved it - and were clearly fully behind it, so suspect that they would have chosen their words carefully

Quote:

Mr Smith, who was not in court, claimed £2,195 worth of damage was caused to his expensive bike but Fell was not ordered to pay any compensation as the victim had been on private property at the time of the attack.

Is that how the law works? I'm pretty sure that's not how the law works. I was under the impression that land owners could be liable even for accidental injury to tresspassers, let alone causing damage through criminal behaviour.

OnYerBike wrote:

Quote:

Mr Smith, who was not in court, claimed £2,195 worth of damage was caused to his expensive bike but Fell was not ordered to pay any compensation as the victim had been on private property at the time of the attack.

Is that how the law works? I'm pretty sure that's not how the law works. I was under the impression that land owners could be liable even for accidental injury to tresspassers, let alone causing damage through criminal behaviour.

certainly you are not allowed to set traps on your own property, and I would think that deliberately throwing something at someone would be worse than that. Seems like there should be grounds for an appeal.

wycombewheeler wrote:

certainly you are not allowed to set traps on your own property, and I would think that deliberately throwing something at someone would be worse than that. Seems like there should be grounds for an appeal.

Maybe a private claim for the damage would be easier.

wycombewheeler wrote:

 

....certainly you are not allowed to set traps on your own property, ....

Can I set traps on other people's property? Oh please do say yes Wyc...

Captain Badger wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

....certainly you are not allowed to set traps on your own property, ....

Can I set traps on other people's property? Oh please do say yes Wyc...

Who are you? Rod Liddle?

hawkinspeter wrote:

...

Who are you? Rod Liddle?

No, I'm the Emperor

OnYerBike wrote:

Quote:

Mr Smith, who was not in court, claimed £2,195 worth of damage was caused to his expensive bike but Fell was not ordered to pay any compensation as the victim had been on private property at the time of the attack.

Is that how the law works? I'm pretty sure that's not how the law works. I was under the impression that land owners could be liable even for accidental injury to tresspassers, let alone causing damage through criminal behaviour.

It may be as he was allowed a Not Guilty for criminal damage in exchange for a guilty plea for Harassment. I would doubt that Mr Smith would be prevented for chasing compo in the civil courts (not that I agree with him having to...)

From the article:

Quote:

Mr Smith, who was not in court, claimed £2,195 worth of damage was caused to his expensive bike but Fell was not ordered to pay any compensation as the victim had been on private property at the time of the attack.

The defendant was described as ‘essentially a man of good character’ but had had ‘difficulties’ with the police 20 years ago.

He was conditionally discharged for 12 months and ordered to pay £107 in costs and surcharges.

"Metro"? You got that from a Viz Farmer Palmer strip, admit it.

chrisonatrike wrote:

"Metro"? You got that from a Viz .....

Is there a difference?

Captain Badger wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

"Metro"? You got that from a Viz .....

Is there a difference?

I'll have you know I was quoted in the Metro this weekend; I've never been quoted in Viz (to my knowledge).

Steve K wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

"Metro"? You got that from a Viz .....

Is there a difference?

I'll have you know I was quoted in the Metro this weekend; I've never been quoted in Viz (to my knowledge).

And is that to Metro's credit, it Viz?

Only joking, what was the quote?

Captain Badger wrote:

Steve K wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

"Metro"? You got that from a Viz .....

Is there a difference?

I'll have you know I was quoted in the Metro this weekend; I've never been quoted in Viz (to my knowledge).

And is that to Metro's credit, it Viz?

Only joking, what was the quote?

Probably Viz's, to be fair. It was a 'spokesperson' quote on an article about gas price rises.

Steve K wrote:

I'll have you know I was quoted in the Metro this weekend; I've never been quoted in Viz (to my knowledge).

Metro pic or it didn't happen. And unless you're practicing Our Nige's advanced politeness I'd warrant we could pin a phrase or two from the profanisaurus on you.

brooksby wrote:

The cyclist had chosen to ride his £2,950 bike on the road, ignoring an expensively-built tarmacked bicycle lane which runs alongside it.

Isn't it odd that cycle facilities are always expensive but roads aren't.

eburtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

The cyclist had chosen to ride his £2,950 bike on the road, ignoring an expensively-built tarmacked bicycle lane which runs alongside it.

Isn't it odd that cycle facilities are always expensive but roads aren't.

Because in common thought they're in the "for kids" or "toy" category like bikes themselves. Or to be more generous - a "nice extra". As contrasted with "roads" which are the serious necessities of responsible adults. So if you pay more than a couple of hundred quid for bike stuff it's "expensive". This is like how words like "strategic" clearly don't have any connection with "cycling" and mostly "walking" either.

Just like some drivers, society can't see the bikes!

chrisonatrike wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

The cyclist had chosen to ride his £2,950 bike on the road, ignoring an expensively-built tarmacked bicycle lane which runs alongside it.

Isn't it odd that cycle facilities are always expensive but roads aren't.

Because in common thought they're in the "for kids" or "toy" category like bikes themselves. Or to be more generous - a "nice extra". As contrasted with "roads" which are the serious necessities of responsible adults. So if you pay more than a couple of hundred quid for bike stuff it's "expensive". This is like how words like "strategic" clearly don't have any connection with "cycling" and mostly "walking" either.

Just like some drivers, society can't see the bikes!

Nail.  Head.

Remember - bicycles are just toys and those who choose to ride them around as adults are clearly just either impoverished losers or manchild (womanchild?) idiots who never got the memo about being grown up and responsible by buying a car.

I'm familiar with that stretch of road, the first observation I'd make is that the farmer must have intended to intimidate the cyclist because the road is wide and lightly trafficed.   It's very unlikely that a bike would delay even the most impatient driver because there's always lots of room to pass safely.

It's a straight and quiet road and a favourinte of the local Porche and Ferrari owners who like to show off their 100mph + capability, I wonder if Mr Palmer tries to obstruct them?   (the road has a 40mph speed limit).

The cycle path, not shared there's a seperate footway, is good in theory but it's never swept and is covered with grit and debris from adjoining hedges and trees.   I gave up using it after multiple punctures during hedge cutting season.

Steve K wrote:

Suit jacket, sleeves rolled up, over plain t-shirt.  Cav really rocking the Sonny Crockett look.  (That's a reference the kids'll get...)

..but it's a 'green jacket'.. so we should let him off as they only made those in the 1980's.

I'm pretty sure that amber means floor it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm pretty sure that amber means floor it.

Amber is A for accelerate

Steve K wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm pretty sure that amber means floor it.

Amber is A for accelerate

So, green is G for go and red is R for read Facebook?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Steve K wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm pretty sure that amber means floor it.

Amber is A for accelerate

So, green is G for go and red is R for read Facebook?

R for really accelerate, no?