*rick Cyclists
There is a presumption amongst the guerrilla army of neo-Marxist, Guardian reading, sanctimonious commuters known as cyclists that the only motor driven vehicle they should be forced to share our roads with is State owned.
Livingstone’s Bendy buses, running to a bureaucratically decided route and timetable are OK, but those owned by freewheeling, road tax paying capitalists should be crushed in a government scrap yard.
In their luminous jackets, lycra far-too-shorts, and coal scuttle helmets, they weave self righteously in front of irate motorists, joyously reducing the traffic to a snail’s pace, hurling blistering comments on the parentage of motorists over their left shoulder.
Should the motorised traffic finally come to a standstill, one of those inconveniences that only affect the petrol powered, traffic lights at red for instance, they rear up like the Lone Ranger on Silver and mount the pavement, take off the wrong way down a one-way street, or scrape their way down the inside of your 4 x 4.
Woe betide the motorist who dares to suggest that something might be amiss with their own parentage, or offer suggestions as to how their life might be prematurely shortened. All is not fair between Porsche and Pedal power.
Especially when that Pedal Power turns out to be a humourless barrister on two wheels.
Pedal Power, in the form of Martin Porter QC, having successfully held up motorist Scott Lomas on the A315 near Hounslow for some miles, was apparently ‘harassed, alarmed and distressed’ when Mr Lomas leant out of his car window and said ‘do that again and I will *ucking kill you’. You can imagine how such language would ‘alarm and distress’ a barrister with some ten years experience of working with those on the wrong side of the law.
Pausing only to have a fit of the eco-fanatical vapours, (and probably a quick swig of tofu flavoured yogurt) Martin Porter QC checked that the web camera fitted in his helmet had been working and hurried down to the local police station to demand that Mr Lomas was charged with ‘using threatening words or behaviour’.
Unfortunately he was attended upon by a sane policeman who declined to take the matter any further.
Undaunted, Porter complained directly to the Crown Prosecution Service.
“I am pleased justice has now been done and that the Crown Prosecution Service had the moral fibre to reverse the Metropolitan Police’s attempts to drop this case notwithstanding the strength of the evidence.”
Who would have suspected that it required moral fibre to persecute prosecute motorists?
A helping hand from a fellow member of the Cycling Mafia does no harm it transpires.
“I emphasise that this case would have got nowhere if it had not eventually landed on the desk of a Crown Prosecutor highly endowed with both integrity and competence. I am grateful to prosecuting counsel (a cyclist it transpires!) who dealt with the case today both efficiently and courteously.”
Treacley words Mr Porter!
The price to Mr Lomas of venting his feelings about being held up by our Lycra clad barrister?
A stonking total of 565.00. That’s on top of the road tax he pays to maintain the road that Porter believes should belong to him and his fellow *rick cyclists alone.
Ah, diddums, Mr Porter, did the big bad motorist say some naughty words?
In case anyone thinks I am being unnecessarily harsh on the eco-loons on wheels, I would just point out that even the largest cycling charity, London Cycling Campaign, has back-pedaled away from involvement with some of the highly politicised multi-spoked Marxists that infest our streets, calling their tactics ‘too forceful’. Recently, 80 of the little cross-bar fanatics blocked the rush hour traffic at King’s Cross for an hour, cycling in circles ‘and tinkling their bells’ (sweet) to mark the death of one of their number and demand yet more motorists be forced off the road in retribution.
- February 2, 2012 at 00:11
-
Love this blog, but this blog post is not your finest hour. I suggest
readers watch the video and make up their own minds.
Speaking as a car-loving non-cyclist, I know where most road problems stem
from and it sure ain’t cyclists. It’s people who drive like lunatics and
threaten others’ safety. Yeah, sure, cyclists wind me up sometimes, but I try
and remember that I’m in a one ton chunk of metal, and also tend to avoid
issuing threats to kill them. Call me old fashioned…..
- January 31, 2012 at 23:50
-
Okay, truce.
Lets all try again, clean slate.
Peace.
- January 31, 2012 at 21:46
-
This emotive subject has produced an amazing number of comments, mostly
sensible, but showing clearly that bike vs. car attitudes have little common
ground.
A basic Libertarian tenet, “do anything you like unless it might harm
others” should be applied to both cyclists and car drivers.
Having posted the first comment (& been suitably condemned for it), may
I humbly suggest this one should be near the end?
- January 31, 2012 at 21:27
-
I lost patience with cyclists when traffic light junctions were altered, to
allow a bunch of them to gather in front of cars. Cyclists, you allowed
yourselves to be used.
If cyclists have the right to hold up cars, then rowing boats should be
able to toddle along in front of ocean liners. No? Why not?
When I’m in a side road waiting for a cyclist to pass on the main road, and
he turns in instead, (without having indicated to show that I didn’t need to
wait), I try to remember the last time I saw a cyclist give a hand signal for
anyone else’s benefit. I don’t think it’s ever happened. They only signal for
themselves. That’s not true of car drivers.
I won’t ever retaliate, but don’t ask me for sympathy.
- January 31, 2012 at 15:56
-
Case completely proved by all the anti comments!
- January 31, 2012 at 15:33
-
Utterly disgusting piece of writing. Completely wrong factually and nothing
more than a rant unworthy of even the Daily Mail. So cyclists should suffer
death threats for reducing congestion whilst still paying for the roads?
Okay!
- January
31, 2012 at 17:46
-
Oh, you modern day saints! *strews flowers in MikyT21′s path*
- January 31, 2012 at
17:56
- January 31, 2012 at 18:06
-
Thanks for the flowers, but you should save them for the
parents/spouse/children of the next cyclist killed by an angry driver
because he was on the road, which he paid for. Correct me if I’m wrong but
I’ve never heard of a driver being hurt by a collision with a cyclist…
Your piece is irresponsible, and causes your small minded followers to
think they have justification for risking someone’s life.
- January 31, 2012 at 21:20
- January 31, 2012 at 21:20
- January 31, 2012 at
- January
- January 31, 2012 at 10:50
-
So threatening to kill a cyclist is okay, but threatening to kill an
guardian columnist is not?
- January 31,
2012 at 09:46
-
Looks like even the police have had enough of the cyclopaths:
“Pc Austin said Mr Moore had the right of way under the Highway Code but
admitted it would have been “a pertinent move” for the cyclist to show “some
level of caution””
- January 31, 2012 at 12:50
-
Nowhere in that piece, not even in the quotation you provided, is it
implied that the Police have “had enough of the Cyclopaths.”
The lorry driver was in the wrong. As the piece states, he was stopped in
the Advanced Stopping Zone (aka the advanced cycling box), which is there
precisely to stop these incidents happening.
What the PC Austin is suggesting, is that little vehicles should stay
clear of big vehicles, even when said large vehicle is technically in the
wrong. I’m not sure that’s a particularly helpful statement. Either we all
obey the Highway Code, or we just make it up as we go.
- January
31, 2012 at 13:07
-
No, what PC Austin is suggesting is that ‘ye canna change the laws of
physics, cap’n!’.
And there’s little point in arguing you are in the right, technically,
if you wind up dead as a result of thinking the Highway Code will serve as
some sort of shield. It won’t. It’s only paper.
-
January 31, 2012 at 14:10
-
Um, no, more along the lines of ‘never underestimate human
stupidity’. Sure, the lorry driver could have seen Moore, perhaps even
should have, but Moore’s an idiot for gambling his health on it.
-
- January
- January 31, 2012 at 12:50
- January 31, 2012 at 08:54
-
Whatever happened to the “sticks and stones” homily that my mum taught
me?
Now on to an article about the”racist” killing of Stephen Lawrence….
Ho hum.
- January 31, 2012 at 05:08
-
In the real world, “I will kill you”, is not an expression of the intention
to actually kill. It’s a ritual. Most people instinctively know that. Adding
the word “fucking” actually weakens any implied physical threat.
Real killing is seldom preceded by this phrase.
It’s all just noises in primate interaction. It’s a growl, a hiss, a baring
of the teeth. Such rituals actually reduce the incidence of actual violence.
Animals do it all the time. Dangerous animals just kill.
- January 31, 2012 at 04:15
-
Funny as i only came to this article after reading the article about
harassment of Penny Laurie and the twitter comment about her. Where it seems
something posted on the internet by some troll is far more dangerous and
should be taken seriously than by a real life troll shouting out of their car
as they drive close to you saying you should be killed for riding a bike.
- January 30, 2012 at 18:15
-
Fun and games at the Raccoon Arms. While reading the article I wondered if
AVBD would be here in the comments, lo and behold he is. I like his blog even
though he has criticised me for some off-hand anti- (irresponsible) cyclist
remarks. It would be nice if Jackart reconsiders his decision to never visit
the Arms again, perhaps that was said in the heat of the moment, rather like
shouting abuse at another road user.
- January 30, 2012 at 18:13
-
Having seen people riding bicycles routinely abuse pedestrians (On
pedestrian crossings and pavements, even), I feel that there is an element of
going looking for a fight here. Whist many cyclists are courteous and
considerate road users, there are a clique with an unjust sense of
entitlement. Specifically helmet wearing, lycra clad fanatics who see any
challenge to their ‘right’ to obstruct and act inconsiderately as carte
blanche.
The driver in this case was wrong to abuse the cyclist, but if someone is
actively blocking the road and refusing to give way to faster traffic, then
they deserve a few well chosen words of Anglo Saxon abuse. At least if you’re
following a tractor or JCB, the driver will every so often pull over to let
faster traffic past. Not so the ‘entitled’ cyclist.
-
January 30, 2012 at 17:33
- January 30, 2012 at 17:28
-
Watch the following video and decide whether Mr Lomas is a poor,
hard-done-by motorist, or just another testosterone-fuelled moron behind the
wheel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zWt1SYTlZU&feature=player_embedded
- January 30, 2012 at 17:17
-
January 30, 2012 at 17:02
-
Just a small point as an ex racing cyclist i object to the like of Mr
Porter being described as a racing cyclist what you see in that photo is NOT a
racing cyclist ,it is a class of cyclist years ago known as “cafe racers”
people who like to think they race ,they dont,they are normally obsessed with
having expensive machinery that they believe gives them status ,it doesn’t
.
What you see in that picture is a man doing whats called a “randonneur”
or similiar , you get the same thing with drivers and motorcyclists who do
track days ,whilst theres nothing wrong in principle with these pastimes they
are not racing but many would have you believe they are ,hence people who
drive with full race helmets in open toped cars or leave their track day
numbers on their vehicles , why .
- January 30, 2012 at 16:29
-
Until all cyclists display a unique number-plate and tax-disc, carry
compulsory third-party insurance, are required to hold a tested and
endorseable license and have their machines professionally safety-tested every
year, they do not exist on the black-stuff and can be driven over with
impunity, because they are not there.
- January 31, 2012 at 13:59
-
So….I can plow a car into a crowd of pedestrians? Alright, I’ll wait for
them to cross the road, if you insist.
- January 31, 2012 at 13:59
- January 30, 2012 at 16:14
-
Blimey – Bile Central round here this afternoon.
I never learnt to ride a bike, but I do drive a car. I work on the
principle that everyone legally entitled to road space deserves a degree of
courtesy, and try to keep out of their way be they a 40-ton artic, car, bike
or horse. Most seem to think along similar lines. However, from time to time
you do meet the odd idiot, who, for whatever reason, seems to think they
deserve more road than everybody else with the same mode of transport. Over
the years, I’ve developed the technique of treating them as a hazard to be
negotiated, but it can cause the inward desire to express my opinion in direct
terms on occasion – an urge best stifled, but I can quite understand how the
urge becomes overwhelming to some people. Especially in rush-hour traffic in
congested areas.
Can’t help feeling that Mr Lomas has been rather harshly treated, here.
After all, he didn’t actually commit a act of assault, just vented his spleen.
For all we know, the cyclist may have been a little less than considerate in
his road use to earn such ire – some (a small minority in these parts,
fortunately, but they do exist) seem to take a perverse delight in trying to
wind up motorists. It seems to me that the Met copper took the wise course;
after all, sticks and stones may break bones but words cannot cause physical
injury.
Root cause? Roads too crowded. Answer? Move to the North West. We’re
generally more civilised about such things.
- January 30, 2012 at 19:21
-
Mr Engineer,
As a cyclist of many years standing, also full car and motorcycle licence
and severe Mr Toad characteristics I fully endorse and applaud your
comments. If we treated other road users with courtesy it would be a much
better experience. When I am out on my BSA single, if I see horses I always
leave of the throttle, so not to disturb the horse and rider.
Agreed about the North West too.
- January 30, 2012 at 19:21
- January 30, 2012 at 16:14
-
I have to say that I am not surprised at the vitriol being spat out by our
two-wheeled friends. It is exactly the sort of self righteous aggression that
they display on the roads every day. I speak as a cyclist of many years – but
these “road warrior” guys seem to feel that they have no responsibility for
their own safety and that they are the only ones who have any right to use the
roads. I always try to be considerate to other road users – whatever their
chosen mode of transport – but it is all one way traffic with these people. I
feel that it is high time that cyclists were required to have insurance like
all other road users – I would not go so far as to suggest that they should be
required to pay road tax although it is something that could be considered if
they feel that they somehow deserve special consideration.
- January 30, 2012 at 15:19
-
When I used to cycle (and I used to cycle all over the place youth
hosteling – even going to Brussels one summer), do you know what used to
really, really annoy me? It was when a vehicle passed me, hit a puddle and
sprayed me with rain water. Now I knew that it was not deliberate, but I
couldn’t help it. I called the b*stard motorist/lorry driver/bus driver
rotten.
Could the chaps above be suffering from some similar kind of autonomous
reaction? It is easy to understand how cyclists could blame vehicle drivers
for emitting the fumes which are giving them lung cancer, to say nothing of
having to take a shower and wash all clothes. And then there is the rush of
air as a vehicle passes and the noise. All rotten tricks by drivers.
-
January 30, 2012 at 15:09
-
Can members of the public really complain direct to the Crown Prosecution
Service?
Or is there some mysterious freemasonry of cyclists that confers this
privileged access and whose members can be identified, perhaps, by the
rolled-up trouser-leg and bicycle clip?
- January 30, 2012 at 15:22
-
More likely that QCs know how it can be done while we plebs are in on the
secret.
- January 30, 2012 at 16:30
-
According to “The Code for Crown Prosecutors” Section 3.2 says :-
“The Police and other investigators are responsible for conducting
enquiries into an allegation that a crime may have been committed”
No definition is given as to who are the “other investigators”. Each of
us may have more power than we know.
- January 30, 2012 at 15:22
- January 30, 2012 at 15:06
-
“Pedal Power, in the form of Martin Porter QC, having successfully held
up motorist Scott Lomas on the A315 near Hounslow for some miles….”
I presume that Anna R would not have put that sentence in had it not been a
reasonable statement of the facts. In any case, Mr Lomas would hardly have
become so irate had he not perceived some deliberate intent.
So we see once again the rich and powerful persecuting the little people.
Note who got to brag in the media!
- January 31, 2012 at 13:56
-
“I presume that Anna R would not have put that sentence in had it not
been a reasonable statement of the facts.”
I do hope so, but haven’t seen much to support this. A cursory google
does seems to suggest the delay was minor, only for a hundred yards or so at
a narrowing of the road. The recorded ‘death threat’ taking place some time
after the car overtakes.
Sure, it’s a bullshit case in either case. But “the guerrilla army of
neo-Marxist, Guardian reading, sanctimonious commuters known as cyclists”
seems as much an overreaction as Porters efforts.
- January 31, 2012 at 13:56
- January 30,
2012 at 15:00
-
It’s amazing how the cyclopaths flock to this sort of thing, isn’t it?
*waves at Jackart*
- January 30,
2012 at 14:58
-
As someone who has been cycling on two wheels, without stabilisers, for the
past sixty years I’d like to propose that there should be a law against the
wearing of lycra, except for young, very fit females, I’m willing to make an
exception there but only ‘cause I’m a dirty old man.
Fellas, and fat
females, honestly, those outfits just make you look stupid.
As for the daft
hats, well, it just shows what gullible consumers you are.
- January 30, 2012 at 16:23
-
Flat cap, overcoat and a pair of bike clips.
Worked fine for my grandad for about seventy years. Though I think he had
a new cap once….
- January 30, 2012 at 16:23
- January 30, 2012 at 14:26
-
Only after the amateur racing cyclist complained to the Director of
Public Prosecutions did a more senior officer agree to investigate.
Well then, there are several things I’d like investigated as crimes. I
shall go direct. For a start, counter-intuitive pricing in Tesco should be
examined as fraud.
I’d prefer the ordinary police to do the investigation with a view to
prosecuting the individual store manager(s) as that’s the best way to prevent
the crime. If you try to use the SFO and go to the top – which would be nice –
it will take years and another jury will grow old before the case is finished,
and Tesco will continue all the while to rake in the rip-offs in that smug
“it’s not illegal” way they have.
Dear Keir….
-
January 30, 2012 at 14:09
-
I’m so glad this one has a happy ending. Hopefully it’ll make the roads a
safer place.
Violent criminals like Scott Lomas get away with that kind of casual
brutality all the time, and sadly, death’s often result, as they deliberately
take risks on the road.
- January 30, 2012 at 16:25
-
What ‘violent crime’ did Mr Lomas commit? Assault? GBH?
-
January 31, 2012 at 16:14
-
He threatened to kill someone. Under UK law that is not only
threatening behaviour, but common assault.
-
January 31, 2012 at 17:17
-
It’s words, not action.
If he’d stepped out of his car and physically assaulted said cyclist,
then cyclist’s actions would have been entirely understandable.
If I’d spent my professional life persuing legal action against
everyone who called me rude names, I’d never have got any work done.
“Sticks and stones may break bones, but words can never hurt you” is
worth remembering in such situations. Instead of cycling away safe, and
in the knowledge that an ignorant lout had made himself look like a prat
with an anger management problem, the lawyer has made himself look like
a self-important, prissy know-all with a very thin skin.
-
-
- January 30, 2012 at 16:25
- January 30, 2012 at 14:09
-
How strange!
So it was ok for Porter QC deliberately and maliciously actually to do a
physical act to block the road, and thereby dangerously to distract other road
users, but was not ok for another road user NOT to do a physical act, but,
instead, merely to yell at Porter QC. Had the driver actually intended to
‘kill’ Porter QC with his vehicle, he would have done so already.
That is not to say that I do not sympathise with cyclists – used to cycle
to work myself many years ago. There were ill-mannered, selfish motorists, but
my experience was that they were very few.
Another consequence of these ill thought through ‘hate crimes’. But I
thought that the use of inflammatory language had to be racially motivated for
it to be criminal?
-
January 30, 2012 at 14:12
-
I don’t think there is any suggestion that Porter QC blocked the road. I
think he was simply in front of Scott Lomas, simply riding along in a
responsible safe and legal manner.
As far as the report goes, Scott Lomas simply wanted to go faster than
Porter QC and was annoyed that there were no suitable passing
opportunities.
- February 1, 2012 at 18:58
-
So you KNOW he was within 18 inches of the road side do you, Matt and
Jackart? If not, he was not riding in a responsible manner.
- February 1, 2012 at 18:58
- January
30, 2012 at 14:14
-
by “Blocking the road” you mean “obeying the highway code and thereby
holding someone in a car up for a matter of seconds)”?
You are ghastly.
- January 30, 2012 at 15:31
-
It’s somewhat ironic that a person who can freely type the C word, then
uses the word ghastly to describe someone else.
- January 30, 2012 at 15:36
-
I consider the phrase ‘you are ghastly’ to be a threat of violence
against my person. I shall therefore contact my mates in the Public
Prosecution Office and have you dragged before the magistrates and fined
£500. With a bit of luck such viscious personal attacks will be outlawed
from the internet.
Your remark could also be racist since I am part Irish and part
Scottish by extraction, and I perceive your remark to be racist. I
perceive it to be racist because the word ‘ghastly’ is related to the word
‘ghostly’ – “having a pale hue of the compexion”.
- January 31, 2012 at 16:18
-
1, “you are ghastly”, does not inclulde any threat in anyway, so you
can try to bring a case but you cannot get a conviction.
2, I happen to know that Jackart is white, so you won’t be able to
convince a resonable person that his remark has any connotation other
than the standard established usage.
Good luck.
- January 31, 2012 at 16:18
- January 30, 2012 at 15:31
-
- January
30, 2012 at 13:55
-
It’s a shame really, I often like this blog, except when it’s written by
Anna Racoon.
I shall ignore from here on in.
- January 30, 2012 at 14:03
-
January 30, 2012 at 14:06
-
Apologies Ed and Anna. I really shouldn’t have engaged in an ad hominem
attack. I realise the appropriate form is to generically attack a clearly
identifiable group of people – based, say, on the form of transport they
espouse. I’d say the kind of person who engages in that sort of attack is an
imbecile. The bottom line is this blog posts uses the punishment of a driver
for a death threat against another road user as a springboard for
ill-thought, poorly researched and risibly expressed prejudice. I hope the
author is justly proud.
- January 30, 2012 at 14:03
- January 30, 2012 at 13:44
-
Anna, what have you done to attract these new trolls? First James and now
Jackass, sorry Jackart.
More relevant comments and fewer ad hominem attacks
please!
- January 30, 2012 at 13:42
-
Poor effort.
1. Capitalists don’t pay road tax. It was abolished in the 1930s. Roads are
maintained from council tax, which we all pay.
2. Cyclists do pay council tax. The ‘lycra lout’ types you describe are
likely to pay quite a lot of it. Do you know what they charge for a carbon
frame these days?
3. Congestion is not generally caused by cyclists but by too many cars.
Otherwise the M25 would be a blissful traffic experience.
4. That’s not what happened with Martin Porter’s case; see his helmet-cam
video for details. It was undoubtedly an offence.
5. Most cyclists have a driving licence, and when I see some goon go
through a red light or hop onto the pavement, all I can think is that I would
rather the idiot is on a bike than behind the wheel of a car.
6. Tofu makes crap yoghurt.
- January 30, 2012 at 13:35
-
Bravo for Martin Porter QC
-
January 30, 2012 at 13:31
-
You really are a repellent individual. You see, the thing is: issuing death
threats against people is *not* OK. But at least the
tofu/Guardian-reading/’cycling mafia’ comments mark you out as an imbecile who
doesn’t deserve to be given the time of day. Feel free to flame me on Twitter;
the more people get to recognise your idiocy the better, frankly.
- January
30, 2012 at 13:26
-
I mean you have everything. “Road tax” (not since 1936, and in any case
cyclists are MORE likely to own cars than non cyclists), Lycra (more likely
merino wool), environmentalism (most people cycle because it’s quicker and
saves on time at the gym). Embarrassing drivel that would shame the daily
mail.
- January 31, 2012 at 07:49
-
No road tax? What’s that £130 beer-label I have to pay the DVLA each year
then? Oh, right, it’s ‘car tax’. That sum I pay for no other reason than
owning a car which goes on the public roads. Only it’s not called ‘road tax’
because somebody realized I might demand that it is spent on roads instead
of being another levy which goes in to a bottomless pit.
Government: changing the names and getting away with it since 1936.
- January 31, 2012 at 07:49
-
January 30, 2012 at 13:17
-
Piffle. Would you like all cyclists to go back into their cars and block
the road even more? This is quite possibly the most lame piece I have skimmed
all year…
-
January 31, 2012 at 11:22
-
You mean cyclists don’t use their cars purely for altruistic reasons. I
truly am humbled.
- February 1, 2012 at 18:46
-
They don’t use their bikes for wholly altruistic reasons either:
downright sadism thge way they wander all over the road, but only when
there are motorists in the vicinity. I’ve watched them coming along a very
narrow canal bank without problems, but give them 16 feet of road width
and they take up 13 feet of it, and make hand signals not in the highway
code when you have the nerve to hoot a horn whe you are about 40 feet away
from them to let them know that there are other road users around too.
Let’s insist all cars have to be painted some sort of red colour – just so
the blood doesn’t show up too much on the paintwork.
- February 1, 2012 at 18:46
-
- January
30, 2012 at 13:11
-
What ignorant drivel.
- January 30, 2012 at 13:08
-
Boudicca-style knives sticking out of the car wheels – that’ll sort ‘em
out!
But then I know agressive cyclists who become virulently anti-bike when in
their cars…there’s just no pleasing some people.
{ 86 comments }