Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Abusing cyclists to be made a hate crime?

This would be laughable if it didn't have the support of some powerful voices, including a media regulator. As you might expect it involves the Guardian, a far left union and some batshit academics.

Campaigners are trying to ban the use of the term 'Lycra louts' to describe speeding cyclists – and stop people poking fun at them.

Under proposed media guidelines, abuse of cyclists would be treated as a 'hate crime' and they would get the same protection as domestic violence victims and refugees.

Newspapers would also be gagged from stating if an injured cyclist was not wearing a helmet or high-vis clothing.

Instead, they would be urged to shame 'criminal' motorists for accidents involving bicycles.

The campaign is backed by Impress, a state-approved regulator funded indirectly by millionaire former Formula 1 boss Max Mosley's family charity.

The guidelines were drawn up by the University of Westminster, the National Union of Journalists, road safety charities and other experts.

They say the word 'accident' should be banned in reports of crashes – even though 'road traffic accident' is the legal term recognised by police and courts.

The 'Road Collision Reporting Guidelines' say cyclists are 'dehumanised' by media coverage which is in favour of speeding motorists. When a cyclist was in an accident with a car, the media should state they had been 'hit by a driver, not a car'.

The report also questions the use of the word 'cyclist' itself, arguing it 'can engender negative connotations'.

Under the code, cyclists who claim they have been insulted will be able to make formal complaints on the grounds that it 'provoked hatred'.

The report was written by Westminster University 'Active Travel Academy', including Laura Laker, who writes on cycling for The Guardian, and Adam Tranter, the 'bicycle mayor for Coventry'.
 
It's almost as if a certain demographic of cyclists are a bunch of self-entitled cnuts.
 

Chef

LE
What happens if a gay white man on a bicycle is abused by a trans black man for nearly knocking down a disabled lesbian?
 
What happens if a gay white man on a bicycle is abused by a trans black man for nearly knocking down a disabled lesbian?

The lawyers make a fortune.
 
You've not seen this then:


You'll note the proposal to introduce a hierarchy of responsibility, this sounds very much a case of "guilty until proven innocent" for the drivers of motorised vehicles.

For a start, we need to remember there is no obligation for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders to read the HC, unlike the drivers of motorised vehicles to pass their test, so how do these non-motorised users know how they are supposed to behave on the road?

I can see many scenarios where a pedestrian/cyclist/horse rider might suddenly and unexpectedly do something "wrong" which would cause a careful motorist to have to quickly stop or slow down, only to then be rear-ended for example, as a result of the non-motorised user's actions. The ped/cyclist/rider is not injured or otherwise involved but just walks away scot-free, even though their actions are a direct cause of the collision - how can that be right? Will they now have an obligation to not leave the scene of an accident, as drivers do, whether they believe themselves to be involved or not in case their new hierarchical responsibilities now make them at least partially liable? Surely with responsibility comes liability - there cannot be one rule for one and another rule for others.

Then there might also be occasions where the criminal element decides to use their new hierarchical position to bring traffic to a stop, to then have their fellow criminals cause damage or even rob stopped vehicles.

What responsibility does a driver have towards non-motorised users in locations where non-motorised users aren't permitted to be, such as a motorway for example?

Surely all road users have an equal responsibility to each other to not act in a manner that causes harm to others in all locations, so why is there a need for a hierarchy?

This all sounds like an "anti-car" idea to me and is thus prejudical against motorised users - treating people unequally is surely not government policy now, is it? It might be politically correct and, to use a modern expression, a "woke" thing to do but whether it's something that ought to be introduced is another matter entirely.
 
A few mong self entitled cyclists, with time on their hands, have got a knot in their shorts, beacause their perceived owner ship of the tarmac, is being challenged by ordinary law abiding motorists, who have to pander to their somewhat total disregard of road courtesy's, lack of forewarning of change of direction, and the sheer bloody mindedness of their road craft. FFS.

Having had to do emergency stops, instant avoiding manoeuvres, and then had a mouthful of abuse beacause some 2 wheeled prat hasn't, signalled, looked before pulling out, and on one occasion, shot out in front of me, from my blind side, cut me up, and lost it, shot across the road and landed on his arse on a grass verge, and then had a go at me. They should have compulsory insurance, and a road tax.

End of rant, calm down ...and relax.......
 
A few mong self entitled cyclists, with time on their hands, have got a knot in their shorts, beacause their perceived owner ship of the tarmac, is being challenged by ordinary law abiding motorists, who have to pander to their somewhat total disregard of road courtesy's, lack of forewarning of change of direction, and the sheer bloody mindedness of their road craft. FFS.

Having had to do emergency stops, instant avoiding manoeuvres, and then had a mouthful of abuse beacause some 2 wheeled prat hasn't, signalled, looked before pulling out, and on one occasion, shot out in front of me, from my blind side, cut me up, and lost it, shot across the road and landed on his arse on a grass verge, and then had a go at me. They should have compulsory insurance, and a road tax.

End of rant, calm down ...and relax.......
You REALLY need to read the DfT's proposals re the Highway Code. It most definitely intends to move the goalposts as far as responsibility and liability goes. All part of HMG's efforts to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions, so it's HIGHLY likely to go ahead, regardless of how much it gives cyclists the right to do whatever they like.

Yesterday, on the way to pick up SWMBO from work, I drove down a one way street, to be see a female cyclist riding up it the wrong way. I had time to stop, wind the window down and yell, "This is a one way!" at her, only to be told to "Eff off". Seems the law doesn't apply to cyclists, presumably because they are saving the planet...
 
Who pays for the roads?. Tax and insurance needs to be made mandatory for cyclists, and all cycles will have number plates.

And I WILL play Land of Dixie at full volume on my air horns every time I see a lycra lout run a red light.
 
7E1A2A13-0152-43E7-A9C3-10F24B5FFAB8.jpeg


there is not enough abuse in the world to abuse some Lycra louts
 
The lawyers make a fortune.

Well some good will come out of it then. Always nice to see my learned brothers (and sisters) make a buck ...quid.
 
Who pays for the roads?. Tax and insurance needs to be made mandatory for cyclists, and all cycles will have number plates.

And I WILL play Land of Dixie at full volume on my air horns every time I see a lycra lout run a red light.


Try Bach's Brandenburg concerto No 3 at full volume, that really piss's them off..... Well it makes me laugh!
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top