Next week sees the FIFTEENTH anniversary of the passing of the cyclist hater's precious cause célèbre, "Rhiannon". Since her unfortunate demise, 337500 people have been killed or seriously injured by drivers, but they still roll out Rhiannon after dusting off the cobwebs, in a futile attempt to paint cyclists as some evil tribe of killers as they are so ashamed of admitting the vast scale of horrors, people crippled for life, kids with missing limbs, parents and schoolfriends, dead babies and elderly people they have meted out to innocent members of the public for which they should hang their heads in abject shame - if they cared, which they don't, of course.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Next week sees the FIFTEENTH anniversary of the passing of the cyclist
> hater's precious cause célèbre, "Rhiannon".

<snip>

The writer of the above piece is jealous because an innocent pedestrian,
who was studying management consultancy, has had more influence in the
twisted world of cycling, than some petty, vindictive moron ever will
have.

PS: Mason is a year too late. Rhiannon was slaughtered by a cyclist in 2007
- the 15th anniversary of her death was last year.

--
Spike

StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 12/07/2008 17:08

I read he was on the road when he hit her, also the story I read last week made me think there was more to it than in this one. It hinted that there was a group of them on the pavement and in the road, drinking alcohol and not moving. I did wonder if they were almost playing chicken and thinking it was funny to make the cyclist move further out into the road. While he could and should have done one of her group said she had plenty of time to get out the way and didn't.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 12/07/2008 17:08
>
> I read he was on the road when he hit her, also the story I read last
> week made me think there was more to it than in this one. It hinted that
> there was a group of them on the pavement and in the road, drinking
> alcohol and not moving. I did wonder if they were almost playing chicken
> and thinking it was funny to make the cyclist move further out into the
> road. While he could and should have done one of her group said she had
> plenty of time to get out the way and didn't.

By piling supposition upon supposition, you can demonise just about anyone,
even the innocent victim.

Well done, you vindictive little person.

--
Spike

On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 7:29:39 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 12/07/2008 17:08
>
> I read he was on the road when he hit her, also the story I read last week made me think there was more to it than in this one. It hinted that there was a group of them on the pavement and in the road, drinking alcohol and not moving. I did wonder if they were almost playing chicken and thinking it was funny to make the cyclist move further out into the road. While he could and should have done one of her group said she had plenty of time to get out the way and didn't.

Boozed up teenagers playing silly buggers with live traffic on a public road - what could possibly go wrong?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 7:29:39 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 12/07/2008 17:08
>>
>> I read he was on the road when he hit her, also the story I read last
>> week made me think there was more to it than in this one. It hinted that
>> there was a group of them on the pavement and in the road, drinking
>> alcohol and not moving. I did wonder if they were almost playing chicken
>> and thinking it was funny to make the cyclist move further out into the
>> road. While he could and should have done one of her group said she had
>> plenty of time to get out the way and didn't.
>
> Boozed up teenagers playing silly buggers with live traffic on a public
> road - what could possibly go wrong?

By piling supposition upon supposition, you can demonise just about anyone,
even the innocent victim.

Well done, you vindictive little person.

--
Spike

QUOTE: The Conservative MP said: "Imagine if a motorist had mounted the pavement and killed a schoolgirl as she chatted to her friends.

"The motorist would have felt the full force of the law and there would have been a national outcry if such a person had walked away with a fine." ENDS

Bugger all would have happened - blinded by the Sun - no fine.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: The Conservative MP said: "Imagine if a motorist had mounted the
> pavement and killed a schoolgirl as she chatted to her friends.
>
> "The motorist would have felt the full force of the law and there would
> have been a national outcry if such a person had walked away with a fine." ENDS

> Bugger all would have happened - blinded by the Sun - no fine.

“Howard, of Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, hit Rhiannon as she walked with
friends in Buckingham in April last year.

He shouted at the youngsters to "move, because I'm not stopping" but rode
into Rhiannon, Aylesbury Magistrates Court heard.

The court heard that he could have swerved to avoid the girl but told
police he thought a shout would be enough to avoid the collision.”

--
Spike

On 28/06/2023 07:29 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 12/07/2008 17:08
>
> I read he was on the road when he hit her, also the story I read last week made me think there was more to it than in this one. It hinted that there was a group of them on the pavement and in the road, drinking alcohol and not moving. I did wonder if they were almost playing chicken and thinking it was funny to make the cyclist move further out into the road. While he could and should have done one of her group said she had plenty of time to get out the way and didn't.

"not moving"

What gives a chav-cyclist like you lot the right to run into a group of
pedestrians (or even just one pedestrian) and commit what at best is
manslaughter?

On 28/06/2023 10:13 pm, Spike wrote:

> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

>> QUOTE: The Conservative MP said: "Imagine if a motorist had mounted the
>> pavement and killed a schoolgirl as she chatted to her friends.
>
>> "The motorist would have felt the full force of the law and there would
>> have been a national outcry if such a person had walked away with a fine." ENDS
>
>> Bugger all would have happened - blinded by the Sun - no fine.
>
> “Howard, of Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, hit Rhiannon as she walked with
> friends in Buckingham in April last year.
>
> He shouted at the youngsters to "move, because I'm not stopping" but rode
> into Rhiannon, Aylesbury Magistrates Court heard.
>
> The court heard that he could have swerved to avoid the girl but told
> police he thought a shout would be enough to avoid the collision.”

He *could* - had he been a normal person with a properly-developed sense
of empathy and sense of the rights of other people - have *stopped*.

But he didn't.

‘Death by dangerous cycling’ Bill looks doomed.

While Andrea Leadsom MP vows to carry on despite the Commons setback, without Government backing her Private Members Bill on causing death by dangerous cycling is unlikely to progress further, according to the Guardian’s bike blog.

Ms Leadsom’s campaign followed the death of Rhiannon Bennett who died after being struck by a cyclist.

The proposal by Ms Leadsom, the Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, was to introduce a specific offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. Ms Leadsom argued that a new law was necessary as the current offence of dangerous cycling has a maximum penalty of £2,500, with no possibility of a prison sentence.

According to the Guardian blog, Mike Penning, road safety minister, promised he would back the proposal, and the DfT confirmed it would "consider the merits" of the new law.

In April 2011, the Guardian ran a ‘Comment is Free’ article, voicing the concern of cycling groups about the proposed law. The main objection boiled down to the fact that pedestrian deaths from cyclists are so incredibly rare that the law would be both a near-irrelevance and a distraction from the greater peril posed to pedestrians (and other road users) from motor vehicles.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> ‘Death by dangerous cycling’ Bill looks doomed.

Stop de walkermoord!

> In April 2011, the Guardian ran a ‘Comment is Free’ article, voicing the
> concern of cycling groups about the proposed law. The main objection
> boiled down to the fact that pedestrian deaths from cyclists are so
> incredibly rare that the law would be both a near-irrelevance and a
> distraction from the greater peril posed to pedestrians (and other road
> users) from motor vehicles.

Ah! The morally-bankrupt “It’s only a few dead pedestrians” ‘argument’.

--
Spike

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 6:59:08 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> ‘Death by dangerous cycling’ Bill looks doomed.
>
> While Andrea Leadsom MP vows to carry on despite the Commons setback, without Government backing her Private Members Bill on causing death by dangerous cycling is unlikely to progress further, according to the Guardian’s bike blog.
>
> Ms Leadsom’s campaign followed the death of Rhiannon Bennett who died after being struck by a cyclist.
>
> The proposal by Ms Leadsom, the Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, was to introduce a specific offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. Ms Leadsom argued that a new law was necessary as the current offence of dangerous cycling has a maximum penalty of £2,500, with no possibility of a prison sentence.
>
> According to the Guardian blog, Mike Penning, road safety minister, promised he would back the proposal, and the DfT confirmed it would "consider the merits" of the new law.
>
> In April 2011, the Guardian ran a ‘Comment is Free’ article, voicing the concern of cycling groups about the proposed law. The main objection boiled down to the fact that pedestrian deaths from cyclists are so incredibly rare that the law would be both a near-irrelevance and a distraction from the greater peril posed to pedestrians (and other road users) from motor vehicles.

12 years later and no such law still exists - THAT'S how much "danger" there is.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 6:59:08 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com

>> ‘Death by dangerous cycling’ Bill looks doomed.

> 12 years later and no such law still exists - THAT'S how much "danger" there is.

Stop de walkermoord!

--
Spike

> >
> > In April 2011, the Guardian ran a ‘Comment is Free’ article, voicing the concern of cycling groups about the proposed law. The main objection boiled down to the fact that pedestrian deaths from cyclists are so incredibly rare that the law would be both a near-irrelevance and a distraction from the greater peril posed to pedestrians (and other road users) from motor vehicles.
> 12 years later and no such law still exists - THAT'S how much "danger" there is.

No plastic hats or number plates either.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> In April 2011, the Guardian ran a ‘Comment is Free’ article, voicing
>>> the concern of cycling groups about the proposed law. The main
>>> objection boiled down to the fact that pedestrian deaths from cyclists
>>> are so incredibly rare that the law would be both a near-irrelevance
>>> and a distraction from the greater peril posed to pedestrians (and
>>> other road users) from motor vehicles.
>> 12 years later and no such law still exists - THAT'S how much "danger" there is.

> No plastic hats or number plates either.

Stop de walkermoord!

--
Spike

QUOTE: Mr Bennett, 61, said: “Nothing has changed in the 10 years since we lost Rhiannon and started calling for a change in the law.

“How many of the deaths since have been avoidable? ENDS

In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by motor vehicles - so that's around 3610 avoidable pedestrian deaths in ten years.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Mr Bennett, 61, said: “Nothing has changed in the 10 years since
> we lost Rhiannon and started calling for a change in the law.
>
> “How many of the deaths since have been avoidable? ENDS
>
> In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by motor vehicles -
> so that's around 3610 avoidable pedestrian deaths in ten years.

Keeping the slaughter of Rhiannon Bennett in mind,
how many of those vehicle drivers shouted “Get out of the way, I’m not
stopping” before killing a pedestrian?

--
Spike

QUOTE:/ Mr Bennett, 61, said: “Nothing has changed in the 10 years since we lost Rhiannon and started calling for a change in the law. /ENDS

Wrong - LOTS of things have changed in those ten years - just not things involving your pet hobby horse.
Government obviously had much more pressing matters to attend to.

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> QUOTE: Mr Bennett, 61, said: “Nothing has changed in the 10 years since
>> we lost Rhiannon and started calling for a change in the law.
>>
>> “How many of the deaths since have been avoidable? ENDS
>>
>> In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by motor vehicles -
>> so that's around 3610 avoidable pedestrian deaths in ten years.
>
> Keeping the slaughter of Rhiannon Bennett in mind,
> how many of those vehicle drivers shouted “Get out of the way, I’m not
> stopping” before killing a pedestrian?

‘Cycling and walking’ groups bang on endlessly about cycling infra and
cycling deaths, while all but totally ignoring cases like that of Rhiannon
Bennett and Kim Briggs.

--
Spike

On Thursday, June 29, 2023 at 4:28:08 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE:/ Mr Bennett, 61, said: “Nothing has changed in the 10 years since we lost Rhiannon and started calling for a change in the law. /ENDS
>
> Wrong - LOTS of things have changed in those ten years - just not things involving your pet hobby horse.
> Government obviously had much more pressing matters to attend to.

Have a word with Baroness Vere of Norbiton - she seems to have her head screwed on when it comes to hare-brained anti cycling schemes.

QUOTE: His plan could involve a requirement for cyclists to display number plates and buy insurance, as well as face prosecution for breaking road speed limits.

This is despite nearly 60 times more pedestrians being killed in collisions with cars than bicycles, and many cyclists not being able to reach even 20mph. ENDS

In November, roads minister Baroness Vere said the Government has “no plans to introduce a mandatory registration scheme for cycle ownership” as the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits and it would “deter many people from cycling”.

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> QUOTE: Mr Bennett, 61, said: “Nothing has changed in the 10 years since
>>> we lost Rhiannon and started calling for a change in the law.
>>>
>>> “How many of the deaths since have been avoidable? ENDS
>>>
>>> In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by motor vehicles -
>>> so that's around 3610 avoidable pedestrian deaths in ten years.
>>
>> Keeping the slaughter of Rhiannon Bennett in mind,
>> how many of those vehicle drivers shouted “Get out of the way, I’m not
>> stopping” before killing a pedestrian?
>
> ‘Cycling and walking’ groups bang on endlessly about cycling infra and
> cycling deaths, while all but totally ignoring cases like that of Rhiannon
> Bennett and Kim Briggs.

One of the oft-repeated shibboleths of the cycling world is that any kind
of restriction placed on cyclists, such as helmets, hi-viz, registration,
insurance, cycling tests, number plates, speed limits, traffic law
alignment and the like, is that “It might deter people from taking up
cycling”, completely ignoring the obvious fact that hordes of cyclists on
pavements, out of all effective legal control, might put people off
walking. But this is never mentioned, of course, cyclists being so
self-entitled. It’s way past time to put a stop to this situation, and
bring it under control. It could be called Rhiannon’s Law.

--
Spike

QUOTE: In December, the Department for Transport insisted that the government has “no intention” of making helmets mandatory, following a question from the Conservative MP for Shropshire constituency The Wrekin, Mark Pritchard.

In response to the MP’s question, minister of state for the department Jesse Norman said the matter had been considered “at length” during the cycling and walking safety review in 2018.

Norman, himself the Tory MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire, also added that while the Department for Transport “recommends that cyclists wear helmets”, the “safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling”. ENDS

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> QUOTE: Mr Bennett, 61, said: “Nothing has changed in the 10 years since
>>>> we lost Rhiannon and started calling for a change in the law.
>>>>
>>>> “How many of the deaths since have been avoidable? ENDS
>>>>
>>>> In 2021, 361 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by motor vehicles -
>>>> so that's around 3610 avoidable pedestrian deaths in ten years.
>>>
>>> Keeping the slaughter of Rhiannon Bennett in mind,
>>> how many of those vehicle drivers shouted “Get out of the way, I’m not
>>> stopping” before killing a pedestrian?
>>
>> ‘Cycling and walking’ groups bang on endlessly about cycling infra and
>> cycling deaths, while all but totally ignoring cases like that of Rhiannon
>> Bennett and Kim Briggs.
>
> One of the oft-repeated shibboleths of the cycling world is that any kind
> of restriction placed on cyclists, such as helmets, hi-viz, registration,
> insurance, cycling tests, number plates, speed limits, traffic law
> alignment and the like, is that “It might deter people from taking up
> cycling”, completely ignoring the obvious fact that hordes of cyclists on
> pavements, out of all effective legal control, might put people off
> walking. But this is never mentioned, of course, cyclists being so
> self-entitled. It’s way past time to put a stop to this situation, and
> bring it under control. It could be called Rhiannon’s Law.

Perhaps something simpler to start with might be compulsory safety
equipment. It could be called Kim’s Law.

--
Spike

QUOTE: Aylesbury magistrates were told that Rhiannon had drunk "two or three" cans of lager before the collision.ENDS

What was a 17 year old doing drinking alcohol in the street?
She would have been over the limit with that amount.