Earl Aelfheah

Why are you addressing that to me? Ive not commented on it, but as I did say: It will depend on the speed of traffic at the time of course. You should use good judgment. Your constant reference to cycling ‘in the middle of the road’ suggests you have misunderstood what primary position is.

This is nonsense. As I’ve said many time before people travel by different means at different times. The ‘cyclists’ vs ‘drivers’ narrative is yours. In reality they’re the same people. But it’s also true that the consequences of wreckless driving are particularly serious. As I said there are too many deaths on our roads.

If you're cycling at night without lights or reflectors, then you're breaking the law and obviously putting yourself at risk. You are far more visible in primary position, than hugging the curb - and assuming that you are cycling legally and have lights and reflectors, you will be perfectly visible to attentive drivers; There is no excuse for someone driving their car straight into the back of you (although I'm sure some would still claim otherwise). Re. the highway code - If you are cycling alongside a line of parked cars, then you should be at least a metre away from them, which will invariably put you close to the centre of the lane on most streets. If you're approaching a junction (which includes any side road), or in slower-moving traffic (the average speeds in London are around 10 mph give or take), then you should also be in primary position; This covers most stretches of road in London. You should, more often than not, be in primary position. Where there is a wide stretch of road with no junctions, or parked vehicles you should naturally move over to the left. They are. Most urban roads are slower-moving, relatively narrow, lined with parked vehicles and have regular junctions / connecting side roads. If you are genuinely concerned about people being visible, then you should be encouraging them to ride in primary position whenever appropriate. is this aimed at me? I've repeatedly said people must have lights and reflectors, and should not jump red lights (or break any laws). On the clothing issue, it's probably sensible, but it's their choice. I don't like the idea that if someone hasn't put on special cycle clothing, then (as was suggested early in the thread) they are undeserving of sympathy should someone drive into them. If you abiding by the law, and have proper lights and reflectors, you should be able to travel by bicycle on well lit city streets without someone driving into you and then claiming it couldn't be helped.

It is depressing how predictably, any report of a serious accident involving dangerous / reckless driving will inevitably have someone immediately try to minimise it. What is the point you're trying to make with this comment? March was simply pointing out how "it’s another reminder of how serious the consequences of careless or reckless driving can be." It is. As HeadNun says, dangerous driving is dangerous driving. There are too many deaths happening on our streets. My thoughts go out to the family of the victim in this crash.

Anyone concerned about cyclists on London streets not being 'seen', should be strongly advocating for their taking primary position whenever appropriate. I often cringe when I see cyclists riding close to parked cars, or getting over to the left as they approach a traffic island (knowing there is a good chance they'll be dangerously squeezed by a driver where the lane narrows). Along with the 'lifesaver' check just before manoeuvring, and making eye contact with drivers whenever you can, taking primary position is one of the best things you can do to increase your own safety when on a bike. Read the highway code. Most roads in London have regular junctions, slower-moving traffic, and parked cars (which cyclists should keep at least 1 metre out from). In many cases (most) it is entirely advisable for cyclists to be in primary position (not 'the centre of the road' btw). Average speeds in London are around 10 mph - so people need to just be patient and give each other space. I assure you it's not the person on the bicycle that's going to slow down your journey.

I believe March was commenting on the serious consequences of careless or reckless driving.

There’s no libel

An example?

If you read the letter from Chloe Deakin it appears that some at Dulwich College were quite comfortable with having a fascist as a prefect back in 1981.

They also described him as 'racist' https://www.scribd.com/doc/169454715/Nigel-Farage-1981-school-letter One of his teachers was reported as describing his "publicly professed racist and neo-fascist views". This was in 1981, and in writing - it cannot possibly be said to have been someone trying to undermine him in a future role as a politician (unless they had a time machine or some sort of clairvoyance). I think it is fairly clear that he displayed racist behaviour as a young man of 17 / 18. Whilst he is now more careful / guarded in his language, I suspect not much has changed based on his preoccupations and rhetoric.

I totally disagree. If you listen to the Guardian podcast, which speaks with the reporter and one of those on the receiving end of Farage’s abuse, it is very balanced and credible. It is also notable that we have a letter written in 1981 by an English teacher at DC, begging the head teacher not to allow farage to become a school prefect due to his ‘fascist tendencies’. That is contemporaneous evidence of his racism at the time.

.

@CPR Dave - It is absolutely clear that Trump (a man with 34 felony convictions and who’s been found guilty by a jury of rape) was trying to overturn the election; He directed and angry mob to march on the Capitol in order to obstruct the certification process, and that he later condoned the violence that took place further by commuting the sentences of far right thugs (e.g. the neo-fascist militant 'Proud Boys'). The fact that he is now suing the UK's publicly owned broadcaster (aka the UK taxpayer) is disgraceful. Anyone with any sort of national pride, should be telling Trump exactly where he can put his lawsuit.

That's very good news!!

May I ask what actions you're advocating for? It would be helpful to share if you think they've had a positive real world impact. These steps that have been taken - Any chance you could say more? It's a little cryptic.

Don't get me wrong. I think social media algorithms have a big (largely malign) impact on the real world. But that's not the same as saying an individual posting / reposting stuff into what's largely an echo chamber, amounts to a form of activism / community action. I believe the term is 'slacktivism'.

I think we have lost all perspective - The BBC clearly misquoted Trump (which is obviously wrong), in a programme that broadly gave an accurate account of what happened on January 6th - that he inspired the attack on the Capitol. His speech did repeatedly call on people to fight. He repeatedly claimed that the election had been stolen. He has since pardoned many of those involved in that violence. The 'journalist' at the Telegraph who 'broke' this 'story', more than a year after the Panorama documentary aired, also misquoted Trump's speech and gave a false impression of what was actually said. In both the case of the BBC and the Telegraph, the editing was misleading and sloppy. In my opinion however, the editing of the speech by the Telegraph is actually more misleading than the BBC's. The jist of the speech was not one calling for calm, but one calling for supporters to fight: "...fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore". Trump used the term "fight" twenty times, and the term "peacefully" just once. During Trump's speech, his supporters chanted "Take the Capitol", "Invade the Capitol", "Storm the Capitol" and "Fight for Trump". The Telegraph have not acknowledged their misleading editing / misquote of course. Trump has escaped punishment for his role in a violent insurrection. Many of the rioters who stormed the Capital have been let off / pardoned. The only people to have taken responsibility for anything, or to have faced any consequences for their behaviour, are the BBC. The BBC have apologised and both the BBC Director General and the News CEO have lost their jobs. They (we) also face a 1 billion dollar law suit from a corrupt, criminal, President (an unprecedented act from the supposed 'defender of free speech / the free world'). The idea that the BBC's errors are being 'swept under the carpet' is self evidently nonsense. It is very clear that the Telegraph would love to end the BBC, as would the Times etc. They are not motivated by the national interest, or a quest for truth (neither is Trump - a firehose of BS). For Trump to be suing any media organisation as the sitting president of the United states, (let along a publicly owned UK broadcaster - effectively, the British taxpayer) is outrageous. That the whole country isn't telling him exactly where to go, shows a distinct lack of patriotism in my opinion.

The ‘tree people’ conjures up a very Tolkienesque image.

I'm not massively convinced by this. I think posting on social media is often mistaken for a form of activism, but actually changes very little in the real world (except perhaps increasing polarisation due to the echo chamber nature of the algorithms). May I ask what actions you're advocating for? It would be helpful to share if you think they've had a positive real world impact.

Those suggesting that they can't see a bicycle with lights and reflectors, unless the rider is also dressed in specialist reflective clothing sound like they might be wearing blinkers, I agree. Personally I do wear a reflective jacket, but that's my choice. It's easy to judge others, but I suspect many people use a bicycle without first donning special 'cycling ' clothes - They don't deserve to have someone who is not paying adequate attention, drive into them. About 5 and half thousand pedestrians get hit by cars each year in London. I'm assuming you're not blaming the pedestrians for the clothes they were wearing?

Bicycles are also required under law to have lights. A bicycle with lights ands reflectors is visible. If you’re looking.

I notice that that no one is calling for cars to be painted bright colours though. And do you wear bright clothes and reflective materials when walking after dark, as advised by the Highway Code? Why not?

The advice doesn't relate to situations where pedestrians share footpaths with cars. In fact the picture from the highway code clearly shows two individuals walking on a pavement. If you are suggesting that people must abide by advice when they're travelling by bicycle, then surely the same logic applies when they're travelling by foot? Or perhaps where it is just advice and not a mandatory requirement, individuals should consider it and exercise judgement? Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I would suggest that they are not if you are driving with due care and attention. The law would tend to agree with me too. If you drive a motor vehicle into someone travelling quite properly by bicycle and who has lights, the excuse of 'not seeing them' isn't going to be very convincing. And what colour of clothing is it ok to wear? What about green? What type of green? At what point is the shade no longer bright enough to consider them worthy of sympathy in the even of a collision?

The highway code advises reflective clothing for pedestrians at night, yes (not helmets). It also advises you "wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions". I've posted a screenshot above. Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle on well lit city streets, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I think they're perfectly visible to anyone paying adequate attention. If someone chooses to wear additional reflective clothing, that's great - but it's up to them. It's not mandatory, and anyone who choses to just walk or cycle in their normal clothes is perfectly entitled to do so. We shouldn't make excuses for inattentive / dangerous driving.

The space outside of Jades, where that tree is is extremely narrow as are many other bits, and the whole stretch is packed at weekends / very slow going.