Gravesend pedestrian zone cyclist fined £440 after breaching Public Space Protection Order

@ktache

I have only cycled along the Oracle bit a couple of times, but both times I have had people shouting and tutting loudly at me and a couple try to shoulder barge me. And this is whilst I am going at about 6mph and giving it the full friendly wave, smile and excuse me pleases. No idea why or how that is considered part of the NCN. 

Podc wrote:

@ktache

I have only cycled along the Oracle bit a couple of times, but both times I have had people shouting and tutting loudly at me and a couple try to shoulder barge me. And this is whilst I am going at about 6mph and giving it the full friendly wave, smile and excuse me pleases. No idea why or how that is considered part of the NCN. 

The only time I think I've been shoulder barged was while riding slowly and carefully across Pero's Bridge in Bristol.

Here: https://goo.gl/maps/HcTTZ8p1H9u  It's part of certainly the city's signed cycle routes and I'm pretty sure its on the NCN too.  It's a narrow and crowded bridge, and cyclists are signed to go over it to avoid riding around the Centre and getting killed (which looks bad for the council, y'know).  It has blue shared-use roundels on posts at each end.

This one time, this overweight middle aged bloke (older than me - maybe late fifties/early sixties), smart shirt, shorts and deck shoes, decides he's going to teach me a lesson, innit, and as I pass he purposely sticks an elbow out, knocking me against the barriers at the edge of the bridge. I put a foot down, ask what he's doing, get a mouthful of bl00dy cyclists guff back from him

I shake my head, suggest he checks out the signage at the end of the bridge, and get back on my way.

ktache wrote:

sriracha wrote:

To me it is simple common sense that you don't cycle in pedestrian areas.

...

Notice how the Cycle parking is within the NO CYCLING area, I have yet to see a car park in a NO DRIVING area.

To me, it is simple common sense that you put cycle parking where cyclists can ride to the parking.

To me, it makes no sense at all to put cycle parking but then insist that the cyclist dismounts and wheels their bike to said parking.

I wonder what would be said if anyone built a beautiful new car park, but then said the motorists had to turn off their engines some distance away and either push their vehicle, freewheel it, or be towed the last hundred metres to the parking facility?

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Ask:

• Is it safe?
• Is it legal?
• Are you inconveniencing others?

(BTW, the answer to the last one should be No)

 

If we all based out thoughts and decision making  around this, we'd be a lot less stressed and angry.

Cars being on the road inconvenience me and are not safe, can we ban them?

People drinking coffee in ubs inconveniences me, and hot drinks are dangerous, ban them!

Need i go on...?

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

I'm exasperated by these comments.

To think we (cyclists) wonder why pedestrains get beligerent towards cyclists

I agree with what you say about mutual respect etc., but you are mistaken if you think that pedestrians (and drivers) are 'belligerent towards cyclists' because of some aspect of our behaviour. 

Cyclists are not despised because of what we do, but because of what we refuse to do.  We refuse to drive everywhere, and we expose the hypocrisy of those who smugly recycle their empty Pepsi Max bottles, just before driving - in their Range Rover Evoque - their children to the local comprehensive which is three quarters of a mile away.    In this way, we share the status of vegans, as a hated minority outgroup.   It wouldn't matter if no cyclist ever went through a red light, just as it wouldn't matter if no vegan ever revealed his or her 'vegan status' to anyone.  Until we start to conform to the dominant culture which normalises car driving (and meat eating), we will never be 'liked'.  

Sriracha wrote:

Wow. Circle wagons, the perp must be innocent - he was on a bike. I don't want to comment on all the armchair lawyers opinions, I'm not qualified. I don't much care for whether there were correctly constituted regulations posted preventing cycling in the pedestrian zone, nor whether the perp had been correctly served notice following all due process, etc. To me it is simple common sense that you don't cycle in pedestrian areas. I don't need to be told, I'm a grown up. Yes, even if some car drivers are not, whatever.

I don't think anyone was saying that he must be innocent [because] he was on a bike (personally, I'm not even entirely convinced he exists...   ).

Why do you think that its common sense not to cycle in pedestrian areas?  And how do you define 'pedestrian area' anyway?  After all, a 'shared space' area and an 'utterly absolutely pedestrianised' area will usually look exactly the same (except for PSPO warning signs on some of the entries...).

And how do you get to the shops like other grown ups, if you won't ride your bike there?  Isn't the convenience of door to door travel, part of the attraction of riding a bike?

It's not like any shopping area near me has built ultra convenient multi-thousand space bicycle parking.  My nearest have all started removing much of the bike parking.

Sriracha wrote:

Wow. Circle wagons, the perp must be innocent - he was on a bike. I don't want to comment on all the armchair lawyers opinions, I'm not qualified. I don't much care for whether there were correctly constituted regulations posted preventing cycling in the pedestrian zone, nor whether the perp had been correctly served notice following all due process, etc. To me it is simple common sense that you don't cycle in pedestrian areas. I don't need to be told, I'm a grown up. Yes, even if some car drivers are not, whatever.

Right, so, first up - what about shared spaces? There are many bits of "cycle lane" that are actually just shared space with pedestrians - are you saying that it's obvious that nobody should use them (I mean, apart from the fact that they're shit)? I don't think you've thought that through.

More generally, for many people cycling is easier than walking, and many use cycles as mobility devices.

Also, what about those who are literally unable to dismount?

If I want to cycle through a pedestrian area to avoid a dangerous bit of road - that's exactly what I'll do.

I will not take a more dangerous route around a short stretch I am not "supposed" to cycle through - The town I live in has time restrictions on cycling through the centre, which I completely ignore[1] - I will, and do, just cycle straight through and there isn't a damn thing anybody can say nor do to prevent me from doing that - whether that be in Romford, Gravesend, Woking, Bedford or anywhere else.

Funnily enough, though, I've never hit anybody going through there, and whilst I've had a few, uh, lively conversations with people taking objection to my presence, it's never been because of a dangerous incident, more them taking offence to my entire existence in that space.

If somebody is attempting to set a new land speed record through a pedestrianised area, then yeah, that's pretty shitty - but if they're proceeding slowly and carefully, giving way to other persons and being cautious, nah, don't see a problem.

[1] Although the RTOs attached are really badly worded and varies between Bicycle and Pedal Cycle, neither of which applies to the type of 'cycle I use (2010 No. 198 Regulation 2)

Sriracha wrote:

Wow. Circle wagons, the perp must be innocent - he was on a bike. I don't want to comment on all the armchair lawyers opinions, I'm not qualified. I don't much care for whether there were correctly constituted regulations posted preventing cycling in the pedestrian zone, nor whether the perp had been correctly served notice following all due process, etc. To me it is simple common sense that you don't cycle in pedestrian areas. I don't need to be told, I'm a grown up. Yes, even if some car drivers are not, whatever.

I don't cycle in pedestrian areas either - and this whether or not there are signs or prohibitions warning me that it is not permitted.  

But of course, this isn't just about whether the 'perp' is guilty or not.  This is about the creeping trend towards out and out authoritarianism that has a feature of British life since time immemorial, but which has worsened since 1979, and which has been accelerating in scope and has been increasingly used to target the vulnerable.   

The massive swing to the right of the British electorate since 1979 has resulted - as it always does when the cancerous vermin that are tories are in power - in an increasing willingness to put the boot into any and all minority outgroups.  Vegans and cyclists are the current targets.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Wow. Circle wagons, the perp must be innocent - he was on a bike. I don't want to comment on all the armchair lawyers opinions, I'm not qualified. I don't much care for whether there were correctly constituted regulations posted preventing cycling in the pedestrian zone, nor whether the perp had been correctly served notice following all due process, etc. To me it is simple common sense that you don't cycle in pedestrian areas. I don't need to be told, I'm a grown up. Yes, even if some car drivers are not, whatever.

I don't cycle in pedestrian areas either - and this whether or not there are signs or prohibitions warning me that it is not permitted.  

But of course, this isn't just about whether the 'perp' is guilty or not.  This is about the creeping trend towards out and out authoritarianism that has a feature of British life since time immemorial, but which has worsened since 1979, and which has been accelerating in scope and has been increasingly used to target the vulnerable.   

The massive swing to the right of the British electorate since 1979 has resulted - as it always does when the cancerous vermin that are tories are in power - in an increasing willingness to put the boot into any and all minority outgroups.  Vegans and cyclists are the current targets.  

 

Actually, this is about cycling in a pedestrian area. Read the article. It is not your manifesto.

.

Sriracha wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Wow. Circle wagons, the perp must be innocent - he was on a bike. I don't want to comment on all the armchair lawyers opinions, I'm not qualified. I don't much care for whether there were correctly constituted regulations posted preventing cycling in the pedestrian zone, nor whether the perp had been correctly served notice following all due process, etc. To me it is simple common sense that you don't cycle in pedestrian areas. I don't need to be told, I'm a grown up. Yes, even if some car drivers are not, whatever.

I don't cycle in pedestrian areas either - and this whether or not there are signs or prohibitions warning me that it is not permitted.  

But of course, this isn't just about whether the 'perp' is guilty or not.  This is about the creeping trend towards out and out authoritarianism that has a feature of British life since time immemorial, but which has worsened since 1979, and which has been accelerating in scope and has been increasingly used to target the vulnerable.   

The massive swing to the right of the British electorate since 1979 has resulted - as it always does when the cancerous vermin that are tories are in power - in an increasing willingness to put the boot into any and all minority outgroups.  Vegans and cyclists are the current targets.  

 

Actually, this is about cycling in a pedestrian area. Read the article. It is not your manifesto.

I am sorry I confused you.  Perhaps when you grow up a little, you will be able to see further than the end of your nose.  

brooksby wrote:

The thing I find most interesting about this story, is that the offender Mr Kitek hasn't spoken to the media.  We've got that he was 'busted' (as Mr Murden puts it) and gave the council officer his name and address.  We've then got that he didn't pay the fine.  We've then got that he didn't turn up at court, and was fined further plus costs.  We've then got a council statement that they got 'im, and let that be a warning to all Evil Cyclists Everywhere.  But no interviews or statement from the offender.

As I've hinted at earlier, does Mr Kitek even exist?

What if he really did give a false name and/or address, and the wheels of justice just kept churning without anyone actually verifying his identity...?

And now we all know what name to give to PCSOs and others.  Never mind John Doe or other such nonsense, the modern pseudonym is Kitek; might be worth varying the first name, or they might catch on.  I bagsie Roland.

antigee wrote:

bad law and should be take off the statute book or reviewed and modified so Councils can't use to exclude cycling....it is simply not being used as intended

Indeed so.  And whilst that bad law is being considered for removal, the rest of us should resist execution of it.  

burtthebike wrote:

As I understand it, a council officer has no authority to either stop you or demand your name and address, so to anyone who knows that, the solution is clear; don't stop, and if forced to, don't give your details.  Might even be worth threatening to sue them for false arrest or some such if they insist on stopping you.

Oh dear, talking through your butt. Please, don’t post comments on subjects when you don’t know what you are talking about. The council officer does have the power to ask your name and address and not providing it is obstruction which is another offence. Bar room layers giving out bad advice, tut tut. 

Welsh boy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

As I understand it, a council officer has no authority to either stop you or demand your name and address, so to anyone who knows that, the solution is clear; don't stop, and if forced to, don't give your details.  Might even be worth threatening to sue them for false arrest or some such if they insist on stopping you.

Oh dear, talking through your butt. Please, don’t post comments on subjects when you don’t know what you are talking about. The council officer does have the power to ask your name and address and not providing it is obstruction which is another offence. Bar room layers giving out bad advice, tut tut. 

This is civil NOT criminal, you DO NOT have to give your details, IN YOUR OPINION it's obstruction but whatever.

ATEOTD simply ride off and ignore them, if they grab you use reasonable force to defend yourself against the assault, they cannot arrest you, they cannot make a citizens arrest lawfully either as it's not an arrestable offence. Unlawful removal of freedom is kidnap which IS a criminal offence as is assault.

Which statute forces citizens to give their details to these types when you have commited no criminal offence?

PCSOs are mostly unlawful in themselves and discriminatory in the first instance.

Welsh boy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

As I understand it, a council officer has no authority to either stop you or demand your name and address, so to anyone who knows that, the solution is clear; don't stop, and if forced to, don't give your details.  Might even be worth threatening to sue them for false arrest or some such if they insist on stopping you.

Oh dear, talking through your butt. Please, don’t post comments on subjects when you don’t know what you are talking about. The council officer does have the power to ask your name and address and not providing it is obstruction which is another offence. Bar room layers giving out bad advice, tut tut. 

Wow!  Got out of the wrong side of the bed this millenium did we? 

I did say "As I understand it....." and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong, but you could at least try to be polite.  It must be so difficult being perfect and always being right; just as well it hasn't made you a smug, arrogant t**t.  Much.

Welsh boy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

As I understand it, a council officer has no authority to either stop you or demand your name and address, so to anyone who knows that, the solution is clear; don't stop, and if forced to, don't give your details.  Might even be worth threatening to sue them for false arrest or some such if they insist on stopping you.

Oh dear, talking through your butt. Please, don’t post comments on subjects when you don’t know what you are talking about. The council officer does have the power to ask your name and address and not providing it is obstruction which is another offence. Bar room layers giving out bad advice, tut tut. 

You have to give your name and address to a properly authorised council officer, but the onus is on them to demonstrate that they are properly authorised for that purpose (even the stormtroopers from Kingdom Services need to show some sort of 'licence/warrant card' if they want you to answer to them, as I understand the legislation).

You do not have to give your name and address to every single council employee (Park Keeper Percy?) who asks for it, but if they can show that they have appropriate authority for that purpose then yes, I think what you've said is correct Welsh boy.

brooksby wrote:

Welsh boy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

As I understand it, a council officer has no authority to either stop you or demand your name and address, so to anyone who knows that, the solution is clear; don't stop, and if forced to, don't give your details.  Might even be worth threatening to sue them for false arrest or some such if they insist on stopping you.

Oh dear, talking through your butt. Please, don’t post comments on subjects when you don’t know what you are talking about. The council officer does have the power to ask your name and address and not providing it is obstruction which is another offence. Bar room layers giving out bad advice, tut tut. 

You have to give your name and address to a properly authorised council officer, but the onus is on them to demonstrate that they are properly authorised for that purpose (even the stormtroopers from Kingdom Services need to show some sort of 'licence/warrant card' if they want you to answer to them, as I understand the legislation).

You do not have to give your name and address to every single council employee (Park Keeper Percy?) who asks for it, but if they can show that they have appropriate authority for that purpose then yes, I think what you've said is correct Welsh boy.

The problem is going to be when - I suspect it's not 'if' - someone will refuse to give a name, or gives a false name.  And the person trying to issue a fine is either not going to know the limits of his 'powers' (because he was never trained), or is not going to care, because as soon as the cyclist 'defies his authority' (chuckle), he is going to rugby tackle the cyclist to the ground and cite some knobend gobshite in PACE, to justify his doing so. 

You're then going to get two uniformed PCs turning up, and neither of them will have a fucking clue about the law either.  So they will radio their control room and the sergeant there will tell them to bring the cyclist in 'for questioning'.   In what passes for the 'mind' of the 'council employee', his actions will thus have been vindicated, and that evening over a beer with his mates, he will recount how he 'arrested' the cyclist, all the while confirming to himself (and to his friends) that his world view is correct, and that he has power of arrest.  And he will then use it the next time. 

As for the cyclist, he will seek to know why he was arrested by the coppers who arrived, and failing adequate justification, that arrest will of course have been unlawful (Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary [1999] 2 All ER 326; [1999] 1 WLR 662; [1999] 2 Cr App Rep 243).   There are three remedies that present themselves.  

1. The cyclist's legal representative is able to issue a writ of habeas corpus (which no, doesn't just exist in US police dramas), which must be granted if there is prima facie evidence that the detention is unlawful (always assuming that the duty solicitor even knows what  habeas corpus is...) .   Of course, plod will have got around that by releasing him within an hour or two of his being transported to the local nick, ‘pending further enquiries’.
2. He can try to preclude a prosecution by claiming that as the arrest was unlawful, any such prosecution would also be unlawful.   Frankly, he’s on a hiding to nothing with this one, as unlike the same US cop dramas I mentioned above, Burt doesn’t get off ‘on a technicality’ ‘cos the cops didn’t have a warrant.   In R v Sang [1979] 3 WLR 263, the House of Lords ruled that there was no discretion to omit or exclude evidence just because it had been illegally obtained.   Only if evidence were clearly prejudicial, can it be excluded, as per s. 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. 
3. His last option is a claim for damages, but the police will argue that as his detention was only for a couple of hours, and as he is still being ‘investigated’ for his ‘assault’ on the ‘council employee’, any damages that he does get (and they’re likely to be non-existent) will be limited by that.  

In short, the cyclist is fucked, because the ‘council employee’ will stand up and will swear on a stack of bibles and his dear mum’s life, that he was ‘assaulted’ by the cyclist.   The CCTV in the town centre will be found to have been ‘faulty’ that day ('faulty' in this context means that the supervisor in the control room will be the husband of the sister of the 'council employee' and he'll make sure that they're wiped before the end of his shift), and there will be six ‘independent’ witnesses who will swear that they saw the cyclist punch the ‘council employee’.   Two of those 'independent witnesses' - one of whom will actually be a police officer - will actually have been sunning themselves on the beach in Tenerife at the time, but their evidence will get the cyclist convicted, fined £550 and ordered to pay £600 costs as well as a'victim surcharge' of £350.

At the same time, in a blatant disregard for the laws on contempt of court, the video will go up on the Daily Mail website, and there will be seven thousand comments, all stating how ‘lawless lycra louts’ (despite the fact that the cyclist will have been wearing jeans and a T-shirt) ‘think the law doesn’t apply to them’.   Of the six thousand comments, one thousand of them will recount how a friend’s eighty-six-year-old grandmother was knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement, and had to have a hip replacement, which didn’t save her as she died of emphysema six months later, and if the fucking cyclist hadn’t killed her, she’d be here today. Four thousand, six hundred and twenty-two of the comments will call for cyclists to pay ‘road tax’, and there will be sixty petitions launched on change.org insisting – without a hint of irony or self-awareness – that cyclists should be punished for their transgressions.  The London Taxi Drivers Association will replace their newspaper cut-outs about how Uber drivers are rapists that they have on the rear parcel shelf of their taxis, with the Daily Mail story about the cyclist, and the next time there is a 'die-in' next to Bank Junction, four cyclists will be assaulted by taxi drivers, but the police will report that 'there have been no arrests'.  

Two weeks later, the cyclist will be invited onto the set of Good Morning Britain, and he will appear dressed in lycra, but without hi-viz (which will incite 2,500 tweets about how cyclists ‘should wear hi-viz’, from people none of whom will actually be owners of a bright yellow car).  Holly Willoughby will ask, ‘People say cyclists are out of control.  What do you say to that?’, but the papers will completely warp what the cyclist says in reply.  

Meanwhile, on road.cc, someone will have found the name of the ‘council employee’ and will have posted a link to his facebook profile. The ‘council employee’ will then go onto the news the week after, and will claim that he has had ‘death threats from cyclist groups’.  He'll be lying through his fucking teeth, of course, but he'll get the sympathy and attention he craves.  This will prompt LBC to run a piece – ironically enough, on the anniversary of Kristalnacht – asking what is to be done about ‘cyclists and their powerful backers’.   The Prime Minister, Mr Jacob Rees Mogg, will stand up in front of the dispatch box and say, ‘This House condemns the actions of cyclists who do not obey the law of the land, and we are proud to support the Private Member’s Bill to force cyclists to carry a means of identifying themselves at all times’.

And so it will go on.  Nothing changes.  Not until we force them to start respecting us, will they start.   Unfortunately, ‘forcing’ involves the use of force.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Welsh boy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

As I understand it, a council officer has no authority to either stop you or demand your name and address, so to anyone who knows that, the solution is clear; don't stop, and if forced to, don't give your details.  Might even be worth threatening to sue them for false arrest or some such if they insist on stopping you.

Oh dear, talking through your butt. Please, don’t post comments on subjects when you don’t know what you are talking about. The council officer does have the power to ask your name and address and not providing it is obstruction which is another offence. Bar room layers giving out bad advice, tut tut. 

You have to give your name and address to a properly authorised council officer, but the onus is on them to demonstrate that they are properly authorised for that purpose (even the stormtroopers from Kingdom Services need to show some sort of 'licence/warrant card' if they want you to answer to them, as I understand the legislation).

You do not have to give your name and address to every single council employee (Park Keeper Percy?) who asks for it, but if they can show that they have appropriate authority for that purpose then yes, I think what you've said is correct Welsh boy.

The problem is going to be when - I suspect it's not 'if' - someone will refuse to give a name, or gives a false name.  And the person trying to issue a fine is either not going to know the limits of his 'powers' (because he was never trained), or is not going to care, because as soon as the cyclist 'defies his authority' (chuckle), he is going to rugby tackle the cyclist to the ground and cite some knobend gobshite in PACE, to justify his doing so. 

You're then going to get two uniformed PCs turning up, and neither of them will have a fucking clue about the law either.  So they will radio their control room and the sergeant there will tell them to bring the cyclist in 'for questioning'.   In what passes for the 'mind' of the 'council employee', his actions will thus have been vindicated, and that evening over a beer with his mates, he will recount how he 'arrested' the cyclist, all the while confirming to himself (and to his friends) that his world view is correct, and that he has power of arrest.  And he will then use it the next time. 

As for the cyclist, he will seek to know why he was arrested by the coppers who arrived, and failing adequate justification, that arrest will of course have been unlawful (Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary [1999] 2 All ER 326; [1999] 1 WLR 662; [1999] 2 Cr App Rep 243).   There are three remedies that present themselves.  

1. The cyclist's legal representative is able to issue a writ of habeas corpus (which no, doesn't just exist in US police dramas), which must be granted if there is prima facie evidence that the detention is unlawful (always assuming that the duty solicitor even knows what  habeas corpus is...) .   Of course, plod will have got around that by releasing him within an hour or two of his being transported to the local nick, ‘pending further enquiries’.
2. He can try to preclude a prosecution by claiming that as the arrest was unlawful, any such prosecution would also be unlawful.   Frankly, he’s on a hiding to nothing with this one, as unlike the same US cop dramas I mentioned above, Burt doesn’t get off ‘on a technicality’ ‘cos the cops didn’t have a warrant.   In R v Sang [1979] 3 WLR 263, the House of Lords ruled that there was no discretion to omit or exclude evidence just because it had been illegally obtained.   Only if evidence were clearly prejudicial, can it be excluded, as per s. 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. 
3. His last option is a claim for damages, but the police will argue that as his detention was only for a couple of hours, and as he is still being ‘investigated’ for his ‘assault’ on the ‘council employee’, any damages that he does get (and they’re likely to be non-existent) will be limited by that.  

In short, the cyclist is fucked, because the ‘council employee’ will stand up and will swear on a stack of bibles and his dear mum’s life, that he was ‘assaulted’ by the cyclist.   The CCTV in the town centre will be found to have been ‘faulty’ that day ('faulty' in this context means that the supervisor in the control room will be the husband of the sister of the 'council employee' and he'll make sure that they're wiped before the end of his shift), and there will be six ‘independent’ witnesses who will swear that they saw the cyclist punch the ‘council employee’.   Two of those 'independent witnesses' - one of whom will actually be a police officer - will actually have been sunning themselves on the beach in Tenerife at the time, but their evidence will get the cyclist convicted, fined £550 and ordered to pay £600 costs as well as a'victim surcharge' of £350.

At the same time, in a blatant disregard for the laws on contempt of court, the video will go up on the Daily Mail website, and there will be seven thousand comments, all stating how ‘lawless lycra louts’ (despite the fact that the cyclist will have been wearing jeans and a T-shirt) ‘think the law doesn’t apply to them’.   Of the six thousand comments, one thousand of them will recount how a friend’s eighty-six-year-old grandmother was knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement, and had to have a hip replacement, which didn’t save her as she died of emphysema six months later, and if the fucking cyclist hadn’t killed her, she’d be here today. Four thousand, six hundred and twenty-two of the comments will call for cyclists to pay ‘road tax’, and there will be sixty petitions launched on change.org insisting – without a hint of irony or self-awareness – that cyclists should be punished for their transgressions.  The London Taxi Drivers Association will replace their newspaper cut-outs about how Uber drivers are rapists that they have on the rear parcel shelf of their taxis, with the Daily Mail story about the cyclist, and the next time there is a 'die-in' next to Bank Junction, four cyclists will be assaulted by taxi drivers, but the police will report that 'there have been no arrests'.  

Two weeks later, the cyclist will be invited onto the set of Good Morning Britain, and he will appear dressed in lycra, but without hi-viz (which will incite 2,500 tweets about how cyclists ‘should wear hi-viz’, from people none of whom will actually be owners of a bright yellow car).  Holly Willoughby will ask, ‘People say cyclists are out of control.  What do you say to that?’, but the papers will completely warp what the cyclist says in reply.  

Meanwhile, on road.cc, someone will have found the name of the ‘council employee’ and will have posted a link to his facebook profile. The ‘council employee’ will then go onto the news the week after, and will claim that he has had ‘death threats from cyclist groups’.  He'll be lying through his fucking teeth, of course, but he'll get the sympathy and attention he craves.  This will prompt LBC to run a piece – ironically enough, on the anniversary of Kristalnacht – asking what is to be done about ‘cyclists and their powerful backers’.   The Prime Minister, Mr Jacob Rees Mogg, will stand up in front of the dispatch box and say, ‘This House condemns the actions of cyclists who do not obey the law of the land, and we are proud to support the Private Member’s Bill to force cyclists to carry a means of identifying themselves at all times’.

And so it will go on.  Nothing changes.  Not until we force them to start respecting us, will they start.   Unfortunately, ‘forcing’ involves the use of force.  

Did lol