We've seen a few of these social media posts popping up recently as part of the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s '2 Wheels' campaign. On Monday, it was Bedfordshire Police's now-deleted tweet telling cyclists to try not to make "mistakes" to stay safe...

This message was accompanied by a bingo card reminder to: wear a helmet and hi-vis. Unsurprisingly this particular tweet was not the force's most popular, attracting victim-blaming accusations before unceremoniously being deleted.

Today, it's Greater Manchester Police's turn...

The headlines from this shocking story are: a cyclist in Manchester was riding on the pavement because they felt safer than on the road, a drunk driver then hit the cyclist, causing life-threatening injuries that are going to "stay with them forever".

So, what conclusion should we be taking from this? Tougher action on dangerous driving? Infrastructure that makes cyclists feel safe to use the roads, and not have to jump onto the pavement, all without the risk of being hit by a drink driver?

Well, according to GMP's #2wheeloperation vid: "So for cyclists and motorcyclists, basically to wear the protective clothing, wear the hi-vis, make yourself as visible as possible to everybody on the road." Right. Presumably the same goes for dog walkers, children and pedestrians who could have been hit by the aforementioned drunk driver?

"Being a cyclist or a motorcyclist can be even more dangerous because you've got less presence on the road. So there's less for people to see," one of the force's family liaison officers continued.

Someone go get the Surrey traffic cops...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFlzbDlXsA0mZAM?format=jpg&name=medium

On 13/04/2022 10:14, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, according to GMP's #2wheeloperation vid: "So for cyclists and motorcyclists, basically to wear the protective clothing, wear the hi-vis, make yourself as visible as possible to everybody on the road." Right. Presumably the same goes for dog walkers, children and pedestrians who could have been hit by the aforementioned drunk driver?

These two cases, mentioned in a single report in a newspaper, have it all:

- drunk cyclist
- defective brakes
- high speed
- causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.
- pedestrian hospitalised
- previous convictions
- cycling the wrong way
- causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving
- pedestrian died

A drunk cyclist with defective front brakes left a woman in her 60s
needing to go to hospital after he crashed into her at speed in Norwich,
a court heard.

Adam Royle, 37, was drunk on a bike and travelling at high speed when he
smashed into the woman and another pedestrian at high speed on
Gentleman’s Walk in Norwich.

The bike was seized by police at the scene and later found to have front
brakes which were not functioning as they should.

The victim suffered facial injuries and was taken to the Norfolk and
Norwich University Hospital (NNUH) for treatment following the incident,
which happened at about 6.45pm on July 13 last year.

Royle, of no fixed abode, but previously of School Lane, Sprowston, was
jailed for six months when he appeared at Norwich Crown Court last week.

The defendant was sentenced after previously admitting causing bodily
harm by wanton or furious driving.

Speaking after the sentencing hearing, PC Louis Luck, the officer in the
case, said: “This is a fantastic result which would not have been
achievable without the support of members of the public and it really
highlights the impact of irresponsible cycling in the city centre.”

It followed a tweet by Norwich Police, which stated: “Drunken cyclist
with defective brakes who caused GBH-level injuries to an elderly female
jailed for six months. #goodpolicework #586 #1925”.

It was one of two similar cases to go before the courts last week and
was followed on Friday, August 7 by the sentencing of 38-year-old
cyclist David Tilley, who was given a nine-month jail sentence,
suspended for 18 months, after he hit an 80-year-old lady as he was
cycling the wrong way down a one-way street in Cromer.

The crown court heard the victim, who was struck as she was about to
cross Louden Road in April last year, never fully recovered and died
about five months later in September last year, aged 81.

Tilley, of Christopher’s Close, Northrepps, near Cromer, was also
ordered to do 200 hours unpaid work after he previously admitted causing
bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.

<https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cyclist-drunk-hit-woman-gentleman-s-walk-norwich-jailed-1568450>

--
Spike

The police's Twitter account states that the drunk driver has been charged with causing serious injury by driving whilst impaired through drink or drugs.

On 13/04/2022 01:20 pm, Spike wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 10:14, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Well, according to GMP's #2wheeloperation vid: "So for fairy-cyclists and motorcyclists, basically to wear the protective clothing, wear the hi-vis, make yourself as visible as possible to everybody on the road." Right. Presumably the same goes for dog walkers, children and pedestrians who could have been hit by the aforementioned drunk driver?
>
> These two cases, mentioned in a single report in a newspaper, have it all:
>
> - drunk fairy-cyclist
> - defective brakes
> - high speed
> - causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.
> - pedestrian hospitalised
> - previous convictions
> - fairy-cycling the wrong way
> - causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving
> - pedestrian died
>
> A drunk fairy-cyclist with defective front brakes left a woman in her 60s
> needing to go to hospital after he crashed into her at speed in Norwich,
> a court heard.
>
> Adam Royle, 37, was drunk on a fairy-bike and travelling at high speed when he
> smashed into the woman and another pedestrian at high speed on
> Gentleman’s Walk in Norwich.
>
> The fairy-bike was seized by police at the scene and later found to have front
> brakes which were not functioning as they should.

Simple (just like Mason).

CRUSH IT.

No argument, no buts.

> The victim suffered facial injuries and was taken to the Norfolk and
> Norwich University Hospital (NNUH) for treatment following the incident,
> which happened at about 6.45pm on July 13 last year.
>
> Royle, of no fixed abode, but previously of School Lane, Sprowston, was
> jailed for six months when he appeared at Norwich Crown Court last week.

AT LAST, A DECENT SENTENCE FOR A CRIMINAL FAIRY-CYCLIST.
>
> The defendant was sentenced after previously admitting causing bodily
> harm by wanton or furious driving.

THAT'LL BE WHY HE GOT OFF WITH JUST A SIX MONTH SLAP ON THE WRIST.
>
> Speaking after the sentencing hearing, PC Louis Luck, the officer in the
> case, said: “This is a fantastic result which would not have been
> achievable without the support of members of the public and it really
> highlights the impact of irresponsible fairy-cycling in the city centre.”

"Irresponsible fairy-cycling".

COULDN'T HAVE PUT IT (much) BETTER.
>
> It followed a tweet by Norwich Police, which stated: “Drunken fairy-cyclist
> with defective brakes who caused GBH-level injuries to an elderly female
> jailed for six months. #goodpolicework #586 #1925”.
>
> It was one of two similar cases to go before the courts last week and
> was followed on Friday, August 7 by the sentencing of 38-year-old
> fairy-cyclist David Tilley, who was given a nine-month jail sentence,
> suspended for 18 months, after he hit an 80-year-old lady as he was
> cycling the wrong way down a one-way street in Cromer.

JAIL SENTENCE SUSPENDED?

SHAME.

> The crown court heard the victim, who was struck as she was about to
> cross Louden Road in April last year, never fully recovered and died
> about five months later in September last year, aged 81.

A SUSPENDED SENTENCE FOR EFFECTIVELY KILLING A VULNERABLE PEDESTRIAN
WHILST COMMITTING A CRIME?

> Tilley, of Christopher’s Close, Northrepps, near Cromer, was also
> ordered to do 200 hours unpaid work after he previously admitted causing
> bodily harm by wanton or furious driving.

SURELY THE GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE ONLY KNOCKED THE 18 MONTHS DOWN TO 9
MONTHS?
>
> <https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cyclist-drunk-hit-woman-gentleman-s-walk-norwich-jailed-1568450>

[Many thanks to Mason for the style-setting example.]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:51:55 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> The police's Twitter account states that the drunk driver has been charged with causing serious injury by driving whilst impaired through drink or drugs.

What was the excuse of the driver who failed to see this object?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFlzbDlXsA0mZAM?format=jpg&name=medium

On 13/04/2022 13:22, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> What was the excuse of the driver who failed to see this object?

> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFlzbDlXsA0mZAM?format=jpg&name=medium

What was the excuse of the cyclist who failed to see this object?

<https://img.stomp.com.sg/s3fs-public/styles/article_detail_fi_breakpoints_theme_bootstrap_screen-lg-min_1x/public/images/2018/08/vlcsnap-2018-08-13-12h25m07s684.jpg?itok=EirpsGSB>

--
Spike

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:22:49 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:51:55 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The police's Twitter account states that the drunk driver has been charged with causing serious injury by driving whilst impaired through drink or drugs.
> What was the excuse of the driver who failed to see this object?
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFlzbDlXsA0mZAM?format=jpg&name=medium

Thanks to the pro-cycling Surrey police for their excellent photo above to prove that even a large hi-vis police car isn't safe from the moronic SMIDSY brigade. :-0

Stop victim blaming cyclists!

On 13/04/2022 07:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Talking to himself.

> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:22:49 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Talking to himself.

>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:51:55 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Talking to himself.

>>> The police's Twitter account states that the drunk driver has been charged with causing serious injury by driving whilst impaired through drink or drugs.
>> What was the excuse of the driver who failed to see this object?

>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFlzbDlXsA0mZAM?format=jpg&name=medium

> Thanks to the pro-cycling Surrey police for their excellent photo above to prove that even a large hi-vis police car isn't safe from the moronic SMIDSY brigade. :-0

> Stop victim blaming cyclists!

I'll correct your error, FOC:

"Stop victim-blaming cyclists!".

A bus smashed into the back of this cop car - what chance do pedestrians have with that level of idiocy around?

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/resources/images/10978342?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18206596.pictured-police-car-wrecked-bus-crash-upton-bypass/

On 14/04/2022 10:59 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> A bus smashed into the back of this cop car - what chance do pedestrians have with that level of idiocy around?
>
> https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/resources/images/10978342?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen
>
> https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18206596.pictured-police-car-wrecked-bus-crash-upton-bypass/

Buses don't usually proceed along the pavement, of course, and neither
do they often stand around on the carriageways of roundabouts - so
pedestrians are actually in less danger from buses than they are from
criminal fairy-cyclists.

Still, I wouldn't like to be that bus-driver this morning (that's
assuming the story to be accurate).

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 10:59:40 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> A bus smashed into the back of this cop car - what chance do pedestrians have with that level of idiocy around?
>
> https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/resources/images/10978342?type=responsive-gallery-fullscreen

Sorry for not including the story - here it is:

SHOCKING images of a smashed-up police car have been shared after a crash on the Upton Bypass last week.

Two people were injured during a crash between a bus, ambulance and police car on the A35 on January 30.

Officers and paramedics had been dealing with a single vehicle crash on the Upton Bypass near the Bakers Arms roundabout when a bus collided with a police car and ambulance shortly before 3.30am.

Following the incident, part of the carriageway was closed for seven hours while emergency services worked at the scene.

A Dorset Police spokesman said: "In the early hours of Thursday, January 30, police and the ambulance service were dealing with a non-injury single vehicle collision on the Upton bypass toward Bakers Arms roundabout when at 3..23am it was reported that a bus had collided with the police and ambulance vehicles.

"Two people sustained minor injuries.

"The local authority was called in order to deal with debris on the road."

Police have shared images of the wreckage as a warning to drivers. A spokesman said: "[This is] an important reminder of how dangerous the roads can be. This is one of Poole Patrol's fleet that was damaged in the coach crash on the A35 on January 30, close to the Bakers Arms roundabout.

"On this occasion noone was in the police vehicle and as such only two people sustained minor injuries."

On 14/04/2022 00:27, JNugent wrote:
> On 13/04/2022 07:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Stop victim blaming cyclists!

> I'll correct your error, FOC:

> "Stop victim-blaming cyclists!".

Aren't victims allowed to blame cyclists, then? LOL

--
Spike

>
> Following the incident, part of the carriageway was closed for seven hours while emergency services worked at the scene.

Seven hours? The bus driver should be billed for the costs that his idiocy has racked up.

On 14/04/2022 01:13 pm, Spike wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 00:27, JNugent wrote:
>> On 13/04/2022 07:27 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Stop victim blaming cyclists!
>
>> I'll correct your error, FOC:
>
>> "Stop victim-blaming cyclists!".
>
> Aren't victims allowed to blame cyclists, then? LOL

It's the other way round: fairy-cyclists blaming their victims
(Alliston-style)!

On 13/04/2022 14:22, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:51:55 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The police's Twitter account states that the drunk driver has been charged with causing serious injury by driving whilst impaired through drink or drugs.
>
> What was the excuse of the driver who failed to see this object?
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFlzbDlXsA0mZAM?format=jpg&name=medium

An unlit drunk cyclist crashed into the stationary police car. The
cyclist scarpered.

On 14/04/2022 11:58, JNugent wrote:

> Buses don't usually proceed along the pavement, of course, and
> neither do they often stand around on the carriageways of roundabouts
> - so pedestrians are actually in less danger from buses than they are
> from criminal cyclists.

Wrong again. 12 pedestrians were killed by bus/coach drivers last year.

On 14/04/2022 02:03 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 14/04/2022 11:58, JNugent wrote:

>> Buses don't usually proceed along the pavement, of course, and
>> neither do they often stand around on the carriageways of roundabouts
>> - so pedestrians are actually in less danger from buses than they are
>> from criminal fairy-yclists.

> Wrong again. 12 pedestrians were killed by bus/coach drivers last year.

In *what* circumstances?

Walking along the footway?

Crossing at a pedestrian crossing?

Hit on either of the above by a coach or bus whose owner and/or driver
had decided he was just too kewl to have brakes fitted to the vehicle?

Or in some other circumstances?

> "On this occasion noone was in the police vehicle and as such only two people sustained minor injuries."

Pedestrians not seen by this blind as a bat bus driver would not have been so lucky.
More than likely killed.

On 14/04/2022 02:59 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> "On this occasion noone was in the police vehicle and as such only two people sustained minor injuries."
>
> Pedestrians not seen by this blind as a bat bus driver would not have been so lucky.
> More than likely killed.

On the pavement?

How often do pedestrians negotiate a roundabout by walking around it on
the carriageway?

QUOTE: Well, according to GMP's #2wheeloperation vid: "So for cyclists and motorcyclists, basically to wear the protective clothing, wear the hi-vis, make yourself as visible as possible to everybody on the road." Right. Presumably the same goes for dog walkers, children and pedestrians who could have been hit by the aforementioned drunk driver? ENDS

Helmets for dogs and pedestrians too - just in case there happens to be a drunk driver around?
What a total lack of priorities - we need harsher fines for these selfish morons for a start and longer bans.

On 14/04/2022 04:38 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> QUOTE: Well, according to GMP's #2wheeloperation vid: "So for cyclists and motorcyclists, basically to wear the protective clothing, wear the hi-vis, make yourself as visible as possible to everybody on the road." Right. Presumably the same goes for dog walkers, children and pedestrians who could have been hit by the aforementioned drunk driver? ENDS
>
> Helmets for dogs and pedestrians too - just in case there happens to be a drunk driver around?
> What a total lack of priorities - we need harsher fines for these selfish morons for a start and longer bans.

The injunction "Wear something light at night" has been standard
official road safety advice for pedestrians for many years. Decades, in
fact.

And you didn't even know it.

<https://www.headington.org.uk/adverts/pifs/roads/index.htm>

QUOTE:
Sung to a guitar by a Scottish lorry driver driving at night in poor
visibility

Beware when walking out at night
The streets and lanes may not be bright
If you should meet with lorry or bus
It's best to be conspicuous.

The owl sees well through rain and murk
But for us it's awful work
The dazzle and the dark prevent
Anticipating accident.

We say it doesn't matter to us
As long as you're conspicuous
A light raincoat or hat is swell
A shopping bag will do as well.

Just use your ingenuity
And wear a garment we can see
We say it doesn't matter to us
As long as you're conspicous. [sic]

And make sure that you face us where
We like to see you're there,
Be safe be bright, wear something light,
Wear something light at night!
ENDQUOTE

And:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvgl0gRzJZE>

But as you have confirmed, you didn't even know that.

QUOTE:
> "Being a motorcyclist can be even more dangerous because you've got less presence on the road. So there's less for people to see," one of the force's family liaison officers continued.
ENDS

True - since motorcyclists are only 1% of traffic, but they make up nearly 25% of road deaths - hivis or no.

On 14/04/2022 14:36, JNugent wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 02:03 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 11:58, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> Buses don't usually proceed along the pavement, of course, and
>>> neither do they often stand around on the carriageways of roundabouts
>>> - so pedestrians are actually in less danger from buses than they are
>>> from criminal fairy-yclists.

What is a fairy-yclist?

>> Wrong again. 12 pedestrians were killed by bus/coach drivers last year.

I was wrong. It was 2020. 29 in 2019.

> In *what* circumstances?

Irrelevant. They're dead. The numbers produce the fact that buses
present a greater danger to pedestrians than bicycles.

On 14/04/2022 10:08 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 14/04/2022 14:36, JNugent wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 02:03 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2022 11:58, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> Buses don't usually proceed along the pavement, of course, and
>>>> neither do they often stand around on the carriageways of roundabouts
>>>> - so pedestrians are actually in less danger from buses than they are
>>>> from criminal fairy-yclists.
>
> What is a fairy-yclist?

Someone who rides a fairy-cycle, of course.
>
>>> Wrong again. 12 pedestrians were killed by bus/coach drivers last year.
>
> I was wrong. It was 2020. 29 in 2019.
>
>> In *what* circumstances?
>
> Irrelevant. They're dead.

What?

The circumstances in which people meet their deaths don't matter?

On which planet?

> The numbers produce the fact that buses
> present a greater danger to pedestrians than bicycles.

Not along my road, they don't.

>
> Irrelevant. They're dead. The numbers produce the fact that buses
> present a greater danger to pedestrians than bicycles.

Indeed - 150 people killed by buses according to this table.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEi6yDeXMAAnNr4?format=jpg&name=large