Things that have recently annoyed me

[voodoo_simon]

Lots of things seem to be angering me at the moment, first up, Australian rugby team refused to wear a jersey as it had rainbow stripes on it and to quote the BBC
seven players decided to boycott the key match on "religious and cultural" ground

Article here
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62331136

Now if your religion or culture is against LGBTQ+ (I hope I’m using the right term) then I’d suggest that you may be following the wrong one and what sort of culture is against LGBTQ+. It really does beg belief. Really, isn’t religion about love l, tolerance and doing good things, not out casting people for how/who they are?

I was brought up catholic, church every Sunday and went to three catholic schools until I was 18 and I certainly don’t remember any teachings about being LGBTQ+ (Side note if it matters or not but I don’t believe in anything now)

Don’t get me started on (some) Christians and their abortion beliefs either

- - -

Next up, a drag queen decided to read at a local library to young children. It was completely optional (ie not forced on the children/parents) and people turned out to protest. WTF!! Seriously, a drag queen offers to read some books to a group of children and all you can think is that the drag queen is a paedophile

Sorry the link is the express but I have read it in other placess but can’t find the story again
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/16466 ... ng-library

- - -

And finally, this one did boil my piss. Was on holiday and witnessed from a distance a blind man coming up a famous set of steps (the ones from Game of Thrones if anyone is familiar). A couple where there on the steps taking selfies, nowt wrong with that, but they literally refused to move out of the way of the blind person. The woman in question could clearly see the man approaching her. Shocking stuff. They thought their selfie was much more important than the man. Really pissed me off, just wished I was closer to have had a more positive impact.

What happened to putting common courtesy and manners over your own self?! So many people are self centred in our world.

Rant over!

[Cheeky Monkey]

I think you want STW chief

[Bearbonesnorm]

Don't get me going ... I can be easily annoyed, I have a low tolerance for fools and virtually zero social filter. Makes for interesting times

[macinblack]

I get Mrs Mac to smack me over the head with a shovel every morning and thus I stagger through life totally oblivious to all the things that would otherwise have me going Fray Bentos.

[RIP]

"the Express".

Ah. I think I've spotted the crux of your problem .

[Bearlegged]

Next up, a drag queen decided to read at a local library to young children. It was completely optional (ie not forced on the children/parents) and people turned out to protest.

Just wait until these folk find out about pantomime dames!

[slarge]

I despair of the intolerance and division promoted by the press and politicians and spouted on social media by bigots- far too commonplace and the instigators should be hung out to dry. (Farage and Trump first)

[RIP]

Press? Intolerance? I hesitate to raise our blood pressures again but I see that today's Daily Heil has on its front page... what? inflation? "only *I* can sort the mess out made by the govt that I was in" PM selection? Taiwan? Energy security? Heatwave? No - "KILLER CYCLISTS LONG JAIL SENTENCES!!!" screamer. Hilarious. They really are the dregs. Obvious who's behind it too - Grant Shits 'Transport' Minister, a nasty piece of work.

Annndddd.... breathe.

[voodoo_simon]

Next up, a drag queen decided to read at a local library to young children. It was completely optional (ie not forced on the children/parents) and people turned out to protest.

Just wait until these folk find out about pantomime dames!

Indeed!

Also in reference to the rugby case, the team were/are sponsored by a gambling company which makes it even more ironic…

Press? Intolerance? I hesitate to raise our blood pressures again but I see that today's Daily Heil has on its front page... what? inflation? "only *I* can sort the mess out made by the govt that I was in" PM selection? Taiwan? Energy security? Heatwave? No - "KILLER CYCLISTS LONG JAIL SENTENCES!!!" screamer. Hilarious. They really are the dregs. Obvious who's behind it too - Grant Shits 'Transport' Minister, a nasty piece of work.

Annndddd.... breathe.

A family member sometimes asks me to buy them the Daily Fail if I’m visiting, have to hide it in a porno mag to save embarrassment in the store

[RIP]

[woodsmith]

Press? Intolerance? I hesitate to raise our blood pressures again but I see that today's Daily Heil has on its front page... what? inflation? "only *I* can sort the mess out made by the govt that I was in" PM selection? Taiwan? Energy security? Heatwave? No - "KILLER CYCLISTS LONG JAIL SENTENCES!!!" screamer. Hilarious. They really are the dregs. Obvious who's behind it too - Grant Shits 'Transport' Minister, a nasty piece of work.

Annndddd.... breathe.

While I agree that the number of deaths caused by cyclists is hardly the most pressing issue humanity faces, if we want to be treated as equal road users then shouldn't that that equality be across the board?
I'm no lover of the Tories, personally I'd be happy to see Whitehall lined with their heads on spikes, but Grant Shaps did refer to "moving into the era of sustained mass cycling" as a " thoroughly good thing".
Just don't tell him that speed limits don't apply to us

[RIP]

Grant Shaps did refer to "moving into the era of sustained mass cycling" as a " thoroughly good thing".

Watch what they do not what they say .

[riderdown]

"KILLER CYCLISTS LONG JAIL SENTENCES!!!" screamer. Hilarious. They really are the dregs. Obvious who's behind it too - Grant Shits 'Transport' Minister, a nasty piece of work.

Zero issue to anyone who rides halfway sensibly, the unintended consequence maybe that death by dangerous driving becomes more enforceable with a lower bar of proof/ terrible driving required.

The airtime it's getting is just a sad representation of how desperate the press/media are to get clicks.

Watch what they do not what they say

Grant Shapps rides a bike, I believe he fell off and hurt himself recently https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... s-59205076

[In Reverse]

2 years is far too low a sentence as things currently stand. Setting sentencing to parity with driving is the right thing to do isn't it?

[johnnystorm]

2 years is far too low a sentence as things currently stand. Setting sentencing to parity with driving is the right thing to do isn't it?

Only if you think that being daft on a vehicle with 150kgs gvw and a cruising speed of 10-20mph is as reckless as beinh daft piloting a vehicle at least 10x as heavy and potentially 5-10x faster.

[Lazarus]

Just headline grabbing soundbite to appeal to a certain type and given the death rates caused by cyclists and by motor vehicles[all types] it really should not be anyone's priority if they want to reduce deaths/make roads safer,

I also agree that its just not equivalent to be dangerous at say 25 mph on a bike and dangerous at pissed and 75 mph in a two tonne metal box - neither are admirable and both deserve stern sentences IMHO

I would further argue death is much more foreseeable/likely in a vehicle than in car so not entirely sure them mens rea is similar[ or the ability to see the risk - one is undeniable the other is a possible therefore they are just not equivalent offences

YMMV
EDIT: as inreverse notes 2 years does seem quite lenient but not sure equivalency is the correct way to remedy this

[In Reverse]

2 years is far too low a sentence as things currently stand. Setting sentencing to parity with driving is the right thing to do isn't it?

Only if you think that being daft on a vehicle with 150kgs gvw and a cruising speed of 10-20mph is as reckless as beinh daft piloting a vehicle at least 10x as heavy and potentially 5-10x faster.

That's irrelevant tbf. That's like saying you should get a lesser sentence for killing someone with a claw hammer than a sledgehammer. Both have the same outcome - someone's dead because you've acted the tw@ with your vehicle.

edit - and the crime under discussion isn't "being daft" - it's causing someone's death. it feels like that's a fairly important distinction

[johnnystorm]

Snip: Just headline grabbing soundbite to appeal to a certain type and given the death rates caused by cyclists and by motor vehicles[all types] it really should not be anyone's priority if they want to reduce deaths/make roads safer,

EDIT: as inreverse notes 2 years does seem quite lenient but not sure equivalency is the correct way to remedy this

Two years might seem too lenient but...

From Road.cc

Currently, cyclists involved in crashes in which a pedestrian is killed or injured can face prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for causing bodily harm through wanton or furious driving, which has a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. They can also be charged with manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

So if someone totally acts the twit on their bike the mechanism is there to lock them away for good, just like you can with a car driver but of course the charge never sticks as the jury feel "there but by the grace of god go I" and they get off.

My worry is that cyclists wouldn't get off as fewer jurors would see themselves as cyclists who weren't paying attention for a moment like they see themselves in other drivers.

[johnnystorm]

2 years is far too low a sentence as things currently stand. Setting sentencing to parity with driving is the right thing to do isn't it?

Only if you think that being daft on a vehicle with 150kgs gvw and a cruising speed of 10-20mph is as reckless as beinh daft piloting a vehicle at least 10x as heavy and potentially 5-10x faster.

That's irrelevant tbf. That's like saying you should get a lesser sentence for killing someone with a claw hammer than a sledgehammer. Both have the same outcome - someone's dead because you've acted the tw@ with your vehicle.

Not really, as the chances of someone hit with a bike dying are far lower than someone hit by an HGV. It's patently a more foolhardy thing to mess about in motor vehicle than on a bike.

It would be especially unfair when society forces bicycles to share the same space as pedestrians a lot of time.

[johnnystorm]

edit - and the crime under discussion isn't "being daft" - it's causing someone's death. it feels like that's a fairly important distinction

Causing their death unintentionally, by being daft. We aren't discussing people who are setting out to kill someone and choose their bike over a machete.

[riderdown]

My worry is that cyclists wouldn't get off as fewer jurors would see themselves as cyclists who weren't paying attention for a moment like they see themselves in other drivers.

If they are being equivalent then there with be a death by careless riding, as we all know the charging decision for drivers is heavily influenced by the high evidential hurdle, in all likelihood the guy who is pushing this wouldn't have got the charging decision he seems to want in the case of his partner

[Lazarus]

My worry is that cyclists wouldn't get off as fewer jurors would see themselves as cyclists who weren't paying attention for a moment like they see themselves in other drivers.

Agreed there are plenty of example of drivers being irresponsible [ as kind as i can put it and a massive understatement ] and getting off as juries consider not slowing down when blinded by the sun and driving into the back of a cyclist on a straight stretch of road as " not guilty"

Unfortunately a lot of people, or at least vocal internet users, really seem to dislike cyclists and the general public, being drivers, are very pro drivers.

EDIT: that said my sympathy for a person who rode a fixie with no brakes is not that high either - its clearly an accident waiting to happen and just irresponsible.

[anagallis_arvensis]

My worry is that cyclists wouldn't get off as fewer jurors would see themselves as cyclists who weren't paying attention for a moment like they see themselves in other drivers.

Agreed there are plenty of example of drivers being irresponsible [ as kind as i can put it and a massive understatement ] and getting off as juries consider not slowing down when blinded by the sun and driving into the back of a cyclist on a straight stretch of road as " not guilty"

My friend was killed in exactly this circumstance, driver got off

[RIP]

I feel for you . That's very sad.

Generally reading around this issue with my brew after this morning's constitutional round the lanes, and found this quite interesting https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegu ... s-study . Not directly related to cyclists damaging third parties but taken at face value puts the red-light-jumping/no-lights debate in a different light (ho ho).

[woodsmith]

I feel for you . That's very sad.

Generally reading around this issue with my brew after this morning's constitutional round the lanes, and found this quite interesting https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegu ... s-study . Not directly related to cyclists damaging third parties but taken at face value puts the red-light-jumping/no-lights debate in a different light (ho ho).

Link not working Reg.