Forum Topic

Am I the only one who finds this thread and some of the posts in very poor taste?I've seen Jeremy Vine on his penny farthing a few times in Chiswick and, yes, each time I saw that spectacle I thought "here's money for the physio". And, though I don't watch TV or follow him on Twitter (well I don't use Twitter at all), I understand he's a pretty divisive figure here. Still, gloating for his injuries? Come on.There is a strong focus, on this forum, on bike-inflicted injuries. And, true, there are too many cyclists on pavements and too many people not stopping for pedestrians on zebra crossings. But please, for a second, think that in most of accidents the cyclist is the one coming worse off. Falling off a bike, especially if hit by a car, HURTS. I haven't been cycling for a week thanks to a couple of Met policemen who just crossed the cycle lane outside of Parliament without watching. They didn't notice my flashing lights, they didn't care about me shouting "watch out", they didn't care that I had the green light. They just crossed. I had to swerve to avoid them, hit the kerb, crashed above the metal barriers and rolled over on the other side. Nothing broken, but I have left quite a lot of skin there, broke a few items of clothing and had quite the scare. Obviously neither cop stopped.Is it fun to laugh at this? How would you feel like if you had been in my shoes, or in Jeremy Vine's, and saw a bunch of unknown people on the internet laughing at you for this?

Francis Sheehan ● 1680d

I was scratching my head about your comment and why I seem to have come onto your radar and then I realise the history of this goes back to an exchange we had several months ago when I objected to your post about a female driver who had been responsible for the death of a motorist.Funnily enough if it was your comment about people writing 'vile dehumanising things' that brought it to mind as that was exactly what I thought about your post which described her as a 'BMW motorist'. Despite you knowing nothing about the trial in which the judge concluded that she was also a victim in what was a tragic case (she wasn't speeding and hadn't drunk and hit a pedestrian on a badly lit road) you were resolutely determined not to have a scintilla of sympathy for her and demonise her as much as possible.As a left of centre, non-driving person who tends to cycle when not using public transport I do not chose to defend people who are on the wrong end of grossly unjustified attacks on the basis of their mode of transport or their political affiliation.  What I will do is stand up for other women when they are assailed by bullying misogynists.You are showing a clear pattern of behaviour here. A female politician takes an action that you don't agree with and you single her out for attention despite her male colleagues all agreeing with her. Male drivers are responsible for death and injury on our roads every day but you save your venom for a relatively blameless woman. It is the women on this forum who always tend to get the worst of your invective.If you think by name-checking me you will intimidate me into not calling out this sort of behaviour towards women on your part, you are wrong.

Felicity Caborn ● 1679d

I remember Felicity's comment on the BMW thread - she name checked me and suggested I may be a racist neanderthal because of my determination to present the pedestrian as the victim rather than the driver (both were of Asian heritage).In that thread I took Steve to task for calling cyclists "scum" and "morons" and it was he who called them "cockroaches" and "locusts" over the weekend.I note that Maggie Dodge made an impassioned plea not to call cyclists "people" because they cannot be considered human.I note that cyclists are routinely insulted with terms like "lycra louts" or "mamils" and individuals are held accountable for the actions of others.We must all have seen the constant refrain that cyclists secretly control the government, that they have excessive privilege or entitlement, that they oppress the majority and that traffic calming measures are nothing of the sort, but are instead usurious policies to fleece victimised motorists of cash.I see cyclists scapegoated for the issues of traffic congestion, air pollution and the potential injuries of pedestrians and bus users - not by bikes, but by vehicles.All I hear, mostly unchallenged, is the dehumanising language of anti-semitism, racism and discrimination employed by a majority group against a minority - a group that pretty much looks like you, sounds like you, lives next door to you and probably drives the same car as you.If the EXACT same language was used against an ethnic minority, especially with the historical connotations of words like "cockroaches", it would be recognised and called out as hate speech.  But none of you see this speech as hateful, because you feel it is justified, it is true and because you are blind to your hate and your true natures.To what end?  To challenge, intimidate, discourage, prejudice, incite anti social behaviour and incite violence against this group.David Lesniak, only this week, urged people to drive round to Paul Campbell's house and sit on their horns.  Harassment that doesn't just target Paul, but his family and children as well.How would David react if someone had urged this sort of direct action against him?  He would call the police.  What violence?  Cyclists are targeted daily by motorists.  Abuse is shouted, "close pass" punishments which when misjudged can end up as "tragic accidents" and deliberate attempts to maim and kill.But that's OK, because they shouldn't be on the roads, they've taken "too much", they're rude or obnoxious or "scum" or have it coming or whatever justification you can think up - perhaps they are racist Neanderthals who lack compassion for a driver who killed someone which could have happened to anyone, as Felicity suggested I was.  Either way, we deserve it.  And if we call out the abuse or the language or push for safety measures or some measure of equality, well, we're the ones who are discriminating and oppressing you, and doubly deserve it and more.

Ed Saper ● 1679d

Felicity first posted her "accusations" at 21/11/21 11:08:00 in direct response to a post made by Paul. Here's that post:------21/11/21 10:22:00Here is an article written by the mother of a woman who was killed by a driver in Brixton. She writes about her sense of injustice from a flawed system. The driver had previous convictions including for driving under the influence of drugs.  "Nothing can bring my daughter back, but perhaps I can do something small to change the system because, like a bad parent, it seems to enable the driver to escape taking responsibility for what he has done. It’s a huge task, and the system itself, like many things in this country, is crumbling. I don’t have much optimism. Systemic issues are the most difficult to tackle, as we know with women and work, but that is not a reason to give up."https://www.workingmums.co.uk/flawed-justice-system/------Felicity did not express sympathy for the death of Anisha or even reference her.Felicity's only response was to label Paul (and myself) a racist, Islamophobic, misogynistic cultist for lacking sufficient empathy for a driver who killed a pedestrian (with enough deniability to avoid a lawyer's letter).  A response that you maintain was actually doing me "a favour" - and they didn't stop there, but posted links to the racist abuse of *both* the driver and the pedestrian to further link us to it.  I thought the abuse had been completely removed from this forum, but only the original link and post was removed because it included the "c-word" in the URL.  Loraine helpfully published it using a link shortener, so determined was she to back up Felicity's charges.As Paul said at the time:"All of this in response to a post about a mother grieving for the daughter she lost to road violence and her campaign against what she describes, rightly in my view and of that of the MPs who debated the issue on Monday, as systemic issues with the justice system that harm victims and their families."Rationally, you both have some sympathy for pedestrians killed by motorists.  Yet, you irrationally attack those who raise road safety issues, even to the point of demanding that we show proper deference to and respect for the feelings of a driver who killed a pedestrian.Your interpretation appears to be that criticism of a single motorist by two other motorists (albeit with values that we should drive less and make roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists), must be an attack on your values of primacy for motorists, the status quo and a resistance to any measure that rebalances road priorities away from motorists (or "victimises" them as some put it).Hence your dogged determination to criticise me for lacking sufficient performative empathy for a driver who killed (yet, you are upset when I note your lack of the same for the pedestrian who died) and Felicity's extraordinary ah hominem allegations of racism and the rest of the kitchen sink she threw at us. Hence also the activities of those members of OneChiswick and their most extreme supporters to criticise anyone who doesn't share their values, going beyond calling someone a racist, but using the language of racism to dehumanise them: "cockroaches", "locusts", "scum" and the like.  You can call it a "culture war" if you like (and I realise you mean to dismiss our arguments, complaints and values by using this pejorative term), but I see it as a reaction against necessary progress, where we are *all* doing damage (killing too many people with our vehicles via accidents and pollution as well as harming the environment) and some of us accept that we have to change a bit (I have no plans to give up my car, but I use it a lot less) and some of us refuse to accept that and feel unfairly under assault as a result.

Ed Saper ● 1676d