If there was such a device as a sad-o-meter – something which measured how sad some people really are – then Paul Hastings, 45, would have broken it by maxing it out.
Hastings, a company director, was four times the limit as he lurched into a garage and attempted to pay for fuel he hadn’t even pumped into his car. He hadn’t put ANY in his car. He then staggered back to his car and the garage staff alerted police. In the meanwhile he nearly collided with other vehicles as he manoeuvred his car to the correct pump.
His defence lawyer seemed to be all out of ideas, offering only:
We have a wholly exceptional set of circumstances which are never to be repeated.
So we must assume that he has never done anything like it before, but without getting caught. But how sad do you have to be to get into a state like this? Hastings got a 9-week suspended sentence and was banned for 32 months. He was also ordered to pay a paltry £85 costs, and £80 victim surcharge. As a director, that must have hit him really hard.
He should have been put away for a year and banned for life.
I mentioned not long ago how Nottingham City Council has been sending out leaflets supposedly “canvassing” opinion on its plans to introduce blanket 20mph speed limits on all but the largest of roads. When challenged, their only defence is to say that other councils are doing it, and to glibly – but very selectively – quote the RoSPA “guidelines” for 20mph limits.
As I said before, what the bloody hell it has to do with RoSPA is anyone’s guess. The local neighbourhood watch chapter has as much control over police staff recruitment as RoSPA has over speed limits. All either of them can do is go to great lengths to publicise themselves by making regular media statements about things that they feel strongly about. Beyond that they have no power whatsoever.
Except over the minds of the sorts of people who work for Nottingham City Council.
You see, the Council has already decided that it WILL introduce blanket 20mph limits. It was taken aback by the public opposition to this, which prompted it to do what it should have done BEFORE it made the decision – which was put in monitoring devices to assess traffic flow in the various locations it is going to drop the limit to 20mph in. Except that it deliberately placed the monitors in places where the RoSPA recommendation that the average speed should already be below 24mph would probably hold true, even though it would not be a true representation of speeds along the entire stretch.
It placed the monitors just after traffic lights and in bottlenecks created by tram works and the resulting gridlock we’ve had to endure over the last two years.
So I noticed this week that they’re up to the same tricks again. They’ve put a monitor on North Gate right outside the shops where traffic slows to pass parked vehicles and to allow opposing traffic through. North Gate is basically an extension of Haydn Road, which has already had a 20mph limit imposed at one end – in spite of being wide enough to land a passenger jet (and that goes totally against the RoSPA advice that the road must look like it should be 20mph). The Council is intending to impose 20mph along the entire stretch between Mansfield Road and Hyson Green.
They’ve done something similar with the monitor they’ve put on Gordon Road in West Bridgford. It is right in amongst the two rows of parked cars that cause people to slow down or stop for buses and other traffic.
It’s really hard to fathom the thought processes used by councils at the best of times. But Nottingham City Council has to take the all-time top award for sneaky behaviour.
Note that Cycling Scotland appealed this ASA January 2014 decision and it has been overturned as of 25 June 2014.
I usually report on ASA adjudications against driving-related sites – notably, scam sites which dupe people into paying more money than they need to for their Theory and Practical tests, or those which make unreasonable claims about their franchises. But this one caught my eye this week.
A TV advert advocating safer cycling – not aimed at cyclists, of course, but everyone else in the known universe – tried to make out that cyclists should be treated the same as horses. Apart from the gross insult to horses (which are far more intelligent), they featured a cyclist who wasn’t wearing a helmet or any other safety gear, and who was riding right in the middle of the road. This was challenged by five complainants as irresponsible and harmful.
Cycling Scotland made a number of weak defence arguments. The best was this:
With regards to the cyclist’s positioning, Cycling Scotland stated that given the width of the road featured in the advert, the cyclist was safer riding out past the parking area where they could be clearly visible to other road users. Furthermore, they informed the ASA that the shoot for the advert was supervised by one of their most experienced cycling instructors.
It doesn’t say much for their instructors, does it? The ASA obviously thought so, too. It upheld the complaint and commented:
…we concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety.
As an aside, today I witnessed three cyclists riding through red lights, one jumping on to the pavement and then back out again and holding up traffic as a result, another using the wrong lane in order to get to the front of the queue and then holding up traffic, and one who deliberately forced his way to the front of a narrow, coned lane in road works and pushed off hard at traffic lights within the lane – again for the sole purpose of holding up traffic.
The word “irresponsible” is inappropriate. “Total arseholes” would be far more accurate.
EDIT: The BBC article perhaps gives a slightly more accessible summary. Once again, the “editor’s picks” of reader comments is amusing.
One prat writes:
pootles magnet
29th January 2014 – 11:14
Interesting how many people think it’s wrong for a cyclist to be positioned anywhere other than in the gutter of the road. A bicycle is a vehicle, just the same as a car, and there is no requirement for them to cycle in any particular part of the road. Being smaller and slower than a car does not give you fewer rights on the road.
This attracts 91 positive comments or “thumbs up”. You will, of course, bear in mind that no cyclist on the face of the earth considers themselves to be “a vehicle, just the same as a car” unless it suits them. Most of the time it doesn’t, as they wobble up on either side and then get in the way, or jump on to pavements or pedestrian crossings to avoid red lights (or just jump red lights without any fancy stuff like that thrown in).
Two somewhat more sensible posts attract lots of “thumbs down”:
pharsical
29th January 2014 – 11:30
If you ride a bike you should ware a helmet end of.
Pudwin
29th January 2014 – 11:02
Helmets should be compulsory, a change in the law is required.
This will protect the cyclist, in the same way as seat belts in cars are compulsory and protect the occupants.
Ridiculous that there is even a debate on this.
Why would a cyclist not wear a helmet?
The scores show clearly what the mentality of most cyclists is. Particularly given that Cycling Scotland has appealed the decision and the ASA has given in to a re-review.
I wonder how many other companies the ASA has ruled against would manage this feat? It’s warped cycling politics taking over again. The ASA nearly gave the World a push in the right direction – yet it has apparently caved in and allowed Cycling Scotland to push the ASA wherever it wants it.
As I said at indicated in the edit at the start of this story, the ruling has been reversed. Be warned: cyclists’ general unpleasantness extends far further than just being prats on the road. They have political leverage as well, and can apparently prevent a clear example of poor cycling behaviour being described as such by anyone.
This story from the newsfeeds tells how Julian Evans (a cyclist) was knocked off his bike and killed by Deborah Lumley-Holmes (a motorist).
Before I continue, let me make it quite clear that as far as I’m concerned, Lumley-Holmes should be in prison for what she did (she got a six-month suspended sentence and was banned for a year). It’s not easy to comment on the case beyond that, since pertinent facts appear very hard to come by. But that isn’t stopping some of the radical cycling groups from shooting off both barrels of their mouths.
I’ve mentioned many times in this blog about how the mitigating pleas put forward by guilty parties (any crime) when they go to court are invariably laughable. In Lumley-Holmes’ case, we have:
…an “exemplary citizen” and [her defence] said in addition to raising £18,000 for charity she had worked as a volunteer at a local hospice and had done this even when she had breast cancer.
On the day in question she had taken an elderly neighbour suffering from dementia shopping in Newmarket and was driving home when the collision took place.
The simple fact of the matter is that she cannot remember what happened, she cannot explain how she didn’t see the cyclist for as long as she did (or didn’t, depending on how you look at it), and she has no other defence. This simple collection of details alone should at least have seen her separated from her driving licence permanently (or for several years, pending a medical investigation of her capabilities). Unfortunately, the Law of this land is a complete ass sometimes. Too often, in fact, and it’s something we all have to live with.
Now, you might think that this would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, the Spandex Fetishists Militant Front sees it as some sort of conspiracy against cyclists. Well, since they want to stir things up – including me – let’s not leave it there. Not yet.
My aversion to “professional” cyclists is no secret. They ride anywhere where it isn’t technically illegal just “because they can” – and that includes not on adjacent cycle paths, which puts them right into the path of motor traffic that the cycle paths were put there to avoid. Irrespective of the fact that a motorist is not legally allowed to drive over a cyclist, there is also the duty of care incumbent on the cyclist to keep out of the way wherever possible. Unfortunately, this duty is something which is being waived in ever increasing numbers by cyclists. The vast majority of them break the Law (of the road, as detailed in the Highway Code) on a regular basis, and they jeopardise themselves in the process. Whether it is deliberate or through simple ignorance is a point of debate, but the fact is that they DO break rules – and they bend a great many more of them! Often, right in front of motor vehicles.
Against that backdrop, then, it is worth noting that various cycling groups have latched on to the Judge’s comments about Lumley-Holmes being “a good person” (indeed, they have been on the case since the incident happened over a year ago). This has led one of them to say:
I’m sure we’re all just as aware of the abuse scandals in the church as we are of our own recent embarrassment at having spent the 80s thinking what a lot of lovely work for children’s charities Jimmy Savile was doing. Let’s not pretend that either doing some charity work or, even less, being religious are accurate litmus tests for a Good Person.
In the usual blinkered way, this writer clearly misses the fact that if you’re going to invent nonsense based on irrelevant comparisons, and make parallels that are from a universe far, far away, precisely the same must apply to the injured party – Julian Evans, in this case. You see, much has been made of how much of a great guy Mr Evans was by all those who have now heard his name for the first time, and who also ride a bike. I have no reason to dispute that, nor do I want to. But a couple of things not mentioned anywhere else can be explained better in pictures.
This is Newmarket Road (where the accident happened). It is clearly a narrow-ish country lane. Cyclists have every right to use that road, of course, but by doing so they put themselves in danger because – as I have said several times before – roads are primarily designed for motor vehicles.
Looking at the road from another angle – and at both ends – you begin to see what sort of place it really is. At one end, there is what appears to be a breaker’s yard:
At the other end there is some sort of depot where lorries enter and exit. You can see one heading that way in the first picture:
Then, if you pull back and look at the overall area, you discover that Newmarket Road is a short spur which leaves and re-joins the busy A14 dual carriageway:
I stress once more that the Law does not prohibit cyclists from using that area (including the A14, as far as I know). Therefore, they have every right to be there. But by doing so they put themselves in danger.
As an aside, Lumley-Holmes says she can’t remember what happened. Mr Evans unfortunately isn’t here to give his side. So who is to say that he didn’t swerve or something?
CTC – the Cycling Charity – was actively seeking people to attend the trial. Why? They could have just read the news reports afterwards like everyone else. Or rather, perhaps they were simply attempting to forward their radical views. After all, anyone coerced into attending would hardly have been the most objective of observers. Indeed, a comment after the sentence reads:
I met Jules on a London to Paris charity cycle ride in 2008, a nicer guy you could not wish to meet. I was shocked to hear of his untimely death and especially the manner of it. The sentence in no way fits the crime. Mrs Lumley-Holmes has offered no explanation for how she managed to run him over from behind on a straight road in good visibility.
You’d have thought this guy was present and witnessed the whole thing on high-speed video from multiple angles, wouldn’t you? As it is, no one – Lumley-Holmes, the court… and especially members of cycling clubs not directly associated with the case in any way at all – knew the true events.
The Road Justice campaign’s aim is to make the roads safer by making the justice system take a tougher approach to bad driving.
It carefully avoids any sort of balance by omitting the obvious line “and bad riding”. If policing were improved, and applied objectively, these people whose Spandex is obviously too tight and cutting off oxygen to their brains would find quite a few of their own kind answering to the Law. If you look at CTC’s third “example” they complain that a cyclist was charged with “careless riding” instead of the driver in a collision being prosecuted – and they take issue with that. Clearly, they want their cake and to eat it, too!
The way things are going, I think they’re in for a big shock, because society is gradually waking up the the real problem of too many cyclists using dangerous roads in dangerous ways. Cyclists have a duty of care to themselves and those about them. Someone needs to explain that to them in words they understand. After all, dead people stay dead – nothing can change that.
They now reckon the Beeston work will finish at the end of May 2014. It should have been done by last October! In the meantime, traders are complaining that “compensation” is inadequate (I put that in inverted commas, because for it to be true compensation it would have to make good all shortfalls in earnings caused as a result. And it hasn’t). Chilwell Road has been closed since March 2013 – so more than a year by the time it reopens.
Project director for Taylor Woodrow Alstom, Michael Anderson, said: “We understand it’s very difficult for traders but we were unable to do the work in a different time frame. It’s very regrettable that it’s taken so long.”
Isn’t it just? And the article adds a couple more months by concluding:
All roads in Beeston should be fully reopened by July, the firm said, with trams running to and from Nottingham by the end of 2014.
So they’re still clinging to the end of the year, are they? I’ll ask what I asked previously: if you can still finish by the end of 2014 as originally planned, HAVING LOST SEVEN UNFORESEEN MONTHS IN BETWEEN TIMES, why the hell did you PLAN to cause the disruption for so long in the first place?
Nottingham’s tram is a monumental waste of money. It isn’t green. It is destroying lives and businesses. It is destroying this city. And it will continue to do so.
I was thinking the other day about how the results of driving tests seems to go in cycles. It’s a bit like a comet, where your better abled pupils get stripped away in the tail, and although you add to the comet’s head by acquiring new pupils, the less abled ones who are ready for test comprise the rocky core. Periodically, it’s only those who are part of that core who are going to test – and that’s where most of the fails come from.
I was struck by that one not long ago, when one particular pupil failed his second attempt. The examiner had told him after he failed the first time to put in for his test again straight away, and he interpreted that as not needing anymore lessons. Most of my pupils take a few more lessons on the run up to their next test. However, on the day of his second attempt it was clear that he’d gone off the boil a little more than most.
The thing is, you can’t force people to take lessons (especially if they can’t afford them). But anyone who has failed a test once already needs to be aware that it can be a false economy to not take any further ones between tests. At the very least, you need to keep driving and practising – and if you don’t have access to a car for private practice, then lessons with your instructor are the only sensible option.
In this guy’s case, he’d paid an extra £75 for a weekend test – but now he realises he will have to pay for another, and some extra lessons.
I was talking to another pupil today who has failed a test already. She’s a student, and I asked her how she normally revises coming up to an exam. You see, when I was at university, I never felt right unless I was actually sitting outside the exam room cramming for stuff I already knew. I realise that not everyone is like that, but equally I am certain that no one stops revising weeks before an exam. So why approach the driving test any differently?
The train is well and truly back on track now. Well done Clive, who passed today first time with just two driver faults (both of them for the same thing).
He’s been another one who has been fun to teach (who could forget that recent lesson where he made several mistakes and was going to get out and walk six miles home in the rain. That’s where “coaching” skills really come to the fore, and phrases like “put your toys back in the pram, and put that bloody seatbelt back on” get everything back in perspective).
Anyway, it means my overall pass rate for the year is at 60%, with the first-time figure being 100%.
Well done Mike, who passed on Tuesday first time with six driver faults. I’d had a couple of fails after that initial pass of the year, so Mike got the train back on track again.
It’s been hard for him, as driving doesn’t come naturally, but now he can realise his dream of driving down to visit his gran at the other end of the country. It’s little details like that which make this job really worthwhile.
I’m a bit late updating these, but well done to Katy who passed first time a couple of weeks ago with seven driver faults. It was my first test of the year, so a great way to start 2014.
She’s been fun to teach – I also taught her two brothers, who also passed first time a couple of years ago now. She was a big JLS fan, who did what I do when Rush tour and went to as many concerts as she could afford. In the end, the practical test was much easier for her than the theory (although we nailed that when we analysed why she’d been failing from her results sheets).
This article reports that trials by BT and Alcatel-Lucent have achieved broadband speeds of 1.4 terabits per second between London and Ipswich (over a 410km link – though Ipswich is only about 80 miles from London).
That would be equivalent to being able to transfer about 44 HD movies in one second!
It isn’t going to be available any time soon, but it does open the way for the future. Mind you, you have to read some of the comments on that BBC story. I love this one:
Kieran
9 Hours ago
10mb is adequate for anyone. 30mb is nice to have. Why does anyone need more?
Let’s get everyone on at least 10mb (I’ve had it for years and it’s a must-have these days), and providing better upload speeds, before we start messing around with anything faster. Even the 100mb fibre rollout is pointless IMO; how it will provide any economic benefits is beyond me.
I wonder if Kieran goes around smashing weaving machines in his spare time? And then this one:
Richard
9 Hours ago
For ordinary home broadband users it’s pretty meaningless. It’s not as if anyone needs to download “44 HD films in a second” . Is anyone’s life so busy that they can’t spare a half hour or so, to download what they need?
Those are “editor’s picks”, too! And some clown actually wrote this – on an online comments system, remember:
I have never used the internet and I never will.
Ah well. I’ll just stick with my good old Virgin Media connection, which was automatically upgraded this week, and let the Luddites and senile Daily Mail readers carry on. Here’s my current speed:
I can download a 1gb file in less than a minute, so I’m not complaining (that would be less than 5 minutes for a whole film). And I get the same result (apart from the ping) if I run the test on a Frankfurt server.
The train is well and truly back on track now. Well done Clive, who passed today first time with just two driver faults (both of them for the same thing).
Well done Mike, who passed on Tuesday first time with six driver faults. I’d had a couple of fails after that initial pass of the year, so Mike got the train back on track again.
I’m a bit late updating these, but well done to Katy who passed first time a couple of weeks ago with seven driver faults. It was my first test of the year, so a great way to start 2014.