Boardman on BBC Breakfast...

[Mugshot]

Just watched BBC this morning, who is that £)&@ head called Sherry. If he is our best representative God help us. " no ifs, no buts no coconuts " was one of his quotes, very impressive.

He also hit a van that he thought was was too close to his bike, didn't actually look that close, driver gets out and floors the clown.

Who is this idiot?

HERE's the original thread from CC

 

[Kbrook]

Just using his hand? Not with a long stick or anything?

I get your point, but hitting the van was a massive overreaction. Just watched the clip again, the van wasn't that close so maybe he did have along stick.

 

[Kbrook]

Didn't realise there was a 13 page thread on this so no need to discuss it anymore. I actually thought it had happened during the BBC filming didn't realise it was historic

 

[Drago]

I saw that this morning. While I don't think he deserved to get poked in the face, I can kinda see how he brought it upon himself. I always urge people to remember Kenneth Noye before getting into a confrontation.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

dunno but I tweeted headway and asked how a helmet stops torso crushing injuries when a lorry wheel goes over me.

Did you see Headway's response to Boardman? (https://www.headway.org.uk/news/former-olympic-cyclist-setting-poor-example.aspx)

I quote:
''Mr Boardman, a former Olympic cyclist and currently a policy advisor for British Cycling, was cycling with BBC reporter Louise Minchin, who was appropriately dressed and was wearing a helmet in compliance with the Highway Code and BBC editorial policy.''

And the final paragraph in bold in their text:
''"It is vital that cyclists are given education and encouragement to ensure they comply with the Highway Code and increase their safety by wearing helmets."''

Blatant attempts to make it seem like riding helmetless is not observing the Highway Code. It reminds me of Matthew, formerly of this parish (Rhyll division) who got cut up by a bus driver who justified his bad driving with reference to the Highway Code, whereupon Matthew got out a copy of the Highway Code from his pannier and disproved the bus driver. Defending bad (or vindictive) driving and blaming the irresponsibility of the cyclist whilst erroneously quoting the HC. Headway are not far from drivers shouting at cyclists from their cars.

 

[Profpointy]

There may possibly be an overlap between those groupings.

no, wouldn't have thought so

 

[benb]

Headway are a bunch of dishonest zealots.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/headways-brick-wall/

 

[Mugshot]

Didn't realise there was a 13 page thread on this so no need to discuss it anymore. I actually thought it had happened during the BBC filming didn't realise it was historic

Understandable, I'll pop @Cubist s well measured post from the thread below which sums the incident up quite nicely,

Don't hold your breath!

Would you like a "sympathetic police force" to ignore half of the facts in a case in order to pursue a particular agenda?

By the way, I've kept quiet on this thread to date, not least because I think that under the circumstances the fact that the driver got a caution was well in keeping with what normally happens, according to very strict guidelines set by the Home Office and applied strictly by Evidential Review Officers and the CPS. First offence, no serious injuries from the actual assault (we'll come back to the elbow later) and a caution is in keeping with what was to be expected.

The OP has made a formal complaint because it took 5 weeks to progress to that point. Really?

Now that we have a second perspective thanks to GC's persistent questioning and Boris's more direct approach, we have the suggestion (and some evidence) that the cyclist slapped the van. Still no excuse for what happens next, the assault is absolutely unforgivable, and the assailant now has a record for his actions. However, I can be in no doubt that the driver will have been interviewed and will have advanced the mitigating factor that he was annoyed at having his van slapped.

Faced with this the officers will have been duty bound to make further enquiries around that assertion, and this will have prolonged the decision making process. We don't know (and I doubt if we will ever find out) exactly what that decision making process is or was, but given what we now suspect, a caution for the punch is quite a result.

We also don't know whether the incident was dealt with as a Road Traffic Collision. I suspect that the driver has told the police from the outset that he didn't hit the cyclist, but that the cyclist slapped his van. This is why the police didn't issue a Notice Of Intended Prosecution as sue tells us higher up thread.... because as far as they are concerned no offence has been committed. To confuse matters however, there is no legal need to issue an NIP if the offence in question involves a collision of which the driver is aware.... so legal moot point on that one. Did the police consider the matter to be an RTC? Indeed, did the OP ever report it as such or did he just tell the 101 operator that he had been assaulted?

Either way, sue has posted the incident and invited us to think of the police who dealt with this as lazy, incompetent and unsympathetic. There is a suggestion he has been caught out in a lie, and is even prepared to pervert the course of justice, and I note that he has plenty of time to respond to these accusations, but so far hasn't. As a committed professional whose job is to address and improve public confidence and satisfaction in the service I represent this makes my blood boil. There are enough examples of police idiocy and incompetence for real without someone making stuff up to discredit us FFS.

What's even worse is that he has claimed that the incident has cost him five weeks off work and intends to pursue the matter civilly. Glasgowcyclist has echoed many sentiments here inasmuch as we hope he isn't tempted to make things even worse by being investigated for criminal deception.#

Oh, and a big shout out to @Mugshot 's tenacious detective work and keen observation. Not to mention veloevol's HD slomo.

 

[mjr]

Only notorious from the POV of segregationist zealots who get angry when cyclists campaign for measures at the top of hierarchy of provision to improve the safety of the roads rather than marginalise us to off road farcilities. (remember, both these supposedly notorious schemes had the active support of the local campaign groups).

I'd be quite happy if either the Bedford or Cambridge schemes had measures at the top of the hierarchy of provision, which is traffic volume reduction. The Bedford bid rejected an arguably-better design (option 2 for on-road) partly because it allowed only 25000 vehicles/day whereas the Turbogate allows traffic volumes to increase; and it rejected a better off-road design (option 3) partly because regulations don't yet allow Zoucans/cycle-zebras. However, the local campaign group supported the Turbogate (option 7) http://www.ccnb.org.uk/responsesb.html on the basis that Zoucans will be installed, even though the council hasn't promised/funded that as far as I can tell. There's also a strange claim from CCNB that adjacent roads aren't wide enough for cycle lanes, which I'm pretty sure is only true if there's two motor vehicle approach lanes like the Turbogate requires.

In Cambridge, the local cycle campaign offered to support it IF some simple conditions were met, such as the road/path junctions being well-designed, the crossing islands being wide enough and flush kerbs being properly flush. http://www.camcycle.org.uk/blog/2013/11/11/perne-radegund-road-roundabout/ I won't visit it until Saturday at soonest, but I understand that those conditions have not been met, therefore there isn't support.

In this respect they are really no different from the helmet taliban giving Boardman a kicking at the moment. Both put the case that cycling is so dangerous that we need the protection of their particular measure - whether that is kerbs or hats.

Wow, it makes for a really good argument if one invents imaginary demons, doesn't it? Cycling is generally safe but could be safer. The case in Bedford, Cambridge, Bristol and elsewhere is: if cycling funding is used, then the project should put cycling first, not third or second after traffic volume.

Both really hate cycle campaigners for understanding the issues and proposing measures that are actually helpful. Both are actively discouraging cycling by using fear mongering to propose their own particular solutiuons. Both claim to be protecting the children in order to dismiss any rational argument presented by adults as irresponsible. Both ignore the views of cyclists and pandering to the prejudices of the "normal" non-cycling population.

As far as I can tell, neither Bedford nor Cambridge are the measures proposed by cycle campaigners. The first mention of the Bedford design is a 2012 council document - CCNB's website doesn't seem to have much history about their wishes for that location (they've had a website since 2000, so has there been some retconning?). Cambridge Cycle Campaign proposed off-road cycle tracks and crossings along Radegund Road as long ago as 2001 http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/threads/radegundroad.html although then some anti-measurists replies, then the dual network advocates, then the hierarchists... and it's almost a minature study of all cycle campaigns got wrong around the turn of the century.

The fearmongers are the anti-measure zealots who kibo'ize the internet looking for the merest mention of their pet crap-path schemes to defend, who portray compilations of crap-path anecdotes as if they are the only paths, who act as if novice riders should be given no choice except between long back lane detours and mixing it on the main lanes of roads like the A5, who don't seem to accept a need to encourage any new riders. There are stunning similarities with the hat-pushers who search the internet looking for the merest mention of riding without hard hats, who portray compilations of head injury anecdotes as if that's the biggest risk of riding, who act as if novice riders should not be given the choice, who don't seem to accept that we need to encourage new riders.

 

[martint235]

[QUOTE 3361735, member: 45"]Anyone up for contacting Headway?[/QUOTE]
Oh go on then why not.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

[QUOTE 3361735, member: 45"]Anyone up for contacting Headway?[/QUOTE]
If I thought they had the remotest interest in improving road safety for cyclists, I would. That, however, is the chief thing that they don't do.

 

[Drago]

Headway are a bunch of dishonest zealots.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/headways-brick-wall/

Christ, dishonest doesn't even begin to describe that work of fiction.

 

[mjr]

[QUOTE 3361790, member: 45"]Let's not completely dismiss Headway. On this issue they may have it completely wrong, but they do some essential and fantastic work in other areas.[/QUOTE]
How can anyone support their other work without lending credibility to their bike-bashing hat-pushing?

 

[Drago]

Just had a quick nosey at their website. Talk about selective cherrypicking of data.

 

[subaqua]

[QUOTE 3361735, member: 45"]Anyone up for contacting Headway?[/QUOTE]
I did. they haven't responded yet