In the news

If you're riding carefully enough you should be able to avoid most situations where you need a bell. I need to shout warnings far less often than I used to, because I slowed down a bit.

We also need fewer teenagers screaming around with no brakes

let's try and tackle the actually cause of most accidents, HGV's, first, eh?

I see the Mail and Times vultures circling too
https://twitter.com/richardspillett/status/897771665995833344

Those pedestrianised areas would help with that.

In any case, ignoring one hazard because there is another, larger one makes no sense. Tackle both.

Assuming you consider them both a hazard.

If the roads weren't death traps then people wouldn't feel the need to cycle on the pavements.

ignoring one hazard because there is another, larger one makes no sense.

In world with limited resources it kind of does, If one hazard is responsible for one death a year, and the other hundreds.

Cyclists don’t cause us, as an organisation, problems, that’s because they aren’t causing our communities problems, they aren’t killing nearly 100 people on our regions roads as mechanically propelled vehicles currently do.

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/category/safer-cycling/

The fact that the jury is deliberating for so long suggests they might be taking their responsibilities seriously and not just knee jerking. Which is something, whatever the verdict.

Or they hate their day jobs.

In my entirely anecdotal experience juries have a problem with the separation of verdict and sentencing - which the chap being so young is probably not helping with.

That may explain why juries are reluctant to convict for manslaughter for RTAs - death by dangerous/careless driving was introduced to offset that, apparently.

@Saarf Confirmed acid attack, very nasty and a couple of streets back from me

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/21/man-suffers-serious-injuries-in-east-london-acid-attack

a friend commented: It's a London jury, most likely has one or two cyclists on it.

Ladies' Day at Ascot:

Excellent! Borrowing.

Werd.
I used to ride the canal to work in Leeds and parts of it get to 'single file' especially under the bridges.
I don't ride with a bell cos I have no reason for priority. You wouldn't drive around honking so cars move out the way or walk round town screaming 'I'm here, move' so you don't have to slow down/be aware.
Towpaths aren't Cycle Lanes.
I'll admit I did kinda rely on other people to 'ding' if they were on the other side of them booki bridges but other than that, you're a bell if you use your bell for priority.

If the roads weren't death traps then people wouldn't feel the need to cycle on the pavements.

Oh Dear....

The judge will always start by directing towards a unanimous verdict. If they've been deliberating a long while (and the foreman says there's a chance of some agreement) then the judge may direct that a 10-2 majority as acceptable.
They'll always push for unanimous first.

I've recently been on jury service and one jury had some people who couldn't separate the verdict from the sentence, the other was much better. It depends on the people.

Ah thanks. So if they can't manage 10-2 does that mean retrial? Jury's locked or whatever. Stymied.

Up to the CPS to decide if there's a chance of another jury convicting.

Case dropped if not?

Barristers on both sides will get a fair idea of what has kept them from reaching a decision and make a call based on that.

If it's simply jury composition, they'll likely go again.

I covered courts as a journalist (yeah, yeah - tin hat) for many years and you just can't read juries. They make some strange decisions.

Like that John Grisham novel, The Jury of Twats.

People are weird it's true and juries are comprised of people...kinda terrifying but it's probably the least shit way

It's an upgrade on checking if she floats before burning at the stake.