Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Tim Hall on 14 October, 2022, 10:11:10 am
-
Cyling Mikey, formerly OTP and now mostly of YouTube, was in court recently as a witness,despite lurid headlines suggesting he was there as a defendent.
In summary, he did his "no pasaran" bit at Gandalf corner to the driver of a Range Rover. Range Rover driver drives (slowly) into Cycling Mikey and proceeds round the corner. Police called, driver prosecuted for dangerous driving and assault.
Goes to Crown Court , driver found not guilty. He did plead guilty earlier at a magistrates' court to the traffic offence of ignoring the keep left arrow.
Here's a You Tube linky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZMaxLG-Lpk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZMaxLG-Lpk)
-
Yes, I've seen tweets saying 'hope he gets the court costs', erm, he was a prosecution witness...
Definitely seems to be an issue with jury outcomes in these kinds of court cases.
-
I’ve not watched any video of it, but having filmed the driver making the illegal turn - for which he was successfully prosecuted - would it not have been more sensible (from a self preservation perspective) to have got out of the carriageway? Not trying to excuse the driver however slowly he drove, but I can see how some might view standing in front of the car deliberately to impede it as provocative, and that’s perhaps the view of the majority of that jury.
-
The point needs to be made that no amount of “provocation” justifies using your car as a weapon.
Unfortunately, this verdict sends the wrong message to car drivers.
-
I’ve not watched any video of it, but having filmed the driver making the illegal turn - for which he was successfully prosecuted - would it not have been more sensible (from a self preservation perspective) to have got out of the carriageway? Not trying to excuse the driver however slowly he drove, but I can see how some might view standing in front of the car deliberately to impede it as provocative, and that’s perhaps the view of the majority of that jury.
That feeling is why the laws about pedestrian right of way had to be changed.
It was already a breach of the highway code to drive into a pedestrian, but that didn't stop people from doing it. Impeding their 'Mr Toad-like rights to drive where they want' is felt to be an offense, and most juries would agree.
-
I’ve not watched any video of it, but having filmed the driver making the illegal turn - for which he was successfully prosecuted
Can we be sure it would have been followed up without the escalation? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but neither would I make that assumption.
I'm surprised by the verdict, though I haven't been following it closely, the driver must have had a reasonable expectation of being acquitted to have opted for the Crown Court.
-
I’ve not watched any video of it, but having filmed the driver making the illegal turn - for which he was successfully prosecuted
Can we be sure it would have been followed up without the escalation? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but neither would I make that assumption.
I'm surprised by the verdict, though I haven't been following it closely, the driver must have had a reasonable expectation of being acquitted to have opted for the Crown Court.
Why wouldn't a motorist choose to be judged by twelve other motorists, presided over by a motorist in a wig?
-
If a few of the motorists were like me then you might actually find the motorist complaining. Not least when his lawyer sees my brompton sat next to me in the jurors area. Lol
Seriously, why do you think being a motorist and a cyclist is mutually exclusive? I bet even some of the judges and barristers have been known to ride a bike too
-
They may sometimes ride a bike, but that could just mean they are Keen Cyclists Themselves.
-
It’s not mutually exclusive but it is statistically likely that they are car drivers but not cyclists.
-
The point needs to be made that no amount of “provocation” justifies using your car as a weapon.
Unfortunately, this verdict sends the wrong message to car drivers.
Not that I disagree with you, but I also feel that Mikey's actions as self appointed enforcer of road law and the methods he chooses to do so sends the wrong message to drivers. Although I respect his reasons for his choice I am more surprised that he hasn't had more unpleasant confrontations. While part of that reason is that he comports himself with dignity and manages the confrontations he engenders with his targets, and I wish him all the best, I can't see it ending well.
-
He was scheduled to be on “Panorama” next Monday but reckons this is now likely to be postponed, because Cheesoid.
-
Not that I disagree with you, but I also feel that Mikey's actions as self appointed enforcer of road law and the methods he chooses to do so sends the wrong message to drivers.
What message do you think it sends to drivers?
To me, the message it sends is: "I'm not tolerating your illegal behaviour that you know is illegal." People may not like that but they don't listen when you ask nicely either.
-
What message do you think it sends to drivers?
To me, the message it sends is: "I'm not tolerating your illegal behaviour that you know is illegal." People may not like that but they don't listen when you ask nicely either.
My feeling is that it will be taken by a large proportion of subjects and viewers to introduce and reinforce the view that "Cyclists are arrogant *****".
Most people will not have understood the absolute danger that driving behaviour represents, that Mikey understands and motivates him. Part of the reason why is that just because it is dangerous it is still very unlikely that it will result in an injury. Those watching Mikey will have seen similar behaviour from drivers NOT result in incident, and that will influence their opinion of the proportionality of his action.
-
My feeling is that it will be taken by a large proportion of subjects and viewers to introduce and reinforce the view that "Cyclists are arrogant *****".
Then fuck them. I'm through with appeasing these fuckwits. They're the arrogant ones, thinking they can break the law with impunity.
The general state of this country right now is telling me that direct action is the only way to get your message across.
-
I'm kind-of happy if you really want to, videoing and reporting drivers breaking laws, if it brings you joy. In the context of driver cyclist relationships, it's only the miscreant involved, so sod what they think.
But where do you get off when you start telling people what to do? What do you achieve by acting like as if you have authority over law breakers? (hint: you don't)
-
Can we be sure it would have been followed up without the escalation? I'm not saying it wouldn't, but neither would I make that assumption.
I'm surprised by the verdict, though I haven't been following it closely, the driver must have had a reasonable expectation of being acquitted to have opted for the Crown Court.
Why wouldn't a motorist choose to be judged by twelve other motorists, presided over by a motorist in a wig?
I'm sure that was a factor, but it's a pretty big gamble to rely on it when lower costs and sentance are on offer in the Magistrates Court. I haven't followed this closely, the couple of times I've been in a court the judge's summing up has clearly laid out the points of law. I can't imagine anyone opting for Crown Court unless they considered these points of law were at least well enough matched for a jury to find in their favour.
-
There’s already laws telling people what to do and they ignore them. Where do *they* get off, recklessly endangering the lives of others through their own selfishness and arrogance?
And what does Mikey do anyway? Stand in the road and film people. That’s all. He’s not stopping the driving round him if they use the correct side of the road.
Stop defending the indefensible.
-
Cyclists like disabled people or other marginalised groups will NEVER be able to "ask nicely enough".
Whatever tactics are used, will be "too aggressive" "have bad optics" "piss people off" or they will be entirely ignorable...
-
There’s already laws telling people what to do and they ignore them. Where do *they* get off, recklessly endangering the lives of others through their own selfishness and arrogance?
And what does Mikey do anyway? Stand in the road and film people. That’s all. He’s not stopping the driving round him if they use the correct side of the road.
Stop defending the indefensible.
At no way, in no respect, am I justifying the poor driving or suggesting it is in any way acceptable. If you can't see that it is possible for both parties to be wrong in different ways, i am sorry.
What Mikey is doing is stopping the offender from "benefitting" from their misdeeds, by creating a confrontation and a situation that in my view compounds the actual event. He has not stopped the driver offending (as they already have) and I have yet to see an occasion when anyone - let alone a privileged driver - modifies their behaviour because of some kind well informed person telling them the error of their ways. In real life, that just doesn't happen. What might make them modify their behaviour is if they get a fine/points, and that's not certain, and the confrontation has nothing to do with that.
-
A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.
-
A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.
......and any attempt at enforcing laws rigidly is met by whines of "war on the poor motorists"
-
A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.
......and any attempt at enforcing laws rigidly is met by whines of "war on the poor motorists"
...and it's about time we stopped caving in to this bullshit.
-
There’s already laws telling people what to do and they ignore them. Where do *they* get off, recklessly endangering the lives of others through their own selfishness and arrogance?
And what does Mikey do anyway? Stand in the road and film people. That’s all. He’s not stopping the driving round him if they use the correct side of the road.
Stop defending the indefensible.
At no way, in no respect, am I justifying the poor driving or suggesting it is in any way acceptable. If you can't see that it is possible for both parties to be wrong in different ways, i am sorry.
What Mikey is doing is stopping the offender from "benefitting" from their misdeeds, by creating a confrontation and a situation that in my view compounds the actual event. He has not stopped the driver offending (as they already have) and I have yet to see an occasion when anyone - let alone a privileged driver - modifies their behaviour because of some kind well informed person telling them the error of their ways. In real life, that just doesn't happen. What might make them modify their behaviour is if they get a fine/points, and that's not certain, and the confrontation has nothing to do with that.
We tend only to see the more confrontational videos. I believe Mikey has actually been responsible for a fair few motorists getting points and fines. I don't have a considered opinion on his methods but I expect that a fair few of the fair few have modified their driving habits - at least at Gandalf Corner.
-
A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.
......and any attempt at enforcing laws rigidly is met by whines of "war on the poor motorists"
The way to stop those whines is to enforce those laws, thereby creating the expectation that if caught you will be prosecuted. In many areas of law breaking we expect to get away with it by not being caught, but in no other area do we expect that if caught we will be let off because 'everyone does it' and 'you need to do it'. 'It was only one burglary your honour, and I need to burgle to pay for my heroin addiction.' Exceptional hardship would be caused by preventing me to rob.'
-
A large part of the reason people are driving like this is because for the past half century or so, we've indulged them.
......and any attempt at enforcing laws rigidly is met by whines of "war on the poor motorists"
The way to stop those whines is to enforce those laws, thereby creating the expectation that if caught you will be prosecuted. In many areas of law breaking we expect to get away with it by not being caught, but in no other area do we expect that if caught we will be let off because 'everyone does it' and 'you need to do it'. 'It was only one burglary your honour, and I need to burgle to pay for my heroin addiction.' Exceptional hardship would be caused by preventing me to rob.'
Yup. Actually it has started in many places with local authorities enforcing low traffic zones etc with cameras: drivers in Newham and Waltham Forest for example are far more circumspect in those situations, but that rarely extends to traffic light enforcement or speeding (which can often be at TfL roads in any event, and is subject to legislative control).
Which government would have the cojones to do it remains to be seen. My fond dream is that they take advantage of the energy crisis to implement a firmly policed 50mph limit as back in the 70s, and that opens the way to more extensive permanent control. Here, shall I roll one for you?
-
I'm on the fence but he does illustrate the utter failure of road policing. Even things like phone usage are still ubiquitous.
The war against the motorist is mostly being waged by the motorists themselves. It's them, their families, their loved ones, their friends who end up as the casualties. It's a message that simply isn't propelled.
Which makes it all the more curious that the victims are always to blame.
-
Yup. Actually it has started in many places with local authorities enforcing low traffic zones etc with cameras: drivers in Newham and Waltham Forest for example are far more circumspect in those situations, but that rarely extends to traffic light enforcement or speeding (which can often be at TfL roads in any event, and is subject to legislative control).
Which government would have the cojones to do it remains to be seen. My fond dream is that they take advantage of the energy crisis to implement a firmly policed 50mph limit as back in the 70s, and that opens the way to more extensive permanent control. Here, shall I roll one for you?
And as if on cue https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-council-wandsworth-20mph-speed-fines-b1034060.html
Visit below the line at your own peril.
-
Visit below the line at your own peril.
Magnificent. Especially the one styling himself* OopNorth, who claims there's no legal basis for this. No doubt believes himself to be a freeman on the land.
*definitely a him
-
Pretty sure speed limits are definitely a thing in Magna Carta.
-
If a few of the motorists were like me then you might actually find the motorist complaining. Not least when his lawyer sees my brompton sat next to me in the jurors area. Lol
Seriously, why do you think being a motorist and a cyclist is mutually exclusive? I bet even some of the judges and barristers have been known to ride a bike too
Trouble is they only need a few NOT to be like you. Doesn't matter if they get a few safety conscious ones, they only need three* significantly below average, who think what the driver was doing is OK
*maybe just one
-
It's not just motorists that break road rules though. Commuting back from London yesterday, it was more likely than not that when I was stopped at a red light one or more cyclists would go flying past, ignoring the signal. If we are going to ask the police to enforce road rules more strictly.....?
I agree that a Range Rover is more likely to inflict serious injury than a bicycle, but at least one of those red light passes yesterday resulted in a near miss with a pedestrian, who was correctly crossing the road under a green signal.
And it is easy to say - that's cyclists not like us - but just as I view everybody in their tin box as a motorist, many of those in their tin boxes will view all cyclists as the same.
-
It's a fair point on a philosophical level, but as you point out it's not pragmatic. If you had to prioritise road enforcing you would
1. arrest/remove all drivers driving without a license, MOT or insurance (I saw quoted at one point that this could be 20% of motorists!)
2. police driving while using a phone
3. police speed limits (e.g. active enforcement of 20mph zones so that people actually drive at 20, not 30ish)
4. police running of red lights (which motorists do so commonly that there are no stats for running alight that has turned red for less than 3 seconds).
5. police safe passing distances in overtaking
6. consider the 1% of road users who are cyclists that jump red lights or ride on the pavement.
-
Can't argue with that list in that order. Items 3&4 are 'low hanging fruit' that can be dealt with through technology, and could be passed on to local authorities to police in the same way that local authorities now have the opportunity to fine motorists misusing box junctions.
The other items on the list do, unfortunately, require more police involvement than funds currently allow for. Even citizen reporting of mobile phone use, close passes and photos of banned drivers requires 'back office' policing and I'm not sure there is any will to put resources into the system.
-
Why not just allow cyclists to ignore red lights and cycle on the pavement (half the bike paths are already pavement, so it's often de facto OK without any clear distinction)? Then we don't have to fret about it.
People driving cars kill around 1.5k people each year and seriously injure hundreds of thousands more. Worrying about cyclists going through a red light is a distraction and often a purposeful distraction. It's like all that fretting about scooters blocking the pavement when every pavement in the country is already being used as excess car parking (and for the chumpmonkeys that take picture of a badly parked scooter or bike blocking the pavement, just do what I do, and move the fucking thing out of the way – I do the same with Range Rovers if I were the Hulk, well, I'd do a lot more than move).
-
Why not just allow cyclists to ignore red lights and cycle on the pavement (half the bike paths are already pavement, so it's often de facto OK without any clear distinction)? Then we don't have to fret about it.
Legal in Idaho since 1982. Perhaps the B52s knew already?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
-
Wot he said
-
Wot he said
I'd agree except a crap hire bike/scooter is much harder to detect/understand/navigate round for a blind person than a wheeliebin. My blind friends say the roads were hard before with bins, pavement parking and overgrown hedges but the bikes and scooters make then 10x worse.
And this is people who have attempted with substantial support to sue the gubbishment for not banning pavement parking already.
-
Wot he said
I'd agree except a crap hire bike/scooter is much harder to detect/understand/navigate round for a blind person than a wheeliebin. My blind friends say the roads were hard before with bins, pavement parking and overgrown hedges but the bikes and scooters make then 10x worse.
And this is people who have attempted with substantial support to sue the gubbishment for not banning pavement parking already.
My low-vision (not blind) and wobbly friend complains most about overgrown hedges, second most about badly parked scooters.
-
I think part of it is the bikes and scooters are abandoned on otherwise wide open walkways but it's the fact the blind person suddenly staggers over them out of nowhere, or gets a handlebar to the thigh/ribs (height dependent) suddenly.
I also know a lot of visually impaired people have had negative experience with twats on bikes 'buzzing them' the cycle equivalent of a close pass. They don't know the difference between a considerate person on a bike who they probably don't notice so they're only noticing the twats. We also don't train cyclists to call out "cyclist on your left!" or "I'm a wide trike on your right can you move left a bit plz?" so people sometimes don't know what to do and muck that up.
Blind people are more likely to be pedestrians than average sighted people cos they can't spend their lives in their little metal boxes.
-
I don't know the luxurious places you guys live, but we have long since stopped having enough empty pavement to cycle or abandon hire bikes and scooters. If you're visually impaired or blind you are not walking anywhere. Get the cars off them and then we can and should worry about the rest.
People in the UK are weird about bikes. I've seen the staff at Frankfurt airport zipping around on Bromptons, nipping around the crowds. No one screams, no one dies. If you ride up to a table in a central pedestrianized square in any given town in most of Europe no one care. In Britain, we'd make a TV exposé.
-
I don't know the luxurious places you guys live
Mordor, which does have enough pavements for the scooters to be a nuisance. I do find the cars parked entirely or 50+% on the pavement worse, but then I am not blind.
I think your point on bike etiquette is valid barakta, it isn't clear how pedestrians/cyclists should inform each other and communicate. I get about as many pedestrians telling me they didn't hear me as ones who shriek that I'm talking to them.
-
I think your point on bike etiquette is valid barakta, it isn't clear how pedestrians/cyclists should inform each other and communicate. I get about as many pedestrians telling me they didn't hear me as ones who shriek that I'm talking to them.
It's part of the strange BRITISH attitude to bikes that ian mentions. The rules are clear enough - you're supposed to ring your bell to make people aware of your presence and slow down and proceed with caution. But any attempted warning is perceived as a GETOUTOFMYWAY! by a significant minority of pedestrians, so most of the time it's better not to bother. And hence the status quo is perpetuated.
I don't like to use "on your left/right" when passing non-cyclists, because they're unlikely to be familiar with the protocol, and even if they know the difference between left and right, some will hear a direction and move that way.
My pragmatic solution (beyond riding where pedestrians usually aren't) is to make a neutral mechanical noise (or if it's dark enough, shine enough light that they can see it illuminating their surroundings), and hope they notice you and work out what to do on their own.
-
Yes. Wot Kim sed. Works for me.
-
I couldn't get my bell to ring in Welsh, so I got rid of it.
-
I couldn't get my bell to ring in Welsh, so I got rid of it.
Clochty-ping?
-
I find “Excuse me please!” is a very useful expression when asking a pedestrian to move over. It works very well unless said ped has loudspeakers in their ears.
-
Wot Wowbagger said and what Kim said, kind of, about "On your right!" The latter is a particularly useless phrase for anyone who doesn't engage in group cycling. Or for those who are at that moment cycling in a group but are not used to the jargon. What's on my right? A hazard of some sort? Oh there's a big hole on the left so that means we should all move to the right, got it.
-
I don't think its the science of rockets
A few years ago was approaching a blind person on a wide shared use path, slowed down and a quick call off morning I'm a cyclist and passing on your.......(slight pause as nearly said the wrong side as was cycling towards their front)... right. They called back thanks and we all went happily on way
-
I think the immediate reaction when you hear the word “right” is to move in that direction.
-
I don't think a cyclist has ever shouted that to me on a pavement, but honestly, I don't encounter many pavement cyclists and the majority seem to be under-5 or adolescent ASBOs on nicked Santander Bikes working through the A-Z of anti-sociality.
It was common on the Tour de CS7 though and a fantastically annoying way to learn you'd just been overtaken with a millimetre to spare by some grunting bloke completing a strava segment. I feed them to cabbies. They've got to keep those rotund bellies topped up somehow.
-
'Don't be a Dick' seems to be a hard guideline to follow for all sorts of folks on all sorts of transport.
-
Usually call out 'bike behind'. Then wait to see which way they go. If there are two they often bump into each other as part of the decision making process.
-
I've found that on occasions when the entire path is occupied by a large straggling group of walkers, all chatting away, they don't hear the bell, they don't hear 'excuse me' but they do hear 'ping ping'.
I wonder if they'd hear a bluetooth speaker... :demon:
-
I assume all pedestrians have a pair AirPods or similar embedded in their conches and proceed accordingly. If I had to slow down, it was for a few seconds, and the interaction is best ended with a cheery smile and a 'good day.'
I'm never sure where people are rushing too, but if it's that important, they should have left earlier.
-
I've found that on occasions when the entire path is occupied by a large straggling group of walkers, all chatting away, they don't hear the bell, they don't hear 'excuse me' but they do hear 'ping ping'.
I wonder if they'd hear a bluetooth speaker... :demon:
Round our way the main shared use but split painted path is so badly faded it's not easy to tell which side you should be on. They spray painted bikes on the appropriate side a few years back but they're long faded/washed away.
I did email the council offering to repaint but apparently they're assessing the path for repair currently but I'd be amazed if they have the funds to replace or resurface a couple of miles of path
-
I find I get fewer bad interactions if I use a bell than if I don't. A cheerful "Excuse me, could I come by?" has been met with a grumpy "Where's your bell?" enough times for me to just ring the bell.
I find it is better to ring from further back than you think and keep pinging gently* until I am sure I have been noticed.
* ping ... ... ping ... ... ping ... ... ping ..." not "PINGPINGPINGPINGPING"
-
There's six ways to deal with other traffic on a shared path like a canal towpath.
1/ Ring bell
2 Don't ring bell
3/ Say a cheery hello and a thank you or other nice words
4/ Be grumpy and say something random, moaning about them and their dog not getting out of the way enough for your to move past safely
5/ Stay behind and wait until there's a nice safe place to pass or they or you can leave the path or they notice you
6/ Keep riding and squeezes past
No matter how you do it either in a singular or a combo of the option above you get :
People jumping out of their skins, walking into each other, if there 1+ on the path in front. (I have seen walk into themselves as in around in circles, trying to step out of their own way, in pure panic), while saying that you should have done the exact opposite to what you have done. Or something like telling you to use your <insert one or more of the above options from above>, when you have been doing that <said option, like a gentle "ping ... ... ping ... ... ping ... ... ping" for the last 100m> as you got closer and closer.
Where I have had best success, is when cycling towards someone, slowing down, sometimes even come to a stop and have said a cheery good day today to them. Though this isn't always a full on guarantee that they would not moan about what you have done, wrong side of the path, should have waited in the gab up 100m behind you, asking where my bell is or just walk straight into me.
For many I do think walking on a shared path, especially a towpath, is like owning a BWM. To be able to use either you have to hand your brain in.
Though that said there;s a few who sees you in good time and make room even before you get your finger on the bell. But it is mostly the above.
And don't you dare to try to get a Strava record on a towpath in peak path use time, people walking on foot have right of way (even if it isn't in the rulz, it's just polite) That goes to bike riders and runners. There's plenty of users who can't get out of the way fast enough, old people, kids, people with dogs etc and since you are so close to water many users don't feel as safe and stable as you and your team trying to beat the ast KOM.
This should be a mantra
'Don't be a Dick' seems to be a hard guideline to follow for all sorts of folks on all sorts of transport.
-
I have seen walk into themselves as in around in circles, trying to step out of their own way, in pure panic
I had a group of pedestrians do a full Gay Gordons in front of me last week, ending up more or less in the same position that they started. At least they saw the funny side.
-
It's weird that people in the UK have confused the reflex of finding a cyclist behind us with that of a hungry stalking tiger. We're probably pretty chill with finding a tiger in our wake.
I blame Empire.
-
It's interesting to compare pedestrians' reactions to those of horses...
-
If you're visually impaired or blind you are not walking anywhere.
That's right - you tell 'em !
-
If you're visually impaired or blind you are not walking anywhere.
That's right - you tell 'em !
They're a menace to other pavement users.
-
My Strategy.
Ring bell from a distance 3 times (ping - pingping). Repeat if no obvious response.
Assuming response and passing from behind - "just passing on your left/right" as I arrive.
Assuming no response slow to walking pace and "good morning/afternoon" normally gets an apology.
Always thanks on passing if they've made any sort of effort to create space.
Confrontational passes are rare.
-
I assume all pedestrians have a pair AirPods or similar embedded in their conches and proceed accordingly. If I had to slow down, it was for a few seconds, and the interaction is best ended with a cheery smile and a 'good day.'
I'm never sure where people are rushing too, but if it's that important, they should have left earlier.
A few minutes riding at walking speed behind a group spread out across the Railway Path. I don't know about the other cyclist there but I hadn't left earlier because I wasn't in a rush. I don't think anyone said 'good day' but there were about 8 smiles.
-
I try different things.
"Ding ding!"
"Good morning"
"Hi, bicycle!"
if they have ear covering noise cancellers - I tend just to ride on by.
-
I reckon the headphone users (especially runners) are less likely to startle than the group chatters.
-
It's interesting to compare pedestrians' reactions to those of horses...
Cyclists need to learn to kick harder.
-
"Ding ding!"
"Ding dong"s available now. It would be right and proper to deliver it in the same style as the late Leslie Philips.
-
"Ding ding!"
"Ding dong"s available now. It would be right and proper to deliver it in the same style as the late Leslie Philips.
I had exactly the same thought just now.
-
"Ding ding!"
"Ding dong"s available now. It would be right and proper to deliver it in the same style as the late Leslie Philips.
I had exactly the same thought just now.
That's what I said in the Leslie Philips thread.