He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avoiding_cyclist_1_130248

[mileburner]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
news:Xe1Rn.51688$oi7.1251@hurricane...
> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avoiding_cyclist_1_130248

Reading the article it seems that that driver who died had overtaken a line
of cars without noticing the (unlit) child cyclist ahead. Upon seeing him he
swerved into on oncoming car. The child cyclist had reflectors and was
visible to other drivers.

I know this road. It is single carriageway and not very wide. One of the
problems facing cyclists on this type of road is where the driver behind
cannot/does not overtake (for safety reasons), but another driver further
behind cannot see that there is a cyclist ahead. They overtake the cars, but
then either suddenly see the cyclist and need to take evasive action to
avoid a collision, or they do not see the cyclist in time and wipe them out
completely.

I cannot say that agree that the driver who died should have murdered the
cyclist for having no lights, and it is unfortunate that the driver who made
the poor overtaking manoeuvre lost his life, but if there is anything to
learn from this is that just because the vehicle ahead is travelling slowly,
it does not mean that it is a good idea to overtake them.

RIP...

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...

No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...
>
> No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

why do you think that ?

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...
>
> > No, he made the correct decision, statistically.
>
> why do you think that ?

60-15 = 45

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...
>>
>>> No, he made the correct decision, statistically.
>>
>> why do you think that ?
>
> 60-15 = 45

I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene pool before
they breed.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>>http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...
>
> >>> No, he made the correct decision, statistically.
>
> >> why do you think that ?
>
> > 60-15 = 45
>
> I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene pool before
> they breed.

I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that
he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does
nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made
60).

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...
>>
>>>>> No, he made the correct decision, statistically.
>>
>>>> why do you think that ?
>>
>>> 60-15 = 45
>>
>> I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene
>> pool before they breed.
>
> I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that
> he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does
> nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made
> 60).

exactly why he should have mown down the thick youngster before he could
breed more morons.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 17:38, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>> Squashme wrote:
> >>>>> On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...
>
> >>>>> No, he made the correct decision, statistically.
>
> >>>> why do you think that ?
>
> >>> 60-15 = 45
>
> >> I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene
> >> pool before they breed.
>
> > I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that
> > he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does
> > nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made
> > 60).
>
> exactly why he should have mown down the thick youngster before he could
> breed more morons.

I see. So the dangerous (and probably tired) overtaker who got himself
killed was not a moron, but the teenager who cycled without a
rearlight and survived was a moron?

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...

He should have mown the unfit cyclist down? That could be Darwinism.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...

How about "He should have mown the sunlit cyclist down?"
Somebody followed your advice in the Reading area a couple of years
ago:-

"We gather that the van driver had just overtaken two vehicles, a
lorry
and a car. He was wearing dark glasses, and was, it seems, pressing on
with some speed. At the inquest, he claimed he was blinded as he
pulled into the inside lane, and that he had not seen our two cyclists
previously as he was concentrating on overtaking the two vehicles."

Blind and stupid motorists at night. Blind and stupid motorists in the
sunlight. Either way they can't see you.
The roads are not Darwinism at work, though motorists flatter
themselves to think so. If anything, they are reverse Darwinism.

[Andy Leighton]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:04:26 +0100,
mileburner > wrote:
>
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> news:Xe1Rn.51688$oi7.1251@hurricane...
>> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avoiding_cyclist_1_130248
>
> Reading the article it seems that that driver who died had overtaken a line
> of cars without noticing the (unlit) child cyclist ahead. Upon seeing him he
> swerved into on oncoming car. The child cyclist had reflectors and was
> visible to other drivers.
>
> I know this road. It is single carriageway and not very wide.

So do I and it isn't one where overtaking a line of cars isn't always
advisable (or even possible). I've ridden it many times during daytime
hours. The driver would have been better off putting it in the dyke but
may not have had time.

> One of the
> problems facing cyclists on this type of road is where the driver behind
> cannot/does not overtake (for safety reasons), but another driver further
> behind cannot see that there is a cyclist ahead.

True. Maybe with more lessons the cyclist would have been a bit closer
to the centre of the lane and likely to have been seen a little earlier.

> I cannot say that agree that the driver who died should have murdered the
> cyclist for having no lights, and it is unfortunate that the driver who made
> the poor overtaking manoeuvre lost his life

Very sad for the driver and his family but I think it was the rigth
decision not to decide to cut in and hit the lad on a bike.

BTW - yet another "one from the archives". This all was reported last
year.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Derek C]

On Jun 13, 5:55*pm, Squashme > wrote:
> On 13 June, 17:38, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Squashme wrote:
> > > On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> > >> Squashme wrote:
> > >>> On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> > >>>> Squashme wrote:
> > >>>>> On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> > >>>>>>http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/environment/driver_killed_avo...
>
> > >>>>> No, he made the correct decision, statistically.
>
> > >>>> why do you think that ?
>
> > >>> 60-15 = 45
>
> > >> I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene
> > >> pool before they breed.
>
> > > I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that
> > > he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does
> > > nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made
> > > 60).
>
> > exactly why he should have mown down the thick youngster before he could
> > breed more morons.
>
> I see. So the dangerous (and probably tired) overtaker who got himself
> killed was not a moron, but the teenager who cycled without a
> rearlight and survived was a moron?- Hide quoted text -
>

I overtook 3 cyclists at about 11 o'clock at night on the A412 going
into Rickmansworth the other day. Only one had a full set of lights.
One had no lights at all, and the other one only had a front light,
which was not very helpful for seeing him from behind. All of them
were riding dark coloured bikes in dark coloured clothes. Candidates
for a Darwin award?

Derek C