Keltbray driver injures cyclist

[Tom Crispin]

Graphic images:-
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207

Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
wrote:
> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
proper picture of it for a change.

BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
prevent escape from crushing.

Doug.

[Derek C]

On Jun 23, 5:52*pm, Doug > wrote:
> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> wrote:> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> > Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> proper picture of it for a change.
>
> BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
> to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
> prevent escape from crushing.
>

The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
about them.

Not only killer and defective cars and killer drivers, but killer
railings now as well now! What punishment should they be given?

I hear that Keltbray will be operating lorries in South-East London
soon (please!)

Derek C

[PeterG]

On Jun 23, 5:52*pm, Doug > wrote:
> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> wrote:> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> > Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> proper picture of it for a change.
>
> BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
> to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
> prevent escape from crushing.
>
> Doug.

Why was the lorry defective?

[pk]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> wrote:
>> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>
>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>
> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> proper picture of it for a change.
>
> BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
> to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
> prevent escape from crushing.
>
> Doug.



yes it was an injury waiting to happen, as the cyclist posts in the thread
linked to by tom:


"If a vehicle hits a cyclist or a cylict hits a vehicle the outcome is
usually the cyclist comes off worst so NEVER cycle beside a large vehicle at
a junction, always stay behind allow the lorry/bus to go ahead. A few
seconds delay might save your life."

Sound advice for all cyclists - waht a pity so many fail to heed it.

pk

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:25:18 +0100, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

>Graphic images:-
>http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.

It's an exempt vehicle. I don't think Keltbray are the worst offenders
by any means. The thing that strikes me here is the presence of
railings, which of course deprives any cyclist who misjudges things,
of an easy bail-out route.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Squashme]

On 23 June, 18:27, "pk" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> > wrote:
> >> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> >> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> > Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> > The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> > proper picture of it for a change.
>
> > BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
> > to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
> > prevent escape from crushing.
>
> > Doug.
>
> yes it was an injury waiting to happen, as the cyclist posts in the thread
> linked to by tom:
>
> "If a vehicle hits a cyclist or a cylict hits a vehicle the outcome is
> usually the cyclist comes off worst so NEVER cycle beside a large vehicle at
> a junction, always stay behind allow the lorry/bus to go ahead. A few
> seconds delay might save your life."
>
> Sound advice for all cyclists - waht a pity so many fail to heed it.
>

So motorists, especially lorry-drivers, should never overtake cyclists
at corners or bends then.

[FrengaX]

On Jun 23, 5:52*pm, Doug > wrote:
> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> wrote:> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> > Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> proper picture of it for a change.

For the umpteenth time just this week, you use the word "killer"
inappropriately. You really do need to revise your understanding of
that word. You have repeatedly branded ALL motorists as killers, where
in actual fact the number who are involved in fatal accidents in tiny.
And now you brand railings which were a factor in an injury-only
accident as "killer". Oh, and why did you use the word "deadly" as
well, which was also not the case?

And don't move the goalposts to talk about "potentially" deadly/
killer. No, you described these as killer, where they were no such
thing.

[NM]

On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
wrote:
> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.

Sorry to **** on your parade but it dosen't need sideguards and as
another minor incovenience, there is nowhere to put them even it they
were needed.

Cyclist should learn to ride safely, maybe this incident will help
educate a few.

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
>
> The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
> about them.

While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
the road.

They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.

And they do not improve pedestian safety.

[JNugent[_7_]]

mileburner wrote:

> Derek C wrote:

>> The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
>> about them.

> While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
> railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
> need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
> the road.

That sounds like an extra advantage. But you are describing it as though it
were a disadvantage.

> They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.

Then let them stop doing it.

> And they do not improve pedestian safety.

What?

How does that square up with: "[pedestrian safety] *may* have been the
intention behind their installation"?

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> wrote:
>> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>
>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>
> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> proper picture of it for a change.
>
> BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
> to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
> prevent escape from crushing.

What was defective about the lorry Sherlock?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Graphic images:-
> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.

Why should Keltbray fit expensive side guards to protect cyclists from their
own stupidity?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> wrote:
>> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>
>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>
> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> proper picture of it for a change.
>
> BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
> to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
> prevent escape from crushing.
>
> Doug.

The lorry does not look defective to me, can you list the defects?

Are you saying that the cyclist or the lorry driver caused this accident
on purpose?

--
Tony Dragon

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Graphic images:-
> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.

look at the large expanse of pavement the cyclist could have jumped onto

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
>
> The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath and
> to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican crossings. They
> also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
> pedestrian safety.

This is a prime example of what you describe:
http://tinyurl.com/greenford-urban-racetrack

This is a rat-run which leads up to the A40. The installation of railings
means that from a drivers perspective, the road is segragated from
pedetsrians and the only points where any care is needed is at the zebra
crossings. The risk to gutter-hugging cyclists is quite obvious, especially
at the mini-roundabout. There is of course the obvious benefit of herding
the pedestrians to the "correct" place to cross the road.

The point is that there is a trade-off. Installation of raillings generally
leads to higher traffic speeds and less care taken by drivers, but they keep
pedestrians out of the way. Pretty much the same principle applies to cycle
facilities. I don't have the stats, but it seems to be fairly common (at
least in London) for cycle fatalities to occur on or near cycle lanes and
close to raillings and for pedestrian fatalities to occur on crossings.

In contrast, if you removed all the cycle lanes, raillings, crossing points
etc. The traffic would flow slower and drivers would take more care.

> Cyclists should be careful not to get themselves trapped between a
> large left turning HGV and railings. This may just be a case of
> hanging back for a couple of seconds to see what the HGV is going to
> do, and not to ride in their likely blind spots.

I can't agree more. However there is this common misconception that if a
cyclist is by the side of the kerb or in a cycle lane that they are safe.
For most of the time, the safest place is in the middle of the lane with
traffic directly behind or in front. Proper road positioning by cyclists
also annoys some drivers (as you can see from some of the comments on this
group).

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:59:38 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>On Jun 23, 5:52*pm, Doug > wrote:
>> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
>> wrote:> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>
>> > Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>
>> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
>> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
>> proper picture of it for a change.
>>
>> BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
>> to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
>> prevent escape from crushing.
>>
>
>The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
>about them.
>
>Not only killer and defective cars and killer drivers, but killer
>railings now as well now! What punishment should they be given?
>
>I hear that Keltbray will be operating lorries in South-East London
>soon (please!)

Erm... They have been operating in south-east London for some
considerable time.

Both recent Keltbray incidents have been in south-east London.

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>On Jun 23, 8:02*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>> > The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
>> > about them.
>>
>> While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
>> railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
>> need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
>> the road.
>>
>> They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.
>>
>> And they do not improve pedestian safety.
>
>The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath and
>to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican crossings.

The result is that motor traffic speeds up and pedestrians' right to
use the road is restricted.

>They
>also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
>pedestrian safety.

Bollards are better.

>Cyclists should be careful not to get themselves trapped between a
>large left turning HGV and railings. This may just be a case of
>hanging back for a couple of seconds to see what the HGV is going to
>do, and not to ride in their likely blind spots.

Typical victim blaming.

What makes you think that the cyclist passed on the inside of the HGV?

[Derek C]

On Jun 24, 6:35*am, Tom Crispin
> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 23, 8:02 pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> >> Derek C wrote:
>
> >> > The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
> >> > about them.
>
> >> While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
> >> railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
> >> need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
> >> the road.
>
> >> They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.
>
> >> And they do not improve pedestian safety.
>
> >The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath and
> >to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican crossings.
>
> The result is that motor traffic speeds up and pedestrians' right to
> use the road is restricted.
>
> >They
> >also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
> >pedestrian safety.
>
> Bollards are better.

Bollards don't stop pedestrians from entering the road at unsafe
places.
>
> >Cyclists should be careful not to get themselves trapped between a
> >large left turning HGV and railings. This may just be a case of
> >hanging back for a couple of seconds to see what the HGV is going to
> >do, and not to ride in their likely blind spots.
>
> Typical victim blaming.
>
> What makes you think that the cyclist passed on the inside of the HGV?- Hide quoted text -
>
Look at the photos in the original link. The bike is clearly under the
nearside of the HGV, and was probably in the driver's blind spot. Due
to their long wheelbase, the rear wheels of an HGV will usually end up
quite close to the kerb on a sharp corner, even if the driver makes a
wide swing into it. Cyclists should take this into account before
undertaking (passing on the nearside) approaching a junction.

Derek C

[PeterG]

On Jun 24, 6:59*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:35*am, Tom Crispin
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > > wrote:
> > >On Jun 23, 8:02 pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> > >> Derek C wrote:
>
> > >> > The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
> > >> > about them.
>
> > >> While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
> > >> railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
> > >> need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
> > >> the road.
>
> > >> They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.
>
> > >> And they do not improve pedestian safety.
>
> > >The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath and
> > >to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican crossings.
>
> > The result is that motor traffic speeds up and pedestrians' right to
> > use the road is restricted.
>
> > >They
> > >also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
> > >pedestrian safety.
>
> > Bollards are better.
>
> Bollards don't stop pedestrians from entering the road at unsafe
> places.
>

Perhaps he is not concerned about pedestrians.

> > >Cyclists should be careful not to get themselves trapped between a
> > >large left turning HGV and railings. This may just be a case of
> > >hanging back for a couple of seconds to see what the HGV is going to
> > >do, and not to ride in their likely blind spots.
>
> > Typical victim blaming.
>
> > What makes you think that the cyclist passed on the inside of the HGV?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Look at the photos in the original link. The bike is clearly under the
> nearside of the HGV, and was probably in the driver's blind spot. Due
> to their long wheelbase, the rear wheels of an HGV will usually end up
> quite close to the kerb on a sharp corner, even if the driver makes a
> wide swing into it. Cyclists should take this into account before
> undertaking (passing on the nearside) approaching a junction.
>
> Derek C

And as their safety would depend on that, such thought should be a
pririoty.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 June, 17:59, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 5:52*pm, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> > wrote:> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> > > Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> > Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> > The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> > proper picture of it for a change.
>
> > BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
> > to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
> > prevent escape from crushing.
>
> The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
> about them.
>
What I care about is the right of pedestrians to access public roads,
which is deliberately prevented by the railings. The railings aer also
a serious danger to pedestrians. Your lot are always banging on about
cyclists should be responsible fore their own safety so why not
pedestrians too? Differnt standards eh?

My theory is that the main reason for such railings is that
pedestrians should not interfere with the flow of hallowed motorised
traffic.

>
> Not only killer and defective cars and killer drivers, but killer
> railings now as well now! What punishment should they be given?
>
> I hear that Keltbray will be operating lorries in South-East London
> soon (please!)
>
So you want to see more people killed? Typical motorist mind-set! Just
ram the vulnerable if they get in your way, eh? Or pretend they don't
exist when you run over them?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 June, 06:59, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:35*am, Tom Crispin
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > > wrote:
> > >On Jun 23, 8:02 pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> > >> Derek C wrote:
>
> > >> > The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
> > >> > about them.
>
> > >> While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
> > >> railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
> > >> need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
> > >> the road.
>
> > >> They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.
>
> > >> And they do not improve pedestian safety.
>
> > >The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath and
> > >to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican crossings.
>
> > The result is that motor traffic speeds up and pedestrians' right to
> > use the road is restricted.
>
> > >They
> > >also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
> > >pedestrian safety.
>
> > Bollards are better.
>
> Bollards don't stop pedestrians from entering the road at unsafe
> places.
>
Unsafe places eh? And who makes them unsafe? Drivers who are so
irresponsible and dangerous they cannot avoid crashing into the
vulnerable.
>
> > >Cyclists should be careful not to get themselves trapped between a
> > >large left turning HGV and railings. This may just be a case of
> > >hanging back for a couple of seconds to see what the HGV is going to
> > >do, and not to ride in their likely blind spots.
>
> > Typical victim blaming.
>
> > What makes you think that the cyclist passed on the inside of the HGV?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Look at the photos in the original link. The bike is clearly under the
> nearside of the HGV, and was probably in the driver's blind spot. Due
> to their long wheelbase, the rear wheels of an HGV will usually end up
> quite close to the kerb on a sharp corner, even if the driver makes a
> wide swing into it. Cyclists should take this into account before
> undertaking (passing on the nearside) approaching a junction.
>
How can you possibly know that the cyclist was not overtaken by the
HGV?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 June, 18:10, PeterG > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 5:52*pm, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
> > wrote:> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> > > Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> > Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
> > The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
> > proper picture of it for a change.
>
> > BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
> > to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
> > prevent escape from crushing.
>
> > Doug.
>
> Why was the lorry defective?
>
Duh! No sideguards and obviously ineffective mirrors.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Derek C]

On Jun 24, 7:10*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> So you want to see more people killed?

No, just you.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 June, 20:22, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
> > Graphic images:-
> >http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> > Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> Why should Keltbray fit expensive side guards to protect cyclists from their
> own stupidity?
>
Stupid of not, why should they be allowed to be killed or seriously
injured by defective HGVs, or any other defective motorised vehicle
which is at present allowed on our roads?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 June, 06:59, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 6:35 am, Tom Crispin
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 23, 8:02 pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
>>>>> Derek C wrote:
>>>>>> The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
>>>>>> about them.
>>>>> While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
>>>>> railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
>>>>> need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
>>>>> the road.
>>>>> They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.
>>>>> And they do not improve pedestian safety.
>>>> The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath and
>>>> to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican crossings.
>>> The result is that motor traffic speeds up and pedestrians' right to
>>> use the road is restricted.
>>>> They
>>>> also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
>>>> pedestrian safety.
>>> Bollards are better.
>> Bollards don't stop pedestrians from entering the road at unsafe
>> places.
>>
> Unsafe places eh? And who makes them unsafe? Drivers who are so
> irresponsible and dangerous they cannot avoid crashing into the
> vulnerable.
>>>> Cyclists should be careful not to get themselves trapped between a
>>>> large left turning HGV and railings. This may just be a case of
>>>> hanging back for a couple of seconds to see what the HGV is going to
>>>> do, and not to ride in their likely blind spots.
>>> Typical victim blaming.
>>> What makes you think that the cyclist passed on the inside of the HGV?- Hide quoted text -
>> Look at the photos in the original link. The bike is clearly under the
>> nearside of the HGV, and was probably in the driver's blind spot. Due
>> to their long wheelbase, the rear wheels of an HGV will usually end up
>> quite close to the kerb on a sharp corner, even if the driver makes a
>> wide swing into it. Cyclists should take this into account before
>> undertaking (passing on the nearside) approaching a junction.
>>
> How can you possibly know that the cyclist was not overtaken by the
> HGV?
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

Did he say that he did, I think not.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 June, 17:59, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 5:52 pm, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
>>> wrote:> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
>>> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
>>> proper picture of it for a change.
>>> BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
>>> to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
>>> prevent escape from crushing.
>> The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
>> about them.
>>
> What I care about is the right of pedestrians to access public roads,
> which is deliberately prevented by the railings. The railings aer also
> a serious danger to pedestrians. Your lot are always banging on about
> cyclists should be responsible fore their own safety so why not
> pedestrians too? Differnt standards eh?
>
> My theory is that the main reason for such railings is that
> pedestrians should not interfere with the flow of hallowed motorised
> traffic.
>

Why are the railing a serious danger to pedestrians?

>> Not only killer and defective cars and killer drivers, but killer
>> railings now as well now! What punishment should they be given?
>>
>> I hear that Keltbray will be operating lorries in South-East London
>> soon (please!)
>>
> So you want to see more people killed?

Did he say that?

> Typical motorist mind-set!

Well you said you would stop calling me a killer, now you are saying
that I want to see people killed.

> Just
> ram the vulnerable if they get in your way, eh? Or pretend they don't
> exist when you run over them?
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 June, 18:10, PeterG > wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 5:52 pm, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 June, 17:25, Tom Crispin >
>>> wrote:> Graphic images:-http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>> Deadly cyclist killer-railings again and yet another defective HGV.
>>> The cyclist was lucky to survive this one and we are lucky to get a
>>> proper picture of it for a change.
>>> BTW, it wasn't an 'accident' it was an injury waiting to happen, due
>>> to the use of a defective vehicle and anti-cyclist railings which
>>> prevent escape from crushing.
>>> Doug.
>> Why was the lorry defective?
>>
> Duh! No sideguards and obviously ineffective mirrors.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

It is not required to have sideguards & how do you know the mirrors were
defective?

--
Tony Dragon

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:02:21 +0100 someone who may be "mileburner"
> wrote this:-

>> The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
>> about them.
>
>While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
>railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster

Fences were introduced as part of schemes to speed up motor traffic.
It is part of canallising roads which was fashionable from the 1960s
and is still fashionable with some.

Any claims of them being for the benefit of pedestrians are, at
best, rationalisations to try and deal with awkward questions.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:10:53 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> wrote this:-

>My theory is that the main reason for such railings is that
>pedestrians should not interfere with the flow of hallowed motorised
>traffic.

You don't need to theorise about it. Removing pedestrians to
bantustans was very fashionable at one time, "Traffic in Towns".
Colin Buchanan wasn't all wrong, but he was wrong enough that much
of what was done in his name has been a failure.

One of the few good features of fences was they provided places to
park bikes. When councils remove them they should provide
alternative bike parking. In Edinburgh, where there is a programme
to remove them, they failed to do this. The upshot was the police
making fools of themselves by having a go at bikes parked in
"inappropriate places" when they should really have been having a go
at the council for removing bike parking. The police do appear to
have got up to speed on this after they were educated by local
campaigners.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 June, 20:22, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> Graphic images:-
>>> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>
>>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>
>> Why should Keltbray fit expensive side guards to protect cyclists
>> from their own stupidity?
>>
> Stupid of not, why should they be allowed to be killed or seriously
> injured by defective HGVs, or any other defective motorised vehicle
> which is at present allowed on our roads?
>

lack of sideguards is not a defect.
riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is dangerous for reasons
obvious to most observers.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Graphic images:-
> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.

it looks to me as though the front wheels of the lorry got the bike, so
sideguards would have made no difference.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:15 +0100 someone who may be "Mrcheerful"
> wrote this:-

>lack of sideguards is not a defect.
>riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is dangerous for reasons
>obvious to most observers.

Did the cyclist do this?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:35 am, Tom Crispin
>>
>> What makes you think that the cyclist passed on the inside of the
>> HGV?- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Look at the photos in the original link. The bike is clearly under the
> nearside of the HGV, and was probably in the driver's blind spot. Due
> to their long wheelbase, the rear wheels of an HGV will usually end up
> quite close to the kerb on a sharp corner, even if the driver makes a
> wide swing into it. Cyclists should take this into account before
> undertaking (passing on the nearside) approaching a junction.

While this may be contraversial, there is the possibility that the driver of
the HGV was trying to pass the cyclist. Either way, lane sharing with HGVs
is not a great idea at anytime, least of all when near a junction.

Riding centre of lane stops this from happening.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:15 +0100 someone who may be "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote this:-
>
>> lack of sideguards is not a defect.
>> riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is dangerous for
>> reasons obvious to most observers.
>
> Did the cyclist do this?

Since the incident is so close to the road junction I would surmise that if
the cyclist had been waiting at the junction then she would have been closer
to the line, if the cyclist had been moving up to the line with the lorry
behind her then it is extremely unlikely that the lorry would not have seen
her, at that point of the junction the cyclist would be able to travel at
least as fast as the lorry would negotiate the junction and would therefore
have pulled out as cyclists usually do. I would bet a fiver that the
cyclist came up the inside while the lorry was stationary or nearly so. Why
she did not jump onto the large area of clear pavement to her left when she
realised what was happening shows how stupid some cyclists are.

additionally, no lorry driver would deliberately run someone over as it is
too much aggravation.

[Matt B]

On 24/06/2010 06:59, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:35 am, Tom Crispin
> > wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>> > wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 8:02 pm, > wrote:
>>>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>>>> The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
>>>>> about them.
>>
>>>> While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
>>>> railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
>>>> need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
>>>> the road.
>>
>>>> They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.
>>
>>>> And they do not improve pedestian safety.
>>
>>> The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath and
>>> to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican crossings.
>>
>> The result is that motor traffic speeds up and pedestrians' right to
>> use the road is restricted.
>>
>>> They
>>> also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
>>> pedestrian safety.
>>
>> Bollards are better.
>
> Bollards don't stop pedestrians from entering the road at unsafe
> places.

That is the point, pedestrians shouldn't be /stopped/. They have just
as much right to use the public streets in towns, at any place, as
vehicle users. If it is dangerous for pedestrians to use a town's
public streets at a given place, then the design of that place needs to
be revised so that it is safe, not pedestrians barred from going there.

--
Matt B

[Squashme]

On 24 June, 08:41, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 23 June, 20:22, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Tom Crispin wrote:
> >>> Graphic images:-
> >>>http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> >>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> >> Why should Keltbray fit expensive side guards to protect cyclists
> >> from their own stupidity?
>
> > Stupid of not, why should they be allowed to be killed or seriously
> > injured by defective HGVs, or any other defective motorised vehicle
> > which is at present allowed on our roads?
>
> lack of sideguards is not a defect.

It is OK for you to endanger others.

> riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is dangerous for reasons
> obvious to most observers.

But you are at fault if you endanger yourself (and cause paperwork etc
for others -especially ones who pay VED)

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> Graphic images:-
> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.

Note the Darwin award candidate.

[JNugent[_7_]]

David Hansen wrote:

> "Mrcheerful" > wrote:

>> lack of sideguards is not a defect.

>> riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is dangerous for reasons
>> obvious to most observers.

> Did the cyclist do this?

Was the lack of sideguards a "defect"?

[mileburner]

"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
...
> "Mrcheerful" > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
> 08:43:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> Graphic images:-
>>> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>>
>>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>
>>it looks to me as though the front wheels of the lorry got the bike, so
>>sideguards would have made no difference.
>>
> Yes, she was clearly in front of the lorry before being hit, which
> makes it entirely the fault of the tipper driver.
> I notice the truck IS fitted with the required mirrors which would
> have provided the driver with a full view of the cyclist going under
> the front wheels as it happened.

You can't expect drivers to always check to the side before making a left or
right turn.

[Tony Dragon]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
> 08:43:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> Graphic images:-
>>> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>>
>>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>> it looks to me as though the front wheels of the lorry got the bike, so
>> sideguards would have made no difference.
>>
> Yes, she was clearly in front of the lorry before being hit, which
> makes it entirely the fault of the tipper driver.
> I notice the truck IS fitted with the required mirrors which would
> have provided the driver with a full view of the cyclist going under
> the front wheels as it happened.

Were you there?
Can you share with us what you saw?
Was there anybody with you who can confirm your views?

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

JNugent wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> "Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Mrcheerful" > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
>>> 08:43:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> Graphic images:-
>>>>> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>>> it looks to me as though the front wheels of the lorry got the bike, so
>>>> sideguards would have made no difference.
>>>>
>>> Yes, she was clearly in front of the lorry before being hit, which
>>> makes it entirely the fault of the tipper driver.
>>> I notice the truck IS fitted with the required mirrors which would
>>> have provided the driver with a full view of the cyclist going under
>>> the front wheels as it happened.
>>
>> You can't expect drivers to always check to the side before making a
>> left or right turn.
>
> If all the rules were properly applied and observed, there would never
> be a need to look to the left when moving left (overtaking and moving
> back in excepted).
>
> Of course, the rules have been undermined by the anti-social provision
> of nearside Zil-lanes for buses and other politburo-favoured modes over
> the last thirty-odd years, but the basic rule is "drive / ride on the
> left, overtake on the right". Comply with that and most of these
> problems evaporate.

You will get few friends here if you talk sense.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:54:49 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

>"Mrcheerful" > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
>08:43:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> Graphic images:-
>>> http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>>>
>>> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>>
>>it looks to me as though the front wheels of the lorry got the bike, so
>>sideguards would have made no difference.
>>
>Yes, she was clearly in front of the lorry before being hit, which
>makes it entirely the fault of the tipper driver.
>I notice the truck IS fitted with the required mirrors which would
>have provided the driver with a full view of the cyclist going under
>the front wheels as it happened.

I don't think that the possibility of the driver reversing off the
cyclist and her bike can be discounted. From the photos this looks
unlikely.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 24 June, 06:59, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 6:35 am, Tom Crispin
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 23, 8:02 pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
>>>>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously
>>>>>> don't care about them.
>>
>>>>> While that *may* have been the intention behind their
>>>>> installation, kerbside railings tend to allow the traffic to flow
>>>>> faster because drivers do not need to be so concerned about
>>>>> people crossing the road or just spilling into the road.
>>
>>>>> They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.
>>
>>>>> And they do not improve pedestian safety.
>>
>>>> The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath
>>>> and to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican
>>>> crossings.
>>
>>> The result is that motor traffic speeds up and pedestrians' right to
>>> use the road is restricted.
>>
>>>> They
>>>> also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
>>>> pedestrian safety.
>>
>>> Bollards are better.
>>
>> Bollards don't stop pedestrians from entering the road at unsafe
>> places.
>>
> Unsafe places eh? And who makes them unsafe? Drivers who are so
> irresponsible and dangerous they cannot avoid crashing into the
> vulnerable.

So irresponsible & dangerous they only cause 1 fatality in 120,000,000 miles
driven.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:08:02 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> wrote:

>So irresponsible & dangerous they only cause 1 fatality in 120,000,000 miles
>driven.

Do you think that is acceptable?

And what are the figures for lorries without side guards?

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:08:02 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> > wrote:
>
>> So irresponsible & dangerous they only cause 1 fatality in
>> 120,000,000 miles driven.
>
> Do you think that is acceptable?

Yup. Its simply incredible.
>
> And what are the figures for lorries without side guards?

Who gives a ****?

What are the figures for cyclists with common sense? Oh I forgot - there
aren't any.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:08:02 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> > wrote:
>
>> So irresponsible & dangerous they only cause 1 fatality in 120,000,000 miles
>> driven.
>
> Do you think that is acceptable?
>
> And what are the figures for lorries without side guards?

Do you have these figures to hand, real ones of course.


--
Tony Dragon

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:46:42 +0100, Tony Dragon
> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:08:02 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> So irresponsible & dangerous they only cause 1 fatality in 120,000,000 miles
>>> driven.
>>
>> Do you think that is acceptable?
>>
>> And what are the figures for lorries without side guards?
>
>Do you have these figures to hand, real ones of course.

Nope - that is why I asked.

I have little doubt that HGVs without side guards are significantly
more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists than HGVs with side guards.
That may be due in part to the nature of the work side guard exempt
vehicles carry out.

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:59:38 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>I hear that Keltbray will be operating lorries in South-East London
>soon (please!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUI7_l0Ofug

What part of London do you think this is!?

It looks like most of the filming is on Evelyn Street in Deptford.

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:59:38 -0700 (PDT), Derek C > wrote:
>
> I hear that Keltbray will be operating lorries in South-East London
> soon (please!)

That makes as little sense as most of your pronouncements. Keltbray
are a civil engineering contractor. They work all over the UK.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[NM]

On 24 June, 08:50, David Hansen >
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:15 +0100 someone who may be "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote this:-
>
> >lack of sideguards is not a defect.
> >riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is dangerous for reasons
> >obvious to most observers.
>
> Did the cyclist do this?
>

Yes

[NM]

On 24 June, 09:15, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:15 +0100 someone who may be "Mrcheerful"
> > > wrote this:-
>
> >> lack of sideguards is not a defect.
> >> riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is dangerous for
> >> reasons obvious to most observers.
>
> > Did the cyclist do this?
>
> Since the incident is so close to the road junction I would surmise that if
> the cyclist had been waiting at the junction then she would have been closer
> to the line, if the cyclist had been moving up to the line with the lorry
> behind her then it is extremely unlikely that the lorry would not have seen
> her, at that point of the junction the cyclist would be able to travel at
> least as fast as the lorry would negotiate the junction and would therefore
> have pulled out as cyclists usually do. *I would bet a fiver that the
> cyclist came up the inside while the lorry was stationary or nearly so. *Why
> she did not jump onto the large area of clear pavement to her left when she
> realised what was happening shows how stupid some cyclists are.
>
> additionally, no lorry driver would deliberately run someone over as it is
> too much aggravation.

It's been tempting at times.

[NM]

On 24 June, 16:54, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
> 08:43:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >Tom Crispin wrote:
> >> Graphic images:-
> >>http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> >> Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> >it looks to me as though the front wheels of the lorry got the bike, so
> >sideguards would have made no difference.
>
> Yes, she was clearly in front of the lorry before being hit, which
> makes it entirely the fault of the tipper driver.


No it dosen't

[NM]

On 23 June, 18:39, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:25:18 +0100, Tom Crispin
>
> > wrote:
> >Graphic images:-
> >http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
> >Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> It's an exempt vehicle. I don't think Keltbray are the worst offenders
> by any means.

They are not offenders, they complied with the law, please point to
the offense if you can.

[NM]

On 23 June, 23:21, Squashme > wrote:
> On 23 June, 23:02, Derek C > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 8:02*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
>
> > > Derek C wrote:
>
> > > > The railings help to protect pedestrians, but you obviously don't care
> > > > about them.
>
> > > While that *may* have been the intention behind their installation, kerbside
> > > railings tend to allow the traffic to flow faster because drivers do not
> > > need to be so concerned about people crossing the road or just spilling into
> > > the road.
>
> > > They are a particular danger to gutter-hugging cyclists.
>
> > > And they do not improve pedestian safety.
>
> > The purpose of the railings is to keep pedestrians on the footpath and
> > to direct them to safe crossing points such as Pelican crossings. They
> > also keep motor vehicles off the pavement, so they have to improve
> > pedestrian safety.
>
> > Cyclists should be careful not to get themselves trapped between a
> > large left turning HGV and railings. This may just be a case of
> > hanging back for a couple of seconds to see what the HGV is going to
> > do, and not to ride in their likely blind spots.
>
> HGV drivers should be careful not to overtake cyclists in such
> circumstances. This may just be a case of hanging back for a couple of
> minutes, but as motorists care deeply about cyclists (and pedestrians,
> of course) they will not grudge this which will ensure that no cyclist
> is positioned between the HGV and railings.

Bollox, if, whilst you wait at lights, a cyclist decides to filter to
a place where he/she is invisible then as a result gets crushed, IMO
that comes under the heading of 'Tough ****'.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:59:42 -0700 (PDT), NM >
wrote:

>> It's an exempt vehicle. I don't think Keltbray are the worst offenders
>> by any means.

>They are not offenders, they complied with the law, please point to
>the offense if you can.

Please disengage paranoia mode - "worst offender" does not necessarily
imply a criminal offence. You might also note that I was *defending*
Keltbray. I regularly share the road with their vehicles on my
commute, their drivers are in the main pretty good.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[NM]

On 24 June, 07:25, Doug > wrote:
> On 23 June, 20:22, "The Medway Handyman" > wrote:
> > Tom Crispin wrote:
> > > Graphic images:-
> > >http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
>
> > > Note the lack of sideguards on the lorry.
>
> > Why should Keltbray fit expensive side guards to protect cyclists from their
> > own stupidity?
>
> Stupid of not, why should they be allowed to be killed or seriously
> injured by defective HGVs, or any other defective motorised vehicle
> which is at present allowed on our roads?
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

But it isn't defective and anyway the driver had a licence to kill.