Two grand if you can shop the cyclist

[MrCheerful]

Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
for his identity.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html

[Bod[_5_]]

On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
> for his identity.
>
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>
It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this scumbag.

Also in the news:

Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html

And:

The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
with killing a cyclist.
Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 09:05, Bod wrote:

> On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:

>> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
>> for his identity.
>
>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>
> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this scumbag.

+1

> Also in the news:

> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'

Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?

> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html

> And:

> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail

How many of the 148 were found guilty?

[Bod[_5_]]

On 11/06/2015 09:45, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 09:05, Bod wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
>>> for his identity.
>>
>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>>>
>>
>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>> scumbag.
>
> +1
>
>> Also in the news:
>
>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>
> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>
>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>
>
>> And:
>
>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>
>
> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>
It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:

"The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
with killing a cyclist.
Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 09:54, Bod wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 09:45, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 09:05, Bod wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>>> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
>>>> for his identity.
>>>
>>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>> scumbag.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> Also in the news:
>>
>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>
>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>
>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> And:
>>
>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
> >
> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>
> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
> with killing a cyclist.
> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."


So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.

[Bod[_5_]]

>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>> scumbag.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> Also in the news:
>>>
>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>
>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>
>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> And:
>>>
>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>> >
>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>
>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>> with killing a cyclist.
>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>
>
> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>
>Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
and went to prison were actually innocent?

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 10:12, Bod wrote:
>
>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>
>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>
>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And:
>>>>
>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>> >
>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>
>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>
>>
>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>

No, read the words again.

If no blame for fault can be placed upon 'the other road user' then even
if they are found guilty of actually causing the death, there would be
no reason to send them to jail, would there? It would be an accident.

Deliberately running into someone while shouting 'get out of the way,
I'm not stopping' would show intention and therefore would deserve a
stronger punishment, which might include jail. Jail is not an automatic
sentence any longer, this is not the middle ages.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:15 +0100, Bod > wrote:

>
>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>
>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>
>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And:
>>>>
>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>> >
>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>
>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>
>>
>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of the
prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor judgement
of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect and tolerate.

>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 10:32, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:15 +0100, Bod > wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>>> >
>>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>>
>>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>>
>>>
>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of the
> prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
> and tolerate.
>
>>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>> >
>> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
>> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>>
>
>

Many crashes have fault on both sides, millions of crashes are avoided
every day by most drivers.
However, a court would need to have conclusive evidence to show that the
crash is the fault of only one person, even then there would need to be
evidence to show that it was deliberate or clearly dangerous to get a
prison sentence.

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 09:54, Bod wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 09:45, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 09:05, Bod wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>>> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
>>>> for his identity.
>>>
>>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>> scumbag.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> Also in the news:
>>
>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>
>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>
>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> And:
>>
>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
> >
> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:

No, it doesn't. It says that 148 people were charged. Of those found
guilty, 44 percent got a jail sentence.

So maybe 9 people were found guilty and 4 got a jail sentence, or maybe
50 found guilty and 22 got jail.

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 11:37, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 09:54, Bod wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 09:45, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2015 09:05, Bod wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
>>>>> for his identity.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>> scumbag.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> Also in the news:
>>>
>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>
>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>
>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> And:
>>>
>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>> >
>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>
> No, it doesn't. It says that 148 people were charged. Of those found
> guilty, 44 percent got a jail sentence.
>
> So maybe 9 people were found guilty and 4 got a jail sentence, or maybe
> 50 found guilty and 22 got jail.
>
>
>

Beg your pudding, I have just found the figures nestling at the very end
of the article: 108 convicted, 47 sentenced to a jail term

[Bod[_5_]]

On 11/06/2015 11:30, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 10:32, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:15 +0100, Bod > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst:
>>>>>>> 'There's a
>>>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>>> charged
>>>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>>>> >
>>>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of the
>> prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>> and tolerate.
>>
>>>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>>> >
>>> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
>>> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Many crashes have fault on both sides, millions of crashes are avoided
> every day by most drivers.
> However, a court would need to have conclusive evidence to show that the
> crash is the fault of only one person, even then there would need to be
> evidence to show that it was deliberate or clearly dangerous to get a
> prison sentence.
>
Indeed, that's why those 44% of drivers were convicted and sent to
prison.... or don't you understand that?

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 12:02, Bod wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 11:30, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 10:32, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:15 +0100, Bod > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst:
>>>>>>>> 'There's a
>>>>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>>>> charged
>>>>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>> charged
>>>>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>>>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of the
>>> prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>> and tolerate.
>>>
>>>>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>>>> >
>>>> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
>>>> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Many crashes have fault on both sides, millions of crashes are avoided
>> every day by most drivers.
>> However, a court would need to have conclusive evidence to show that the
>> crash is the fault of only one person, even then there would need to be
>> evidence to show that it was deliberate or clearly dangerous to get a
>> prison sentence.
> >
> Indeed, that's why those 44% of drivers were convicted and sent to
> prison.... or don't you understand that?

It was you that suggested that they were innocent.

[Bod[_5_]]

On 11/06/2015 12:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 12:02, Bod wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 11:30, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2015 10:32, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:15 +0100, Bod > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst:
>>>>>>>>> 'There's a
>>>>>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>>>>> charged
>>>>>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>>> charged
>>>>>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>>>>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of the
>>>> prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>>> and tolerate.
>>>>
>>>>>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
>>>>> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Many crashes have fault on both sides, millions of crashes are avoided
>>> every day by most drivers.
>>> However, a court would need to have conclusive evidence to show that the
>>> crash is the fault of only one person, even then there would need to be
>>> evidence to show that it was deliberate or clearly dangerous to get a
>>> prison sentence.
>> >
>> Indeed, that's why those 44% of drivers were convicted and sent to
>> prison.... or don't you understand that?
>
> It was you that suggested that they were innocent.
>
>
I did no such thing.

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 09:54, Bod wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 09:45, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 09:05, Bod wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>>> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
>>>> for his identity.
>>>
>>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>
>
>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>> scumbag.
>
>> +1
>
>>> Also in the news:
>
>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>
>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>
>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>
>>> And:
>
>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>
>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>
> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>
> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
> with killing a cyclist.
> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."

I don't think I'll be watching any videos, thanks all the same.

The two sentences immediately above this comment do not give the
information requested. Depending on whether the "44%" is rounded, the
answer could be almost anything from 11 (eleven) upwards.

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 10:12, Bod wrote:
>
>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>
>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>
>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And:
>>>>
>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>> >
>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>
>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>
>>
>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
> >
> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
> and went to prison were actually innocent?

44% of how many?

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 12:02, Bod wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 11:30, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 10:32, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:15 +0100, Bod > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst:
>>>>>>>> 'There's a
>>>>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>>>> charged
>>>>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>> charged
>>>>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>>>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of the
>>> prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>> and tolerate.
>>>
>>>>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>>>> >
>>>> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
>>>> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Many crashes have fault on both sides, millions of crashes are avoided
>> every day by most drivers.
>> However, a court would need to have conclusive evidence to show that the
>> crash is the fault of only one person, even then there would need to be
>> evidence to show that it was deliberate or clearly dangerous to get a
>> prison sentence.
> >
> Indeed, that's why those 44% of drivers were convicted and sent to
> prison.... or don't you understand that?

44% of how many drivers?

Certainly not 44% of all the drivers in the UK (which is what your last
comment actually suggests).

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 11:37, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 09:54, Bod wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 09:45, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2015 09:05, Bod wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
>>>>> for his identity.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>> scumbag.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> Also in the news:
>>>
>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>
>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>
>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> And:
>>>
>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>> >
>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>
> No, it doesn't. It says that 148 people were charged. Of those found
> guilty, 44 percent got a jail sentence.
>
> So maybe 9 people were found guilty and 4 got a jail sentence, or maybe
> 50 found guilty and 22 got jail.

I've already tried to have this category error addressed. Bod is in no
mood for mathematical truths.

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 11:40, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 11:37, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 09:54, Bod wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2015 09:45, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2015 09:05, Bod wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/06/2015 08:31, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two
>>>>>> grand
>>>>>> for his identity.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>
>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>
>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And:
>>>>
>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>> >
>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It says that 148 people were charged. Of those found
>> guilty, 44 percent got a jail sentence.
>>
>> So maybe 9 people were found guilty and 4 got a jail sentence, or maybe
>> 50 found guilty and 22 got jail.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Beg your pudding, I have just found the figures nestling at the very end
> of the article: 108 convicted, 47 sentenced to a jail term

Over seven years?

[Tarcap]

"Bod" wrote in message ...

On 11/06/2015 11:30, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 10:32, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:15 +0100, Bod > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst:
>>>>>>> 'There's a
>>>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>>> charged
>>>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>>>> >
>>>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of the
>> prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>> and tolerate.
>>
>>>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>>> >
>>> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
>>> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Many crashes have fault on both sides, millions of crashes are avoided
> every day by most drivers.
> However, a court would need to have conclusive evidence to show that the
> crash is the fault of only one person, even then there would need to be
> evidence to show that it was deliberate or clearly dangerous to get a
> prison sentence.
>
Indeed, that's why those 44% of drivers were convicted and sent to
prison.... or don't you understand that?

No, I don't understand it. You seem to be suggesting something completely
different to what was quoted:

"Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison." (Your quote, by the way)

You are saying that 44% of drivers were convicted and sent to prison, but
your quote actually says that 44% *of those found guilty* were sent to
prison - a very different statistic entirely.
Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue, in the time honoured
psycholist way?

[Bod[_5_]]

On 11/06/2015 14:21, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 10:12, Bod wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>>> scumbag.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also in the news:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst: 'There's a
>>>>>> witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>>>> with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>>>> >
>>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>>
>>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged
>>>> with killing a cyclist.
>>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>>>
>>>
>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>> >
>> >Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
>> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>
> 44% of how many?
>
>
108 convicted, 47 sentenced to prison.

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 14:27, Tarcap wrote:
>
> "Bod" wrote in message ...
> On 11/06/2015 11:30, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 10:32, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:15 +0100, Bod > wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> It's going to be shown on Crimewatch, so let's hope they find this
>>>>>>>> scumbag.
>
>>>>>>> +1
>
>>>>>>>> Also in the news:
>
>>>>>>>> Driver threatens to kill cyclist in foul-mouthed outburst:
>>>>>>>> 'There's a witness, otherwise I'd break your f***ing neck'
>
>>>>>>> Is that REALLY what you'd call a threat?
>
>>>>>>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/driver-threatens-to-kill-cyclist-in-foulmouthed-outburst-theres-a-witness-otherwise-id-break-your-fing-neck-10289939.html
>
>>>>>>>> And:
>>>>>>>> The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>>>> charged with killing a cyclist. Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.
>>>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/28345522/cycling-deaths-fewer-than-half-of-drivers-face-jail

What were the charges?

As stated, it could be anything from murder to careless driving (and in
any combination).
>
>>>>>>> How many of the 148 were found guilty?
>
>>>>>> It says how many in the Newsbeat clip:
>>>>>> "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were
>>>>>> charged with killing a cyclist.
>>>>>> Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison."
>
>>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of the
>>> prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>> and tolerate.
>
>>>>> fault then no major blame can be attributed, therefore no prison.
>
>>>> Are you trying to say that the 44% of drivers who were found guilty
>>>> and went to prison were actually innocent?
>
>> Many crashes have fault on both sides, millions of crashes are avoided
>> every day by most drivers.
>> However, a court would need to have conclusive evidence to show that the
>> crash is the fault of only one person, even then there would need to be
>> evidence to show that it was deliberate or clearly dangerous to get a
>> prison sentence.
>
> Indeed, that's why those 44% of drivers were convicted and sent to
> prison.... or don't you understand that?
>
> No, I don't understand it. You seem to be suggesting something
> completely different to what was quoted:
>
> "Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison." (Your quote, by the way)
>
> You are saying that 44% of drivers were convicted and sent to prison,
> but your quote actually says that 44% *of those found guilty* were sent
> to prison - a very different statistic entirely.
> Are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue, in the time honoured
> psycholist way?

In any event, charges of careless driving, having an expired road tax
disc, having no MOT and even having no insurance are not usually deemed
serious enough for a custodial sentence. I say "not ... usually", but
"never" would be more accurate.

So what were the charges and what were the convictions?

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100
"Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:

> >> Mrcheerful wrote:
> >> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
> and tolerate.
>
Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to think
"that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
"accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 15:41, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100
> "Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:
>
>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
>> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>> and tolerate.
>>
> Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to think
> "that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
> "accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
> insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.
>

Why do you say it was the 'driver' that caused the crash? Do cyclists
never do anything to cause a crash?

The driver is the person that has been taught to drive, has demonstrated
that they can control the car and know the highway code, they have also
laid out large amounts of money in order to be driving at all, and have
insurance in case of a crash. What proportion of cyclists can say the
same about their cycling?

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 16:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 11/06/2015 15:41, Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100
>> "Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
>>> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>> and tolerate.
>>>
>> Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to think
>> "that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
>> "accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
>> insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.
>>
>
> Why do you say it was the 'driver' that caused the crash? Do cyclists
> never do anything to cause a crash?
>
> The driver is the person that has been taught to drive, has demonstrated
> that they can control the car and know the highway code, they have also
> laid out large amounts of money in order to be driving at all, and have
> insurance in case of a crash. What proportion of cyclists can say the
> same about their cycling?

Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for
a while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets
and soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still
not encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.

Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.

But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other
way. In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop
some little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower
the driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to
communicate. So I did exactly that, though it necessitated being
stopped near parked vehicles.

As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet
either side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't
enough, though that would be news to a "filterer") and pedalled steadily
through the gap, scowling and uttering something or other as he did so.

My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have
no effect.

Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists
do tremendous distances on their bikes.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/06/2015 16:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 11/06/2015 15:41, Rob Morley wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100
>>> "Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
>>>> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>>> and tolerate.
>>>>
>>> Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to think
>>> "that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
>>> "accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
>>> insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say it was the 'driver' that caused the crash? Do cyclists
>> never do anything to cause a crash?
>>
>> The driver is the person that has been taught to drive, has demonstrated
>> that they can control the car and know the highway code, they have also
>> laid out large amounts of money in order to be driving at all, and have
>> insurance in case of a crash. What proportion of cyclists can say the
>> same about their cycling?
>
> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for a
> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>
> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>
> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other way.
> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate. So
> I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
> vehicles.
>
> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet either
> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
> though that would be news to a "filterer") and pedalled steadily through
> the gap, scowling and uttering something or other as he did so.
>
> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have no
> effect.
>
> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists do
> tremendous distances on their bikes.

You would actually ask a cyclist for assistance??
That kind of behaviour is not becoming of you.

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 17:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 11/06/2015 16:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2015 15:41, Rob Morley wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100
>>>> "Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
>>>>> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>>>> and tolerate.
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to think
>>>> "that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
>>>> "accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
>>>> insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you say it was the 'driver' that caused the crash? Do cyclists
>>> never do anything to cause a crash?
>>>
>>> The driver is the person that has been taught to drive, has demonstrated
>>> that they can control the car and know the highway code, they have also
>>> laid out large amounts of money in order to be driving at all, and have
>>> insurance in case of a crash. What proportion of cyclists can say the
>>> same about their cycling?
>>
>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for a
>> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
>> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
>> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>>
>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>>
>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other way.
>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate. So
>> I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>> vehicles.
>>
>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet either
>> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
>> though that would be news to a "filterer") and pedalled steadily through
>> the gap, scowling and uttering something or other as he did so.
>>
>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have no
>> effect.
>>
>> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists do
>> tremendous distances on their bikes.
>
> You would actually ask a cyclist for assistance??
> That kind of behaviour is not becoming of you.

I am a very polite chap.

And I know that most people enjoy giving assistance if they can.

[Tarcap]

"Rob Morley" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100
"Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:

> >> Mrcheerful wrote:
> >> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
> and tolerate.
>
Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to think
"that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
"accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.

Or conversely, it it is more likely that jurors have themselves experienced
bad and aggressive riding by cyclists, who have wobbled out in front of them
whilst driving.
Thus the jurors having a lot more sympathy for the driver, realising that
"it could have easily been me".
That demonstrates that perhaps it is the cyclist that has insufficient
skill, or who take insufficient care while cycling.
Perhaps some sort of compulsory test would be the answer - perhaps just like
the driving test?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/06/2015 17:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 11/06/2015 16:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2015 15:41, Rob Morley wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100
>>>>> "Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>>>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
>>>>>> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>>>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>>>>> and tolerate.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to
>>>>> think
>>>>> "that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
>>>>> "accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
>>>>> insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say it was the 'driver' that caused the crash? Do cyclists
>>>> never do anything to cause a crash?
>>>>
>>>> The driver is the person that has been taught to drive, has
>>>> demonstrated
>>>> that they can control the car and know the highway code, they have also
>>>> laid out large amounts of money in order to be driving at all, and have
>>>> insurance in case of a crash. What proportion of cyclists can say the
>>>> same about their cycling?
>>>
>>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for
>>> a
>>> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
>>> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
>>> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>>>
>>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>>>
>>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other
>>> way.
>>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate.
>>> So
>>> I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
>>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet
>>> either
>>> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
>>> though that would be news to a "filterer") and pedalled steadily through
>>> the gap, scowling and uttering something or other as he did so.
>>>
>>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have
>>> no
>>> effect.
>>>
>>> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists
>>> do
>>> tremendous distances on their bikes.
>>
>> You would actually ask a cyclist for assistance??
>> That kind of behaviour is not becoming of you.
>
> I am a very polite chap.

Even to a cyclist?


> And I know that most people enjoy giving assistance if they can.

Mr Pounder in London at 7AM--------------- lost as always.
Sees bus stop with loads of people waiting.
Mr Pounder parks big red van, jumps out, clipboard in hand.
Every person at the buss stop turned their back on me.
Black faces all of them.
I will desist from expressing what the ill informed call racist views.
I will also desist from expressing my views about the south of England.

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 18:13, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> "Rob Morley" wrote in message ...
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:32:48 +0100
> "Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:
>
>> >> Mrcheerful wrote:
>> >> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
>> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>> and tolerate.
>>
> Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to think
> "that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
> "accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
> insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.
>
> Or conversely, it it is more likely that jurors have themselves
> experienced bad and aggressive riding by cyclists, who have wobbled out
> in front of them whilst driving.
> Thus the jurors having a lot more sympathy for the driver, realising
> that "it could have easily been me".
> That demonstrates that perhaps it is the cyclist that has insufficient
> skill, or who take insufficient care while cycling.
> Perhaps some sort of compulsory test would be the answer - perhaps just
> like the driving test?

I came across a good example today, while driving through a town along a
one way stretch with two lanes of heavy traffic I noticed an oldish male
cyclist riding along on the pavement (not a shared use one) to my left,
the next moment without even a glance behind he rode straight off the
pavement in front of me and carried on regardless. I could have easily
and understandably knocked him off if I had been even slightly ditracted
by another vehicle or any sort of normal road interaction at the moment
that he rode in front of me without warning of even the subtlest kind.
Happily I was travelling at a suitable speed for the conditions and was
able to avoid him, many drivers would not have been able to avoid
hitting him.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
>
> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for a
> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>
> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>
> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other way.
> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate. So
> I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
> vehicles.
>
> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet either
> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
> though that would be news to a "filterer")

Imagine it had been a person in a car. Would you have stopped like that? And
if you did what do you suppose their reaction might have been?

> and pedalled steadily through the gap, scowling and uttering something or
> other as he did so.

So your assumption that it was too narrow is wrong. You perform an unusual
manouevre and it is necessary to proceed with caution. Or is that sort of
roadcraft old hat?

I would have thought "what's your game?" and probably given a similar
reaction. Bearing in mind the stereotype often portrayed on urc I am
surprised you haven't invented a story about him smashing a mirror with a
D-lock.

> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have no
> effect.

What was the obligation to stop? You can't be bothered to spend a few
seconds with your satnav (what on earth is the point of keeping it in the
boot?) but think a story about another person not bothering to put
themselves out for you is noteworthy.

> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists do
> tremendous distances on their bikes.

It wouldn't be any good asking me for directions. I mostly use the bike for
local trips and the car for going further afield. Bicycle routes are often
not applicable to cars and I navigate by features, not road names (which
presumably would have been the subject of your enquiry).

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"TMS320" > wrote in message
...
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>
>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for a
>> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
>> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
>> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>>
>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>>
>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other way.
>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate. So
>> I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>> vehicles.
>>
>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet either
>> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
>> though that would be news to a "filterer")
>
> Imagine it had been a person in a car. Would you have stopped like that?
> And
> if you did what do you suppose their reaction might have been?
>
>> and pedalled steadily through the gap, scowling and uttering something or
>> other as he did so.
>
> So your assumption that it was too narrow is wrong. You perform an unusual
> manouevre and it is necessary to proceed with caution. Or is that sort of
> roadcraft old hat?
>
> I would have thought "what's your game?" and probably given a similar
> reaction. Bearing in mind the stereotype often portrayed on urc I am
> surprised you haven't invented a story about him smashing a mirror with a
> D-lock.
>
>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have no
>> effect.
>
> What was the obligation to stop? You can't be bothered to spend a few
> seconds with your satnav (what on earth is the point of keeping it in the
> boot?) but think a story about another person not bothering to put
> themselves out for you is noteworthy.
>
>> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists
>> do
>> tremendous distances on their bikes.
>
> It wouldn't be any good asking me for directions. I mostly use the bike
> for
> local trips and the car for going further afield. Bicycle routes are often
> not applicable to cars and I navigate by features, not road names (which
> presumably would have been the subject of your enquiry).

In short, don't ask a cyclist for directions.
Most can hardly spell their own name, never mind give directions.






>
>

[MrCheerful]

On 11/06/2015 20:41, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> "TMS320" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for a
>>> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
>>> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
>>> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>>>
>>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>>>
>>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other way.
>>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate. So
>>> I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
>>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet either
>>> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
>>> though that would be news to a "filterer")
>>
>> Imagine it had been a person in a car. Would you have stopped like that?
>> And
>> if you did what do you suppose their reaction might have been?
>>
>>> and pedalled steadily through the gap, scowling and uttering something or
>>> other as he did so.
>>
>> So your assumption that it was too narrow is wrong. You perform an unusual
>> manouevre and it is necessary to proceed with caution. Or is that sort of
>> roadcraft old hat?
>>
>> I would have thought "what's your game?" and probably given a similar
>> reaction. Bearing in mind the stereotype often portrayed on urc I am
>> surprised you haven't invented a story about him smashing a mirror with a
>> D-lock.
>>
>>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have no
>>> effect.
>>
>> What was the obligation to stop? You can't be bothered to spend a few
>> seconds with your satnav (what on earth is the point of keeping it in the
>> boot?) but think a story about another person not bothering to put
>> themselves out for you is noteworthy.
>>
>>> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists
>>> do
>>> tremendous distances on their bikes.
>>
>> It wouldn't be any good asking me for directions. I mostly use the bike
>> for
>> local trips and the car for going further afield. Bicycle routes are often
>> not applicable to cars and I navigate by features, not road names (which
>> presumably would have been the subject of your enquiry).
>
> In short, don't ask a cyclist for directions.
> Most can hardly spell their own name, never mind give directions.
>
>

I have heard they often tell people where to go.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> On 11/06/2015 20:41, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> "TMS320" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>>>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for
>>>> a
>>>> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
>>>> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
>>>> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>>>>
>>>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>>>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>>>>
>>>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other
>>>> way.
>>>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>>>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>>>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate.
>>>> So
>>>> I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>>>> vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front
>>>> of
>>>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet
>>>> either
>>>> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
>>>> though that would be news to a "filterer")
>>>
>>> Imagine it had been a person in a car. Would you have stopped like that?
>>> And
>>> if you did what do you suppose their reaction might have been?
>>>
>>>> and pedalled steadily through the gap, scowling and uttering something
>>>> or
>>>> other as he did so.
>>>
>>> So your assumption that it was too narrow is wrong. You perform an
>>> unusual
>>> manouevre and it is necessary to proceed with caution. Or is that sort
>>> of
>>> roadcraft old hat?
>>>
>>> I would have thought "what's your game?" and probably given a similar
>>> reaction. Bearing in mind the stereotype often portrayed on urc I am
>>> surprised you haven't invented a story about him smashing a mirror with
>>> a
>>> D-lock.
>>>
>>>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have
>>>> no
>>>> effect.
>>>
>>> What was the obligation to stop? You can't be bothered to spend a few
>>> seconds with your satnav (what on earth is the point of keeping it in
>>> the
>>> boot?) but think a story about another person not bothering to put
>>> themselves out for you is noteworthy.
>>>
>>>> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists
>>>> do
>>>> tremendous distances on their bikes.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't be any good asking me for directions. I mostly use the bike
>>> for
>>> local trips and the car for going further afield. Bicycle routes are
>>> often
>>> not applicable to cars and I navigate by features, not road names (which
>>> presumably would have been the subject of your enquiry).
>>
>> In short, don't ask a cyclist for directions.
>> Most can hardly spell their own name, never mind give directions.
>>
>>
>
> I have heard they often tell people where to go.

When I made this female thing get of the footpath she shouted over her
shoulder "go swing".
I've not seen it since.
I enjoy taking my little dog for a walk and blocking this footpath riding
scum.




>

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 20:23, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>
>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for a
>> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
>> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
>> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>
>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>
>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other way.
>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate. So
>> I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>> vehicles.
>
>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet either
>> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
>> though that would be news to a "filterer")
>
> Imagine it had been a person in a car. Would you have stopped like that?

What? Stopped so that there was room for him to get through (as it
happens, on both sides of me)? Yes, of course, if the road was wide enough.

> And if you did what do you suppose their reaction might have been?

Depends on their speed and whether there was enough room to get through.
When there isn't, it's usual to STOP and not many drivers will crash
head-on into another vehicle. And a vehicle might stop in the middle of
the road for all sorts of reason (eg, letting passengers out).

>> and pedalled steadily through the gap, scowling and uttering something or
>> other as he did so.
>
> So your assumption that it was too narrow is wrong.

I never said it was too narrow.

> You perform an unusual
> manouevre and it is necessary to proceed with caution. Or is that sort of
> roadcraft old hat?

What "caution" did he exercise?

> I would have thought "what's your game?" and probably given a similar
> reaction. Bearing in mind the stereotype often portrayed on urc I am
> surprised you haven't invented a story about him smashing a mirror with a
> D-lock.
>
>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have no
>> effect.
>
> What was the obligation to stop? You can't be bothered to spend a few
> seconds with your satnav (what on earth is the point of keeping it in the
> boot?)

Safety. It's awkward to hide it inside the cabin and I don't need it
most of the time. I didn't think I needed it the other day.

> but think a story about another person not bothering to put
> themselves out for you is noteworthy.

In my opinion, it is. Most people are very happy to give local
directions (especially, I have always found, pedestrians and other
drivers). I am prepared to take your word for cyclists being a load of
miserable sods who cannot comprehend that someone might need assistance.
After all, you're the expert. But I can recall being given directions by
very pleasant cyclists in the Netherlands, so I'm not prepared to fully
accept that they're as unhelpful as you claim.

>> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists do
>> tremendous distances on their bikes.

> It wouldn't be any good asking me for directions. I mostly use the bike for
> local trips and the car for going further afield. Bicycle routes are often
> not applicable to cars and I navigate by features, not road names (which
> presumably would have been the subject of your enquiry).

Exactly so.

And until this moment, I didn't know that every cyclist is exactly like you.

[jnugent]

On 11/06/2015 18:13, Tarcap wrote:
>
> "Rob Morley" wrote in message ...
> "Kerr Mudd-John" > wrote:
>> >> Mrcheerful wrote:

>>> >> So what, crashes happen, unless it can be shown that there was some
>>> ************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the whole wrong-headedness of
>>> the prevailing car culture; accepting that careless driving, or poor
>>> judgement of conditions is just one of those things we have to expect
>>> and tolerate.
>
>> Indeed - perhaps it's based on the way that jurors are inclined to think
>> "that could have been me" and empathise with the driver who caused the
>> "accident", which seems to demonstrate that many drivers have
>> insufficient skill or take insufficient care when driving.
>
> Or conversely, it it is more likely that jurors have themselves
> experienced bad and aggressive riding by cyclists, who have wobbled out
> in front of them whilst driving.

There is also the distinct possibility - nay, probability - that jurors
know at first hand that cyclists are very given to passing red lights,
going the wrong way along one-way streets, cycling in pedestrian-only
areas, cycling along the footway and generally without consideration for
anyone but themselves.

This knowledge cannot be unlearned by jurors.

> Thus the jurors having a lot more sympathy for the driver, realising
> that "it could have easily been me".
> That demonstrates that perhaps it is the cyclist that has insufficient
> skill, or who take insufficient care while cycling.
> Perhaps some sort of compulsory test would be the answer - perhaps just
> like the driving test?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:31:10 +0100, Mrcheerful > wrote:

> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
> for his identity.
>
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html

Very poor article. What actually happened?

--
What do you call an aerobics instructor who doesn't cause pain & agony?
Unemployed.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:31:10 +0100, Mrcheerful > wrote:

> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
> for his identity.
>
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html

It takes two to cause a collision, so the woman clearly wasn't looking where she was going. But the reporter hasn't said much other than he crashed into her. So that could mean anything.

--
An Englishman was feeling a little queezy on his first sailing, and leaned over the edge of the boat. He saw a Frenchman below opening his porthole so, feeling the urge to bring up his dinner, he yelled "LOOK OUT!"
The Frenchman stuck his head out of the porthole and was decorated with semi-digested food. "YOU SILLY ENGLISHMAN!!!!" he yelled, "Why do you say look out when you mean look in?"

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:31:10 +0100, Mrcheerful > wrote:

> Woman scarred for life by hit and run footway cyclist offers two grand
> for his identity.
>
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-who-was-scarred-for-life-by-hitandrun-cyclist-offers-2000-to-find-him-almost-two-months-after-crash-10310698.html

Are you using the same stupid mentality that's taking over where a driver hitting a cyclist is always at fault? So a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is always at fault too?

--
An Englishman was feeling a little queezy on his first sailing, and leaned over the edge of the boat. He saw a Frenchman below opening his porthole so, feeling the urge to bring up his dinner, he yelled "LOOK OUT!"
The Frenchman stuck his head out of the porthole and was decorated with semi-digested food. "YOU SILLY ENGLISHMAN!!!!" he yelled, "Why do you say look out when you mean look in?"

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 11/06/2015 20:23, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for
>>> a
>>> while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets and
>>> soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still not
>>> encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>>
>>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>>
>>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other
>>> way.
>>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate.
>>> So I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>>> vehicles.
>>
>>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
>>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet
>>> either
>>> side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't enough,
>>> though that would be news to a "filterer")
>>
>> Imagine it had been a person in a car. Would you have stopped like that?
>
> What? Stopped so that there was room for him to get through (as it
> happens, on both sides of me)? Yes, of course, if the road was wide
> enough.

In the usual course of events, if the narrowing is a short section, it is
normal to continue to where the road widens again (and the other road user
calculates when you are going to clear the narrowing); if the narrowing
continues (such as a country lane), the protocol is for each to give space
on their right by moving into the space on their left.

By stopping as you describe (in a narrowing, with a wider space a little
further along? and leaving just enough gap on your right while
having space on your left), I suggest it wouldn't put many people in a good
frame of mind.

>> And if you did what do you suppose their reaction might have been?
>
> Depends on their speed and whether there was enough room to get through.
> When there isn't, it's usual to STOP and not many drivers will crash
> head-on into another vehicle. And a vehicle might stop in the middle of
> the road for all sorts of reason (eg, letting passengers out).

>>> and pedalled steadily through the gap, scowling and uttering something
>>> or other as he did so.
>>
>> So your assumption that it was too narrow is wrong.
>
> I never said it was too narrow.

OK. However, you estimated a 4 foot gap. In the context of a thread a
few days ago about gaps for passing parked cars it seems odd that you
denigrated his reaction.

>> You perform an unusual
>> manouevre and it is necessary to proceed with caution. Or is that sort of
>> roadcraft old hat?
>
> What "caution" did he exercise?

You stopped in an unusual way. He could not know the reason for you stopping
or that you had even noted his presence. He had to be cautious of you
starting to move again or opening your door.

>> I would have thought "what's your game?" and probably given a similar
>> reaction. Bearing in mind the stereotype often portrayed on urc I am
>> surprised you haven't invented a story about him smashing a mirror with a
>> D-lock.
>>
>>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have
>>> no effect.
>>
>> What was the obligation to stop? You can't be bothered to spend a few
>> seconds with your satnav (what on earth is the point of keeping it in the
>> boot?)
>
> Safety. It's awkward to hide it inside the cabin and I don't need it most
> of the time. I didn't think I needed it the other day.

That's your problem, not someone elses.

>> but think a story about another person not bothering to put
>> themselves out for you is noteworthy.
>
> In my opinion, it is. Most people are very happy to give local directions
> (especially, I have always found, pedestrians and other drivers).

But when it is another driver how have you contrived the situation to get
them to stop? I expect it is far more likely that you approached them when
the circumstances provided the situation for you.

> I am prepared to take your word for cyclists being a load of miserable
> sods who cannot comprehend that someone might need assistance.

A lot depends on the circumstances. If slowing right down or being
stopped is part of the natural course of events, fine. For the other party
to contrive the situation, there are degrees of less fine. I have even
experienced someone driving alongside and being obliged to slow and stop for
my safety. Imagine anybody trying to do that to another car.

> After all, you're the expert. But I can recall being given directions by
> very pleasant cyclists in the Netherlands, so I'm not prepared to fully
> accept that they're as unhelpful as you claim.

>>> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists
>>> do tremendous distances on their bikes.
>
>> It wouldn't be any good asking me for directions. I mostly use the bike
>> for local trips and the car for going further afield. Bicycle routes are
>> often not applicable to cars and I navigate by features, not road names
>> (which
>> presumably would have been the subject of your enquiry).
>
> Exactly so.

Hmm. The story of the engineer and manager come to mind:-

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces
height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts:
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised my friend I would meet him half an
hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man below says: "Yes. You are in a hot air balloon, hovering
approximately 30 feet above this field. You are between 40 and 42 degrees N.
latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees W. longitude."

"You must be an engineer," says the balloonist.

"I am," replies the man. "How did you know."

"Well," says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact
is I am still lost."

The man below says "You must be a manager."

"I am," replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you are going.
You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect
me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in the exact same position you
were in before we met, but now it is somehow my fault."

[jnugent]

On 12/06/2015 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 11/06/2015 20:23, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>
>>>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>>>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for
>>>> a while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets
>>>> and soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still
>>>> not encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>>>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>>>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>
>>>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other
>>>> way.
>>>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>>>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>>>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate.
>>>> So I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>>>> vehicles.
>
>>>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
>>>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet
>>>> either side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't
>>>> enough, though that would be news to a "filterer")
>
>>> Imagine it had been a person in a car. Would you have stopped like that?
>
>> What? Stopped so that there was room for him to get through (as it
>> happens, on both sides of me)? Yes, of course, if the road was wide
>> enough.
>
> In the usual course of events, if the narrowing is a short section, it is
> normal to continue to where the road widens again (and the other road user
> calculates when you are going to clear the narrowing); if the narrowing
> continues (such as a country lane), the protocol is for each to give space
> on their right by moving into the space on their left.

You've forgotten the context already, haven't you?

> By stopping as you describe (in a narrowing, with a wider space a little
> further along? and leaving just enough gap on your right while
> having space on your left), I suggest it wouldn't put many people in a good
> frame of mind.

Not even a cyclist with *plenty* of room to get by?
>
>>> And if you did what do you suppose their reaction might have been?
>
>> Depends on their speed and whether there was enough room to get through.
>> When there isn't, it's usual to STOP and not many drivers will crash
>> head-on into another vehicle. And a vehicle might stop in the middle of
>> the road for all sorts of reason (eg, letting passengers out).
>
>>>> and pedalled steadily through the gap, scowling and uttering something
>>>> or other as he did so.
>
>>> So your assumption that it was too narrow is wrong.
>
>> I never said it was too narrow.
>
> OK. However, you estimated a 4 foot gap. In the context of a thread a
> few days ago about gaps for passing parked cars it seems odd that you
> denigrated his reaction.
>
He was reacting to something other than what had happened.

>>> You perform an unusual manouevre and it is necessary to proceed
>>> with caution. Or is that sort of roadcraft old hat?
>
>> What "caution" did he exercise?
>
> You stopped in an unusual way. He could not know the reason for you stopping
> or that you had even noted his presence. He had to be cautious of you
> starting to move again or opening your door.

I'm glad to hear of some of that least. However, such forward-thinking
caution is not usually associated with cyclists, as I'm sure you'll agree.

>>> I would have thought "what's your game?" and probably given a similar
>>> reaction. Bearing in mind the stereotype often portrayed on urc I am
>>> surprised you haven't invented a story about him smashing a mirror with a
>>> D-lock.
>
>>>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have
>>>> no effect.
>
>>> What was the obligation to stop? You can't be bothered to spend a few
>>> seconds with your satnav (what on earth is the point of keeping it in the
>>> boot?)
>
>> Safety. It's awkward to hide it inside the cabin and I don't need it most
>> of the time. I didn't think I needed it the other day.
>
> That's your problem, not someone elses.
>
It wasn't anyone else's problem at all.

But in your attempt to blame me for someone else's churlishness (in the
face of my scrupulous politeness, I might add), you seem to be
suggesting that my not being able to remember exactly where a particular
street was should result in maximum inconvenience to me and somehow,
that I ought not to be able to get cordial assistance from other passers-by.

It's an odd thing to think, let alone suggest.

What is your reason?

>>> but think a story about another person not bothering to put
>>> themselves out for you is noteworthy.
>
>> In my opinion, it is. Most people are very happy to give local directions
>> (especially, I have always found, pedestrians and other drivers).
>
> But when it is another driver how have you contrived the situation to get
> them to stop? I expect it is far more likely that you approached them when
> the circumstances provided the situation for you.

The usual method with a driver going the other way is to lean out of the
driver's window and to motion to the oncoming driver to slow down. It
hardly ever fails and it doesn't fail with cyclists in the Netherlands.
But of course, they tend to be civilised and to behave in a civilised
manner.

>> I am prepared to take your word for cyclists being a load of miserable
>> sods who cannot comprehend that someone might need assistance.
>
> A lot depends on the circumstances. If slowing right down or being
> stopped is part of the natural course of events, fine. For the other party
> to contrive the situation, there are degrees of less fine. I have even
> experienced someone driving alongside and being obliged to slow and stop for
> my safety. Imagine anybody trying to do that to another car.

It's difficult to envisage what you are trying to describe. Motor
vehicles in adjacent lanes frequently proceed at about the same speed
(which may be anything between 5mph and 70mph). Why is it a problem for you?

>> After all, you're the expert. But I can recall being given directions by
>> very pleasant cyclists in the Netherlands, so I'm not prepared to fully
>> accept that they're as unhelpful as you claim.
>
>>>> Still, he might not have been a local anyway. After all, these cyclists
>>>> do tremendous distances on their bikes.
>
>>> It wouldn't be any good asking me for directions. I mostly use the bike
>>> for local trips and the car for going further afield. Bicycle routes are
>>> often not applicable to cars and I navigate by features, not road names
>>> (which presumably would have been the subject of your enquiry).
>
>> Exactly so.
>
> Hmm. The story of the engineer and manager come to mind:-
>
> A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces
> height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts:
> "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised my friend I would meet him half an
> hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
>
> The man below says: "Yes. You are in a hot air balloon, hovering
> approximately 30 feet above this field. You are between 40 and 42 degrees N.
> latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees W. longitude."
>
> "You must be an engineer," says the balloonist.
>
> "I am," replies the man. "How did you know."
>
> "Well," says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically
> correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact
> is I am still lost."
>
> The man below says "You must be a manager."
>
> "I am," replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
>
> "Well," says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you are going.
> You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect
> me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in the exact same position you
> were in before we met, but now it is somehow my fault."

Well done.

Does it make the cyclist more helpful, less helpful or just equally as
unhelpful?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:36:49 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 12/06/2015 12:07, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>> On 11/06/2015 20:23, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>> Veering slightly off-topic, I was in an area of South London the other
>>>>> day, looking for the road where a friend lives. I hadn't been there for
>>>>> a while, had misremembered the layout of the grid-pattern of streets
>>>>> and soon found that I had driven further than I intended and had still
>>>>> not encountered the thoroughfare I was looking for.
>>>>> Rather than drag a satnav out of the boot and wait whilst it "acquired
>>>>> satellites", I thought I'd ask a local.
>>
>>>>> But the only potential local in sight was a cyclist coming the other
>>>>> way.
>>>>> In order to speak to him and ask for directions, I needed to stop some
>>>>> little way short of him so that I could apply the handbrake, lower the
>>>>> driver's window and lean half out of said window ready to communicate.
>>>>> So I did exactly that, though it necessitated being stopped near parked
>>>>> vehicles.
>>
>>>>> As he approached, the cyclist looked up and saw that the gap in front of
>>>>> him had narrowed from the width of the carriageway to maybe 4 feet
>>>>> either side of my car. He affected a frown (perhaps a 4 foot gap isn't
>>>>> enough, though that would be news to a "filterer")
>>
>>>> Imagine it had been a person in a car. Would you have stopped like that?
>>
>>> What? Stopped so that there was room for him to get through (as it
>>> happens, on both sides of me)? Yes, of course, if the road was wide
>>> enough.
>>
>> In the usual course of events, if the narrowing is a short section, it is
>> normal to continue to where the road widens again (and the other road user
>> calculates when you are going to clear the narrowing); if the narrowing
>> continues (such as a country lane), the protocol is for each to give space
>> on their right by moving into the space on their left.
>
> You've forgotten the context already, haven't you?
>
>> By stopping as you describe (in a narrowing, with a wider space a little
>> further along? and leaving just enough gap on your right while
>> having space on your left), I suggest it wouldn't put many people in a good
>> frame of mind.
>
> Not even a cyclist with *plenty* of room to get by?
>>
>>>> And if you did what do you suppose their reaction might have been?
>>
>>> Depends on their speed and whether there was enough room to get through.
>>> When there isn't, it's usual to STOP and not many drivers will crash
>>> head-on into another vehicle. And a vehicle might stop in the middle of
>>> the road for all sorts of reason (eg, letting passengers out).
>>
>>>>> and pedalled steadily through the gap, scowling and uttering something
>>>>> or other as he did so.
>>
>>>> So your assumption that it was too narrow is wrong.
>>
>>> I never said it was too narrow.
>>
>> OK. However, you estimated a 4 foot gap. In the context of a thread a
>> few days ago about gaps for passing parked cars it seems odd that you
>> denigrated his reaction.
>>
> He was reacting to something other than what had happened.
>
>>>> You perform an unusual manouevre and it is necessary to proceed
>>>> with caution. Or is that sort of roadcraft old hat?
>>
>>> What "caution" did he exercise?
>>
>> You stopped in an unusual way. He could not know the reason for you stopping
>> or that you had even noted his presence. He had to be cautious of you
>> starting to move again or opening your door.
>
> I'm glad to hear of some of that least. However, such forward-thinking
> caution is not usually associated with cyclists, as I'm sure you'll agree.
>
>>>> I would have thought "what's your game?" and probably given a similar
>>>> reaction. Bearing in mind the stereotype often portrayed on urc I am
>>>> surprised you haven't invented a story about him smashing a mirror with a
>>>> D-lock.
>>
>>>>> My polite "Excuse me... sorry to trouble you, but I..." seemed to have
>>>>> no effect.
>>
>>>> What was the obligation to stop? You can't be bothered to spend a few
>>>> seconds with your satnav (what on earth is the point of keeping it in the
>>>> boot?)
>>
>>> Safety. It's awkward to hide it inside the cabin and I don't need it most
>>> of the time. I didn't think I needed it the other day.
>>
>> That's your problem, not someone elses.
>>
> It wasn't anyone else's problem at all.
>
> But in your attempt to blame me for someone else's churlishness (in the
> face of my scrupulous politeness, I might add), you seem to be
> suggesting that my not being able to remember exactly where a particular
> street was should result in maximum inconvenience to me and somehow,
> that I ought not to be able to get cordial assistance from other passers-by.
>
> It's an odd thing to think, let alone suggest.
>
> What is your reason?

Was this a normal person on a bicycle, or one of those freaks with a trainer helmet, hivis jacket, and tight shorts so you can gauge the size of his penis? If the latter, you were very stupid to think you could have a conversation with him. They have no brains to speak of.

--
The true mark of a civilized society is when its citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote i
> On 12/06/2015 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

> You've forgotten the context already, haven't you?

No. If you think I have over snipped I will let you put it back
if you really think you've made a point that's worth repeating.

>> By stopping as you describe (in a narrowing, with a wider space a little
>> further along? and leaving just enough gap on your right while
>> having space on your left), I suggest it wouldn't put many people in a
>> good frame of mind.
>
> Not even a cyclist with *plenty* of room to get by?

Strange how a 4 foot is not enough for you should the occasional cyclist
exploit it but plenty for the cyclist when you impose it.

>> OK. However, you estimated a 4 foot gap. In the context of a thread a
>> few days ago about gaps for passing parked cars it seems odd that you
>> denigrated his reaction.
>>
> He was reacting to something other than what had happened.

He reacted to being given a gap that in your estimation was 4 foot wide.

>> You stopped in an unusual way. He could not know the reason for you
>> stopping
>> or that you had even noted his presence. He had to be cautious of you
>> starting to move again or opening your door.
>
> I'm glad to hear of some of that least. However, such forward-thinking
> caution is not usually associated with cyclists, as I'm sure you'll agree.

I don't agree. What do you expect?

One further comment. I have little doubt that you did not check to make sure
you weren't stopping alongside a pothole or drain cover. And since car doors
are not transparent you could not have done so once stopped.

>> That's your problem, not someone elses.
>
> It wasn't anyone else's problem at all.

But you decided to try and share it.

> But in your attempt to blame me for someone else's churlishness...

This person simply decided not to stop for you. How do you know he wasn't
trying to get to hospital to visit his sick mother? Perhaps people aren't
supposed to use bicycles for that?

>> But when it is another driver how have you contrived the situation to get
>> them to stop? I expect it is far more likely that you approached them
>> when the circumstances provided the situation for you.
>
> The usual method with a driver going the other way is to lean out of the
> driver's window and to motion to the oncoming driver to slow down. It
> hardly ever fails

It would be interesting to see a demonstration. And since you say "hardly
ever" it would also be interesting to know your sample size and the ratio of
acceptance to refusal that makes it appear successful to you.

> and it doesn't fail with cyclists in the Netherlands. But of course, they
> tend to be civilised and to behave in a civilised manner.

A key technique for getting co-operation from someone is to avoid annoying
them first; such as unnecessarily taking space they have a reasonable
expection of using. Shared space roads in the Netherlands are often marked
out as three lanes with the two outer lanes being more than 4 foot wide. How
often did you stop and straddle lanes to semi-obstruct oncoming cyclists?

>> A lot depends on the circumstances. If slowing right down or being
>> stopped is part of the natural course of events, fine. For the other
>> party
>> to contrive the situation, there are degrees of less fine. I have even
>> experienced someone driving alongside and being obliged to slow and stop
>> for my safety. Imagine anybody trying to do that to another car.
>
> It's difficult to envisage what you are trying to describe. Motor vehicles
> in adjacent lanes frequently proceed at about the same speed (which may be
> anything between 5mph and 70mph). Why is it a problem for you?

They do that on roads that don't have adjacent lanes? Oh. Besides, in the
world I inhabit people going at the same overall speed on multi-lane roads
tend to make small adjustments so they don't stay level with each other.
(You must be a very unobservant driver if you haven't noticed such basic
behaviour.) An issue occurs when one tries to make an adjustment and the
other deliberately matches it for no obvious reason.

>> "Well," says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you are
>> going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and
>> you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in the exact
>> same position you were in before we met, but now it is somehow my fault."
>
> Well done.
>
> Does it make the cyclist more helpful, less helpful or just equally as
> unhelpful?

A person on a bike is not a servant with obligations. To be unhelpful you
would have to have left been worse off than had he not been there. Were you
worse off?