judith wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:45:58 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

On 4 Feb, 16:41, francis wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:43 pm, Martin wrote:



bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?

Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very
dangerous.

I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.

Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an
average car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive
a Land Rover through an area where lots of pedestrians congregate.
Surely if you have a collision such his one, and you are driving
an SUV, this should be taken into account and you should be held
even more liable than if you had been driving a small car.

Do we have SUV's in the UK?

Why should it not be acceptable for the MP concerned to drive a Land
Rover?
It could be argued that because of a higher driving position he
would be able to see better.


Yes, as a tory, he should be used to looking down upon people.
But, in practice ...

"Last October [2005] the BMJ published an American study showing that
4x4s were more dangerous to pedestrians than normal cars. Tests
showed that people who were hit by the vehicles in accidents were
four times more likely to die than those hit by other cars."




....... in America.

Please explain the difference between being hit by a two-and-a-half-tonne
4x4 in the USA and being hit by a two-and-a-half-tonne 4x4 in Parliament
Square.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
I am the Disgruntled Employee; I am the New Face of Labour
Relations.