|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure 5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over this one cyclist. I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely or less dangerous. Braking hard does. I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a course alteration. Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view. I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them unpredictable. As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception). They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a considerable source of noise nuisance. Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then). Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. I didn't see the report of that. is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy. Braking is always a part of the best strategy. Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'. The words are synonyms. Not in the slightest. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. About 10 years ago I was driving along an NSL country road. I noticed a vehicle waiting at a t-junction so I lifted and covered the brake. Had it pulled out when I first saw it there would have been plenty of time but it did a Duke of Edinburgh on me. The ABS was doing its stuff, giving me moments to decide whether to aim for the driver's door or the wheels. Fortunately, the vehicle stopped before it was halfway across the road. The other carriageway was clear so I released the brake and skirted round. Without that opportunity I have no idea whether my car would have stopped short or given the other a 5mph kiss. If you think "a necessary halt" is better than skirting round, when the opportunity exist, then I will leave it between you and your insurance company. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 12:39, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 8:43:01 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: Cyclists really *hate* pedestrians, don't you? We knew that anyway (it's observable from their demeanour), but it's good to get the confirmation from your good self and TMS320. Pedestrians are the most important road users, followed by equestrians and cyclists. Motorists only get to use our roads under licence and need to learn their place. This does not allow pedestrians to behave irresponsibly such as walking into the road without looking and giving a cyclist no chance to stop. When I drive I notice pedestrians and I take care about the unexpected. It's called observation. Have a look at my post about lazy pedestrians. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 12:39:55 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
When I drive I notice pedestrians and I take care about the unexpected. It's called observation. When I cycle I notice pedestrians will give way to cars even when the pedestrian has priority but will walk into the path of a cycle even when the cyclist has priority. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/06/2019 16:02, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 16:00, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:43, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 18:33, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 3:45:35 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote: Who cares?* Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance.* If only he could be banned from the road as well. So he can become a 'Cocky careless' pedestrian and wander into the path of a moving vehicle then blame the victim? Cyclists really *hate* pedestrians, don't you? We knew that anyway (it's observable from their demeanour), but it's good to get the confirmation from your good self and TMS320. I see. Commenting on behaviour and knowing how to stay safe is "hating pedestrians"? If I hated pedestrians, I would have to hate myself. I by no means put that past you. You wouldn't put it past me to know how to stay safe? No. I wouldn'y put it past you to hate yourself. The country is full of self-loathers. That's alright then. Actually, the worst pedestrians are the lazy ones. They get in a type of vehicle that KSIs 5800 proper pedestrians a year (and poison many more), and imagine that they can be some sort of pedestrians' friend if they criticise people using bicycles. Pathetic. Ooh, looks like I've hit a soft spot. You are trying to make points which cannot be answered by inventing accusations. I obviously cannot apologise for things I've never done and I cannot apologise on behalf of people who have done them. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] *... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure *5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over this one cyclist. I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely *or less dangerous. Braking hard does. I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone *is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance *for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a course alteration. Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view. I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them unpredictable. As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception). They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a considerable source of noise nuisance. Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then). Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. I didn't see the report of that. is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy. Braking is always a part of the best strategy. Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'. The words are synonyms. Not in the slightest. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. About 10 years ago I was driving along an NSL country road. I noticed a vehicle waiting at a t-junction so I lifted and covered the brake. Had it pulled out when I first saw it there would have been plenty of time but it did a Duke of Edinburgh on me. The ABS was doing its stuff, giving me moments to decide whether to aim for the driver's door or the wheels. Fortunately, the vehicle stopped before it was halfway across the road. The other carriageway was clear so I released the brake and skirted round. Without that opportunity I have no idea whether my car would have stopped short or given the other a 5mph kiss. If you think "a necessary halt" is better than skirting round, when the opportunity exist, then I will leave it between you and your insurance company. Stop when necessary. What's so difficult about that? Cyclists won't and don't accept it of course, because it would disrupt their little competitions with themselves to see whether they can shave a few seconds off their personal worst, irrespective of the danger to pedestrians (or, come to that, themselves). |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 02:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 12:33:52 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] ... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure 5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over this one cyclist. I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely or less dangerous. Braking hard does. I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a course alteration. Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view. I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them unpredictable. As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception). They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a considerable source of noise nuisance. Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then). Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. I didn't see the report of that. is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy. Braking is always a part of the best strategy. Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'. The words are synonyms. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. For example when a pedestrian concentrating on her phone walks into the road in front of a moving vehicle. Glad you agree this was the pedestrian's fault. You are tilting at imaginary windmills. It has been well-reported that the victim was held by the court to be 50% responsible for her own misfortune. It's no longer an issue. The court has yet to decide on the amount of compensation and the amount for (the victim's) legal fees. She will get 50% of the damages she would otherwise have received had she not been 50% responsible for her own losses and injuries. I'm not so sure about the legal fees, but it looks as though the order will be for 100% of the victim's legal fees, hence the wilder estimates of £100,000. Still... what a turn-up, eh? We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments or whatever. He must be the only cyclist in the UK not covered, eh? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 7:47:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
You are tilting at imaginary windmills. It has been well-reported that the victim was held by the court to be 50% responsible for her own misfortune. It's no longer an issue. You are the one who brought up motor insurance settlements. If both parties were equally at fault who gets paid? The court has yet to decide on the amount of compensation and the amount for (the victim's) legal fees. She will get 50% of the damages she would otherwise have received had she not been 50% responsible for her own losses and injuries. I'm not so sure about the legal fees, but it looks as though the order will be for 100% of the victim's legal fees, hence the wilder estimates of £100,000. Zzzzzzzzzz. Bear in mind 'The Courts' found Barry George guilty of the Jill Dando murder. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 21:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 7:47:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: You are tilting at imaginary windmills. It has been well-reported that the victim was held by the court to be 50% responsible for her own misfortune. It's no longer an issue. You are the one who brought up motor insurance settlements. If both parties were equally at fault who gets paid? The one bringing the action, of course. Who else? The court has yet to decide on the amount of compensation and the amount for (the victim's) legal fees. She will get 50% of the damages she would otherwise have received had she not been 50% responsible for her own losses and injuries. I'm not so sure about the legal fees, but it looks as though the order will be for 100% of the victim's legal fees, hence the wilder estimates of £100,000. Zzzzzzzzzz. Bear in mind 'The Courts' found Barry George guilty of the Jill Dando murder. And? Does that mean that no court ever gets it right? Be on notice that there may be a supplementary question if the answer is "Yes". We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments And immediately lost the argument. You lost it a good few lines back. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 19:36, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] *... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure *5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over this one cyclist. I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely *or less dangerous. Braking hard does. I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone *is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance *for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a course alteration. Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view. I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them unpredictable. As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception). They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a considerable source of noise nuisance. Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then). Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. I didn't see the report of that. is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy. Braking is always a part of the best strategy. Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'. The words are synonyms. Not in the slightest. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. About 10 years ago I was driving along an NSL country road. I noticed a vehicle waiting at a t-junction so I lifted and covered the brake. Had it pulled out when I first saw it there would have been plenty of time but it did a Duke of Edinburgh on me. The ABS was doing its stuff, giving me moments to decide whether to aim for the driver's door or the wheels. Fortunately, the vehicle stopped before it was halfway across the road. The other carriageway was clear so I released the brake and skirted round. Without that opportunity I have no idea whether my car would have stopped short or given the other a 5mph kiss. If you think "a necessary halt" is better than skirting round, when the opportunity exist, then I will leave it between you and your insurance company. Stop when necessary. You're backtracking nicely. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 19:33, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 16:02, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 16:00, TMS320 wrote: Actually, the worst pedestrians are the lazy ones. They get in a type of vehicle that KSIs 5800 proper pedestrians a year (and poison many more), and imagine that they can be some sort of pedestrians' friend if they criticise people using bicycles. Pathetic. Ooh, looks like I've hit a soft spot. You are trying to make points which cannot be answered by inventing accusations. I obviously cannot apologise for things I've never done and I cannot apologise on behalf of people who have done them. Statistically there is a chance it could happen to you. (No doubt no fault in you will be found - except that you chose to use a dangerous form of transport.) What you can easily do is to stop believing that you're doing some kind of service to true pedestrians. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USEFULL HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS | datakoll | Techniques | 1 | February 19th 13 01:12 AM |
Insurance - House, Contents & Bicycles? | Craig | Australia | 2 | July 26th 05 01:44 PM |
Lance bottle contents...? | Jaybee | Racing | 8 | July 13th 05 09:35 PM |
CTC Cyclecover vs Contents Insurance | PhilO | UK | 3 | July 10th 05 03:23 PM |
Pink Bikes (contents may cause nausea) | suzyj | Australia | 6 | September 8th 04 09:16 AM |