Paralympic cycliist hit by car

One of Britain's best cycling gold medal hopes for the London Paralympics could
be forced to miss the Games after being struck from behind by a passing car
while taking part in a warm-up race.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...affic-accident




Perhaps she should not have been racing on the public highway.

On Jul 10, 2:49*pm, Judith wrote:
One of Britain's best cycling gold medal hopes for the London Paralympics could
be forced to miss the Games after being struck from behind by a passing car
while taking part in a warm-up race.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...cycling-games-...

Perhaps she should not have been racing on the public highway.

Perhaps you should not be rejoicing at the incident.

M Wicks wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:49 pm, Judith wrote:
One of Britain's best cycling gold medal hopes for the London
Paralympics could
be forced to miss the Games after being struck from behind by a
passing car
while taking part in a warm-up
race.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...cycling-games-...

Perhaps she should not have been racing on the public highway.

Perhaps you should not be rejoicing at the incident.

my thoughts are with the families.

"M Wicks" wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 2:49 pm, Judith wrote:
One of Britain's best cycling gold medal hopes for the London Paralympics
could
be forced to miss the Games after being struck from behind by a passing
car
while taking part in a warm-up
race.http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...cycling-games-...

Perhaps she should not have been racing on the public highway.

Perhaps you should not be rejoicing at the incident.
========================

She is not. Another false accusation from M Wicks. Shame on you.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:22:31 +0100, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Competitive cycling on open public roads is unwise at the best of
times, and a very low recumbent cycle adds to the risk.

1: No it doesn't. A recumbent is much more noticed than a
conventional upright.

2: If she was riding what is shown in teh pictures, that's not very
low for a recumbent - there are lower.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 15/07/2012 08:47, Ian Smith wrote:

Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Competitive cycling on open public roads is unwise at the best of
times, and a very low recumbent cycle adds to the risk.

1: No it doesn't. A recumbent is much more noticed than a
conventional upright.

2: If she was riding what is shown in teh pictures, that's not very
low for a recumbent - there are lower.

Something that is lower in height and so more likely to be hidden (eg, by
passing traffic, or even street furniture and overgrown foliage) is more
likely to be noticed than something that is taller and so less likely to be
so hidden?

How does that work?

And how does the fact that there are even lower and less easily-noticed
machines make this one any less of a death-trap?

Remember the Sinclair C5? One optional accessory was a mast with a pennant,
designed to make the vehicle less invisible in traffic. If that was a good
idea with the C5, it would be a good idea with low-slung machines like that bike.

On 15/07/2012 00:22, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"Judith" wrote in message
...
One of Britain's best cycling gold medal hopes for the London
Paralympics could
be forced to miss the Games after being struck from behind by a
passing car
while taking part in a warm-up race.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...affic-accident


Perhaps she should not have been racing on the public highway.

Competitive cycling on open public roads is unwise at the best of times,
and a very low recumbent cycle adds to the risk.

The problem with recumbents is that drivers seeing them are convulsed
with hysterical laughter & can't concentrate on their driving.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:47:22 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:22:31 +0100, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Competitive cycling on open public roads is unwise at the best of
times, and a very low recumbent cycle adds to the risk.

1: No it doesn't. A recumbent is much more noticed than a
conventional upright.

2: If she was riding what is shown in teh pictures, that's not very
low for a recumbent - there are lower.



Now lets see : I wonder if Ian Smith is a recumbent rider.

I wonder where he got his stats for the safety of recumbents from?

(PS No-one said that she was riding the "lowest" recumbent in the world - it
was said it was "very low" - still accuracy and Ian Smith are strange
bed-fellows. She is riding a bike with her arse about 6 inches above the
ground and Smith reckons that that is not very low. Yes of course.)

On Jul 15, 11:41*am, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:47:22 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:22:31 +0100, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

*Competitive cycling on open public roads is unwise at the best of
*times, and a very low recumbent cycle adds to the risk.

1: No it doesn't. *A recumbent is much more noticed than a
conventional upright.

2: If she was riding what is shown in teh pictures, that's not very
low for a recumbent - there are lower.

Now lets see : I wonder if Ian Smith is a recumbent rider.

I don't think he really cares what you 'wonder'. In all likelihood he
has you killfiled.

How about not making trouble in a newsgroup that doesn't concern you?
No-one believes that you are seriously trying to discuss this issue or
any other. At any given point you are either abusing other posters or
attempting to set up scenarios where you get to abuse other posters,
all of whom you abuse principally because they use the greatest form
of transport ever invented.

Am I right in thinking that you originally came to this newsgroup as
part of a vendetta against Ian Jackson? If that is correct then why
are you still trolling here years after Ian's last post on this
newsgroup? You've successfully driven him away - isn't that 'mission
accomplished'? I realise that you have been unable to follow him and
your other victims to uk.rec.cycling.moderated (what a shame that they
banned you - I can't think why they would). But why exactly does that
mean that the cyclists who remain on uk.rec.cycling deserve your
venom? What have they ever done to you except cycling and disagreeing
with you? Even just this guy, who for some unfathomable reason seems
to have been the main target of your bullying over the years, now
appears to have left this newsgroup (which no doubt you consider
another personal success, as the quality of uk.rec.cycling
irreversibly diminishes yet again).

So I don't know why you remain, who exactly your targets are, and what
if anything would cause you to consider your 'work' here to be done.
Please tell me. And if you disagree with me about why you came to this
newsgroup, why you remained, and who exactly you had years-long
vendettas against because they once inadvertently said the wrong thing
to you, then I'm sure you need no invitation to tell me in no
uncertain terms how it 'really' was, while peppering the whole account
with expletives and unwarranted personal attacks of course.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:27:37 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote:

snip


Am I right in thinking that you originally came to this newsgroup as
part of a vendetta against Ian Jackson?


No - as usual you are quite wrong.

Wacko raised a point in a legal newsgroup - I came here to ask some follow-on
questions.

I was immediately attacked by Clive George, Porky Chapman and other ****wits.
They did not like strangers coming in to their group and asking unwelcome
questions. eg "Are cycle helmets a good idea"

People made claims that *I* had threatened to turn the group to rat-**** -
which was not at all true; they of course have never been able to find that
"promise".

The group was in fact turned to rat **** - not my fault.

Well done Keller, Porky Chapman, Numb-nuts Mason, Justin van ****wit, and
thirty-five and a quarter to name just a few.

(Oh - and add M Wicks to that list)