|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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'. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. Even if you cannot actually stop before the collision, any reduction in impact speed will improve the outcome for all parties involved. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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. This dickhead on a silly bicycle was too stupid to observe the unexpected. He will not pay the costs. He will crawl back to his stinking one bedroomed council flat. Most cyclists live in poverty and in stinking council flats. This as most are too stupid to get a job and too stupid to drive a car. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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. 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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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. 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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 23/06/2019 08:33, MrCheerful 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. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. Even if you cannot actually stop before the collision, any reduction in impact speed will improve the outcome for all parties involved. That is true. We don't hear that mantra about vehicle/pedestrian collision speeds much any more, but the laws of physics still apply. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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:
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. You mean pedestrians have been bullied into giving up their right to use roads under threat of extreme violence by motorists. When was the last time you saw a pedestrian walk in front of a turning motor vehicle at a junction even though the Highway Code clearly states the pedestrian has priority. This dickhead on a silly bicycle was too stupid to observe the unexpected.. He will not pay the costs. He will crawl back to his stinking one bedroomed council flat. Most cyclists live in poverty and in stinking council flats.. This as most are too stupid to get a job and too stupid to drive a car. So you admit you are a cyclist. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
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? 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. |
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 |