A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 23rd 19, 12:14 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 12:33 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 02:40 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,297
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 08:33 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,477
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 12:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,364
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 04:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 04:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 04:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 04:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,297
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 05:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.