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
  #41  
Old June 23rd 19, 05:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,919
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.


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  
Old June 23rd 19, 05:05 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,919
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 05:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,555
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:

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  
Old June 23rd 19, 07:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,789
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 07:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,789
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 07:47 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,789
Default 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  
Old June 23rd 19, 09:48 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,555
Default 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  
Old June 24th 19, 01:02 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,789
Default 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  
Old June 24th 19, 09:20 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,919
Default 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  
Old June 24th 19, 09:20 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,919
Default 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

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 02:12 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 08:58 AM.


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.