|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something
obvious like an ambulance. The ambulance was there because another rider had ploughed into a pedestrian, who would not allow a male paramedic to treat her(religion) http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/an...ail/story.html |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
On 17/05/2017 19:30, MrCheerful wrote:
Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. The ambulance was there because another rider had ploughed into a pedestrian, who would not allow a male paramedic to treat her(religion) http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/an...ail/story.html QUOTE: "I was just angry, thinking what is an ambulance doing there." ENDQUOTE Absolutely. After all, just because another cyclist had just control of his bike and injured a pedestrian spectator (at least, I hope she was a spectator) on the footway, what possible purpose could there be for an ambulance and its staff? What possible connection is there between an injury accident and the presence of an ambulance? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
On 17/05/17 19:30, MrCheerful wrote:
Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. If the driver of a particular Range Rover had been watching where he was going he would not have crashed into the back of a bus. Why do you demand different standards? And apparently, in a 20mph crash a bicycle gives much less protection to the user than a Range Rover at 40mph. The ambulance was there because another rider had ploughed into a pedestrian, who would not allow a male paramedic to treat her(religion) http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/an...ail/story.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have been there.
MrCheerful wrote:
Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. The ambulance was there because another rider had ploughed into a pedestrian, who would not allow a male paramedic to treat her(religion) http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/an...ail/story.html "I was just angry, thinking what is an ambulance doing there" Oh how these peasants wriggle! "We sent a male paramedic to the lady and she said on religious grounds she could not be treated by a man". Then the ****ing Muslime should have been kicked into the gutter and left to bleed to death. These bloody people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
On 17/05/2017 20:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/17 19:30, MrCheerful wrote: Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. If the driver of a particular Range Rover had been watching where he was going he would not have crashed into the back of a bus. Why do you demand different standards? Did Mr C applaud the driving of he Range Rover's driver? And apparently, in a 20mph crash a bicycle gives much less protection to the user than a Range Rover at 40mph. And none to pedestrians hit on the footway? The ambulance was there because another rider had ploughed into a pedestrian, who would not allow a male paramedic to treat her(religion) http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/an...ail/story.html |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
On 17/05/17 20:49, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2017 20:11, TMS320 wrote: On 17/05/17 19:30, MrCheerful wrote: Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. If the driver of a particular Range Rover had been watching where he was going he would not have crashed into the back of a bus. Why do you demand different standards? Did Mr C applaud the driving of he Range Rover's driver? Stop twisting. The key thing is that Mr C did not criticise the driver but made an excuse about cars being safe in a crash. And apparently, in a 20mph crash a bicycle gives much less protection to the user than a Range Rover at 40mph. And none to pedestrians hit on the footway? What are you talking about? The ambulance was there because another rider had ploughed into a pedestrian, who would not allow a male paramedic to treat her(religion) http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/an...ail/story.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
On 20/05/2017 17:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/17 20:49, JNugent wrote: On 17/05/2017 20:11, TMS320 wrote: On 17/05/17 19:30, MrCheerful wrote: Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. If the driver of a particular Range Rover had been watching where he was going he would not have crashed into the back of a bus. Why do you demand different standards? Did Mr C applaud the driving of he Range Rover's driver? Stop twisting. The key thing is that Mr C did not criticise the driver but made an excuse about cars being safe in a crash. I am not "twisting". You vainly tried to twist Mr C's words to make it look either as though he had something which was not true or that he had failed to say something he had a duty to say. You were wrong on both counts. And apparently, in a 20mph crash a bicycle gives much less protection to the user than a Range Rover at 40mph. And none to pedestrians hit on the footway? What are you talking about? It was a plain English question, clearly related to the statement you had just made (but which you now seem not to be able to read) and carrying straight on from it. I would explain how it works, but I don't believe that you are stupid enough to need the explanation. If, however, I am wrong in that belief, and if you *are* stupid enough to need that explanation, just say so, and I'll be happy to oblige after all. The ambulance was there because another rider had ploughed into a pedestrian, who would not allow a male paramedic to treat her(religion) http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/an...ail/story.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
On 20/05/17 18:32, JNugent wrote:
On 20/05/2017 17:46, TMS320 wrote: On 17/05/17 20:49, JNugent wrote: On 17/05/2017 20:11, TMS320 wrote: On 17/05/17 19:30, MrCheerful wrote: Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. If the driver of a particular Range Rover had been watching where he was going he would not have crashed into the back of a bus. Why do you demand different standards? Did Mr C applaud the driving of he Range Rover's driver? Stop twisting. The key thing is that Mr C did not criticise the driver but made an excuse about cars being safe in a crash. I am not "twisting". You vainly tried to twist Mr C's words to make it look either as though he had something which was not true or that he had failed to say something he had a duty to say. You were wrong on both counts. Mr C did not have to reply to the thread. But he did. And rather than acknowledge that the driver had done something wrong (always too happy to criticise bicycle users) he decided to hang his hat on cars being safer for the occupants in a crash. By joining in he did indeed fail to say something he had a duty to say. And apparently, in a 20mph crash a bicycle gives much less protection to the user than a Range Rover at 40mph. And none to pedestrians hit on the footway? What are you talking about? It was a plain English question, clearly related to the statement you had just made (but which you now seem not to be able to read) and carrying straight on from it. I would explain how it works, but I don't believe that you are stupid enough to need the explanation. If, however, I am wrong in that belief, and if you *are* stupid enough to need that explanation, just say so, and I'll be happy to oblige after all. Stop rambling. You could have used fewer words to try and explain the point you're attempting to make. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
On 22/05/2017 08:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/05/17 18:32, JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2017 17:46, TMS320 wrote: On 17/05/17 20:49, JNugent wrote: On 17/05/2017 20:11, TMS320 wrote: On 17/05/17 19:30, MrCheerful wrote: Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. If the driver of a particular Range Rover had been watching where he was going he would not have crashed into the back of a bus. Why do you demand different standards? Did Mr C applaud the driving of he Range Rover's driver? Stop twisting. The key thing is that Mr C did not criticise the driver but made an excuse about cars being safe in a crash. I am not "twisting". You vainly tried to twist Mr C's words to make it look either as though he had something which was not true or that he had failed to say something he had a duty to say. You were wrong on both counts. Mr C did not have to reply to the thread. But he did. That applies to everyone, not just Mr C. And rather than acknowledge that the driver had done something wrong (always too happy to criticise bicycle users) he decided to hang his hat on cars being safer for the occupants in a crash. By joining in he did indeed fail to say something he had a duty to say. What did he have a duty to say (in your opinion)? And apparently, in a 20mph crash a bicycle gives much less protection to the user than a Range Rover at 40mph. And none to pedestrians hit on the footway? What are you talking about? It was a plain English question, clearly related to the statement you had just made (but which you now seem not to be able to read) and carrying straight on from it. I would explain how it works, but I don't believe that you are stupid enough to need the explanation. If, however, I am wrong in that belief, and if you *are* stupid enough to need that explanation, just say so, and I'll be happy to oblige after all. Stop rambling. You could have used fewer words to try and explain the point you're attempting to make. So you understood (or else dare not admit that you didn't). I only used eight words and one punctuation mark. Please demonstrate how my point could have been made with fewer words and then explain how fewer than eight words would have been compellingly better. This'll be good... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.
On 22/05/17 11:50, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2017 08:11, TMS320 wrote: On 20/05/17 18:32, JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2017 17:46, TMS320 wrote: On 17/05/17 20:49, JNugent wrote: On 17/05/2017 20:11, TMS320 wrote: On 17/05/17 19:30, MrCheerful wrote: Maybe, but if you watch where you are going you can avoid something obvious like an ambulance. If the driver of a particular Range Rover had been watching where he was going he would not have crashed into the back of a bus. Why do you demand different standards? Did Mr C applaud the driving of he Range Rover's driver? Stop twisting. The key thing is that Mr C did not criticise the driver but made an excuse about cars being safe in a crash. I am not "twisting". You vainly tried to twist Mr C's words to make it look either as though he had something which was not true or that he had failed to say something he had a duty to say. You were wrong on both counts. Mr C did not have to reply to the thread. But he did. That applies to everyone, not just Mr C. It applies to those tha treplied. An this includes you. And rather than acknowledge that the driver had done something wrong (always too happy to criticise bicycle users) he decided to hang his hat on cars being safer for the occupants in a crash. By joining in he did indeed fail to say something he had a duty to say. What did he have a duty to say (in your opinion)? And apparently, in a 20mph crash a bicycle gives much less protection to the user than a Range Rover at 40mph. And none to pedestrians hit on the footway? What are you talking about? It was a plain English question, clearly related to the statement you had just made (but which you now seem not to be able to read) and carrying straight on from it. I would explain how it works, but I don't believe that you are stupid enough to need the explanation. If, however, I am wrong in that belief, and if you *are* stupid enough to need that explanation, just say so, and I'll be happy to oblige after all. Stop rambling. You could have used fewer words to try and explain the point you're attempting to make. So you understood (or else dare not admit that you didn't). I only used eight words and one punctuation mark. I count 82 words. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist saves crashed driver | Alycidon | UK | 3 | August 10th 15 10:58 PM |
difficult rescue of crashed cyclist | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 0 | September 5th 11 02:37 PM |
Bicycle Ambulance | Tom Crispin | UK | 34 | September 30th 07 11:16 AM |
ambulance bicycles! | Bleve | Australia | 2 | October 27th 05 06:10 AM |
Ambulance Chasers? | Clive George | UK | 0 | July 18th 05 03:51 PM |