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

Cyclist that crashed into ambulance says it should not have beenthere.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 17th 17, 07:30 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default 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  
Old May 17th 17, 07:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old May 17th 17, 08:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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  
Old May 17th 17, 08:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,896
Default 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  
Old May 17th 17, 08:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old May 20th 17, 05:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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  
Old May 20th 17, 06:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old May 22nd 17, 08:11 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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  
Old May 22nd 17, 11:50 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default 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  
Old May 22nd 17, 12:07 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.