Cyclist hunts for witnesses

On 21/08/2013 21:57, John Benn wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range Rover
and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's antics.
Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

I strongly suspect that there is information missing from that story.
Nobody reacts that way to someone just shaking his head.



That was actually my first reaction. Then I referred to my own
experience of dealing with killer motorists.

On 21/08/2013 22:43, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 21:45, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 08:55, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Which all goes to convince me even more that a camera on my crash
helmet
is an essential tool that every cyclist should have. Such behaviour by
car drivers should lead, inevitably, to prosecution and a substantial
ban.

A disqualification from driving for a physical assault with the fists?

Would you extend it to all crimes, or just those alleged to have been
committed against cyclists?

Would you, for instance, impose a "substantial ban" (from driving) for
criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a cycle-lock?
Or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet?

And if not, why not?

Probably just those where a motorist has used his vehicle as a deadly
weapon in a deliberate manner.

Thank you for confirming that you would impose a "substantial ban" (from
driving) for criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a
cycle-lock or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet, as long as
the criminal cyclist had a driving licence.

Of course, a disqualification would have little effect on someone
without a licence.


Plenty are handed out to people who don't have licences. And your point is?

On 21/08/2013 23:35, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:45, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:36, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:16, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:53:09 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 21/08/2013 12:56, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 21/08/2013 10:23, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a
Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the
cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up
some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

I take it that you think knocking a cyclist off his bike and
possibly
causing him/her serious injury or death is a reasoned response?

if it happened then it is unreasonable. I have noticed that cyclists
are seasoned liars and will even invent crashes and crimes to cover
their own stupidity.

And car drivers always tell the truth, huh?

I am reminded of a woman I worked with who used to cycle from
Buxton to
Stockport every single day, rain, snow or shine. Until one day someone
drove into her and ruined her health for the rest of her days. She was
going through a green light and the car driver crashed a red. Needless
to say, that wasn't the tale that the car driver gave to the police.
Guess who the police believed.


I wonder if the people who knew the car driver believed his story over
the
woman's.

Did she tell you the true story - or was if from an independent
witness.

Glug, glug.


Jimdeth, since motorists commonly leave cyclists for dead in the gutter
I would tend to believe the cyclist.

Commonly, eh?

I can't remember the last time I left a cyclist for dead in the gutter.


By a strange coincidence I can't remember you ever posting anything
sensible.

It would perhaps be a miracle if you could remember much from day to day.

On 21/08/2013 23:38, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:43, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 21:45, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 08:55, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the
cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Which all goes to convince me even more that a camera on my crash
helmet
is an essential tool that every cyclist should have. Such behaviour by
car drivers should lead, inevitably, to prosecution and a substantial
ban.

A disqualification from driving for a physical assault with the fists?

Would you extend it to all crimes, or just those alleged to have been
committed against cyclists?

Would you, for instance, impose a "substantial ban" (from driving) for
criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a cycle-lock?
Or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet?

And if not, why not?

Probably just those where a motorist has used his vehicle as a deadly
weapon in a deliberate manner.

Thank you for confirming that you would impose a "substantial ban" (from
driving) for criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a
cycle-lock or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet, as long as
the criminal cyclist had a driving licence.

Of course, a disqualification would have little effect on someone
without a licence.


Plenty are handed out to people who don't have licences. And your point is?

I was thanking you for clarifying your own point.

Have you forgotten *already*?

"JNugent" wrote in message ...

On 21/08/2013 23:38, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:43, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 21:45, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 08:55, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the
cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Which all goes to convince me even more that a camera on my crash
helmet
is an essential tool that every cyclist should have. Such behaviour by
car drivers should lead, inevitably, to prosecution and a substantial
ban.

A disqualification from driving for a physical assault with the fists?

Would you extend it to all crimes, or just those alleged to have been
committed against cyclists?

Would you, for instance, impose a "substantial ban" (from driving) for
criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a cycle-lock?
Or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet?

And if not, why not?

Probably just those where a motorist has used his vehicle as a deadly
weapon in a deliberate manner.

Thank you for confirming that you would impose a "substantial ban" (from
driving) for criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a
cycle-lock or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet, as long as
the criminal cyclist had a driving licence.

Of course, a disqualification would have little effect on someone
without a licence.


Plenty are handed out to people who don't have licences. And your point
is?

I was thanking you for clarifying your own point.

Have you forgotten *already*?


It'll be the booze.

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message ...

On 21/08/2013 12:56, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 21/08/2013 10:23, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

I take it that you think knocking a cyclist off his bike and possibly
causing him/her serious injury or death is a reasoned response?

if it happened then it is unreasonable. I have noticed that cyclists
are seasoned liars and will even invent crashes and crimes to cover
their own stupidity.

And car drivers always tell the truth, huh?

I am reminded of a woman I worked with who used to cycle from Buxton to
Stockport every single day, rain, snow or shine. Until one day someone
drove into her and ruined her health for the rest of her days. She was
going through a green light and the car driver crashed a red. Needless
to say, that wasn't the tale that the car driver gave to the police.
Guess who the police believed.

How do you know who was telling the truth? Were you a witness? If so , why
didn't you say who was telling the truth in your police statement?

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message ...

On 21/08/2013 22:16, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:53:09 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 21/08/2013 12:56, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 21/08/2013 10:23, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

I take it that you think knocking a cyclist off his bike and possibly
causing him/her serious injury or death is a reasoned response?

if it happened then it is unreasonable. I have noticed that cyclists
are seasoned liars and will even invent crashes and crimes to cover
their own stupidity.

And car drivers always tell the truth, huh?

I am reminded of a woman I worked with who used to cycle from Buxton to
Stockport every single day, rain, snow or shine. Until one day someone
drove into her and ruined her health for the rest of her days. She was
going through a green light and the car driver crashed a red. Needless
to say, that wasn't the tale that the car driver gave to the police.
Guess who the police believed.


I wonder if the people who knew the car driver believed his story over the
woman's.

Did she tell you the true story - or was if from an independent witness.

Glug, glug.


Jimdeth, since motorists commonly leave cyclists for dead in the gutter
I would tend to believe the cyclist.

What, the one laying dead in the gutter?

"JNugent" wrote in message ...

On 21/08/2013 23:35, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:45, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:36, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:16, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:53:09 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 21/08/2013 12:56, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 21/08/2013 10:23, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a
Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the
cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up
some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

I take it that you think knocking a cyclist off his bike and
possibly
causing him/her serious injury or death is a reasoned response?

if it happened then it is unreasonable. I have noticed that cyclists
are seasoned liars and will even invent crashes and crimes to cover
their own stupidity.

And car drivers always tell the truth, huh?

I am reminded of a woman I worked with who used to cycle from
Buxton to
Stockport every single day, rain, snow or shine. Until one day someone
drove into her and ruined her health for the rest of her days. She was
going through a green light and the car driver crashed a red. Needless
to say, that wasn't the tale that the car driver gave to the police.
Guess who the police believed.


I wonder if the people who knew the car driver believed his story over
the
woman's.

Did she tell you the true story - or was if from an independent
witness.

Glug, glug.


Jimdeth, since motorists commonly leave cyclists for dead in the gutter
I would tend to believe the cyclist.

Commonly, eh?

I can't remember the last time I left a cyclist for dead in the gutter.


By a strange coincidence I can't remember you ever posting anything
sensible.

It would perhaps be a miracle if you could remember much from day to day.

It'll be the booze.

"Squashme" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:57:03 PM UTC+1, John Benn wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

...

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover

and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's antics.

Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some witnesses.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876



I strongly suspect that there is information missing from that story.

Nobody reacts that way to someone just shaking his head.

You think? Your life experience has been a bit limited.


He probably doesn't have a lot to do with psycholists, then.

On 21/08/2013 23:37, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 21:57, John Benn wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover
and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's antics.
Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

I strongly suspect that there is information missing from that story.
Nobody reacts that way to someone just shaking his head.



That was actually my first reaction. Then I referred to my own
experience of dealing with killer motorists.


You are posting from beyond the grave aicmfp