Four years jail...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

TOG@Toil wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Out ****ing rageous.
I don't GAF she was using her phone and the speed wasn't over the top.
The **** got what he was looking for.

--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 *******12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400

On 29 Feb, 17:15, "TOG@Toil" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Sure, but are you prepared to carry out the death sentence on her? Six
of one ...

On Feb 29, 5:15 pm, "TOG@Toil" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Are you arguing that she should be killed as well? That seems
excessive to me.

best wishes
james

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:29:22 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 29, 5:15 pm, "TOG@Toil" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Are you arguing that she should be killed as well? That seems
excessive to me.

But an understandable feeling of revenge under the circumstances.

In communiqué , Hog
cast forth these pearls of wisdom
TOG@Toil wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Out ****ing rageous.
I don't GAF she was using her phone and the speed wasn't over the top.
The **** got what he was looking for.


Neither expected the unexpected. "Through a red light", is a bit lacking
in detail no? Cyclists seem to routinely do it round here when turning
left at lights. The sentence does seem OTT, but I would be interested to
hear more of the evidence from eye witnesses. Was he turning left, and
she hit him more as a result of veering whilst texting than by his
manoeuvre?

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

"TOG@Toil" wrote:


I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. *Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

AW wrote:
"TOG@Toil" wrote:

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

Highway code rule 239 says, among other things :

you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for
cyclists or other traffic.

Hence the 100% responsibility.

Pete

On 29 Feb, 18:03, AW wrote:
"TOG@Toil" wrote:

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

She looked in the mirror and still didn't see him?
He was going too fast? What speed would that be?
Too close to the parked cars? In a side street? How far away can you
get?
"Bent the door frame". If you hit the door nearer the outer edge, you
probably put quite a bit of leverage on the frame.

Based on my similar experience, as a cyclist.

"AW" wrote in message
...
"TOG@Toil" wrote:

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

Perfectly correct. "Looked in her mirror" - except apparently not terribly
carefully.
SMIDSY doesn't cut it whether there's an engine on the bike or not.