Two pavement deaths by killer motorist who also destroyed a wall

Well at least the killer was arrested this time. Just shows how much
appalling damage can be caused by a car compared to that of a bicycle.

"Two pedestrians killed in crash

'The car hit the three woman before crashing into a wall'

Two women died and a third was badly injured when they were hit by a
car while walking along an Ipswich road.

The victims were hit by a Citroen Saxo which then crashed into a wall
in Foxhall Road early on Saturday.

They were taken to Ipswich Hospital where one 25-year-old and one 26-
year-old were pronounced dead and another 25-year-old was in a serious
condition.

A 20-year-old man and a woman, aged 22, have been arrested on
suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7903124.stm

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
Just shows how much
appalling damage can be caused by a car compared to that of a bicycle.

Only a moron would say otherwise Doug. What's your point?

"Doug" wrote in message
...
Well at least the killer was arrested this time. Just shows how much
appalling damage can be caused by a car compared to that of a bicycle.


Nobody has argued that cycles will cause as much or more damage in a crash
compared to a car.

You however have frequently claimed that car drivers are allowed to kill
people without being arrested or charged , despite most of your threads
grudgingly admitting that this does happen whenever there is evidence of
them having done something wrong.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

On 22 Feb, 08:17, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

Just shows how much
appalling damage can be caused by a car compared to that of a bicycle.

You still seem to be struggling with this point, and have to keep repeating
what everyone else has no problem understaning.

BTW, mention a bicycle does not make it in any way relevant to a cycling
newsgroup. I might as well mention the word butter, and cross-post it to
rec.butter-lovers.

Nope. Cyclists are persistently criticised by the motorists who
dominate these newsgroups for posing a risk to pedestrians,
particularly on pavements, but the risks cyclists pose are vanishingly
small and quite rare compared to the very serious threat from
motorists. Hence the need to keep on repeating relevant examples from
the news.

BTW, do stop trying to censor my threads.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's newsgroup is another man's censorship.

Doug wrote:
On 22 Feb, 08:17, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

Just shows how much
appalling damage can be caused by a car compared to that of a
bicycle.

You still seem to be struggling with this point, and have to keep
repeating what everyone else has no problem understaning.

BTW, mention a bicycle does not make it in any way relevant to a
cycling newsgroup. I might as well mention the word butter, and
cross-post it to rec.butter-lovers.

Nope. Cyclists are persistently criticised by the motorists

Why do you suppose they do that Doug? They didn't do it when you didn't post
here.

Doug wrote:
Well at least the killer was arrested this time. Just shows how much
appalling damage can be caused by a car compared to that of a bicycle.
If "we" all agree to state that a car carries more kinetic energy than a
bicylce, and hence can cause more damage in an accident will you agree
to **** off and stop posting this crap?

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
"Doug" wrote in message
...
Well at least the killer was arrested this time. Just shows how much
appalling damage can be caused by a car compared to that of a bicycle.


Nobody has argued that cycles will cause as much or more damage in a crash
compared to a car.

You however have frequently claimed that car drivers are allowed to kill
people without being arrested or charged , despite most of your threads
grudgingly admitting that this does happen whenever there is evidence of
them having done something wrong.

Or, put another way, Doug wastes more internet bandwidth posting nothing
interesting or new.

In article 2a2155ee-e5b7-4469-a93b-
, Doug says...

Nope. Cyclists are persistently criticised by the motorists who
dominate these newsgroups for posing a risk to pedestrians,
particularly on pavements,

That's because they do.

but the risks cyclists pose are vanishingly
small and quite rare compared to the very serious threat from
motorists.

I'm quite sure the pedestrians in this video disagree with you:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NyrmWhSDqqQ

Hence the need to keep on repeating relevant examples from
the news.

Whereas danger involving cyclists is so prevalent that like
shoplifting, it's no longer newsworthy.



--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Graculus says...

Or, put another way, Doug wastes more internet bandwidth posting nothing
interesting or new.

Actually, Doug wastes most of his internet bandwidth making posts that
completely counter his own claims with such golden nuggets as:

"Killer motorists don't get arrested or convicted" usually followed
within 24hrs by a couple of threads he starts where he gloats about a
motorist getting arrested and charged or convicted.

"Animal Rights Activists are not terrorists" usually followed a couple
of months later with him bleating on when one or more are convicted of
terrorising people.

"I am an anarchist" followed usually the same day by calls for police
to crack down on motorists.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
In article , Graculus says...

Or, put another way, Doug wastes more internet bandwidth posting nothing
interesting or new.

Actually, Doug wastes most of his internet bandwidth making posts that
completely counter his own claims with such golden nuggets as:

"Killer motorists don't get arrested or convicted" usually followed
within 24hrs by a couple of threads he starts where he gloats about a
motorist getting arrested and charged or convicted.

"Animal Rights Activists are not terrorists" usually followed a couple
of months later with him bleating on when one or more are convicted of
terrorising people.

"I am an anarchist" followed usually the same day by calls for police
to crack down on motorists.

But you must agree that he is consistently inconsistent though. ;-)