3 year old mown down on the pavement

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 17:03:11 +0100, David Lang wrote:

On 07/06/2015 16:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:31:31 +0100, David Lang
wrote:

On 06/06/2015 21:55, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 18:13:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The cyclist then swore at the parents and rode away, he is now facing
charges, I hope he has fridge freezer insurance to pay the child's
family plenty of compo. Video is incontrovertible evidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pool-home.html



This comment provides the truth:

"Can afford cctv at home but not able to afford a front gate get ur
priorities straight"

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which will
earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.

In your opinion.

In English law.

Which is the opinion of those in power, which I didn't vote for.

The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed) did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And if I was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for injuring me and/or damaging my bicycle.

--
What's the ultimate in rejection?
Having a wank and your hand goes to sleep!

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 17:03:11 +0100, David Lang wrote:

On 07/06/2015 16:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:31:31 +0100, David Lang
wrote:

On 06/06/2015 21:55, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 18:13:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The cyclist then swore at the parents and rode away, he is now facing
charges, I hope he has fridge freezer insurance to pay the child's
family plenty of compo. Video is incontrovertible evidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pool-home.html



This comment provides the truth:

"Can afford cctv at home but not able to afford a front gate get ur
priorities straight"

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which will
earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.

In your opinion.

In English law.

The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed) did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been able to
stop/swerve.

They shouldn't have to. It's basically a t-junction with a giveway line. Just like you give way in a supermarket when you emerge from an isle.

--
What's the ultimate in rejection?
Having a wank and your hand goes to sleep!

On 07/06/2015 17:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

David Lang wrote:

[ ... ]

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which
will earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.
The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed) did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And if I
was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for injuring me
and/or damaging my bicycle.

It makes no difference whether you're travelling by car, lorry, van,
motor-bike, bicycle, wheelbarrow on foot, you have absolutely no
business proceeding into a space you cannot see at such a speed that you
cannot stop as soon as an obstruction (eg, a child) is sighted.

It's called "negligence".

On 07/06/2015 17:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 17:03:11 +0100, David Lang
wrote:

On 07/06/2015 16:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:31:31 +0100, David Lang
wrote:

On 06/06/2015 21:55, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 18:13:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The cyclist then swore at the parents and rode away, he is now facing
charges, I hope he has fridge freezer insurance to pay the child's
family plenty of compo. Video is incontrovertible evidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pool-home.html




This comment provides the truth:

"Can afford cctv at home but not able to afford a front gate get ur
priorities straight"

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which
will
earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.

In your opinion.

In English law.

Which is the opinion of those in power, which I didn't vote for.

The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed) did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And if I
was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for injuring me
and/or damaging my bicycle.

You are beneath contempt.

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:30:41 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 07/06/2015 17:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

David Lang wrote:

[ ... ]

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which
will earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.
The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed) did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And if I
was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for injuring me
and/or damaging my bicycle.

It makes no difference whether you're travelling by car, lorry, van,
motor-bike, bicycle, wheelbarrow on foot, you have absolutely no
business proceeding into a space you cannot see at such a speed that you
cannot stop as soon as an obstruction (eg, a child) is sighted.

It's called "negligence".

So you think it's wrong to run on a pavement? Many joggers (all of them actually) would disagree with you.

The child was an invalid obstruction and was asking for a Darwin award.

--
Quando omni Flunkus Moritati - When all else fails, play dead.

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:32:30 +0100, David Lang wrote:

On 07/06/2015 17:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 17:03:11 +0100, David Lang
wrote:

On 07/06/2015 16:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 13:31:31 +0100, David Lang
wrote:

On 06/06/2015 21:55, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 18:13:10 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The cyclist then swore at the parents and rode away, he is now facing
charges, I hope he has fridge freezer insurance to pay the child's
family plenty of compo. Video is incontrovertible evidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pool-home.html




This comment provides the truth:

"Can afford cctv at home but not able to afford a front gate get ur
priorities straight"

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which
will
earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.

In your opinion.

In English law.

Which is the opinion of those in power, which I didn't vote for.

The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed) did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And if I
was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for injuring me
and/or damaging my bicycle.

You are beneath contempt.

You'd let someone off for tripping you up without looking where they were going? Kids need to learn how to behave.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the **** happened.

On Sunday, 7 June 2015 15:28:44 UTC+3, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 22:02, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 22:49:09 UTC+2, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 19:27, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 18:39:59 UTC+2, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 09:53, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:23:56 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the
opinion that they may ride on the footway provided they do
so considerately, and feel that in such circumstances
police officers should exercise their discretion.

In the same way that many drivers believe it is acceptable to
drive along the footpath until they find a nice parking spot
which will then restrict access for pedestrians, prams and
disabled carriages. Luckily, spot fines are a good deterrent
for these law breakers.

Drivers don't drive along footpaths, idiot.

How did this get here then, idiot? Selfish gits.

http://www.wirralpedestrians.org.uk/...rking_news.jpg



Too dim to understand the difference between 'onto' and 'along'.

Did that car in the photo drive along the footway to get that spot in
which it totally blocks the footway forcing the mother and child onto
the road? Yes or no?
He drove 'onto' the footway, not 'along it. Cyclists frequently pedal

So you imagine that the law breaking driver parallel parked and then pressed a special button that acted like the "frogger" game and it leapt clean sideways onto the footway in one move, blocking it? Or did it drive along it to its resting place? Which was it?

On 07/06/2015 20:43, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:30:41 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/06/2015 17:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

David Lang wrote:

[ ... ]

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which
will earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run
onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.
The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed) did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been
able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And if I
was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for injuring me
and/or damaging my bicycle.

It makes no difference whether you're travelling by car, lorry, van,
motor-bike, bicycle, wheelbarrow on foot, you have absolutely no
business proceeding into a space you cannot see at such a speed that you
cannot stop as soon as an obstruction (eg, a child) is sighted.

It's called "negligence".

So you think it's wrong to run on a pavement?

No.

But I think that you have great difficulty in comprehending what you
read and you have managed to completely confirm that with your
non-sequitur response.

Many joggers (all of them actually) would disagree with you.

I dare say, and on many things. But not on this one. Well, not unless
they, like you, have a screw loose.

The child was an invalid obstruction and was asking for a Darwin award.

Is it "invalid" to walk out of a garden gate onto a footway?

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:57:59 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 07/06/2015 20:43, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:30:41 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/06/2015 17:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

David Lang wrote:

[ ... ]

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which
will earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run
onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.
The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed) did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been
able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And if I
was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for injuring me
and/or damaging my bicycle.

It makes no difference whether you're travelling by car, lorry, van,
motor-bike, bicycle, wheelbarrow on foot, you have absolutely no
business proceeding into a space you cannot see at such a speed that you
cannot stop as soon as an obstruction (eg, a child) is sighted.

It's called "negligence".

So you think it's wrong to run on a pavement?

No.

It's no less dangerous than cycling.

But I think that you have great difficulty in comprehending what you
read and you have managed to completely confirm that with your
non-sequitur response.

Many joggers (all of them actually) would disagree with you.

I dare say, and on many things. But not on this one. Well, not unless
they, like you, have a screw loose.

Joggers jog along pavements, at cycling speed.

The child was an invalid obstruction and was asking for a Darwin award.

Is it "invalid" to walk out of a garden gate onto a footway?

It is if they don't look first.

--
A juggler, driving to his next performance, is stopped by the police. "What are these matches and lighter fluid doing in your car?" asks the cop.
"I'm a juggler and I juggle flaming torches in my act."
"Oh yeah?" says the doubtful cop. "Lets see you do it." The juggler gets out and starts juggling the blazing torches masterfully.
A couple driving by slows down to watch. "Wow," says the driver to his wife. "I'm glad I quit drinking. Look at the test they're giving now!"

On 07/06/2015 20:56, Alycidon wrote:
On Sunday, 7 June 2015 15:28:44 UTC+3, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 22:02, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 22:49:09 UTC+2, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 19:27, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 18:39:59 UTC+2, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 09:53, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:23:56 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the
opinion that they may ride on the footway provided they
do so considerately, and feel that in such
circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion.

In the same way that many drivers believe it is
acceptable to drive along the footpath until they find a
nice parking spot which will then restrict access for
pedestrians, prams and disabled carriages. Luckily, spot
fines are a good deterrent for these law breakers.

Drivers don't drive along footpaths, idiot.

How did this get here then, idiot? Selfish gits.

http://www.wirralpedestrians.org.uk/...rking_news.jpg





Too dim to understand the difference between 'onto' and 'along'.

Did that car in the photo drive along the footway to get that
spot in which it totally blocks the footway forcing the mother
and child onto the road? Yes or no?
He drove 'onto' the footway, not 'along it. Cyclists frequently
pedal

So you imagine that the law breaking driver parallel parked and then
pressed a special button that acted like the "frogger" game and it
leapt clean sideways onto the footway in one move, blocking it? Or
did it drive along it to its resting place? Which was it?




Still too dim to understand the difference between 'onto' and 'along'.

Let me explain. Ask an adult to help with any long words.

Motorists occasionally drive "onto" pavements. Cyclists frequently
pedal "along" pavements for entire journeys.