Training would have probably saved this life.

cycling was a "new hobby" for Mr Philips and it is believed that he had
only ridden a new bicycle he purchased shortly before the accident three
times.

Mr Phillips suddenly came around the corner on the wrong side of the
road. Mr Phillips directly collided with the front of the Land Rover at
a vertical position having made no attempt to hit the brakes or steer away.
Mr Phillips could easily have taken the bend without going onto the
wrong side of the road.

there was no explanation for Mr Phillips' decision.

Deputy Coroner for Cornwall, Barrie Van den Berg, concluded that this
was "no silly risk" but simply a decision by Mr Phillips "that cannot be
explained".

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Cycl...#axzz2t6HfjPP4

On 12/02/2014 10:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
cycling was a "new hobby" for Mr Philips and it is believed that he had
only ridden a new bicycle he purchased shortly before the accident three
times.

Mr Phillips suddenly came around the corner on the wrong side of the
road. Mr Phillips directly collided with the front of the Land Rover at
a vertical position having made no attempt to hit the brakes or steer away.
Mr Phillips could easily have taken the bend without going onto the
wrong side of the road.

there was no explanation for Mr Phillips' decision.

Deputy Coroner for Cornwall, Barrie Van den Berg, concluded that this
was "no silly risk" but simply a decision by Mr Phillips "that cannot be
explained".

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Cycl...#axzz2t6HfjPP4


Not that you would give a damn about a cyclist being killed, of course.

By the way, what have you got to say about the many highly trained
motorists who are killed on our roads every year? What did they need to
prevent their deaths?

On 12/02/2014 10:25, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
cycling was a "new hobby" for Mr Philips and it is believed that he had
only ridden a new bicycle he purchased shortly before the accident three
times.

Mr Phillips suddenly came around the corner on the wrong side of the
road. Mr Phillips directly collided with the front of the Land Rover at
a vertical position having made no attempt to hit the brakes or steer
away.
Mr Phillips could easily have taken the bend without going onto the
wrong side of the road.

there was no explanation for Mr Phillips' decision.

Deputy Coroner for Cornwall, Barrie Van den Berg, concluded that this
was "no silly risk" but simply a decision by Mr Phillips "that cannot be
explained".

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Cycl...#axzz2t6HfjPP4



Not that you would give a damn about a cyclist being killed, of course.

By the way, what have you got to say about the many highly trained
motorists who are killed on our roads every year? What did they need to
prevent their deaths?

Less cyclists and more room (no cycle lanes) would give everyone an
easier time on the roads and less items to concentrate upon.

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message ...

On 12/02/2014 10:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
cycling was a "new hobby" for Mr Philips and it is believed that he had
only ridden a new bicycle he purchased shortly before the accident three
times.

Mr Phillips suddenly came around the corner on the wrong side of the
road. Mr Phillips directly collided with the front of the Land Rover at
a vertical position having made no attempt to hit the brakes or steer
away.
Mr Phillips could easily have taken the bend without going onto the
wrong side of the road.

there was no explanation for Mr Phillips' decision.

Deputy Coroner for Cornwall, Barrie Van den Berg, concluded that this
was "no silly risk" but simply a decision by Mr Phillips "that cannot be
explained".

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Cycl...#axzz2t6HfjPP4


Not that you would give a damn about a cyclist being killed, of course.

By the way, what have you got to say about the many highly trained
motorists who are killed on our roads every year? What did they need to
prevent their deaths?

This is a cycling NG. Please try to stay on topic.

On 12/02/2014 10:47, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:25, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
cycling was a "new hobby" for Mr Philips and it is believed that he had
only ridden a new bicycle he purchased shortly before the accident three
times.

Mr Phillips suddenly came around the corner on the wrong side of the
road. Mr Phillips directly collided with the front of the Land Rover at
a vertical position having made no attempt to hit the brakes or steer
away.
Mr Phillips could easily have taken the bend without going onto the
wrong side of the road.

there was no explanation for Mr Phillips' decision.

Deputy Coroner for Cornwall, Barrie Van den Berg, concluded that this
was "no silly risk" but simply a decision by Mr Phillips "that cannot be
explained".

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Cycl...#axzz2t6HfjPP4




Not that you would give a damn about a cyclist being killed, of course.

By the way, what have you got to say about the many highly trained
motorists who are killed on our roads every year? What did they need to
prevent their deaths?

Less cyclists and more room (no cycle lanes) would give everyone an
easier time on the roads and less items to concentrate upon.

So you admit that your desire is to see less people cycling? I'm happy
to hear you make that admission. Such honesty is rare amongst the trolls
on here.

Of course councils spend millions of pounds a year deliberately giving
motorists LESS room, not more. It's called traffic calming. This would
go right above your head, though. And, as we all know, a tiny, minute
percentage of accidents on our roads involve cyclists, so I am still
left wondering why motorists spend hundreds of pounds on training and
still go out and kill themselves and each other.

On 12/02/2014 10:52, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:47, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:25, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
cycling was a "new hobby" for Mr Philips and it is believed that he had
only ridden a new bicycle he purchased shortly before the accident
three
times.

Mr Phillips suddenly came around the corner on the wrong side of the
road. Mr Phillips directly collided with the front of the Land Rover at
a vertical position having made no attempt to hit the brakes or steer
away.
Mr Phillips could easily have taken the bend without going onto the
wrong side of the road.

there was no explanation for Mr Phillips' decision.

Deputy Coroner for Cornwall, Barrie Van den Berg, concluded that this
was "no silly risk" but simply a decision by Mr Phillips "that
cannot be
explained".

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Cycl...#axzz2t6HfjPP4





Not that you would give a damn about a cyclist being killed, of course.

By the way, what have you got to say about the many highly trained
motorists who are killed on our roads every year? What did they need to
prevent their deaths?

Less cyclists and more room (no cycle lanes) would give everyone an
easier time on the roads and less items to concentrate upon.

So you admit that your desire is to see less people cycling? I'm happy
to hear you make that admission. Such honesty is rare amongst the trolls
on here.

Of course councils spend millions of pounds a year deliberately giving
motorists LESS room, not more. It's called traffic calming. This would
go right above your head, though. And, as we all know, a tiny, minute
percentage of accidents on our roads involve cyclists, so I am still
left wondering why motorists spend hundreds of pounds on training and
still go out and kill themselves and each other.

Per billion miles travelled cyclists seriously injure almost as many
pedestrians as cars do. It would make sense to reduce that total figure
by almost half by banning road cycling. This would also cut the
horrific yearly death and injury toll of cyclists. Double win. There
would also be a massive drop in NHS and emergency services costs as a
result. Triple win.

On 12/02/2014 11:28, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:52, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:47, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:25, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 12/02/2014 10:03, Mrcheerful wrote:
cycling was a "new hobby" for Mr Philips and it is believed that he
had
only ridden a new bicycle he purchased shortly before the accident
three
times.

Mr Phillips suddenly came around the corner on the wrong side of the
road. Mr Phillips directly collided with the front of the Land
Rover at
a vertical position having made no attempt to hit the brakes or steer
away.
Mr Phillips could easily have taken the bend without going onto the
wrong side of the road.

there was no explanation for Mr Phillips' decision.

Deputy Coroner for Cornwall, Barrie Van den Berg, concluded that this
was "no silly risk" but simply a decision by Mr Phillips "that
cannot be
explained".

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Cycl...#axzz2t6HfjPP4






Not that you would give a damn about a cyclist being killed, of course.

By the way, what have you got to say about the many highly trained
motorists who are killed on our roads every year? What did they need to
prevent their deaths?

Less cyclists and more room (no cycle lanes) would give everyone an
easier time on the roads and less items to concentrate upon.

So you admit that your desire is to see less people cycling? I'm happy
to hear you make that admission. Such honesty is rare amongst the trolls
on here.

Of course councils spend millions of pounds a year deliberately giving
motorists LESS room, not more. It's called traffic calming. This would
go right above your head, though. And, as we all know, a tiny, minute
percentage of accidents on our roads involve cyclists, so I am still
left wondering why motorists spend hundreds of pounds on training and
still go out and kill themselves and each other.

Per billion miles travelled cyclists seriously injure almost as many
pedestrians as cars do. It would make sense to reduce that total figure
by almost half by banning road cycling. This would also cut the
horrific yearly death and injury toll of cyclists. Double win. There
would also be a massive drop in NHS and emergency services costs as a
result. Triple win.


Why don't you ban all dangerous sports then? In fact, why not ban people
walking on the roads? Good idea?

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...


Why don't you ban all dangerous sports then? In fact, why not ban people
walking on the roads? Good idea?

People who participate in "dangerous sports" tend to mitigate the risks of
ending up paralysed, comatose or dead by following mandatory rules and
regulations concerning their participation, have undertaken mandatory
training in their field, and are wearing mandatory protective clothing. If
they don't and they end up a vegetable or dead, well, that's too bad. Same
as a speeding drink driver wrapping his car around a tree and killing
himself, it's really no loss to society.

On 12/02/2014 11:48, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...


Why don't you ban all dangerous sports then? In fact, why not ban
people walking on the roads? Good idea?

People who participate in "dangerous sports" tend to mitigate the risks
of ending up paralysed, comatose or dead by following mandatory rules
and regulations concerning their participation, have undertaken
mandatory training in their field, and are wearing mandatory protective
clothing. If they don't and they end up a vegetable or dead, well,
that's too bad. Same as a speeding drink driver wrapping his car around
a tree and killing himself, it's really no loss to society.

You mean like your kids being no loss? ;-)

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message ...

On 12/02/2014 11:48, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...


Why don't you ban all dangerous sports then? In fact, why not ban
people walking on the roads? Good idea?

People who participate in "dangerous sports" tend to mitigate the risks
of ending up paralysed, comatose or dead by following mandatory rules
and regulations concerning their participation, have undertaken
mandatory training in their field, and are wearing mandatory protective
clothing. If they don't and they end up a vegetable or dead, well,
that's too bad. Same as a speeding drink driver wrapping his car around
a tree and killing himself, it's really no loss to society.

You mean like your kids being no loss? ;-)

Her we go again. The idiot is about to turn nasty as usual.