|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the
inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
... This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Psychos call it filtering! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:36:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote: This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Can you quote the part of that report which states the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Failing that, can you quote the part of that report which suggests the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:36:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Can you quote the part of that report which states the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Failing that, can you quote the part of that report which suggests the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Yes: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front" therefore the cyclists came up the inside. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:34:08 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote: Bertie Wooster wrote: On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:36:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Can you quote the part of that report which states the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Failing that, can you quote the part of that report which suggests the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Yes: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front" therefore the cyclists came up the inside. That suggests nothing of the sort. It suggests this: The cyclists were in the cycle box when the truck pulled alongside by going into the cycle box. The cyclists could not get ahead of the truck because that would mean going leaving the cycle box. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:34:08 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Bertie Wooster wrote: On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:36:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Can you quote the part of that report which states the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Failing that, can you quote the part of that report which suggests the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Yes: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front" therefore the cyclists came up the inside. That suggests nothing of the sort. It suggests this: The cyclists were in the cycle box when the truck pulled alongside by going into the cycle box. The cyclists could not get ahead of the truck because that would mean going leaving the cycle box. only in the mind of a psycholist. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:13:13 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote: On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:34:08 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Bertie Wooster wrote: On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:36:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Can you quote the part of that report which states the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Failing that, can you quote the part of that report which suggests the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Yes: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front" therefore the cyclists came up the inside. That suggests nothing of the sort. It suggests this: The cyclists were in the cycle box when the truck pulled alongside by going into the cycle box. The cyclists could not get ahead of the truck because that would mean going leaving the cycle box. Oh dear : "If Miss Fernandez was five metres ahead in the cycling box Mr Grant would have seen her." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:19:04 +0100, Judith
wrote: On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:13:13 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:34:08 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Bertie Wooster wrote: On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:36:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Can you quote the part of that report which states the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Failing that, can you quote the part of that report which suggests the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Yes: "The driver was in the cycle box so we couldn't get in front" therefore the cyclists came up the inside. That suggests nothing of the sort. It suggests this: The cyclists were in the cycle box when the truck pulled alongside by going into the cycle box. The cyclists could not get ahead of the truck because that would mean going leaving the cycle box. Oh dear : "If Miss Fernandez was five metres ahead in the cycling box Mr Grant would have seen her." But she couldn't be five metres ahead because the truck was there. If the truck was there she hadn't undertaken. If she had undertaken she would have been ahead. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:13:02 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote: On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:36:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful" wrote: This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Can you quote the part of that report which states the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Failing that, can you quote the part of that report which suggests the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Even more relevant : can you quote the bit where the driver was found guilty of an offence. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
never undertake
On 17/07/2013 09:13, Bertie Wooster wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote: This could have been avoided totally if the cyclist had not gone up the inside. Drivers just do not realise how stupid cyclists can be. http://road.cc/content/news/12315-dr...-lorrys-wheels Can you quote the part of that report which states the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? Failing that, can you quote the part of that report which suggests the cyclist was undertaking or had undertaken the truck? A reasonable inference if - and only if - the lorry was a regular RHD model for use on British roads. Did you see this bit? QUOTE Deputy coroner Gail Elliman said: “The lorry wasn't stopped in the right place. If Miss Fernandez was five metres ahead in the cycling box Mr Grant would have seen her. But the [lorry's] indicator could have been seen by Miss Fernandez. Caution might have been exercised if she believed it was going to turn left.” ENDQUOTE "left"... And there's this from someone who was the QUOTE: Riccardo Rispoli ... was cycling with her at the time of the crash in June... Speaking after the verdict, Mr Rispoli, a yacht designer, said: ... “I do not blame the driver...". Of course, he has the disadvantage of actually having been there. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pass a door's width away and do not undertake | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 71 | May 16th 13 04:48 PM |