Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:43:33 +0000, Martin
wrote:

bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?


Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.

Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover


Accuracy not your strong point : "Range Rover"


I would have thought that your tutor would have stressed the need for
accuracy when you did your PhD.

What was the subject?




judith

--

"A helmet doesn't weigh much, doesn't interfere with your enjoyment of
your ride, and is not seen as a big deal by most younger riders
especially." Guy Chapman

"OG" wrote...
snipperty
I trust you will join us in fighting this pointless imposition,
particularly since you are aware that there is no correlation between
compulsory helmet usage and head injury rates.
And there's something, somewhere, showing there *is* no correlation?
Or is it that there *is not* something, somewhere, showing that there is?
Please let me have the link for either, or both.
TIA

--
A. Dazzle.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:55:19 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

On 4 Feb, 16:35, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Martin twisted the electrons to say:

Surely if you have a collision such his one, and you are driving an SUV,
this should be taken into account and you should be held even more
liable than if you had been driving a small car.

So that would be contributory negligence then? *:-) *Failing to do
something (namely drive a smaller, safer car) that could've made the
accident and/or it's consequences less severe.

... can't see the insurance industry going for that one though!

Indeed, and so I wonder why they should get interested in cyclists,
helmets and contributory negligence? Can't be much money in it.


So cyclist knocked off bike in accident with car and badly brain
damaged - deemed to be 50% responsible having contributed to the
level of injury by not wearing a helmet.

Instead of 10 Million pounds pay out - insurance company has to pay 5
Million.

Not much money in it ???


judith

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:45:58 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

On 4 Feb, 16:41, francis wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:43*pm, Martin wrote:



bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?

Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.

Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover
through an area where lots of pedestrians congregate.
Surely if you have a collision such his one, and you are driving an SUV,
this should be taken into account and you should be held even more
liable than if you had been driving a small car.

Do we have SUV's in the UK?

Why should it not be acceptable for the MP concerned to drive a Land
Rover?
It could be argued that because of a higher driving position he would
be able to see better.


Yes, as a tory, he should be used to looking down upon people.
But, in practice ...

"Last October [2005] the BMJ published an American study showing that
4x4s were more dangerous to pedestrians than normal cars. Tests showed
that people who were hit by the vehicles in accidents were four times
more likely to die than those hit by other cars."




........ in America.

"A.Dazzle" wrote in message
...
"OG" wrote...
snipperty
I trust you will join us in fighting this pointless imposition,
particularly since you are aware that there is no correlation between
compulsory helmet usage and head injury rates.

And there's something, somewhere, showing there *is* no correlation?
Or is it that there *is not* something, somewhere, showing that there is?
Please let me have the link for either, or both.
TIA

DL Robinson "No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing
of helmets" published in BMJ in 2006 (BMJ, 2006;332:722.)

It is currently available here
http://www.geocities.com/velosecurite/art/6/ac722.pdf

wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:43:33 +0000, Martin
wrote:

bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?

Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.
I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.
Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover


Accuracy not your strong point : "Range Rover"

The Daily Mail claims it was a Ranger Rover, however the BBC, The Times,
The Telegraph (amongst others) all say "Land Rover". I don't know about
you, but as far as reputable news sources go, I would trust the last
three far more than the Mail, and I checked them before replying to bugbear.

wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:43:33 +0000, Martin
wrote:

bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?

Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.
I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.
Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover


Accuracy not your strong point : "Range Rover"

The Daily Mail claims it was a Ranger Rover, however the BBC, The Times,
The Telegraph (amongst others) all say "Land Rover". I don't know about
you, but as far as reputable news sources go, I would trust the last
three far more than the Mail, and I checked them before replying to bugbear.

"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
...

Don't you think that the "think bike!" adverts work both ways already by
reminding the two wheeler of their invisibility?

I think that's a good point. The "think bike" ads have always got me
thinking that it could be *me* wiped out rather that making me more aware of
bikes, as a car driver.

You can do a few things to help yourself be seen, and you can sometimes
spot the potential SMIDSY, but you'll never get them all and even when you
do there's often no room to stop and nowhere to go.

There is a one of those situations I use regularly on a motorcycle. National
speed limit, single carriageway oncoming traffic turning right and traffic
on the left queuing to pull out. I ride through it with eyes on both
wondering which one will get me. So I pass through at a low speed with
traffic on my tail wondering why I am going so slow when I have right of
way. If there really is nowhere to go, then taking it slow is the only
option.

"Martin" wrote in message
...

Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover

Accuracy not your strong point : "Range Rover"

The Daily Mail claims it was a Ranger Rover, however the BBC, The Times,
The Telegraph (amongst others) all say "Land Rover". I don't know about
you, but as far as reputable news sources go, I would trust the last
three far more than the Mail, and I checked them before replying to
bugbear.

Doesn't matter - Range Rover is a Land Rover, coz it's built by them.

(why you're feeding Judith is a different question...)

"Squashme" wrote in message
...

"Seem to be invisible"!

I'm working on something along these lines. It might just save my life
some day:-

http://www.hermannkeist.ch/saf/Cougar/cougar14.jpg

"Flares, what flares?, no, sorry mate, I was on me mobile, changing
channels, sorting out a kids' argument, eating a sandwich, strumming
my banjo, admiring the sunset (unlikely), having an epiphany (even
more unlikely) ... "

Really though, the reality of "seeming invisible" is to do with size and
speed perception. An HGV at 40mph coming at you as a formidable sight, but a
motorcycle at the same speed is barely noticed. I cyclist at half that speed
is barely noticeable :-(