Jason McIntyre killed

In article 1a098114-b2d0-4205-bce5-
, calum
says...

Now, kindly;

1) Show me where I have 'scrambled to excuse the driver'.
2) Show me how I have ignored the reports, when in fact I have pointed
out, more than once, that there are conflicting reports.

I doubt that reality or uncertainty will be allowed to interfere with
his somewhat paranoid and obsessive crusade.

On Jan 15, 6:45 pm, "wafflycat"
wrote:
From the Braveheart web site:-

"One of Britain's leading cyclists was killed today while out training near
his home in Fort William. Jason MacIntyre, a three-time British champion and
Scottish record holder, was training on the A82 road when he was hit by a
vehicle, said to be a council vehicle which overtook him and then turned
into his path. The 34-year old was airlifted from the scene but died on his
way to hospital in Glasgow."

If that is what happened I do hope the driver of the vehicle spends a long,
long time in jail, many years, and never drives a vehicle again. Ever.

The BBC website now reports that:
"Police said a 35-year-old man had been reported to prosecutors.
They will decide whether any charges should be brought in connection
with the incident. "

Calum

On 16 Jan, 12:18, calum wrote:
On Jan 16, 12:07 pm, spindrift wrote:

Where do the reports "conflict" please?

Spindrift,

the first few posts contain the two conflicting reports.

Wafflycat:From the Braveheart web site:-

"One of Britain's leading cyclists was killed today while out training
near
his home in Fort William. Jason MacIntyre, a three-time British
champion and
Scottish record holder, was training on the A82 road when he was hit
by a
vehicle, said to be a council vehicle which overtook him and then
turned
into his path. The 34-year old was airlifted from the scene but died
on his
way to hospital in Glasgow."

Calum replied:Conflicting report in The Herald newspaper:
"MacIntyre was hit by a north-bound Highland Council Transit van
yesterday while cycling south on the A82 near Spean Bridge, nine miles
north of his Fort William home."http://tinyurl.com/2u7x6m

Now, kindly;

1) Show me where I have 'scrambled to excuse the driver'.
2) Show me how I have ignored the reports, when in fact I have pointed
out, more than once, that there are conflicting reports.

Calum

You claimed that "conflicting reports" were a good reason not to blame
the driver.

The conflicting reports (which don't conflict anyway- both report the
van hitting the cyclist, there is a difference in direction of travel
and I didn't post the alternate explanation in any case) are not
grounds for excusing the driver.


Both reports claim the vehicle hit the cyclist, where's the conflict?

Here's a thing, you seem anxious to avoid prejudgement, want to put
aside your squabble till the inquest, or the arrest of the driver if
it happens, or the court case?

I'm dropping it, in any case.

Comments are interesting:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news...t_training.php

The importance of cyclists to the British Olympic bid seems to be
gaining in value. Jason's untimely death has been reported on each
Radio 4 news bulletin and over a minute (an unusually long time for
cycling other than drugs issues) devoted in the sports report of the
Today Programme.
Let's hope that Jason's death is not forgotten and the many
politicians who always listen to the Today Programme take it in their
minds to DO something about raising the status of cyclists in Britain.
My condolences to Jason's wife and family.

spindrift wrote:

Let's hope that Jason's death is not forgotten and the many
politicians who always listen to the Today Programme take it in their
minds to DO something about raising the status of cyclists in Britain.

Where have you been for the last 25 years?

Over that period, the "status" of cyclists has been moved to
"untouchable", when it comes to the enforcement of the technical laws
created over the last century or so, to regulate them. There was a time
when a cyclist would have been wary of being collared by the local bobby
if they had ridden on the pavement, or ignored traffic signals, or not
used lights at night, or not given appropriate hand signals, or not
ridden single-file on busy, or narrow, roads.

Over that period, £millions has been spent on providing facilities for
cyclists, and removing facilities from motorists (except bus drivers).

Over that period rafts of new laws have been created to allow the
prosecution, specifically of motorists, with low culpability, and with
little or no evidence required. None of those laws apply to cyclists.

--
Matt B

spindrift wrote:


Same perverse logic, cars and lorries smash into vulnerable road users
and the process of exoneration begins prior to the investigation even
starting!

Why the **** can't you and your similar like-half-minded compatriots
have the common decency to mourn the loss of a good and popular man
without recourse to mindless trolling of your pathetic, monomaniacal,
anti-motorist feelings..?

****s, the lot of you!

On Jan 16, 1:08 pm, Matt B wrote:
Over that period, £millions has been spent on providing facilities for
cyclists, and removing facilities from motorists (except bus drivers).

More has been spent providing facilites specifically for motorists
than has been spent taking them away or creating facilities
specifically for cyclists.
By several orders of magnitude.

..d

On 16 Jan, 13:24, Jeff York wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Same perverse logic, cars and lorries smash into vulnerable road users
and the process of exoneration begins prior to the investigation even
starting!

Why the **** can't you and your similar like-half-minded compatriots
have the common decency to mourn the loss of a good and popular man
without recourse to mindless trolling of your pathetic, monomaniacal,
anti-motorist feelings..?

****s, the lot of you!

I don't think it's "anti-motorist" to expect the reality to be
reported in cycling deaths. If a stationary cyclist is killed when a
lorry driver overtakes and immediately turns left then it's at the
very least a twisting of the facts to say the cyclist "collided" with
the lorry, you see?

Look at the examples posted- drivers routinely kill cyclists and get
away with it, this is the reality:

On 15 October 2005 the Exeter Express and Echo reported on the case
of 62 year old cyclist Alan Scott. 'Four by four' driver Andrew Hart
came up behind Alan Scott on a narrow country road and had to slow
down for 30m whilst the cyclist pulled over to the side of the road to
allow him to pass. As the cyclist stood at the side of the road with
one foot on the verge Andrew Hart stopped his 4x4, went back to the
cyclist, assaulting him, pushing him to the ground and breaking his
shoulder. Another driver who witnessed the attack said that the
cyclist was 'slightly built' and had done nothing to provoke the
attack.

The broken shoulder sustained in the attack resulted in the creation
of a blood clot which caused Alan Scott to die a few days later.
Andrew Hart was charged and found guilty of manslaughter but
incredibly Judge Cottle gave Hart only a 9 month suspended sentence
saying

"This is not a case where death was directly a result of violence",
which, of course, it was. What's more one would think that hart had
proved himself unfit to hold a driving licence by responding in such
manner to being 'delayed' by a cyclist for a few seconds.

However Hart received no driving ban or other penalty.

Now, only the paranoid would consider the above case to be an example
of "anti-motorist" hysteria.

Anti killer motorist, surely?

On 16 Jan, 13:08, Matt B wrote:

Over that period rafts of new laws have been created to allow the
prosecution, specifically of motorists, with low culpability, and with
little or no evidence required. *None of those laws apply to cyclists.

You make this sound like a bad thing :-)

Attitudes to risk and responsibility have changed dramatically in the
UK over the last 20-30 years, probably for a whole raft of reasons. At
the same time we have moved to a situation where the private car is a
vital part of our way of life (as a society, not necessarily for any
given individual).

This has resulted in conflicts between personal freedoms and
perceived risk which we, again as a society, have not reconciled.

There are no easy answers, but easy answers are all that politicians
and the mainstream media can offer: it's no surprise that these
solutions are lacking. Until we face up to the realities of the
situation and make some tough choices things arn't going to change.

Cheers,
W.

spindrift wrote:

On 16 Jan, 13:24, Jeff York wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Same perverse logic, cars and lorries smash into vulnerable road users
and the process of exoneration begins prior to the investigation even
starting!

Why the **** can't you and your similar like-half-minded compatriots
have the common decency to mourn the loss of a good and popular man
without recourse to mindless trolling of your pathetic, monomaniacal,
anti-motorist feelings..?

****s, the lot of you!

I don't think it's "anti-motorist" to expect the reality to be
reported in cycling deaths. If a stationary cyclist is killed when a
lorry driver overtakes and immediately turns left then it's at the
very least a twisting of the facts to say the cyclist "collided" with
the lorry, you see?

Look at the examples posted- drivers routinely kill cyclists and get
away with it, this is the reality

You're doing it again...

Look up "respect" in the dictionary.