Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had 'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears

On 21/08/17 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2017 10:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists
immediately before the collision and as
he did after it? And then posted on the
internet that it was all the pedestrian's
fault?

I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to
do with the question I asked you.

sigh

A trial is aimed at bringing out the truth, whether or not the
defendant wishes to co-operate.

Good grief.

On 22/08/2017 10:35, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/08/17 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2017 10:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists
immediately before the collision and as
he did after it? And then posted on the
internet that it was all the pedestrian's
fault?

I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to
do with the question I asked you.

sigh

A trial is aimed at bringing out the truth, whether or not the
defendant wishes to co-operate.

Good grief.

It was obvious that you were not familiar with the purposes of trials or
the way in which they are conducted.

On 22/08/17 18:59, JNugent wrote:
On 22/08/2017 10:35, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/08/17 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2017 10:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists
immediately before the collision and as
he did after it? And then posted on the
internet that it was all the pedestrian's
fault?

I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to
do with the question I asked you.

sigh

A trial is aimed at bringing out the truth, whether or not the
defendant wishes to co-operate.

Good grief.

It was obvious that you were not familiar with the purposes of trials or
the way in which they are conducted.

It is obvious that you don't understand that my comment was directed at
you, not for new found knowledge. I have not clicked your link.

On 23/08/2017 09:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/08/17 18:59, JNugent wrote:
On 22/08/2017 10:35, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/08/17 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2017 10:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists
immediately before the collision and as
he did after it? And then posted on the
internet that it was all the pedestrian's
fault?

I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to
do with the question I asked you.

sigh

A trial is aimed at bringing out the truth, whether or not the
defendant wishes to co-operate.

Good grief.

It was obvious that you were not familiar with the purposes of trials
or the way in which they are conducted.

It is obvious that you don't understand that my comment was directed at
you, not for new found knowledge. I have not clicked your link.

You need a better understanding of the use(s) of language and communication.

On 23/08/17 11:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/08/2017 09:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/08/17 18:59, JNugent wrote:
On 22/08/2017 10:35, TMS320 wrote:

On 21/08/17 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2017 10:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists
immediately before the collision and as
he did after it? And then posted on the
internet that it was all the pedestrian's
fault?

I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to
do with the question I asked you.

sigh

A trial is aimed at bringing out the truth, whether or not the
defendant wishes to co-operate.

Good grief.

It was obvious that you were not familiar with the purposes of trials
or the way in which they are conducted.

It is obvious that you don't understand that my comment was directed
at you, not for new found knowledge. I have not clicked your link.

You need a better understanding of the use(s) of language and
communication.

Most of the time you would have trouble recognising a hammer even while
being beaten round the head with one. If you don't understand ask for
clarification... I even provided some after you decided to go your own way.

On 23/08/2017 16:14, TMS320 wrote:

On 23/08/17 11:12, JNugent wrote:
On 23/08/2017 09:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/08/17 18:59, JNugent wrote:
On 22/08/2017 10:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/17 23:51, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2017 10:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists
immediately before the collision and as
he did after it? And then posted on the
internet that it was all the pedestrian's
fault?

I couldn't give a stuff about cross examination; it has nothing to
do with the question I asked you.

sigh
A trial is aimed at bringing out the truth, whether or not the
defendant wishes to co-operate.

Good grief.

It was obvious that you were not familiar with the purposes of
trials or the way in which they are conducted.

It is obvious that you don't understand that my comment was directed
at you, not for new found knowledge. I have not clicked your link.

You need a better understanding of the use(s) of language and
communication.

Most of the time you would have trouble recognising a hammer even while
being beaten round the head with one. If you don't understand ask for
clarification... I even provided some after you decided to go your own way.

We had been discussing the questions put in cross examination to the
cyclist. Evidence as to his attitude and motivation is an important
factor which needed to be put to the jury.

As you know (by now at least), a trial is aimed at bringing out the
truth, whether or not the defendant wishes to co-operate (hence the
prosecution's right to cross examine a defendant who gives evidence).

Still no sign in your quoted text of any questions you say you asked.

On 23/08/2017 17:46, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nick
wrote:

You are making an unfair comparison. This week, whilst cycling, I have
shouted at a jogger who had run into the road with out looking. I do
this because my bike is silent and I want them to be aware I am there.

So ring your bicycle bell. Simple enough.

Indeed. Or probably more usefully, and whenever necessary, slow down,
change direction or even stop. Even doing one's best in an unsuccessful
attempt to stop is the least one can do.

That's what a driver would do, Nick.

Imagine the hoots of derision if a driver, accused of running over and
kiling a pedestrian, offered as mitigation the fact that his car's
brakes had been removed (or never installed in the first place) but that
this was OK because he wouldn't have been able to stop in time anyway.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Peter Keller
wrote:

On 14.08.2017 22:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:04:02 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/08/2017 17:15, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Mr Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel track bicycle with no
front brake,
which is illegal on British roads.

He allegedly shouted to her to "get out of the way" twice before
their heads
smashed together.

What an arrogant ****** this piece of **** really is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/14/cyclist-killed-pedestrian-high-speed-crash-said-people-had-zero/

By his own admission he had 60 feet (at least) to stop, slow down
or swerve, before hitting her. Remarkable that he stayed for the
Police, perhaps he was stunned. How he can be denying
manslaughter is beyond explanation, he caused her death,
regardless of any other factors.

Did you or did you not claim it takes 37 metres to stop a bicycle
from 20mph?
The bike had no front brake.

Well he could have rung his bicycle bell, couldn't he?

Cyclists remove the bells from their kids toys.
It's better to scream "get the f*** outta my way".

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 6:47:35 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Peter Keller
wrote:

On 14.08.2017 22:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:04:02 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/08/2017 17:15, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Mr Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel track bicycle with no
front brake,
which is illegal on British roads.

He allegedly shouted to her to "get out of the way" twice before
their heads
smashed together.

What an arrogant ****** this piece of **** really is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/14/cyclist-killed-pedestrian-high-speed-crash-said-people-had-zero/

By his own admission he had 60 feet (at least) to stop, slow down
or swerve, before hitting her. Remarkable that he stayed for the
Police, perhaps he was stunned. How he can be denying
manslaughter is beyond explanation, he caused her death,
regardless of any other factors.

Did you or did you not claim it takes 37 metres to stop a bicycle
from 20mph?
The bike had no front brake.

Well he could have rung his bicycle bell, couldn't he?

Cyclists remove the bells from their kids toys.
It's better to scream "get the f*** outta my way".

Many years ago a test case by the Cyclists Touring Club established that cyclists only need the ability to give "an audible warning on approach". If they are shouting "Get the fags out of my way" it can only be in response to littering motorists.

Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 6:47:35 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Peter Keller
wrote:

On 14.08.2017 22:25, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:04:02 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/08/2017 17:15, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Mr Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel track bicycle with no
front brake,
which is illegal on British roads.

He allegedly shouted to her to "get out of the way" twice before
their heads
smashed together.

What an arrogant ****** this piece of **** really is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/14/cyclist-killed-pedestrian-high-speed-crash-said-people-had-zero/

By his own admission he had 60 feet (at least) to stop, slow down
or swerve, before hitting her. Remarkable that he stayed for the
Police, perhaps he was stunned. How he can be denying
manslaughter is beyond explanation, he caused her death,
regardless of any other factors.

Did you or did you not claim it takes 37 metres to stop a bicycle
from 20mph?
The bike had no front brake.

Well he could have rung his bicycle bell, couldn't he?

Cyclists remove the bells from their kids toys.
It's better to scream "get the f*** outta my way".

Many years ago a test case by the Cyclists Touring Club established
that cyclists only need the ability to give "an audible warning on
approach". If they are shouting "Get the fags out of my way" it can
only be in response to littering motorists.

That was pathetic.
Everybody here makes you look like a right ****. Best you stop posting and
run away.