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

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 17:42:52 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:28:24 +0100, Nick
wrote:
On 16/08/2017 18:20, Bod wrote:

I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events
in all of my years of driving and cycling. The odd **** and
inconsiderate driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil
cyclists derive from low life areas and large towns, which I
rarely travel in.

Not really. I mainly work close to old street where this crash
happened. I have never had any bad experiences with cyclists.

I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a
dangerous bike. However I very much doubt they would have
prosecuted a motorist or bus driver even if they were behaving far
more dangerously.

What was he doing that was dangerous?

If he's unable to stop when a pedestrian sharing the space does
something stupid, then he's cycling dangerously. QED.

No, if someone does something stupid, only they are to blame. A
cyclist should not have to take action to avoid ****wits.
He also has an illegal bike. Bikes should have MOTs and riders should
be forced to be insured.

Bicycles are nowhere near as dangerous as cars, which is why they
don't need that ****.

Prick.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:19:07 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


Bicycles are nowhere near as dangerous as cars, which is why they don't need that ****.

It's neither bicycles nor cars but idiots like YOU that are dangerous!
Clinically attested sociopaths shouldn't be allowed to drive any vehicle at
all!

--
Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) about his driving habits (no.2):
"Now you see, the proper way to soak somebody is to aim for the puddle from
100 yards back, then it looks like an accident to any moronic nosy hasn't
got a life cyclist. Of course you must adjust your speed inconspicuously
(use gears not brakes which cause lights to come on...).
MID:

On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:54:10 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


Bicycles are nowhere near as dangerous as cars, which is why they
don't need that ****.

Prick.

So if a bicycle and a car were coming towards you, you'd stand in front of the car?

Prick!

--
Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic "mind" in action:
"An electric fence would be less visible, and funnier to watch the kids
touching it."
MID:

On 23/08/17 16:51, JNugent wrote:
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.

You referred to mouth noises he made so I asked you what it had to do
with the mechanics of the crash. It was about your attitude, not his. I
don't know how I could have made it any clearer.

The court might think it important but I fail to see why what happened
afterwards should have any bearing; it can't change what led up to the
crash and the consequences. No doubt from now on any driver that is
doing more than 18mph before killing somebody is going to be found
guilty of "furious driving". At the same time pigs will learn to fly.

On 23/08/17 17:58, JNugent wrote:
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.

3 bald tyres?

On 23/08/17 18:47, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

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

I have a bell but if you really want me to ring my bell instead of
braking just be careful what you wish for.

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.

I generally like to ride with my hands on the brakes. Ringing a bell
requires a hand to be taken off the brakes. Shouting doesn't have this
disadvantage. In fact bells seem like a pretty silly idea all round,
given that shouting is quicker, easier and safer.

I have thought about putting something on my bike to make it continually
noisy. Something like a bell lightly hitting the spokes. I can see that
that would be a good idea when riding in areas where there is a danger a
pedestrian or animal may step out into my bike's path.

On 23/08/2017 23:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/08/17 16:51, JNugent wrote:
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.

You referred to mouth noises he made so I asked you what it had to do
with the mechanics of the crash.

And I told you the answer: nothing to do with the mechanics of the
crash. Your question was a red herring in any case.

His demeanour, whether in general (in his fantasy of urban stunt
cycling) and before during and (especially) after the collision told the
court what they needed to do about his state of mind (at each stage of
the incident).

It's strikingly similar to another well-reported case a few years ago
where another cyclist ran into a group of teenagers after screaming at
them (something like): "Get out of my way. I'm not stopping". But at
least he was riding a bike which (AFAIK) had th required braking system.

It was about your attitude, not his. I
don't know how I could have made it any clearer.

Which part of this re-stated paragraph is just too difficult for you?

"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".

Which bit of his demeanour do you insist the jury either disregarded or
should have disregarded?

The court might think it important but I fail to see why what happened
afterwards should have any bearing; it can't change what led up to the
crash and the consequences.

It was all to do with his general attitude, and his self-pity after
causing those horrific injuries to the victim. Then there was his
screaming obscenties* at her as she lat injured on the ground and his
attempts to excuse himself on the web (which he lter tried to delete).

Which bit of the phrase "lack of remorse" is unfamiliar to you?

Do you think he fooled the jury?

No doubt from now on any driver that is
doing more than 18mph before killing somebody is going to be found
guilty of "furious driving". At the same time pigs will learn to fly.

Let me just amend that slightly for you for accuracy:

"No doubt from now on any driver who is doing more than 18mph in a
vehicle from which the brakes have been removed is going to be found
guilty of something."

And I'll tell you what - I'll agree with the conviction, plus whatever
extra conviction is added to it in cases where those actions lead to the
death of a third party.

On 23/08/2017 23:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/08/17 17:58, JNugent wrote:
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.

3 bald tyres?

That as well, though to be accurate (and scrupulously fair), bald tyres,
as egregious as that offence may be, is nowhere near as dangerous as
having no brakes.

On 24/08/2017 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/08/17 18:47, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

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

I have a bell but if you really want me to ring my bell instead of
braking just be careful what you wish for.

No, he only asked you substitute the bell for the screamed obscenities.

The requirement for the use of brakes plus a change of direction are
self-explanatory. Making noises is in no way a substitute for stopping
(and being able to stop).