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

On 17/08/2017 17:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:29, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 09:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:45, JNugent wrote:

We are entitled, whether emerging from the property on foot or in a
vehicle, not to be borne down on by someone doing 20mph+

How steep is your hill? Or is this like your one inch rope?

What hill? The house is elevated from the road (slightly), but the
street is fairly flat.

In other words, your estimate of 20mph is about as far off the mark as
your one inch rope.

I wish you were right about one of those things.

You are right about neither of them.

As usual.

On 17/08/2017 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:27, JNugent wrote:

When I said "no difference" (to the steady state condition), there is no
difference. If it impacted on others there would be a difference. Do
stop frothing.

So there IS a difference?

If you cleaned the froth off your screen more often it might help you
read more easily.

Yes, I have said there is no difference between cycling at walking speed
and walking.

(Assuming that cycling and walking are acts of moving across the ground.
If you know any other definition, I am willing to be corrected.)

You're confusing yourself again.

Is it your *current* position that there is a difference between
wheeling a bike on foot and riding a bike?

Or are you currently adhering to the version where is no difference
between them?

As you admit, you have given both answers, quite recently.

So which one is in favour at the moment?

On 17/08/2017 17:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 10:11, 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?

The noise before the crash is similar to the noise often made by
drivers in an attempt to try to sweep others out of their way.

But how does the vocal and written noise made by the accused after the
event alter the mechanics of the crash?

It speaks to the issue of his intentions and motivation.

I asked about the mechanics of the crash. Would the woman be less dead?

The court is concerned with the behaviour of the killer cyclist.

His behaviour is highly relevant to questions about his behaviour, you see.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:37:46 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 16/08/2017 18:28, 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.

Which just goes to show that the three or four main cyclist haters in
this group are saddos who scan newspapers daily, cherrypicking badly
behaving cyclists with glee. They are sad people.
Never do they write about the countless good cyclists which well overide
the bad contingent.

Best KF them. But they do mutter amongst themselves some terrible things about "all" cyclists.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

On 17/08/17 15:42, MrCheerful wrote:

yelling 'get out of the way ' doesn't appear in the Highway Code, nor
does it give you any more 'right of way' than anyone else. stopping,
slowing, altering course as/if needed is the correct thing to do.

Would you come here and tell this to the many drivers shouting through
their horn that I hear everyday in the road outside my house. I have
never heard a shout from a person on a bicycle.

Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:37:46 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 16/08/2017 18:28, 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.

Which just goes to show that the three or four main cyclist haters in
this group are saddos who scan newspapers daily, cherrypicking badly
behaving cyclists with glee. They are sad people.
Never do they write about the countless good cyclists which well
overide the bad contingent.

Best KF them. But they do mutter amongst themselves some terrible
things about "all" cyclists.

Yeah, that's the thing to do. Have you always been a spineless little ****
all?

On 17/08/17 18:22, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:27, JNugent wrote:

When I said "no difference" (to the steady state condition), there
is no
difference. If it impacted on others there would be a difference. Do
stop frothing.

So there IS a difference?

If you cleaned the froth off your screen more often it might help you
read more easily.

Yes, I have said there is no difference between cycling at walking
speed and walking.

(Assuming that cycling and walking are acts of moving across the
ground. If you know any other definition, I am willing to be corrected.)

You're confusing yourself again.

Is it your *current* position that there is a difference between
wheeling a bike on foot and riding a bike?

Or are you currently adhering to the version where is no difference
between them?

As you admit, you have given both answers, quite recently.

Oh I see the confusion. You automatically equated staying on the bike as
anti-social. Following from this I said that *if* it impacted on others
there would be a difference... so I would not have said there is no
difference. It has no impact, therefore it remains that there is no
difference.

On 17/08/17 18:24, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 17:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 10:11, 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?

The noise before the crash is similar to the noise often made by
drivers in an attempt to try to sweep others out of their way.

But how does the vocal and written noise made by the accused after the
event alter the mechanics of the crash?

It speaks to the issue of his intentions and motivation.

I asked about the mechanics of the crash. Would the woman be less dead?

The court is concerned with the behaviour of the killer cyclist.

His behaviour is highly relevant to questions about his behaviour, you see.

At the top you made one of your sweeping derogatory statements about
"cyclists". I want to know from you how *you* think it affected the
mechanics. I am not interested in "the court will decide".

On 18/08/2017 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 18:22, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:27, JNugent wrote:

When I said "no difference" (to the steady state condition), there
is no
difference. If it impacted on others there would be a difference. Do
stop frothing.

So there IS a difference?

If you cleaned the froth off your screen more often it might help you
read more easily.

Yes, I have said there is no difference between cycling at walking
speed and walking.

(Assuming that cycling and walking are acts of moving across the
ground. If you know any other definition, I am willing to be corrected.)

You're confusing yourself again.

Is it your *current* position that there is a difference between
wheeling a bike on foot and riding a bike?

Or are you currently adhering to the version where is no difference
between them?

As you admit, you have given both answers, quite recently.

Oh I see the confusion. You automatically equated staying on the bike as
anti-social. Following from this I said that *if* it impacted on others
there would be a difference... so I would not have said there is no
difference. It has no impact, therefore it remains that there is no
difference.

It doesn't make any difference what you now say.

You *did* say that there was no difference between walking with a bike
and riding it.

Then you changed your mind and said there is a difference. Now you've
changed it back again - and maybe even back once more (it's hard to tell).

On 18/08/2017 00:23, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 18:24, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 17:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 10:11, 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?

The noise before the crash is similar to the noise often made by
drivers in an attempt to try to sweep others out of their way.

But how does the vocal and written noise made by the accused after the
event alter the mechanics of the crash?

It speaks to the issue of his intentions and motivation.

I asked about the mechanics of the crash. Would the woman be less dead?

The court is concerned with the behaviour of the killer cyclist.

His behaviour is highly relevant to questions about his behaviour, you
see.

At the top you made one of your sweeping derogatory statements about
"cyclists". I want to know from you how *you* think it affected the
mechanics. I am not interested in "the court will decide".

There is no mechanical connection between a cyclist's bellowed
obscenties aimed at a pedestrian and the non-existent brakes of his bike.

What ever made you think there could be one?