|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message news:Xe1Rn.51688$oi7.1251@hurricane... http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...clist_1_130248 Reading the article it seems that that driver who died had overtaken a line of cars without noticing the (unlit) child cyclist ahead. Upon seeing him he swerved into on oncoming car. The child cyclist had reflectors and was visible to other drivers. I know this road. It is single carriageway and not very wide. One of the problems facing cyclists on this type of road is where the driver behind cannot/does not overtake (for safety reasons), but another driver further behind cannot see that there is a cyclist ahead. They overtake the cars, but then either suddenly see the cyclist and need to take evasive action to avoid a collision, or they do not see the cyclist in time and wipe them out completely. I cannot say that agree that the driver who died should have murdered the cyclist for having no lights, and it is unfortunate that the driver who made the poor overtaking manoeuvre lost his life, but if there is anything to learn from this is that just because the vehicle ahead is travelling slowly, it does not mean that it is a good idea to overtake them. RIP... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo... No, he made the correct decision, statistically. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote: http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo... No, he made the correct decision, statistically. why do you think that ? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote: http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo... No, he made the correct decision, statistically. why do you think that ? 60-15 = 45 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote: http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo... No, he made the correct decision, statistically. why do you think that ? 60-15 = 45 I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene pool before they breed. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote: http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo... No, he made the correct decision, statistically. why do you think that ? 60-15 = 45 I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene pool before they breed. I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made 60). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote: http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo... No, he made the correct decision, statistically. why do you think that ? 60-15 = 45 I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene pool before they breed. I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made 60). exactly why he should have mown down the thick youngster before he could breed more morons. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
On 13 June, 17:38, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Squashme wrote: On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote: http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo... No, he made the correct decision, statistically. why do you think that ? 60-15 = 45 I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene pool before they breed. I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made 60). exactly why he should have mown down the thick youngster before he could breed more morons. I see. So the dangerous (and probably tired) overtaker who got himself killed was not a moron, but the teenager who cycled without a rearlight and survived was a moron? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo... He should have mown the unfit cyclist down? That could be Darwinism. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Children and adult mown down by car - no helmets | bod43 | UK | 19 | September 28th 09 04:25 PM |
Top gear - cycles mown down by motorists | bod43 | UK | 52 | July 9th 09 11:59 AM |
suitable lights for unlit variable quality country roads | Adam Lea[_2_] | UK | 22 | September 30th 07 08:05 AM |
Unlit cyclists | Paul Boyd | UK | 8 | October 24th 06 04:05 PM |
Safety - Unlit versus Lit roads | Drinky | UK | 22 | October 10th 03 08:42 AM |