26mph through a red light and a pedestrian

'he was cycling without due care and attention when approaching pedestrian
crossing, by making no attempt to slow down, by failing to anticipate any
pedestrian could step out, by failing to keep a proper lookout and by giving
no consideration to the other road users.'

he denies careless cycling !

and he went over the handlebars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
'he was cycling without due care and attention when approaching pedestrian
crossing, by making no attempt to slow down, by failing to anticipate any
pedestrian could step out, by failing to keep a proper lookout and by
giving no consideration to the other road users.'

he denies careless cycling !

and he went over the handlebars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html

The fact that the cyclist denies cycling dangerously is beyond belief. What
planet is he from? The least he could do is to admit being wrong.

"John Benn" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
'he was cycling without due care and attention when approaching pedestrian
crossing, by making no attempt to slow down, by failing to anticipate any
pedestrian could step out, by failing to keep a proper lookout and by
giving no consideration to the other road users.'

he denies careless cycling !

and he went over the handlebars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html

The fact that the cyclist denies cycling dangerously is beyond belief. What
planet is he from? The least he could do is to admit being wrong.

Standard Operating Procedure for cyclists.

John Benn wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
'he was cycling without due care and attention when approaching
pedestrian crossing, by making no attempt to slow down, by failing
to anticipate any pedestrian could step out, by failing to keep a
proper lookout and by giving no consideration to the other road
users.' he denies careless cycling !

and he went over the handlebars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html

The fact that the cyclist denies cycling dangerously is beyond
belief. What planet is he from? The least he could do is to admit
being wrong.

I take it you don't read many psycholist replies?
I will re-iterate, it is never, ever, the cyclist's fault, not even when
they crash into an immobile object that has been there for years, so a
pedestrian on a crossing ? no chance of an admission of guilt, I am just
surprised that he did not cycle off, presumably the bicycle was damaged too
badly to make his get-away.

On 03/07/2012 09:16, Mrcheerful wrote:
John Benn wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
'he was cycling without due care and attention when approaching
pedestrian crossing, by making no attempt to slow down, by failing
to anticipate any pedestrian could step out, by failing to keep a
proper lookout and by giving no consideration to the other road
users.' he denies careless cycling !

and he went over the handlebars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html

The fact that the cyclist denies cycling dangerously is beyond
belief. What planet is he from? The least he could do is to admit
being wrong.

I take it you don't read many psycholist replies?
I will re-iterate, it is never, ever, the cyclist's fault, not even when
they crash into an immobile object that has been there for years, so a
pedestrian on a crossing ? no chance of an admission of guilt, I am just
surprised that he did not cycle off, presumably the bicycle was damaged too
badly to make his get-away.


And of course it is completely impossible for a cyclist to go over the
handlebars.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 03/07/2012 23:39, Phil W Lee wrote:
"John Benn" considered Tue, 3 Jul 2012
08:51:05 +0100 the perfect time to write:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
'he was cycling without due care and attention when approaching pedestrian
crossing, by making no attempt to slow down, by failing to anticipate any
pedestrian could step out, by failing to keep a proper lookout and by
giving no consideration to the other road users.'

he denies careless cycling !

and he went over the handlebars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html

The fact that the cyclist denies cycling dangerously is beyond belief. What
planet is he from? The least he could do is to admit being wrong.

I'd prefer to read a less sensationalised account, with slightly more
attention to facts and less to wild assertions.

You would prefer an account that absolved the cyclist from blame, never
mind the facts.

But of course, it does underline the need for pedestrians to be
properly protected with a walking helmet.

Pedestrians shouldn't need protection form cyclists. The cyclist road
scum should simply be banned.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 03/07/2012 23:39, Phil W Lee wrote:
"John Benn" considered Tue, 3 Jul 2012
08:51:05 +0100 the perfect time to write:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
'he was cycling without due care and attention when approaching pedestrian
crossing, by making no attempt to slow down, by failing to anticipate any
pedestrian could step out, by failing to keep a proper lookout and by
giving no consideration to the other road users.'

he denies careless cycling !

and he went over the handlebars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html

The fact that the cyclist denies cycling dangerously is beyond belief. What
planet is he from? The least he could do is to admit being wrong.

I'd prefer to read a less sensationalised account, with slightly more
attention to facts and less to wild assertions.

But of course, it does underline the need for pedestrians to be
properly protected with a walking helmet.

sigh

Reports from trials are *of necessity* simply reports of evidence given and
of points of view, rather than of undisputed fact. That's why we have trials
- because the facts of the case are disputed.

In most cases, with the not guilty plea that is an essential precursor to a
trial, dome of the evidence will be incorrect, either by reason of mistake or
misapprehension, or because it is lies.

At the end of this trial, those who read of the verdict will then know which
evidence was preferred by the court.

Why on Earth does this have to be explained to *you*, M'Lud?

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 11:56:28 PM UTC+1, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 03/07/2012 23:39, Phil W Lee wrote:
"John Benn" considered Tue, 3 Jul 2012
08:51:05 +0100 the perfect time to write:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
'he was cycling without due care and attention when approaching pedestrian
crossing, by making no attempt to slow down, by failing to anticipate any
pedestrian could step out, by failing to keep a proper lookout and by
giving no consideration to the other road users.'

he denies careless cycling !

and he went over the handlebars

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...urt-hears.html

The fact that the cyclist denies cycling dangerously is beyond belief. What
planet is he from? The least he could do is to admit being wrong.

I'd prefer to read a less sensationalised account, with slightly more
attention to facts and less to wild assertions.

You would prefer an account that absolved the cyclist from blame, never
mind the facts.

But of course, it does underline the need for pedestrians to be
properly protected with a walking helmet.

Pedestrians shouldn't need protection form cyclists. The cyclist road
scum should simply be banned.


So. Pedestrians shouldn't need protection from motorists. The motorist road scum should simply be banned.

After all:- "Deaths among pedestrians rose by 12 per cent to 453, including a 27 per cent increase in the number of child pedestrians killed last year."