Woman on crossing mown down by cylist

On 09/01/2013 21:09, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:54, JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:

A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury
after a
cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
morning (Tuesday 8 January).

I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2...-cyclist/18760



You obviously thought wrong.

If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.

Where? on the Interweb?

Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
uk.rec.cycling.

Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.

P L E A S E . . . The claim that cyclists CANNOT hurt pedestrians is
absurd. The only time I have EVER seen this assertion is from Mr
Cheerful and anything said by him has to be taken with a lorra lorra salt.

The claim has been made many times here.



--
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, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On 10/01/2013 08:29, PhilO wrote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:54:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.

Unless "abound" equals "Doug used to say" I think I might like to challenge that.
Is this going to be another one of those threads where people claim "it's been said lots here" but are unable to cite any examples?


I cited several - and you went strangely quiet....

--
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, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On 10/01/2013 17:41, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 09/01/2013 21:09, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:54, JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:

A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury
after a
cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton
yesterday
morning (Tuesday 8 January).

I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to
pedestrians?
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2...-cyclist/18760




You obviously thought wrong.

If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.

Where? on the Interweb?

Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
uk.rec.cycling.

Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.

P L E A S E . . . The claim that cyclists CANNOT hurt pedestrians is
absurd. The only time I have EVER seen this assertion is from Mr
Cheerful and anything said by him has to be taken with a lorra lorra
salt.

The claim has been made many times here.


Really?

I would be surprised if this type of comment was made by anyone who
knows anything about cycling. Pedestrians can be fragile, especially the
elderly, and while you could knock over a child or young person and
probably not do much damage to them you have to accept that if you do
collide with someone they might be seriously hurt or worse, and that you
will be to blame.

"PhilO" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:48:19 AM UTC, Partac wrote:


When you last claimed this, Dave actually went back through the archives
and
proved you wrong.
Are you banking on him not being arsed to do the same again?

I think you'll find your memory is at fault here.
Dave never goes back through any archives.
Do you want to check and try again?

Nothing wrong with my memory, but you appear to be suffering from selective
Alzheimer's.
Just to help you try to remember - it was the last comment you made before
you buggered off with your tail between your legs, and laid low for a while.
Remember now? You made similar claims but Dave posted a number of posts as
evidence that proved you wrong.

On 10/01/2013 08:48, Partac wrote:


"PhilO" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:54:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.

Unless "abound" equals "Doug used to say" I think I might like to
challenge that.
Is this going to be another one of those threads where people claim
"it's been said lots here" but are unable to cite any examples?

When you last claimed this, Dave actually went back through the archives
and proved you wrong.
Are you banking on him not being arsed to do the same again?

Contact me off group Mr Partac, I have more news for you :-)


--
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, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:12:19 -0000, Partac wrote:



"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message newsp.wqn0bh14ytk5n5@i7-940...

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:54:30 -0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon enables wrote:
On 09/01/2013 16:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
morning (Tuesday 8 January).

I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2...-cyclist/18760




You obviously thought wrong.

There is a very well thought comment on that site which states:

“Terrible for both people involved. But before anyone jumps to
conclusions and starts ranting, please note there is no statement either
way as to who was ‘in the wrong’ here. The cyclist might have failed to
stop, or the pedestrian might have walked out in front of him without
looking / giving him time to stop.�

Many cyclists jump red lights and many pedestrians walk into the road
into cyclists without looking.

All irrelevant. A cyclist approaching a pelican crossing should use
anticipation & observation and travel at a suitable speed that would
enable him to stop.

Have you never seen those crazy pedestrians that just walk across zebras
without looking?

Have you ever seen those crazy psycholists who ride across zebra crossings
without caring?

If the pedestrian waits until they can see all vehicles are stopping, then they won't get hit. It takes two to cause a collision.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A lawyer is an expert on justice in much the same way your average hooker is an expert on love.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:14:46 -0000, Partac wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message newsp.wqn0d3yyytk5n5@i7-940...

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:09:11 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 09/01/2013 20:54, JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2013 20:47, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 09/01/2013 18:42, JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2013 16:46, Simon Weissel wrote:


snip

snip



If he thought wrong, that will be because he was told wrong - here.

Where? on the Interweb?

Not on the world wide web, on the internet. Strictly: on usent, in
uk.rec.cycling.

Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.

P L E A S E . . . The claim that cyclists CANNOT hurt pedestrians is
absurd. The only time I have EVER seen this assertion is from Mr
Cheerful and anything said by him has to be taken with a lorra lorra salt.

.........You're not quite smart enough to recognise sarcasm when it hits you
in the face, then?..............

I didn't write that.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Doctor: "Ask the accident victim his name so we can notify his family."
Nurse: "I did! He said his family already knows his name."

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:17:08 -0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 09/01/2013 22:22, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:48:29 -0000, Simon Weissel
wrote:

On 09/01/2013 17:52, thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 9, 4:14 pm, wrote:
A 47-year-old woman is being treated for a serious head injury after a
cyclist collided with her on a pelican crossing in Brighton yesterday
morning (Tuesday 8 January).

I thought cyclists could not cause significant injury to pedestrians?

http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2...n-suffers-seri...


was she wearing a helmet?

No, she was selfishly walking across the road with no protection
whatsoever.

Why? Everyone seems to assume cyclists should wear them. Why not
pedestrians? They get involved in accidents too.

Pedestrians already have seat belts & air bags, idiot.

I've never seen a pedestrian with either of those.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I learnt so much from my mistakes I think I'll make another.

On 10/01/2013 08:29, PhilO wrote:

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:54:37 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Claims that cyclists cannot hurt pedestrians abound here.

Unless "abound" equals "Doug used to say" I think I might like to challenge that.
Is this going to be another one of those threads where people claim "it's been said lots here" but are unable to cite any examples?

Challenge it all you like.

The majority of people here know the truth of the matter.

On 10/01/2013 09:18, PhilO wrote:

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:48:19 AM UTC, Partac wrote:

When you last claimed this, Dave actually went back through the archives and
proved you wrong.
Are you banking on him not being arsed to do the same again?

I think you'll find your memory is at fault here.
Dave never goes back through any archives.

He did exactly that about two weeks ago, in direct response to the last
of your "challenges".

Do you want to check and try again?

It is your good self who needs to do that.