"Car crashes through window of Middlesbrough house"

On Jun 2, 9:19*am, JNugent wrote:
On 02/06/2011 06:09, Doug wrote:

[ ... ]

As a frequent attender to Critical Mass I often see examples of a
tendency to use a car as a weapon, when a driver becomes frustrated or
irritated. It is all too easy for them to just put their foot down
when confronted by an obstruction.

Got any videos?

Only taken by his 'magic camera' which starts after any ' incident' or
stops just before the ''incident'

On 02/06/2011 06:09, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:33 pm, Simon wrote:
On May 31, 10:53 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:

On 31/05/2011 14:44, Simon Mason wrote:
...

"Mr Bury (defending) added: "Whilst the defendant was exceeding the
speed limit for a long period of time it is simply him driving fast.
This was a bad day for him."

Classic wriggle.

It does sound as though, after 22 offences, his defence is running out
of excuses.

Colin Bignell

Well, he was a saint compared to this driver who had 60!

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...iver-mowed-tri...

As a frequent attender to Critical Mass I often see examples of a
tendency to use a car as a weapon, when a driver becomes frustrated or
irritated.

Deliberately provoked you mean.

It is all too easy for them to just put their foot down
when confronted by an obstruction. Its a bit like carrying a gun which
is cocked and ready to use. Obviously some kind of forward pointing
radar, which applies brakes automatically in response to any
obstruction, should be obligatory on all cars, to increase road safety
and prevent deliberate ramming.

Exactly how common is this deliberate ramming then?

You no doubt have some figures?


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 02/06/2011 06:02, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:17 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 01/06/2011 06:51, Doug wrote:



On May 31, 10:02 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 31/05/2011 05:27, Doug wrote:

On May 30, 11:34 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 30/05/2011 07:08, Doug wrote:

On May 28, 3:57 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 28/05/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

...Though what they
could do in this case eludes me as even a helmet doesn't offer much
protection against a crashing car which is capable of smashing a wall....

Where, in the link you posted, does it mention smashing a wall? It only
says the car crashed into the window. As this is a straight road with
bay windows sticking out of the house front, over the pavement, it would
quite possible to hit the window without even touching the wall.

Which, it appears is exactly what happened - see link below.

The sum total of damage appearing to be the outer skin of the wall below
the window being knocked down and a radiator being dislodged inside.

In similar cases, where a car is allowed by the driver to leave the
road at speed,

Nothing in any report about this happening 'at speed'.

cross a pavement and front garden

No front garden here.

and crash into the
wall of a house,

The car didn't even touch the front wall of the house.

considerable damage may be caused to that wall

Very rarely if it is a car. More often if it is a lorry or bus.

and at
the same time endangering those inside the house or in the front
garden or on the pavement.

No garden, as I said, and Google Streeview shows the street as virtually
deserted.

This just happened to be a more minor example.

In fact, nothing like the picture you are trying to paint.

However, you do seem to have a soulmate in the reporter for this link:

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/te.../26/tot-s-esca...

who manages to get 'Tot's escape as car hits Middlesbrough home' out
of the fact that there was a child playing in a part of the house that
was not involved in or even threatened by the accident.

Are you seriously trying to deny that cars sometimes crash through
walls and endanger the lives of those inside?

No. I am saying this incident came nowhere near doing that and that the
reporter had to stretch the truth to breaking point to make a story.

The incident was yet another example which clearly shows the danger
posed from out-of-control cars crashing on pavements and hitting
houses.

Except that nobody outside the cars was actually in any danger.

Danger is quantitative.

So you claim that as long as you are not actually in the way of a
crashing car you are not in any danger at all on a pavement? How far
away do you have to be to qualify and what about flying debris etc? I
seem to remember posting an example where a pedestrian was actually
crushed against a wall by a crashing car.

The reality is that ALL pedestrians on pavements are in danger to some
extent.

How much danger SFB's?

Do you have any figures?



How does the frequency affect the seriousness of such a crash? It is
frequent enough for me to report such crashes surprisingly often on
these lists.

That would be because you are a fruit loop without a life.


They are not allowed on pavements, except where there is a marked
pavement parking bay and, possibly, to cross into or out of a driveway.

And that is where they ARE allowed on pavements and they shouldn't be.
It makes a joke of road safety.

How many people are KSI each year by cars crossing pavements then SFB's?

Any figures?


Unfortunately, mass car use has evolved slowly over time and thus
became almost imperceptibly incorporated into our infrastructure while
giving rise to dropped kerbs outside houses. A more sensible approach
would have been to have separate car parks, as now happens with new
estates or flats. This would also avoid free 24/7 street garaging,
which is a constant source of danger and obstruction.

Free? Don't forget Road Tax!

'Constant source of danger & obstruction'? Got any figures SFB's?



It is easy to see why mass car use has been allowed to dominate the
infrastructure at the expense of pedestrians, some of whom are
disabled or with prams, and of course cyclists.

They only people who complain are whinging cyclists & nobody cares about
them.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 02/06/2011 20:10, wrote:
On 02/06/2011 06:09, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:33 pm, Simon wrote:
On May 31, 10:53 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:

On 31/05/2011 14:44, Simon Mason wrote:
...

"Mr Bury (defending) added: "Whilst the defendant was exceeding the
speed limit for a long period of time it is simply him driving fast.
This was a bad day for him."

Classic wriggle.

It does sound as though, after 22 offences, his defence is running out
of excuses.

Colin Bignell

Well, he was a saint compared to this driver who had 60!

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...iver-mowed-tri...

As a frequent attender to Critical Mass I often see examples of a
tendency to use a car as a weapon, when a driver becomes frustrated or
irritated.

Deliberately provoked you mean.

It is all too easy for them to just put their foot down
when confronted by an obstruction. Its a bit like carrying a gun which
is cocked and ready to use. Obviously some kind of forward pointing
radar, which applies brakes automatically in response to any
obstruction, should be obligatory on all cars, to increase road safety
and prevent deliberate ramming.

Exactly how common is this deliberate ramming then?

You no doubt have some figures?



He has got pictures from his 'magic camera'