dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

On May 29, 6:34*pm, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that
if
the cyclist had not pulled out in front of the bus, it may not have
needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that cyclist generally like someone to blame and
this view
may be unpopular.

More care save lives.

On May 29, 6:34*pm, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.

On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 6:34*pm, "mileburner" wrote:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.

Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice.

On May 29, 10:17*pm, Squashme wrote:
On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:





On May 29, 6:34*pm, "mileburner" wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.

Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice

That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result in
fatalities?

On 29 May, 22:24, FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 10:17*pm, Squashme wrote:



On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:

On May 29, 6:34*pm, "mileburner" wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.

Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice

That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result in
fatalities?

Well, if that were so, Mrcheerful wouldn't have titled this discussion
"dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP", now would he?

FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 6:34 pm, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have
needed to brake so hard, and therefore the poor person may still be
alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and
this view may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.

This might help:

I would like to point out that ***if*** the bus was not travelling quite so
fast, it ***may*** not have needed to brake so hard, and therefore the poor
person ***may*** still be alive.

Sometimes it is easier to read what you wnt to read. I hope this clears up
your misunderstanding.

Note: Busses are normally driven too fast in busy areas. Bus drivers
normally have little respect and regard for anyone else.

On 29 May, 18:34, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

Let me get this straight. A vulnerable road user is blamed for the
death of a vulnerable victim so that the killer driver is absolved
from blame twice over? I wonder if this could also happen with a trio,
or more, of vulnerable road users/victims and one killer driver?
Difficult to envisage but maybe someone can come up with a likely
scenario.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On 29 May, 18:34, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm

With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out
that if the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have
needed to brake so hard, and therefore the poor person may still be
alive.

I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and
this view may be unpopular.

Lower speed limits save lives.

And many bus drivers DLCs

Let me get this straight. A vulnerable road user is blamed for the
death of a vulnerable victim so that the killer driver is absolved
from blame twice over? I wonder if this could also happen with a trio,
or more, of vulnerable road users/victims and one killer driver?
Difficult to envisage but maybe someone can come up with a likely
scenario.

What you observe is that those most likely to be guilty, are the ones most
in need of somone else to blame.

I am sure as time goes by the poor woman who died will be blamed as well
"she should not have been standing" or whatever reason fits.