A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old May 31st 10, 10:05 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr. Benn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

"mileburner" wrote in message
...

"Alex Potter" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:39:24 +0100, Mr. Benn wrote:

I don't understand the term POB either and it would be useful if you
could explain.


It's elitist crap.


Pretty much so.

I despise it, personally.


Please can you stop using it. Or if you do use it, please explain what it
means when asked. Thanks.


Ads
  #82  
Old May 31st 10, 10:55 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP


"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" wrote in message
...

"Alex Potter" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:39:24 +0100, Mr. Benn wrote:

I don't understand the term POB either and it would be useful if you
could explain.

It's elitist crap.


Pretty much so.

I despise it, personally.


Please can you stop using it. Or if you do use it, please explain what it
means when asked. Thanks.


No and no :-)


  #83  
Old May 31st 10, 12:05 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
ash[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

On May 30, 7:57*pm, Doug wrote:
On 30 May, 18:51, Marie wrote:



On May 30, 4:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:


Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:


Doug wrote:
On 30 May, 09:27, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
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.


There are many people to blame he from the road engineer to the
bus designer, through the old lady, via the bus driver. BUT if the
cyclist had not done some rather silly the effect would be that the
old ladies would still be ok. So the root cause of the incident is
still the cyclist, no matter how much you wriggle and whine.


Go read the Highway Code before posting more of your nonsense.


"126
Stopping Distances


Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear."


I suppose the next excuse used by the motorists here is that the bus
driver didn't see the cyclist and so cannot be to blame. In that
case maybe they should be using blind bus drivers just to be on the
safe side regarding blame.


There will always be scenarios where some prat comes out from behind
something or wanders across in front causing the driver or rider to
take avoiding action. *I am sure it has happened to every driver at
some time, including Doug. *There is no speed low enough to allow
for every possibility. *The accident under discussion may well have
occurred at walking pace, but would not have happened but for the
stupid action of the cyclist who I believe has still not come
forward despite appeals.


What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.


Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own vehicle
are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was going too
fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.


have you seen the picture of the incident? *the cycle is at 90 degrees to
the bus and just a few feet in front.


I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.


If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.


Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'


Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.


Firstly it was no euphemistic accident and secondly cyclists are much
less dangerous than drivers. Indeed, cyclists are vulnerable road
users who are much more likely to be killed than kill.

Considerable latitude is given to drivers who place others at serious
risk with their dangerous machines but reading this newsgroup would
make lurkers think that cyclists are the most dangerous of all road
users, despite their vulnerability.

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


If your actions as a road user cause someone else to take evasive
action which causes injury or death to others, then you are the most
dangerous user and ultimately are to blame. The biggest problem with
the majority of cyclists is that you think you are able to behave as
if on foot - this is clearly wrong!

If the majority act irresponsibly in the group, don't be surprised if
the entire group end up being tarred with the same brush - thanks a
bunch ya loser !
  #84  
Old June 1st 10, 07:29 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

On 31 May, 12:05, ash wrote:
On May 30, 7:57*pm, Doug wrote:



On 30 May, 18:51, Marie wrote:


On May 30, 4:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:


Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:


Doug wrote:
On 30 May, 09:27, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
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.


There are many people to blame he from the road engineer to the
bus designer, through the old lady, via the bus driver. BUT if the
cyclist had not done some rather silly the effect would be that the
old ladies would still be ok. So the root cause of the incident is
still the cyclist, no matter how much you wriggle and whine.


Go read the Highway Code before posting more of your nonsense.


"126
Stopping Distances


Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear."


I suppose the next excuse used by the motorists here is that the bus
driver didn't see the cyclist and so cannot be to blame. In that
case maybe they should be using blind bus drivers just to be on the
safe side regarding blame.


There will always be scenarios where some prat comes out from behind
something or wanders across in front causing the driver or rider to
take avoiding action. *I am sure it has happened to every driver at
some time, including Doug. *There is no speed low enough to allow
for every possibility. *The accident under discussion may well have
occurred at walking pace, but would not have happened but for the
stupid action of the cyclist who I believe has still not come
forward despite appeals.


What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.


Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own vehicle
are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was going too
fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.


have you seen the picture of the incident? *the cycle is at 90 degrees to
the bus and just a few feet in front.


I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.


If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.


Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'


Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.


Firstly it was no euphemistic accident and secondly cyclists are much
less dangerous than drivers. Indeed, cyclists are vulnerable road
users who are much more likely to be killed than kill.


Considerable latitude is given to drivers who place others at serious
risk with their dangerous machines but reading this newsgroup would
make lurkers think that cyclists are the most dangerous of all road
users, despite their vulnerability.


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


If your actions as a road user cause someone else to take evasive
action which causes injury or death to others, then you are the most
dangerous user and ultimately are to blame.

No the death or injury is caused by a driver not taking appropriate
action. There can be many reasons for a driver to brake suddenly and
all of them are potentially unsafe. The vehicle needs to be under safe
control at all times. And in this particular case, a bus driver should
drive in such a manner so as not to cause harm to his passengers.

The biggest problem with
the majority of cyclists is that you think you are able to behave as
if on foot - this is clearly wrong!

Well we are often instructed to dismount and be pedestrians, so it
probably becomes second nature. Cyclists seem to fall into a vague
area somewhere between pedestrian and vehicle and the fact that they
don't have to pay VED suggest they are more of the former than the
latter.

If the majority act irresponsibly in the group, don't be surprised if
the entire group end up being tarred with the same brush - thanks a
bunch ya loser !

You mean like the majority of motorists who ignore speed limits and
consequently they are all tarred?

I suggest that most of the law is unsuited to cyclists and is aimed
mainly at drivers so cyclists often have to disobey the law in the
interests of their own safety. The classic example is red lights.,
where the way ahead is seen to be completely clear of traffic so it is
safer for the cyclist to proceed rather than mingle with heavy traffic
when the lights change. It is also safer for timid cyclists to ride on
pavements because they perceive roads are made very dangerous for them
by drivers. Personally though I do not agree with either riding or
driving/parking on pavements. It would be much better to make roads
safer for vulnerable road users instead.

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



  #85  
Old June 1st 10, 09:00 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Derek C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,431
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

On Jun 1, 7:29*am, Doug wrote:

I suggest that most of the law is unsuited to cyclists and is aimed
mainly at drivers so cyclists often have to disobey the law in the
interests of their own safety. The classic example is red lights.,
where the way ahead is seen to be completely clear of traffic so it is
safer for the cyclist to proceed rather than mingle with heavy traffic
when the lights change. It is also safer for timid cyclists to ride on
pavements because they perceive roads are made very dangerous for them
by drivers. Personally though I do not agree with either riding or
driving/parking on pavements. It would be much better to make roads
safer for vulnerable road users instead.


5% of cyclists killed in the London area in 2008 had just jumped a red
traffic light. It may be alright for a timid cyclist to ride on the
pavement, but it is not alright for the pedestrians who are supposed
to have right of way there! There are no valid excuses for cyclists to
disobey the law!
  #86  
Old June 1st 10, 09:45 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
ash[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

On 1 June, 07:29, Doug wrote:
On 31 May, 12:05, ash wrote:



On May 30, 7:57*pm, Doug wrote:


On 30 May, 18:51, Marie wrote:


On May 30, 4:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:


Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 30 May 2010
10:39:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:


Doug wrote:
On 30 May, 09:27, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
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.


There are many people to blame he from the road engineer to the
bus designer, through the old lady, via the bus driver. BUT if the
cyclist had not done some rather silly the effect would be that the
old ladies would still be ok. So the root cause of the incident is
still the cyclist, no matter how much you wriggle and whine.


Go read the Highway Code before posting more of your nonsense..


"126
Stopping Distances


Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the
distance you can see to be clear."


I suppose the next excuse used by the motorists here is that the bus
driver didn't see the cyclist and so cannot be to blame. In that
case maybe they should be using blind bus drivers just to be on the
safe side regarding blame.


There will always be scenarios where some prat comes out from behind
something or wanders across in front causing the driver or rider to
take avoiding action. *I am sure it has happened to every driver at
some time, including Doug. *There is no speed low enough to allow
for every possibility. *The accident under discussion may well have
occurred at walking pace, but would not have happened but for the
stupid action of the cyclist who I believe has still not come
forward despite appeals.


What would be the point in him coming forward.
I think there is enough evidence to convict the bus driver of CDbCD
without his testimony, although if his driving behaviour is always
like that then CDbDD may be more appropriate.


Remember that in the eyes (and what they like to refer to as their
minds), most motorists will complain that cyclists "just pulled out"
whenever they go around a pothole, a parked car, or simply use the
amount of road that they are entitled to.
Normally they use this as attempted justification for killing and
injuring cyclists, and the only unusual aspect of this case is that
the driver is claiming that injuries that he caused in his own vehicle
are the fault of the cyclist, rather than admit that he was going too
fast of attempting to pass too close to the cyclist.
There is nothing whatever in this report to suggest that the cyclist
did anything wrong at all.
There seems to be adequate evidence that the bus driver was not
operating his vehicle safely, particularly in the presence of
vulnerable road users.


have you seen the picture of the incident? *the cycle is at 90 degrees to
the bus and just a few feet in front.


I have never seen so much wriggleing in my life.


If a motorist make a sudden manouver that causes a cyclist to take
avoiding action, the wrath of the 'real cyclists' drop on him from on
high, "he should have checked for other trafic", "he was driving to
fast". "he was not paying attention".
But even sugust that a cyclist did the same thing & the idiots crawl
out of the woodwork "he was not a real cyclist", "the bus driver was
at fault", " the picture is wrong", "the moon was causing an abnormal
gravity effect"
What is it about the idiot 'real cyclist' that stops them admiting
that perhaps a cyclist caused an accident (note accident) that ended
in loss of life.
The bus driver has been acused of driving to fast & bits of the HC
quoted, but he did stop in time & did not hit the cyclist.


Apparantly the cyclist was not a 'real cyclist', in which case I would
sugust that accidents caused by motorists are not caused br 'real
drivers'


Why not just admit that a cyclist may have caused a leathal accident.

  #87  
Old June 1st 10, 10:25 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 802
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 01:00:33 -0700, Derek C wrote:

On Jun 1, 7:29Â*am, Doug wrote:

I suggest that most of the law is unsuited to cyclists and is aimed
mainly at drivers so cyclists often have to disobey the law in the
interests of their own safety. The classic example is red lights.,
where the way ahead is seen to be completely clear of traffic so it is
safer for the cyclist to proceed rather than mingle with heavy traffic
when the lights change. It is also safer for timid cyclists to ride on
pavements because they perceive roads are made very dangerous for them
by drivers. Personally though I do not agree with either riding or
driving/parking on pavements. It would be much better to make roads
safer for vulnerable road users instead.


5% of cyclists killed in the London area in 2008 had just jumped a red
traffic light. It may be alright for a timid cyclist to ride on the
pavement, but it is not alright for the pedestrians who are supposed to
have right of way there! There are no valid excuses for cyclists to
disobey the law!


This statistic means nothing on its own.
What percentage of bicyclists NOT killed in the London area in 2008 had
just jumped a red light?

Peter
  #88  
Old June 1st 10, 10:40 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Derek C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,431
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

On Jun 1, 10:25*am, Peter Keller wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 01:00:33 -0700, Derek C wrote:
On Jun 1, 7:29*am, Doug wrote:


I suggest that most of the law is unsuited to cyclists and is aimed
mainly at drivers so cyclists often have to disobey the law in the
interests of their own safety. The classic example is red lights.,
where the way ahead is seen to be completely clear of traffic so it is
safer for the cyclist to proceed rather than mingle with heavy traffic
when the lights change. It is also safer for timid cyclists to ride on
pavements because they perceive roads are made very dangerous for them
by drivers. Personally though I do not agree with either riding or
driving/parking on pavements. It would be much better to make roads
safer for vulnerable road users instead.


5% of cyclists killed in the London area in 2008 had just jumped a red
traffic light. It may be alright for a timid cyclist to ride on the
pavement, but it is not alright for the pedestrians who are supposed to
have right of way there! There are no valid excuses for cyclists to
disobey the law!


This statistic means nothing on its own.
What *percentage of bicyclists NOT killed in the London area in 2008 had
just jumped a red light?

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


A few weeks ago I stopped at a red traffic light in my car, and was
amazed to be passed on my near side by a very fast moving cyclist
wearing earphones, who didn't slow down a fraction, or even glance to
see, if it was safe to cross the junction. I can only assume that he
must have some sort of pact with God that he can't get killed.

I don't jump red lights when I am riding a bike, neither do I put
myself in positions where I can be wiped out if a vehicle turns left
at a junction. You can ride safely without breaking the law!

Derek C
  #89  
Old June 1st 10, 10:42 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Derek C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,431
Default dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP

On Jun 1, 10:25*am, Peter Keller wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 01:00:33 -0700, Derek C wrote:
On Jun 1, 7:29*am, Doug wrote:


I suggest that most of the law is unsuited to cyclists and is aimed
mainly at drivers so cyclists often have to disobey the law in the
interests of their own safety. The classic example is red lights.,
where the way ahead is seen to be completely clear of traffic so it is
safer for the cyclist to proceed rather than mingle with heavy traffic
when the lights change. It is also safer for timid cyclists to ride on
pavements because they perceive roads are made very dangerous for them
by drivers. Personally though I do not agree with either riding or
driving/parking on pavements. It would be much better to make roads
safer for vulnerable road users instead.


5% of cyclists killed in the London area in 2008 had just jumped a red
traffic light. It may be alright for a timid cyclist to ride on the
pavement, but it is not alright for the pedestrians who are supposed to
have right of way there! There are no valid excuses for cyclists to
disobey the law!


This statistic means nothing on its own.
What *percentage of bicyclists NOT killed in the London area in 2008 had
just jumped a red light?

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


A few weeks ago I stopped at a red traffic light in my car, and was
amazed to be passed on my near side by a very fast moving cyclist
wearing earphones, who didn't slow down a fraction, or even glance
sideways to see if it was safe to cross the junction. I can only
assume that he must have some sort of pact with God that he can't get
killed.

I don't jump red lights when I am riding a bike, neither do I put
myself in positions where I can be wiped out if a vehicle turns left
at a junction. You can ride safely without breaking the law!

Derek C
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which is more dangerous to a cyclist? Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ® General 12 December 3rd 07 05:10 AM
Cyclist on Cyclist violence leads to death of Portland man, 56 Paul Borg[_2_] General 2 September 6th 07 08:59 PM
Cyclist death in WA. Marty Australia 0 April 5th 05 06:50 AM
Walking is DANGEROUS! -- Third pedestrian death prompts serge Mountain Biking 0 February 9th 05 03:44 PM
Sunday Times: Death row: Britain's most dangerous road Sufaud UK 45 September 28th 04 09:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.