|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |