Cyclist with no lights or reflectors killed

On Saturday, 10 August 2013 11:25:34 UTC+1, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666



Ah, the slaying of a man brushed to the side!

This is slaughter and this rotten parlia-ment has you under-standing that's all fine and dandy because they say so?

It's wrong and all those who side with Crown, their Court and their Palia-ment can go to hell.

Either the man behind the wheel was driving too fast to stop within the distance he could see to be clear, in which case he is guilty of a manslaughter by negligence or the collision was intentional and the action was certainly murder.

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, 10 August 2013 11:25:34 UTC+1, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666



Ah, the slaying of a man brushed to the side!

This is slaughter and this rotten parlia-ment has you under-standing that's
all fine and dandy because they say so?

It's wrong and all those who side with Crown, their Court and their
Palia-ment can go to hell.

Either the man behind the wheel was driving too fast to stop within the
distance he could see to be clear, in which case he is guilty of a
manslaughter by negligence or the collision was intentional and the action
was certainly murder.

And where exactly did you crash land your flying saucer?

On 10/08/2013 19:12, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:50:02 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 10/08/2013 11:25, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not it was dark at the time.
Do you have to celebrate every cyclist that gets killed?


I'm sorry - what on earth do you mean "celebrate"? Which particular words have
I used which lead to that conclusion?

The thread title above and several previous posts of yours here like
your recent distasteful "cyclist killed = good result for motorist".

Do you know what time this accident happened? Around local sunset!!!! It
was still plenty light enough. I would have a lot more sympathy for the
driver if it was pitch black and the cyclist had no reflectors or
lights. It is a stupid to cycle without lights or reflectors but I don't
believe it makes any difference if the driver isn't looking.

It appears to have been a failure in police evidence about the weather
conditions and road situation at the time of the crash that allowed this
"I can eat and drive pillock to get off the more serious charge".

http://road.cc/content/news/90037-dr...driving-guilty

The guy was eating and *NOT* paying attention to the road ahead and
should undoubtedly have been convicted of *DANGEROUS* driving.

Their verdict probably says more about the tendency of jurors to do
equally stupid things when they are driving than anything else.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:11:59 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

snip


Their verdict probably says more about the tendency of jurors to do
equally stupid things when they are driving than anything else.


Have you raised your complaint with the police yet about them not considering
all the evidence. May I suggest the IPCC.

One of the regular readers here : Anchor Lee - is a Barista - he may be able to
help you.

"The pedals were not fitted with amber reflectors as legally required after
sunset."

The scoff-law cyclist probably contributed to his own demise.


(Why not argue that it was somewhere between 5 minutes before sunset and 5
minutes after - and hence the cyclist may have not needed reflectors or lights.
Oh - I see that your colleagues in your linked article are already doing that)



PS I am a cyclist: I have never celebrated the death of anyone (except
Thatcher); I certainly don't mind pointing out when cyclists may have made
mistakes/legal errors.

One of the regular readers here : Anchor Lee - is a Barista - he may be able to
help you.

Not unless you want a cup of coffee!!!

Jeff

On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:11:53 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:



"The pedals were not fitted with amber reflectors as legally required after

sunset."



The scoff-law cyclist probably contributed to his own demise.


Or probably not:

"But police vehicle examiner Phil Balderstone said the bike’s light had probably been on at the time of the crash but was faulty because it had been damaged. He could not be sure if the damage was caused before or after the crash."


A father, a firefighter, a respected member of the community,

It was the driver who was found guilty, not the cyclist, who was killed by the drivers lack of attention.

--
Dan

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:46:28 +0100, Jeff wrote:


One of the regular readers here : Anchor Lee - is a Barista - he may be able to
help you.

Not unless you want a cup of coffee!!!

Jeff


Indeed - many say that that is all he is capable of: he certainly has some odd
views on the laws of the land:


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precedent is that if you /can/ ride a
bike, you aren't drunk enough for it to be illegal.

If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones, you must
have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway.

If you claim to be held up by a cyclist, you are admitting to dangerous
driving, since the only way you could be held up is if your intention was to
pass dangerously close.

Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under the
heading of "causing an obstruction",
and should be investigated by the police as such.

If Traffic Lights are not working, then you can telephone the police for
permission to proceed.
If this is not forthcoming, then you can reports it as "unlawful detention".

The police have clearly not been persuaded by the Law Lords, and still
try to treat the procession as unlawful. In this they are now equally
clearly in contempt of court.

It could usefilly sic be pointed out to motorists that if they are within
range of a swung D lock, they are too close, and could be held liable
for any collision (including with the D lock).

If you are watching your kids in the rear view mirror, you are not
driving safely or legally.

I would find it very hard to condemn anyone who beat the van driver
into permanent inability to drive

I hope he hits you next, then we can all have a good laugh.
With any luck, you will be a dribbling vegetable in permanent pain
afterwards, but will continue your sad existence for many painful
decades.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some responsibility must also lie with TfL, who were warned about how
dangerous the junction layout was for cyclists (just as with the Bow
Roundabout, and Kings Cross Gyratory), but chose to ignore the
warnings and let cyclists die instead.

Corporate Manslaughter charges are well overdue for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking on the increase of cyclist KSIs in 2012:

So it's probably due to politically motivated neglect of duty on the
part of the police and CPS. By apparently directing this neglect, Hammond
Transport Minister
should be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, along with
all the senior
police officers who colluded in allowing the carnage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop lines at traffic lights:
If you can find a gap in the stop line, it's legal to continue through
it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the *******s won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.

---------------------------------------------------------
Traffic with an absolute right of way should not be inconvenienced by having to
divert through complicated multi-stage crossings in out-of-the-way places, just
to benefit permissive use by motor-terrorists.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 05:20:23 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:11:53 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:



"The pedals were not fitted with amber reflectors as legally required after

sunset."



The scoff-law cyclist probably contributed to his own demise.


Or probably not:

"But police vehicle examiner Phil Balderstone said the bike’s light had probably been on at the time of the crash but was faulty because it had been damaged. He could not be sure if the damage was caused before or after the crash."


A father, a firefighter, a respected member of the community,


I'm sorry - is that relevant?

The lights were "probably on" - there must there be a good chance that they
were "probably not on" then.

On 12/08/2013 15:41, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:46:28 +0100, Jeff wrote:


One of the regular readers here : Anchor Lee - is a Barista - he may be able to
help you.

Not unless you want a cup of coffee!!!

Jeff


Indeed - many say that that is all he is capable of: he certainly has some odd
views on the laws of the land:

But if he is a 'Barista' then making coffee is his trade not the law!!

Jeff

On Monday, August 12, 2013 3:44:46 PM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 05:20:23 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:11:53 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:







"The pedals were not fitted with amber reflectors as legally required after



sunset."







The scoff-law' cyclist probably contributed to his own demise.





Or probably not:



"But police vehicle examiner Phil Balderstone said the bike’s light had probably been on at the time of the crash but was faulty because it had been damaged. He could not be sure if the damage was caused before or after the crash."





A father, a firefighter, a respected member of the community,





I'm sorry - is that relevant?


Yes, it is relevant. You're the one claiming he is a 'scoff-law cyclist'.


The lights were "probably on" - there must there be a good chance that they

were "probably not on" then.

No. If a police vehicle examiner offers an opinion in a court of law, he will almost certainly have data to back that up.

--
Dan