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

Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame the car



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 7th 19, 09:04 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,696
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar

On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote:
Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver
got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer
insurance.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html

When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow
oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the
driver failed to do that.

He should have stopped.

It does not alter fault.

The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along
the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More to
the point, I would have been looking where I was going and would
have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous situation.

I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you would
have stopped, as the case may be).

I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances.

The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of
stopping?

He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary.

He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it.


You still haven't looked at the video.


I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean).


You show no sign of doing so.

Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the
most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is.
Quite unbelievable.
I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone
sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the
circumstances.

Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video.


There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at
contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane.

He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to mantain
speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle waiting in
the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving vehicle in his
path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation).

Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?).


I'm not wrong about you.

Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did?
If you say "Yes", I won't believe you.


When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and
are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity.

On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your
pipe and smoke it.

I wasn't there.


So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car.


No. Which does not contradict the above.

Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner without
getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes.


If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe
properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into
him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on
impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero
velocity in his original direction of travel.

Ads
  #12  
Old July 7th 19, 09:18 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,383
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame the car

TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote:
Compo seeking cyclist foiled by dashcam. I hope the driver
got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer
insurance.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html

When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow
oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the
driver failed to do that.

He should have stopped.

It does not alter fault.

The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along
the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More
to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and
would have slowed considerably for such a potentially
hazardous situation. I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't
agree that you
would have stopped, as the case may be).

I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the
circumstances.

The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of
stopping?

He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary.

He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into
it.


You still haven't looked at the video.


I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean).


You show no sign of doing so.

Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the
most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is.
Quite unbelievable.
I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone
sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the
circumstances.

Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video.


There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at
contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane.

He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to
mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle
waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving
vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane
recoomendation).
Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?).

I'm not wrong about you.

Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist
did? If you say "Yes", I won't believe you.


When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot
and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity.

On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your
pipe and smoke it.

I wasn't there.


So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car.


No. Which does not contradict the above.

Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner
without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes.


If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe
properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into
him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on
impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero
velocity in his original direction of travel.


If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be
the first.
You are a boring ****.


  #13  
Old July 7th 19, 11:30 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,696
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar

On 07/07/2019 21:18, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be
the first.
You are a boring ****.


Thank goodness for that. I would hate to write something that interests you.
  #14  
Old July 8th 19, 09:15 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,230
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar

On 7. 7. 2019 22:18, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote:
Compo seeking cyclist foiled by dashcam. I hope the driver
got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer
insurance.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html

When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow
oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the
driver failed to do that.

He should have stopped.

It does not alter fault.

The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along
the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More
to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and
would have slowed considerably for such a potentially
hazardous situation. I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't
agree that you
would have stopped, as the case may be).

I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the
circumstances.

The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of
stopping?

He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary.

He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into
it.

You still haven't looked at the video.

I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean).


You show no sign of doing so.

Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the
most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is.
Quite unbelievable.
I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone
sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the
circumstances.

Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video.

There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at
contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane.

He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to
mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle
waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving
vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane
recoomendation).
Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?).

I'm not wrong about you.

Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist
did? If you say "Yes", I won't believe you.


When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot
and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity.

On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your
pipe and smoke it.

I wasn't there.

So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car.


No. Which does not contradict the above.

Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner
without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes.


If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe
properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into
him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on
impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero
velocity in his original direction of travel.


If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be
the first.
You are a boring ****.


Thanks greatly for the compliment.
  #15  
Old July 8th 19, 09:17 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,230
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar

On 8. 7. 2019 0:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/07/2019 21:18, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be
the first.
You are a boring ****.


Thank goodness for that. I would hate to write something that interests
you.


Nothing interests him except exterminating bicyclists.
Genocide is a crime.
  #16  
Old July 8th 19, 09:13 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame the car

On Sun, 07 Jul 2019 20:18:39 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote:

[]

If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to
be the first.
You are a boring ****.


Have you "walked" your "doggie" yet? Saddo.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
  #17  
Old July 9th 19, 12:04 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar

On 07/07/2019 21:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote:
Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver
got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer
insurance.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html


When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow
oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the
driver failed to do that.

He should have stopped.

It does not alter fault.

The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along
the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More
to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and
would have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous
situation.

I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you
would have stopped, as the case may be).

I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances.

The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of
stopping?

He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary.

He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it.


You still haven't looked at the video.


I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean).


You show no sign of doing so.

Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the
most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is.
Quite unbelievable.
I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone
sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the
circumstances.

Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video.


There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at
contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane.

He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to
mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle
waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving
vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation).

Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?).

I'm not wrong about you.

Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did?
If you say "Yes", I won't believe you.


When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and
are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity.


But you would have carried on at speed right into the middle of that
hazardous situation and would have regarded it as the "best thing to do".

Do you really think anyone believes you?

On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your
pipe and smoke it.


You're fibbing. It's transparently obvious. And what for? It doesn't
make you look big or clever.

I wasn't there.


So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car.


No. Which does not contradict the above.


If you had done what the cyclists did ("the best thing to do in the
circumstances" was your appraisal of it), how would the outcome have
been different?

Force of personality? A protective Kryptonian aura?

Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner
without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes.


If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe
properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into
him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on
impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero
velocity in his original direction of travel.


That makes not the slightest difference. The best thing to do in the
circumstances was to slow down and perhaps even stop (shock! horror!).

People sometimes make mistakes. When they do, the "best thing to do in
the circumstances" is to make allowance for the changed circumstances -
and play it safe.
  #18  
Old July 9th 19, 09:06 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,696
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar

On 09/07/2019 00:04, JNugent wrote:
On 07/07/2019 21:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote:
Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver
got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer
insurance.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html



When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow
oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the
driver failed to do that.

He should have stopped.

It does not alter fault.

The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along
the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More
to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and
would have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous
situation.

I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you
would have stopped, as the case may be).

I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the
circumstances.

The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of
stopping?

He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary.

He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it.

You still haven't looked at the video.

I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean).


You show no sign of doing so.

Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the
most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is.
Quite unbelievable.
I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone
sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the
circumstances.

Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video.

There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at
contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane.

He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to
mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle
waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving
vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation).

Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?).

I'm not wrong about you.

Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did?
If you say "Yes", I won't believe you.


When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot
and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity.


But you would have carried on at speed right into the middle of that
hazardous situation and would have regarded it as the "best thing to do".

Do you really think anyone believes you?

On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your
pipe and smoke it.


You're fibbing. It's transparently obvious. And what for? It doesn't
make you look big or clever.


I don't want to crash, not look big or clever.
I wasn't there.

So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car.


No. Which does not contradict the above.


If you had done what the cyclists did ("the best thing to do in the
circumstances" was your appraisal of it), how would the outcome have
been different?

Force of personality? A protective Kryptonian aura?

Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner
without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes.


If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe
properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into
him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on
impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero
velocity in his original direction of travel.


That makes not the slightest difference. The best thing to do in the
circumstances was to slow down and perhaps even stop (shock! horror!).

People sometimes make mistakes. When they do, the "best thing to do in
the circumstances" is to make allowance for the changed circumstances -
and play it safe.


It depends on how much time there is for the changed circumstances,
doesn't it? Since you don't have a clue you wouldn't know.
  #19  
Old July 9th 19, 11:44 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame the car

On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 08:06:14 GMT, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/07/2019 00:04, JNugent wrote:
On 07/07/2019 21:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote:


Snip a bit, please chaps!


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
  #20  
Old July 9th 19, 04:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar

On 09/07/2019 09:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/07/2019 00:04, JNugent wrote:
On 07/07/2019 21:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote:
Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver
got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer
insurance.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html




When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow
oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the
driver failed to do that.

He should have stopped.

It does not alter fault.

The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along
the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More
to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and
would have slowed considerably for such a potentially
hazardous situation.

I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you
would have stopped, as the case may be).

I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the
circumstances.

The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of
stopping?

He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary.

He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it.

You still haven't looked at the video.

I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean).

You show no sign of doing so.

Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have
the most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is.
Quite unbelievable.
I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone
sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the
circumstances.

Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video.

There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at
contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane.

He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to
mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle
waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving
vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation).

Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?).

I'm not wrong about you.

Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist
did?
If you say "Yes", I won't believe you.

When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot
and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity.


But you would have carried on at speed right into the middle of that
hazardous situation and would have regarded it as the "best thing to do".

Do you really think anyone believes you?

On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up
your pipe and smoke it.


You're fibbing. It's transparently obvious. And what for? It doesn't
make you look big or clever.


I don't want to crash, not look big or clever.


That's not clear at all. You said the cyclist did the best thing he
could in the circumstances, That can only mean that you can't think of
anything better that he could have done (like slow down, or stop,
thereby avoiding the collision).

If you can't think of that as a solution "in the circumstances", it
stands to reason that you would have done the same as he did, thinking
that it is big and clever to do so.

I wasn't there.

So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car.

No. Which does not contradict the above.


If you had done what the cyclists did ("the best thing to do in the
circumstances" was your appraisal of it), how would the outcome have
been different?

Force of personality? A protective Kryptonian aura?


No response.

Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner
without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes.

If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe
properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into
him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on
impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near
zero velocity in his original direction of travel.


That makes not the slightest difference. The best thing to do in the
circumstances was to slow down and perhaps even stop (shock! horror!).

People sometimes make mistakes. When they do, the "best thing to do in
the circumstances" is to make allowance for the changed circumstances
- and play it safe.


It depends on how much time there is for the changed circumstances,
doesn't it? Since you don't have a clue you wouldn't know.


You're getting sillier with every post. And more erratic.

Here's a tip: when heading towards a dangerous developing situation,
don't hesitate - just STOP. Do not, for any reason (least of all the fit
of pique you'd no doubt be suffering from), let anything divert you from
the safe thing to do.

THAT is the best thing to do in the circumstances, every time.

 




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
Mountain biker rides into barbed wire deliberately left on bike trail Bod[_5_] UK 1 September 25th 17 12:30 PM
Driver deliberately turns into cyclist and causing cyclist to crash Bod[_5_] UK 6 October 27th 15 04:26 PM
Cyclist deliberately maims drunk pedestrian Mrcheerful UK 12 July 7th 15 09:23 AM
Car deliberately rams cyclist Tarcap UK 0 October 11th 13 05:40 PM
cyclist deliberately rides into the side of a car Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 16 March 7th 12 10:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.