Kill in a park and avoid prison. - Page 5

"elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:656t21F2e85fcU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver obeying the 20mph limit ...
>in fact it looks distinctly odd.
>
>


My observation is different - the 20mph limit is observed by a reasonable
proportion of drivers - since I started road cycling round the park I have
found myself having to slow down frequently behind cars sticking to
20mph....errrrm ooops!

pk

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:33:56 -0000, "PK" <designer3579-news@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:656t21F2e85fcU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver obeying the 20mph limit ...
>>in fact it looks distinctly odd.
>>
>>
>
>
>My observation is different - the 20mph limit is observed by a reasonable
>proportion of drivers - since I started road cycling round the park I have
>found myself having to slow down frequently behind cars sticking to
>20mph....errrrm ooops!

Do you know that speed limits apply to cyclists in the Royal Parks?

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:29:32 -0000, "PK" <designer3579-news@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote
>
> > Certainly 20mph should be an
>> absolute limit in a park.
>
>
>
>for cyclists too?

Yes. I keep my speed down to 20mph on The Avenue. It is quite fast
enough. In October 2001 I crashed at 35mph on that very road. A
child lobbed a stick into a tree to gather conkers and ran into the
road without looking. I braked hard and swerved, either narrowly
missing the child or just catching him a glancing blow - with me
somehow remaining on the bike. My rear wheel was buckled beyond
repair.

I have advanced considerably in my standard of cycling since then.

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:1sgsu35putv5jqkf0tfdc5epis6cd543od@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:03:34 -0000, "elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I do agree that the park limits should be reduced, however this won't stop
>>people travelling at a speed they feel comfortable with. This is what
>>happens in Richmond Park, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver
>>obeying the 20mph limit ... in fact it looks distinctly odd.
>
> The one time I cycled in Richmond Park I was particularly impressed
> with the standard of driving.

Was that a weekend? Try it in the morning/evening "rush".

It's not terrible driving, but I find that pretty much no-one sticks to
20mph .... (a few people do "squeeze past" though). Weekend drivers tend to
stick to 20mph due to being held up by other drivers.

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:33:56 -0000, "PK" <designer3579-news@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:656t21F2e85fcU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>
> >>, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver obeying the 20mph limit ...
> >>in fact it looks distinctly odd.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >My observation is different - the 20mph limit is observed by a reasonable
> >proportion of drivers - since I started road cycling round the park I have
> >found myself having to slow down frequently behind cars sticking to
> >20mph....errrrm ooops!
>
> Do you know that speed limits apply to cyclists in the Royal Parks?

i'm guessing he does by PK's post.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:32:19 -0000, "elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>news:1sgsu35putv5jqkf0tfdc5epis6cd543od@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:03:34 -0000, "elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I do agree that the park limits should be reduced, however this won't stop
>>>people travelling at a speed they feel comfortable with. This is what
>>>happens in Richmond Park, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver
>>>obeying the 20mph limit ... in fact it looks distinctly odd.
>>
>> The one time I cycled in Richmond Park I was particularly impressed
>> with the standard of driving.
>
>Was that a weekend? Try it in the morning/evening "rush".
>
>It's not terrible driving, but I find that pretty much no-one sticks to
>20mph .... (a few people do "squeeze past" though). Weekend drivers tend to
>stick to 20mph due to being held up by other drivers.

'Twas a Sunday afternoon about five weeks ago.

Waterlink Way Lewisham to South Norwood.
Wandle Way to Wimbledon Common.
Richmond Park.
Return to Lewisham by the Thames Path.

JNugent writtificated

>> This 'moments inattention' lasted a long time.
>
> I assume that's the nearest you'll come to a retraction of "Being
> convicted for dangerous driving requires a certain amount of driving
> like a twat as well".

What's not twattish about not being able to see a person through the
windscreen of the car you're driving along a straight road, and to continue
not seeing that person as you drive into them and *still* to continue not
to see them as their body smashes the windscreen?

JNugent writtificated

>>>>> Providing better alternatives is always the
>>>>> best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly
>>>>> isn't anted.
>
>>>> ...is the wrong answer
>
>>> ...because of the obvious typo?
>
>> No.
>
>>> Or because you think that others shouldn't travel?
>
>> No.
>
> So how can providing better alternatives be the wrong answer?

Now it's no longer the 1960s traffic does not necessarily take precedence
over more important things. The best solution may even be more
inconvenient for the traffic.

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:hnaou39larmtp82ps138366ak5oahapndg@4ax.com...
>
> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>

Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip or
two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to become
cracks. That has happened to someone I know.

"Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:652aorF2eb4k8U1@mid.individual.net...
> He said the guy was hardly a reckless selfish twat, how does he know that?

His reaction to the consequences of what he had done make it likely that the
accident was due to an error of judgement rather than just driving like a
twat without care for possible consequences of his actions.

Adam Lea wrote:
> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
> news:hnaou39larmtp82ps138366ak5oahapndg@4ax.com...
>> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
>> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
>> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>>
>
> Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip or
> two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to become
> cracks. That has happened to someone I know.

Not really.

I've had several windscreens replaced over the last twenty-odd years,
and it was only the older, laminated(?) screens that used to shatter
into opaqueness. And they used to shatter the first time that sufficient
force was used - they didn't chip or "star" and then crack later as
modern ones do.

Modern screens (toughened rather than laminated) are *meant* to chip or
star rather than shatter. An impact severe enough to cause a bad chip or
crack would have shattered an older screen anyway. But modern ones don't
craze over as in days of yore.

Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?

elyob <newsprofile@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
> news:1sgsu35putv5jqkf0tfdc5epis6cd543od@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:03:34 -0000, "elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I do agree that the park limits should be reduced, however this won't stop
> >>people travelling at a speed they feel comfortable with. This is what
> >>happens in Richmond Park, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver
> >>obeying the 20mph limit ... in fact it looks distinctly odd.
> >
> > The one time I cycled in Richmond Park I was particularly impressed
> > with the standard of driving.
>
> Was that a weekend? Try it in the morning/evening "rush".
>
> It's not terrible driving, but I find that pretty much no-one sticks to
> 20mph .... (a few people do "squeeze past" though). Weekend drivers tend to
> stick to 20mph due to being held up by other drivers.

yes they are all of a hurry.

only bit i find i have to watch is coming up from ham gate and going on
rather than left, cars will try to come up on the right and turn left
cutting one up, or at least some will.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

JNugent wrote:

> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>> news:hnaou39larmtp82ps138366ak5oahapndg@4ax.com...
>>> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
>>> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
>>> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>>>
>>
>> Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip
>> or two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to
>> become cracks. That has happened to someone I know.
>
> Not really.
>
> I've had several windscreens replaced over the last twenty-odd years,
> and it was only the older, laminated(?) screens that used to shatter
> into opaqueness. And they used to shatter the first time that sufficient
> force was used - they didn't chip or "star" and then crack later as
> modern ones do.
>
> Modern screens (toughened rather than laminated) are *meant* to chip or
> star rather than shatter. An impact severe enough to cause a bad chip or
> crack would have shattered an older screen anyway. But modern ones don't
> craze over as in days of yore.
>
> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?

Honda, and reasonably modern (less than five years old) I think. But that's
my memory of the press articles and could be wrong. Like you I am deeply
sceptical of the story that the windscreen 'went white' /before/ the
impact.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

On Mar 30, 7:55 pm, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Adam Lea wrote:
> > "Tom Crispin" <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
> >news:hnaou39larmtp82ps138366ak5oahapndg@4ax.com...

> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?

It was something like a merc A class or meriva. Silver IIRC. It
didn't look old (say up to 5-6 years). I don't recall the windscreen
being crazed opaque although by the time I saw it, it was
substantially damaged with a significant bend in the middle of the
roof at the front.

best wishes
james

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:58:57 -0700 (PDT), james.delap@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Mar 30, 7:55 pm, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>> > "Tom Crispin" <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
>> >news:hnaou39larmtp82ps138366ak5oahapndg@4ax.com...
>
>> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?
>
>It was something like a merc A class or meriva. Silver IIRC.


From Anthony Austin's (Chair of Greenwich Cyclists) report:
"The crown prosecution said Voong's Honda had negotiated the
roundabout at the top of The Avenue in the park at around 4.45 pm on
June 26 and was heading downhill."