Criminals on TV

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:25:55 +0100, [email hidden] (Steve
Firth) said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

A vehicle with two wheels is inherently more prone to incident in icy
conditions that one with four.

You reckon?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Seems to be pretty easy to lose control in a car in icy
conditions.

It is, but not as easy as it is to lose control of a two-wheel vehicle
in the same conditions.

Quoted message said:

Depends what you mean by "incident" doesn't it? If you
mean falling, off, then of course it is.

Falling off, but more worryingly falling under.

Quoted message said:

It's very rare for the driver of a car to fall out if another car skims by
too close, which is why they recommend leaving a good distance when
passing a cyclist.

It doesn't need a car nearby for a cyclist to fall off in icy
conditions. Amusing that you try to involve a motorist as the causative
agent though.

Quoted message said:

Some of us ride three wheels in winter. Some don't.

All of which rather misses the point that these "dangerous cyclists"

More goalpost shifting, I have not referred to these cyclists as
dangerous. Indeed the onloy reference I have made is that just like the
motorist in question the cyclists did not expect to encounter
particularly adverse conditions during their journey.

You seem to expect the motorist to know something that the cyclists were
unaware of.

Quoted message said:

were in the same class as "dangerous trees", "dangerous elk" and the
like: only dangerous in the sense that they had the ill-luck to get
in the way of somebody doing something wrong (and by his own
admission, too).

Irrelevant waffle.

Adrian Godwin said:

Steve Firth said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm

"The cyclists had set out on a 60-mile trip between Great Orme and
Llanrwst, in what they believed was fine weather, in pairs and wearing
helmets."

If the cyclists believed it was fine weather, why should a driver have a
different belief?

I don't know what they'd consider fine weather, but a cold morning
with visible frost is unlikely to be considered impossibly unsafe by
most people. Just a reason to take it easy and use special caution on
areas where loss of grip is particularly dangerous.

It would appear that the cyclists did this right - there's no
suggestion that they lost control of their vehicles, is there ?

Other than having previously skidded on ice themselves you mean?

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:33:19 +0100, JNugent
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do try and keep up at the back. The driver was bringing almost all
the danger to the equation.

Quoted message said:

Even if that were true, it would only be because of the laws of nature.
What do you plan to do to get them repealed?

There are two ways to reduce 1/2 mv^2, one is to appeal to the gods
to change the laws of physics, the other is to slow down. Funny how
the latter falls outside of your consideration despite the driver
acknowledging he was going too fast for the conditions.

You are giving a false account of what the driver said.

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:25:09 GMT, ®i©ardo <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

...at which point they're no longer on dedicated or "segregated cycle
facilities" and should be observing the rule of the road like all other
users.

You do know that where a car hits a bicyclist the car driver is
usually to blame, don't you?

You do know that the police rarely record statistics for incidents
instigated by pedal cyclists, don't you?

Just zis Guy said:

Cyclists live longer and enjoy fitness levels
equivalent to a non-cyclist ten years younger.

Then stop whining.

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:25:55 +0100, [email hidden] (Steve
Firth) said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

A vehicle with two wheels is inherently more prone to incident in icy
conditions that one with four.

You reckon? Seems to be pretty easy to lose control in a car in icy
conditions. Depends what you mean by "incident" doesn't it? If you
mean falling, off, then of course it is. It's very rare for the
driver of a car to fall out if another car skims by too close, which
is why they recommend leaving a good distance when passing a
cyclist. Some of us ride three wheels in winter. Some don't.

All of which rather misses the point that these "dangerous cyclists"
were in the same class as "dangerous trees", "dangerous elk" and the
like: only dangerous in the sense that they had the ill-luck to get
in the way of somebody doing something wrong (and by his own
admission, too).

The only accident I have had in 10 years, or maybe longer, was when a
cyclist pulled out in front of me, I braked and the ice took care of the
rest, my hip hurt for ages afterwards so I vowed never to ride on a
cycle track in icy conditions again.

Steve Firth said:

John Wright said:

I'm old enough to remember delivering papers in the winter of 1962-63 -
at that time I would have said I could stay on my bike better than I
could walk in the ice and snow that was around.

Um hmm, and could you stay upright better than a car? You may wish to
put those goalposts back where you found them.

I wasn't old enough to drive a car then so I couldn't comment.

--

John Wright

Time flies like an arrow

JNugent said:

Steve Firth said:

John Wright <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm old enough to remember delivering papers in the winter of 1962-63 -
at that time I would have said I could stay on my bike better than I
could walk in the ice and snow that was around.

Quoted message said:

Um hmm, and could you stay upright better than a car? You may wish to
put those goalposts back where you found them.

:-)

That was what he would have said at the time, perhaps filled with the
imaginary (but oh-so-realistic) invulnerability of youth.

What would he say now?

Probably exactly the same. I still have a bicycle, a little bit newer
than that one.
--

John Wright

Time flies like an arrow

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:33:05 GMT, NM <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Except that they aren't, because as has been pointed out already
they are more likely than average to be house owners, car owners and
high-rate taxpayers. Do try to keep up at the back there.

Quoted message said:

And where are their contributions towards cycling? their facillities are
being subsidises by the rest of us where by your own admission they can
afford to pay for their hobby, meanwhile those who need to cycle becuse
of financial constraints are subsidising all these lycra clad hooray
henries.

1. we didn't ask for them, thanks all the same, they are largely a
result of non-cyclists being asked why they don't cycle, and people
believing the answers which were not "because it involves a bit of
effort"

2. the road network is commons which has been progressively made the
exclusive domain of a group who have, until very recently, not paid
more than a fraction of what they cost the economy

3. cycling is seen as worthy of promotion because it makes people
fitter and healthier, whereas driving does not

4. find a hooray henry in Abergele if you can, cycling is a mode
accessible to the poor as well as the affluent

5. cite all the cases of people killed by negligent cyclists; let's
see how it stacks up against the figures for drivers.

But one thing we have done here is to prove that Churchill was right
to oppose the Road Fund in 1926; he said it would be but a small
step from their to motorists asserting ownership over the roads
their taxes had paid for, and he was right. If only their taxes
*had* paid for them, perhaps they might have some justification, but
rightly or wrongly the provision and maintenance of roads in the UK
is and has been for all but a very short time (and only partially
then) funded out of general taxation. In 1990 it was reckoned that
every car on the road represented a drain of around £1,500 per year
on the public purse. By now it probably breaks even, but there's a
hell of a backlog to make up - and in the mean time Britain is
becoming one of the most overweight and unfit nations on Earth.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:35:02 GMT, NM <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure. And then die of heart disease.

Quoted message said:

Or not, all my grandparents made over 100 and never cycled a day in
their lives.

Yup, and grandad lived to ninety and smoked like a chimney, so
smoking is good for you.

I seem to recall that the wartime diet and the eating habits it left
as its legacy resulted in the fittest generation in our history,
that might be wrong. What we do know is we are now, for the first
time in a very long time, at a point where average life expectancy
is going down.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:33:05 GMT, NM <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Except that they aren't, because as has been pointed out already
they are more likely than average to be house owners, car owners and
high-rate taxpayers. Do try to keep up at the back there.

Quoted message said:

And where are their contributions towards cycling? their facillities are
being subsidises by the rest of us where by your own admission they can
afford to pay for their hobby, meanwhile those who need to cycle becuse
of financial constraints are subsidising all these lycra clad hooray
henries.

1. we didn't ask for them, thanks all the same, they are largely a
result of non-cyclists being asked why they don't cycle, and people
believing the answers which were not "because it involves a bit of
effort"

2. the road network is commons which has been progressively made the
exclusive domain of a group who have, until very recently, not paid
more than a fraction of what they cost the economy

That is pure fiction

Quoted message said:

3. cycling is seen as worthy of promotion because it makes people
fitter and healthier, whereas driving does not

Not by me (and several million other motorists) it isn't

Quoted message said:

4. find a hooray henry in Abergele if you can, cycling is a mode
accessible to the poor as well as the affluent

It's the terrority of children, youths, students, lycra clad horray
henry loonies, and the impoverished, sane solvent people seldom bother.

Quoted message said:

5. cite all the cases of people killed by negligent cyclists; let's
see how it stacks up against the figures for drivers.

I don't know and I don't care, cycling is for the masochistic, I'm an
awful lot safer in my 4x4 than on any pushbike.

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:25:55 +0100, [email hidden] (Steve
Firth) said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As far as I can tell the cause of death was not falling off on ice,
it was being hit by a car which its driver acknowledges was being
driven too fast for the conditions.

Quoted message said:

No he didn't.

Let's just have a look, shall we?

Marking the end of an emotional and dramatic three-week hearing
at Abergele, north-east Wales coroner John Hughes said: "The
evidence shows classic signs that Robert Harris was driving
without due care and attention and to his credit he admitted
his responsibility in going too fast.

That is hearsay.

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_east/6246140.stm

At the inquest, North-East Wales coroner John Hughes asked Mr Harris if
he had been going too fast for the conditions.

"Very possibly," Mr Harris replied.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6226498.stm

Quoted message said:

So, seems he did.

No, he didn't, a coroner who has taken a view at odds with that given by
the police and the CPS put words into the drivers mouth and received an
acknowledgement that this *may* have been correct.

Steve Firth said:

Just zis Guy said:

I was riding a recumbent with racing slicks.

Oh right, that explains a lot. If you want to find the absolute nadir of
bicycle riding behaviour observe the rider of any recumbent bicycle.

Well stupid devices, cyclists are forever colliding with cars and on an
recumbent when it's stopped instantly by a collision the riders momentum
will ensure he continues, the first part of his body used to decellerate
him will be his bollocks when they collide with the steering tube.

NM said:

Steve Firth said:

Just zis Guy said:

I was riding a recumbent with racing slicks.

Oh right, that explains a lot. If you want to find the absolute nadir of
bicycle riding behaviour observe the rider of any recumbent bicycle.

Well stupid devices, cyclists are forever colliding with cars and on an
recumbent when it's stopped instantly by a collision the riders momentum
will ensure he continues, the first part of his body used to decellerate
him will be his bollocks when they collide with the steering tube.

Hmmm...

Has that already happened... to anyone we know?

you know? said:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:59:07 -0700, Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I think that going cycling in icy conditions isn't "entirely
reasonable" and by taking such a risk must bear at least some
responsibility for the accident. Nothing is risk free, there are no
virgins in the bordello.

Neither is going driving in said conditions. There is, however, a
difference between the risk posed to oneself (in this case, one
might fall off) and the risk posed to others.

Balance of risk. Cars: nice and safe for the occupant, not so safe
for those outside. Simple, really.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Neatly ignoring the risk that a cyclist takes,as a more vulnerable
road user than a driver, in cycling in icy conditions ie not just the
risk of falling off ,but the risk of being hit by an out of control
vehicle as happened in this case with tragic consequences. If you want
to take such a risk, then fine you're an adult go ahead. But be aware
of the possible consequences of your actions and don't come crying if
it all goes pear shaped. like I said- there are no virgins in the
bordello so if you go cycling on icy roads this sort of accident might
happen and if you want to be 100% safe then stick to cycle tracks/
paths away from motorised vehicles

you know? said:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:50:12 -0700, Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Its a question of self preservation. If you're 85 and have a dodgy hip
then walking won't be sensible, if its icy and you don't need to drive
then don't. They didn't need to go cycling

And the driver probably didn't need to go driving, on a Sunday, in
Welsh Wales. The major difference is, he posed much more danger to
others than they did.

Out of interest, at what point in the continuum of weather
conditions does it become acceptable to you for cyclists, or
pedestrians, to go out for exercise?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

You're an adult, make your own mind up. Don't come crying for sympathy
if you make the wrong decision, live with it.

John Wright said:

Steve Firth said:

John Wright said:

I'm old enough to remember delivering papers in the winter of 1962-63 -
at that time I would have said I could stay on my bike better than I
could walk in the ice and snow that was around.

Um hmm, and could you stay upright better than a car? You may wish to
put those goalposts back where you found them.

I wasn't old enough to drive a car then so I couldn't comment.

K3wL, so your comment doesn't have any great relevance then.

®i©ardo said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:26:43 +0100, [email hidden] (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see BTW, that the ranting of lycra loons here is not supported by the
inquiry, with the greater part of the blame being laid on the inadequate
performance of Conwy council:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6967112.stm

Quoted message said:

"Greater part"? I don't see that.

Quoted message said:

However, the lack of prosecution was called into question:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm

Quoted message said:

Marking the end of an emotional and dramatic three-week hearing at
Abergele, north-east Wales coroner John Hughes said: "The evidence shows
classic signs that Robert Harris was driving without due care and
attention and to his credit he admitted his responsibility in going too
fast.

Quoted message said:

"I fail to understand why no proceedings were brought against him."

Quoted message said:

Obviously, if, like you, we can make up stuff as we go along, the
greater part of the blame lies in driving too fast.

So the Coroner's opinion that "the evidence shows classic signs..." was
correct, despite the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions,
and even a distinct lack of action from the local constabulary - the
boss of which is one of the most hostile in the U.K. motorists? Isn't
this the one with the Chief Constable who, at a press conference,
produced photographs of a motorcyclist who had been decapitated in an
accident?

http://www.abd.org.uk/brunstrom.htm

Looking at that record I think we can all rest assured that had there
been the slightest possibility of a prosecution then all the stops would
have been pulled out.

--
Moving things in still pictures!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Closed press conference. Info only, not for publication.

you know? said:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:20:36 GMT, NM <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now try riding a bicycle along an ungritted cycleway in icy
conditions. Assuming it goes the way you want to go. We'll all
come and cheer you on.

Why bother, just get in the car, stay warm and dry.

Sure. And then die of heart disease.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Right, so no cyclist has died of CVD. You really are stupid.

On 29 Aug, 18:05, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

JNugent <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

You'd have made a good DS in the West Midlands Crime Squad, pre-PACE.

What, because I refuse to blame the victims just for being there?

I hope you're not suggesting that I am blaming the cyclists. Or
blaming any individual (though the local authority had a good deal to
answer for in not responding adequately to calls for them to do what
we pay them to do).

Quoted message said:

Seems to me that would be creditable in any Detective Sergeant.

Pinning it on anyone convenient was their hallmark too.

Nicking the nearest Irishman was the modus operandi after the
Birmingham pub bombings