9yo cyclist critical condition, 4x4 driver uninjured

[Steven]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:02:36 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> >These outrage messages make me so angry I could slam the phone down
>(Kenny
>> >Everett R.I.P.)
>>
>> ITYM Steve "Beaky" Wright, inna Mr Angry from Purley stylee.
>>
>Must be developing early onset Alzheimers - never mind, I'll be able to make
>new friends every day

Diary of a Goldfish

09:00:00 Wow, a plastic castle!
09:00:05 Wow, a plastic rock!
09:00:10 Wow, a plastic castle!
09:00:15 Wow, a plastic rock!
09:00:20 Wow, a plastic castle!
09:00:25 Wow, a plastic rock!
09:00:30 Wow, a plastic castle!
09:00:35 Wow, a plastic rock!
09:00:40 Wow, a plastic castle!
09:00:45 Wow, a plastic rock!

 

[barry]

Jack Ouzzi wrote:
> Safe knowing that the Shogun driver can speed all around Lincolnshire
> and not get injured. I know this road well and would bet huge amounts
> of money that SPEED was the culprit here, as well as an arrogant driver.
>

How do you know what happened? How do you know he was speeding?

 

[David Nutter]

On 2005-07-27, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jack Ouzzi wrote:
>> I know this road well and would bet huge amounts
>> of money that SPEED was the culprit here, as well as an arrogant driver.
>>
>
> But you can't drive fast on Lincolnshire roads or you get seasick.

Maybe so, but that doesn't appear to stop many people round here...

Regards,

-david

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Geraint Jones wrote:
> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [1] insert any form of solid structure or street furniture such as a
>> lamppost ...
>
> Where exactly? "..."

It depends how argumentative you've been, I guess, given you don't strike me
as the depraved type.

--
Ambrose

 

[dkahn400]

barry wrote:
> Jack Ouzzi wrote:
> > Safe knowing that the Shogun driver can speed all around
> > Lincolnshire and not get injured. I know this road well and
> > would bet huge amounts of money that SPEED was the culprit here,
> > as well as an arrogant driver.
>
> How do you know what happened? How do you know he was speeding?

He didn't say he did; he said he would be willing to bet. Would you bet
against him?

--
Dave...

 

[Jon Senior]

Mark Tranchant wrote:
> It's not highly unlikely: the driver could have swerved to avoid the
> boy, hit something else in the process, etc etc.

Even in the case of driver vs large stone wall, the likely outcome for
the driver's welfare is better than 9yo cyclist vs 4x4! There are
tangible benefits to being a huge steel box, and 4x4s (Urban or
otherwise) are designed to take hits pretty well. It's possible that the
driver was struck by lighting, and that the car (Now out of control)
struck the cyclist. Possible, but unlikely.

Drawing attention to the fact that the driver is fine, looks crass
simply because the cyclist isn't. Not saying anything about the driver's
condition would have left _most_ people to assume that they were fine.
Mentioning it marks it out as in some way noteworthy. It isn't.

> Without any information on cause, I think it's a reasonable thing to
> report. If it turned out to be the boy's fault (and let's face it,
> average 9yo boys on bikes are hardly models of road safety), it would
> have been a very nasty incident for the driver and there are numerous
> ways of sustaining minor injuries.

Please note, despite what you may have assumed, that I at no point
attempted to attribute blame for the collision. I was simply suggesting
a reason why the construction of the article might lead someone to
become enraged.

> Of course, if it's the driver's fault, shoot and burn the body in usual
> urc fashion...

The numbers are increasing... It's gonna be one hell of a barbeque when
we finally round them all up! ;-)

Jon

 

[Terry D]

Tony wrote:

<Snip>

>
> It's interesting to read that the tank collided with the cyclist,
> instead of the usual namby-pamby way of puitting it : 'a cyclist /
> pedestrian / tree was in collision with a (insert name of vehicle
> here)', as though the more vulnerable road users make a habit of
> attacking motorists.
>
> Tony

It has still been reported as an 'accident' rather than an incident. It
would have been the same if the driver on the roundabout this morning
had hit someone whilst yakking away on his mobile phone. Fortunately
those around him were watching him carefully and skillfully avoided
becoming part of an 'accident'.

Terry Duckmanton