...and another cycling death

[Lardy Ninja]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Maybe -- but I am not too proud to say I've had a WTF he come from moment when driving (and
> cycling).
>
> Obviously I failed to see him because I didn't look or didn't see. I'm not trying to shift blame
> -- but it happens -- and it can be scary when it does.
>
> Sadly, humans are not infallible.
>
> T
>
> PS -- I've worn glasses since I was 4.

You at least admit that the reason you have WTF moments is because you weren't paying attention. The
bloke who claims to have studied this saud that a driver who is paying enough attention can still
have cyclists materialising in front of them.

LN

 

[Ian]

lardy ninja must be edykated coz e writed:

> Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>> Again this is victim blaming. For instance, I realise that where I live has a high violent crime
>>> rate due in part to drugs wars. Were I to be shot on my way home one night I would like to think
>>> that the reaction wouldn't be "well you knew how dangerous it was and didn't wear a bullet-proof
>>> jacket, you've only got yourself to blame".
>>
>> Well, that wouldn't be my reaction, I can assure you. But more cautious souls may advise you not
>> to go out after dark. You can't abdicate all of your personal responsibilities, whether on a bike
>> or walking a darkened street.
>
>
> Well this just highlights the difference between our POV. I think that a crimninal bears all the
> responsibilities for their actions and you like to shift part of them onto the victim.
>
> LN
But the victim is accessory due to the fact that without the temptation the criminal would not be a
criminal, therefore the victim is at least of equal blame if not total blame for the crime, so to
summarise m'lud, if lardy ninja had not been there, my client would not have committed said crime
and therefore would not be suffering the loss of liberty now suffered by incarceration in HM
Prisons, and as such has the right to sue lardy ninja. To which the judge replies, "Lardy ninja, you
are hereby ordered to sell your home and all your belongings and give the proceeds to smarmy little
junkie git". Don't you just love British justice?

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:46:46 +0100, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Bog-standard risk compensation, not really a surprise I suppose. Still and all, a reverse burden
>> of proof would certainly seem fair given the balance of danger.

>Spoken like a true socialist.

Of course - a Daily Mail reader would not get past the fact that he owns the road, having paid for
it, and the cyclist is a freeloader whose journey is accomplished without the requisite tribute to
the oil gods ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com New!
Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

 

[James Hodson]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:08:32 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Spoken like a true socialist.
>
>Of course - a Daily Mail reader would not get past the fact that he owns the road, having paid for
>it, and the cyclist is a freeloader whose journey is accomplished without the requisite tribute to
>the oil gods ;-)
>

I guess I'm the exception that proves something or other. Most confusing.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:[email protected], James Hodson
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> I guess I'm the exception that proves something or other. Most confusing.
>

On the rare occassions I get a prospective fish and chip wrapper I always chose one who editorial
line I disagree with. That way I question everything I read in it rather than finding myself
automatically agreeing with whats written.

Tony

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:37:07 +0100, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On the rare occassions I get a prospective fish and chip wrapper I always chose one who editorial
>line I disagree with. That way I question everything I read in it rather than finding myself
>automatically agreeing with whats written.
>

I suppose that's one reason why I read the online Guardian pages now and again. I also read Guy's
posts for a similar reason ;-)

Sadly, neither the Guardian site nor Guy's posts contain chips.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

 

[Ian]

James Hodson must be edykated coz e writed:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:37:07 +0100, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On the rare occassions I get a prospective fish and chip wrapper I always chose one who editorial
>> line I disagree with. That way I question everything I read in it rather than finding myself
>> automatically agreeing with whats written.
>>
>
> I suppose that's one reason why I read the online Guardian pages now and again. I also read Guy's
> posts for a similar reason ;-)
>
> Sadly, neither the Guardian site nor Guy's posts contain chips.
>
> James
>
> --
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

I'll stick to reading newspapers like the Telegraph, and leave the kids comics to you lot,

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Tony Raven]

In news:BB6A753A.D83B%[email protected], Ian <[email protected]> typed:
>
> I'll stick to reading newspapers like the Telegraph, and leave the kids comics to you lot,

Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"

Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

Oldie but still a goodie.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BB6A753A.D83B%[email protected]...

> I'll stick to reading newspapers like the Telegraph, and leave the kids comics to you lot,

I believe that Conservative Central Office could be persuaded to send you their press releases
directly, saving you the cover price ;-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[Ian]

Just zis Guy, you know? must be edykated coz e writed:

> "Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BB6A753A.D83B%[email protected]...
>
>> I'll stick to reading newspapers like the Telegraph, and leave the kids comics to you lot,
>
>
> I believe that Conservative Central Office could be persuaded to send you their press releases
> directly, saving you the cover price ;-)
Watch it you, or I will arrange for you to be homeless, all I have to do is tell your contemporaries
in the "squat" how much the Optima cost and tell them you have a proper job and don't go off in the
mornings to sell the Big Issue after all and they will dis-fellowship you.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BB6A802D.D857%[email protected]...

> Watch it you, or I will arrange for you to be homeless, all I have to do
is
> tell your contemporaries in the "squat" how much the Optima cost and tell them you have a proper
> job and don't go off in the mornings to sell the
Big
> Issue after all and they will dis-fellowship you.

Ah, the Shirley Porter school of housing management...

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

 

[Rj Webb]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:27:48 +0100, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:BB6A753A.D83B%[email protected], Ian <[email protected]> typed:
>>
>> I'll stick to reading newspapers like the Telegraph, and leave the kids comics to you lot,
>
>Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
>- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
>- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
>- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
>- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
>- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
>- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
>- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
>

Given our current subserviance, and the end of the "cold" war there are quite a few papers who think
we should be run by another country, and its the Grauniadh readers that think that we are.

Richard Webb

 

[Roddo]

Originally posted by GearóId Ó Laoi
> Accidents are accidents, but simply not seeing another road user is NOT an accident.

That is a trite thing to say. It is a fact that someone who is paying attention MAY not see
someone on a bike ahead of him. I've cycled for years but I also drive and one the odd occasion,
especially in town, I've had the experience of "where did he come from?". There is a physiological
reason for that. In scanning mode, the human visual apparatus is not perfect at picking up a
narrow outline which is similarly coloured to the background. That's why police motorcycle men
wear yellow belts, and that's why I usually do too. You see, rather than ranting about this stuff,
I've actually studied
it.It may or may not be true that carelessness was involved. You cannot be sure that it was. Sending
someone to jail because of physiology is a bit strong. I believe that ALL cyclists should be
attired to draw attention to themselves. I've cycled in town for 25 years or more all told and
I've never been knocked off or hit by a vehicle. Maybe I'm lucky.

 

[pig pog]

Originally posted by Dan
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:10:19 +0100 someone who may be Michael MacClancy
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>>Cyclists need lights to see each other, to be seen by pedestrians.
>>A cycle needs a front light. This is largely to alert others that it is approaching. <snip>
>>Rear lights are a different matter. They are a legal requirement in order to pander to motorists,
>>they are not much use to cyclists and no use to pedestrians.

>You never ride faster than running pace, do you? I like to see other cyclists well ahead to be able
>to calculate their speed and know if I need to overtake them and not have to go so slow as to be
>able to see them in my front light. I hate it when I come up behind someone who is riding in
>complete darkness without lights. If they ride at 5 mph then 15 mph is too much for me not to be
>surprised by them and have to slam on the brakes. So what you're saying is that at night time
>everyone should be riding at 5 mph just so we won't need to spend money, batteries and weight on
>something as brilliant as a mini diod rear light? With all respect, that's just silly.

Umm, I think what is being said is that if *you* want to ride fast at night then *you* need to shell out on a headlight that will allow you to see other traffic and stationary hazards

>And then of course there is the other argument, when it comes to "pandering" motorists. I'd rather
>ride along being defensive, than lie under a car being morally right. That goes for all situations
>where the cyclist is clinging to his rights and still being run down by zombie motorists.

Standing up for ones (and society's) rights is a matter for personal choice