Cyclist killed in King's Lynn - hit & run

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Dirtylitterboxo, Dec 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. In King's Lynn. On Teletext - current URL

    <http://www.teletext.co.uk/news/story.asp?intArticleID=62689&intarticlenum
    ber=3&intRegionID=1&intSubsectionID=1&From=I&indent=30>

    I'm not putting a shorter URL - as Teletext changes what's on a page quite frequently. The full text
    is below though.

    "CYCLIST KILLED IN HIT-AND-RUN Police are appealing for witnesses after a cyclist died in a hit-and-
    run accident in Norfolk.

    The cyclist was in collision with a metallic burgundy vehicle which failed to stop in Wootton Road,
    King's Lynn.

    Police have not yet named the cyclist, but said he was a 33-year-old local man. The car will have
    notable front end damage, a spokesman said.

    RECEIVED: 12/12/2003 11:43:05"

    Let's hope the cowardly scum bag who has done the running is found.

    helen s

    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
    fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
     
    Tags:


  2. Just zis Guy

    Just zis Guy Guest

    On 12 Dec 2003 12:37:40 GMT, [email protected]
    (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

    >The cyclist was in collision with a metallic burgundy vehicle which failed to stop in Wootton Road,
    >King's Lynn.

    See? Thiose bloody cyclists, always in collision with road-owners :-(

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  3. JohnB

    JohnB Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

    > On 12 Dec 2003 12:37:40 GMT, [email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:
    >
    > >The cyclist was in collision with a metallic burgundy vehicle which failed to stop in Wootton
    > >Road, King's Lynn.
    >
    > See? Thiose bloody cyclists, always in collision with road-owners :-(

    *I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family or indeed the collegues of
    the killer would see it the same. Sorry, guy, but I think such comments are a *tad* insensitive.

    John B
     
  4. "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    >
    > > On 12 Dec 2003 12:37:40 GMT, [email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers)
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >The cyclist was in collision with a metallic burgundy vehicle which
    failed to
    > > >stop in Wootton Road, King's Lynn.
    > >
    > > See? Thiose bloody cyclists, always in collision with road-owners :-(
    >
    > *I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family or
    indeed
    > the collegues of the killer would see it the same.

    I'm sorry, but I don't see *your* point, unless you're an apologist for newspaper journalists and
    hit and run motorists.
    ___
    Michael MacClancy
     
  5. JohnB

    JohnB Guest

    Michael MacClancy wrote:

    > "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    > >
    > > > On 12 Dec 2003 12:37:40 GMT, [email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers)
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >The cyclist was in collision with a metallic burgundy vehicle which
    > failed to
    > > > >stop in Wootton Road, King's Lynn.
    > > >
    > > > See? Thiose bloody cyclists, always in collision with road-owners :-(
    > >
    > > *I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family or
    > indeed
    > > the collegues of the killer would see it the same.
    >
    > I'm sorry, but I don't see *your* point, unless you're an apologist for newspaper journalists and
    > hit and run motorists.

    I'm not at all surprised.

    John B
     
  6. jhuskey

    jhuskey Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    10,605
    Likes Received:
    339
    I know as I type this you will probably reply"mind your own business yank" But I think you guys are straying from the spirit of the subject. It is a sad thing for the family especially when no closure can be attained because someone is not responsible enough to admit to their guilt.
    It is especially true here in the states. Too much freedom ,not enough responsibility. Just human nature I guess although I will never accept that as an excuse. Bad time to lose a family member, of course there is no good time. I sure hope the offending person is found soon for the sake of the family.
     
  7. JohnB

    JohnB Guest

    jhuskey wrote:

    > JohnB wrote:
    > > Michael MacClancy wrote:
    > > > "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    >
    > > > > > See? Thiose bloody cyclists, always in collision with road- owners :-(
    > > > >
    > > > > *I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family or
    > > > indeed
    > > > > the collegues of the killer would see it the same.
    > > >
    > > > I'm sorry, but I don't see *your* point, unless you're an apologist for newspaper
    > > > journalists and hit and run motorists.

    > > I'm not at all surprised.
    >
    > I know as I type this you will probably reply"mind your own business yank" But I think you guys
    > are straying from the spirit of the subject. It is a sad thing for the family especially when no
    > closure can be attained because someone is not responsible enough to admit to their guilt. It is
    > especially true here in the states. Too much freedom ,not enough responsibility. Just human
    > nature I guess although I will never accept that as an excuse. Bad time to lose a family member,
    > of course there is no good time. I sure hope the offending person is found soon for the sake of
    > the family.

    No you are spot on. It is a serious issue although I'd like to think it is not human nature to avoid
    responsibilities. I am indeed quite concerned about where this will all eventually lead, having four
    children. The future for them is not good. I am sure there are many who would say in all seriousness
    "see? those bloody cyclists, always in collision with road-owners" It is a statement which to me is
    far too close to the truth.

    The sentences handed out to the killers are a complete joke. Its not as if they can be concerned
    about the penalties - a few points and a hundred or so quid fine - they are laughable. I can only
    these morons are *so* wedded to their motor vehicles that they cannot contemplate life without them,
    *if* they ended up without them. They place more importance on that than anything financial
    penalties the courts hand out.

    Until this car-reliance is addressed then I fear the killers will continue to roam our roads at will
    and cyclists will eventually be forced off them.

    John B
     
  8. jhuskey

    jhuskey Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    10,605
    Likes Received:
    339
    Wish I had a quick solution to negligent people. The only thought I can leave you with is to spend time with those children. I lost my son 2 years ago in an auto accident. Wish I had the time to do over. Too many things not done and not said.

    Hope you have a great holiday.
     
  9. Just zis Guy

    Just zis Guy Guest

    On 13 Dec 2003 06:15:11 +1050, jhuskey
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I know as I type this you will probably reply"mind your own business yank"

    Nah, not me.

    The thing is, as is usual in these cases, the newspaper reports that the cyclist was "in collision
    with" the motor vehicle. Usually (as in almost always, when discussed here anyway) it means the
    motor vehicle driver crashed into the cyclist.

    Why not the motor vehicle was in collision with the cyclist? Why not the motor vehicle and the
    cyclist collided? To say that the cyclist was "in collision with" the motor vehicle implies, to many
    of us, that the cyclist was in some way at fault. Generally they aren't.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  10. Just zis Guy

    Just zis Guy Guest

    On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:06 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

    >*I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family or indeed the collegues of
    >the killer would see it the same. Sorry, guy, but I think such comments are a *tad* insensitive.

    You are entitled to your opinion. I would suggest that anybody who has been here more than once
    would know where I'm coming from.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  11. JohnB

    JohnB Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

    > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:06 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >*I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family or indeed the collegues of
    > >the killer would see it the same. Sorry, guy, but I think such comments are a *tad* insensitive.
    >
    > You are entitled to your opinion. I would suggest that anybody who has been here more than once
    > would know where I'm coming from.

    They may they may not.

    I think our thoughts should go out to the family and friends of the rider killed first.

    John B
     
  12. "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:06 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >*I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family
    or indeed
    > > >the collegues of the killer would see it the same. Sorry, guy, but I think such comments are a
    > > >*tad* insensitive.
    > >
    > > You are entitled to your opinion. I would suggest that anybody who has been here more than once
    > > would know where I'm coming from.
    >
    > They may they may not.
    >

    Oh is this a case of PC hits urc or just someone being a bit *over* sensitive on behalf of third
    parties? You don't even necessarily need to have been here more than once to know where he's coming
    from. Any regular cyclist is likely to have noticed the prediliction of the press for describing
    cyclists as having collided with motorvehicles when normally it happens the other way round - we get
    run into rather than running into - and for drivers to regard themselves as the 'owners' of the
    road, both in terms of their use of road space and in the fact that they commonly and mistakenly
    think that the payment of road tax means they pay for them. It's not such an obscure point.

    > I think our thoughts should go out to the family and friends of the rider
    killed
    > first.
    >

    And what? Is there anyone here who doesn't empathise with their pain? Do you think Guy doesn't? What
    do you think the :-( was for?

    Rich
     
  13. Ian

    Ian Guest

    JohnB scribed with passion and wit:

    >
    >
    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    >
    >> On 12 Dec 2003 12:37:40 GMT, [email protected]
    >> (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:
    >>
    >>> The cyclist was in collision with a metallic burgundy vehicle which failed to stop in Wootton
    >>> Road, King's Lynn.
    >>
    >> See? Thiose bloody cyclists, always in collision with road-owners :-(
    >
    > *I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family or indeed the collegues of
    > the killer would see it the same. Sorry, guy, but I think such comments are a *tad* insensitive.
    >
    > John B
    >
    He is just displaying a healthy dose of irony.

    --
    Ian

    http://www.catrike.co.uk
     
  14. JohnB

    JohnB Guest

    Ian wrote:

    > JohnB scribed with passion and wit:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 12 Dec 2003 12:37:40 GMT, [email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers)
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> The cyclist was in collision with a metallic burgundy vehicle which failed to stop in Wootton
    > >>> Road, King's Lynn.
    > >>
    > >> See? Thiose bloody cyclists, always in collision with road-owners :-(
    > >
    > > *I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family or indeed the collegues
    > > of the killer would see it the same. Sorry, guy, but I think such comments are a *tad*
    > > insensitive.
    > >
    > > John B
    > >
    > He is just displaying a healthy dose of irony.

    I'm sure he was.

    John B
     
  15. JohnB

    JohnB Guest

    Richard Goodman wrote:

    > "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:44:06 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >*I * see the point you are making but I wonder if the cyclist's family
    > or indeed
    > > > >the collegues of the killer would see it the same. Sorry, guy, but I think such comments are
    > > > >a *tad* insensitive.
    > > >
    > > > You are entitled to your opinion. I would suggest that anybody who has been here more than
    > > > once would know where I'm coming from.
    > >
    > > They may they may not.
    > >
    >
    > Oh is this a case of PC hits urc or just someone being a bit *over* sensitive on behalf of third
    > parties?

    Sensitivity varies between individuals. Perhaps what you consider to be "over sensitive" I wouldn't.

    > You don't even necessarily need to have been here more than once to know where he's coming from.

    I know exactly where he is coming from. I stated such.

    > Any regular cyclist is likely to have noticed the prediliction of the press for describing
    > cyclists as having collided with motorvehicles when normally it happens the other way round -
    > we get run into rather than running into - and for drivers to regard themselves as the
    > 'owners' of the road, both in terms of their use of road space and in the fact that they
    > commonly and mistakenly think that the payment of road tax means they pay for them. It's not
    > such an obscure point.

    Too true.

    > > I think our thoughts should go out to the family and friends of the rider
    > killed
    > > first.
    > >
    >
    > And what?

    That's it.

    > Is there anyone here who doesn't empathise with their pain?

    I would doubt it very much.

    > Do you think Guy doesn't?

    I'm absolutely certain Guy does.

    John B
     
  16. Vernon.Levy

    Vernon.Levy Guest

    >The sentences handed out to the killers are a complete joke. Its not as if they can be concerned
    >about the penalties - a few points and a hundred or so quid fine - they are laughable. I can only
    >these morons are *so* wedded to their motor vehicles that they cannot contemplate life without
    >them, *if* they ended up without them. They place more importance on that than anything financial
    >penalties the courts hand out.
    >

    Stand back and contemplate what you are saying. THe sentencing may appear to be unjust, the
    financial penalties are often less than a weeks wage but....do you honestly believe that just and
    fair sentences will alter the death rate of cyclists and other road users?

    We really need to keep a sense of proportion here......I'd like to see evidence other than 'gut
    feelings' that cyclists have been singled out as fair game for fatal road traffic accidents and
    attract lenient sentences from the courts for the surviving party. Yes, it is always sad when
    someone be it a horse rider, pedestrian or cyclist is fatally injured in a road traffic accident but
    this pre-occupation with the 'motoring world's conspiring against us and is in collusion with the
    courts' is very unhealthy,

    >Until this car-reliance is addressed then I fear the killers will continue to roam our roads at
    >will and cyclists will eventually be forced off them.
    >
    >
    Cyclists are not the centre of the universe and do not have a devine right to be the arbiters of
    what personal transport modes are acceptable. Massive demographical changes would have to take place
    to reduce the number of cars on the road, I'd be quite happy to have self righteous cyclists
    subsidise my salary cut that would come about from having to accept a lower paid job nearer to home
    making cycling and/or public transport a viable proposition for me. ALternatively I'd be happy to
    accept relocation expenses and subsidies to negate any house cost deficits arising from maintaining
    my family's modest lifestyle when moving.

    Meanwhile lets focus on making cyclists themselves be more aware of the risks out on the road, not
    all of the blame can be apportioned to motorists you know. I'm sure that car driving cyclists don't
    need the sermons on road behaviour but some untrained cyclists almost certainly would benefit - I've
    seen a few precarious pedellers that almost certainly fall in the latter group and are more likely
    to become a statistic that initiates the 'hang the motorist' rants that crop up all too frequently.

    If you want to have an impact on motorists (unfortunate choice of words) post the rants in their
    newsgroups as I'm sure that's where you'll find the folk that you revile.

    Vernon off for a pootle round some of the Transpennine Cycle Trail and the Leeds-Liverpool canal.
     
  17. Just zis Guy

    Just zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:26 +0000, "vernon.levy"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Stand back and contemplate what you are saying. THe sentencing may appear to be unjust, the
    >financial penalties are often less than a weeks wage but....do you honestly believe that just and
    >fair sentences will alter the death rate of cyclists and other road users?

    Yes. One of the reasons people drive carelessly is that they are conditioned to think of "accidents"
    as something caused by carelessness, which hgappens to below-average skilled drivers. Since 90% of
    drivers consider they have above average skills, they have no reason to associate this with
    themselves. Added to that, the risk to a driver in a car v cyclist crash is negligible. So to
    redress the balance by introducing a real potential pain factor to the driver seems entirely
    appropriate.

    >We really need to keep a sense of proportion here......

    How's this for "sense of proportion:" a woman with six points on her licence caused the death of a
    cyclist. She was found guilty of driing without due care, and reached the 12-point limit under totting-
    up. She pleaded that a ban would cause hardship as she would have to wak a mile each way to get her
    child to school. She kept her licence and was fined £250. Was the inconvenience of a ban greater
    than the inconvenience inflicted on the cyclist, i.e. death? Was it reasonable that a woman with
    previous convictions who had failed to modify her driving was allowed to drive away without any
    attempt to correct her offending behaviour?

    >I'd like to see evidence other than 'gut feelings' that cyclists have been singled out as fair
    >game for fatal road traffic accidents and attract lenient sentences from the courts for the
    >surviving party.

    The court reports are sufficient evidence. Drivers who kill cyclists appear not to get even short
    suspensions, and the average fine is under £500. That sends a pretty powerful message.

    I'm not suggesting that cyclists are singled out in this respect, only that the penalties seem
    to me to reflect the risks drivers pose to other drivers, not the risk they pose to pedestrians
    and cyclists.

    >Cyclists are not the centre of the universe and do not have a devine right to be the arbiters of
    >what personal transport modes are acceptable.

    We do, on the other hand, have more right to the road than the cagers. And this shift towards cager-
    centric policy began when the bicycle was the majority vehicular mode by distance and by number of
    journeys, back in the 1930s.

    Look at Singapore now - the elite in their cars are being held up by traffic, their solution is to
    banish the bikes. Since a car takes up at least ten times the road space that a bike does this can't
    possibly be founded on any principle other than an ideological bias towards drivers.

    >Massive demographical changes would have to take place to reduce the number of cars on the road,
    >I'd be quite happy to have self righteous cyclists subsidise my salary cut that would come about
    >from having to accept a lower paid job nearer to home making cycling and/or public transport a
    >viable proposition for me.

    Which fails to explain why cyclists are, according to Government figures, more likely to own a car,
    more likely to be a homeowner, more likely to be a high-rate taxpayer, than non-cyclists. About the
    only thing a non-cyclist is more likely to own is a satellite TV system.

    >ALternatively I'd be happy to accept relocation expenses and subsidies to negate any house cost
    >deficits arising from maintaining my family's modest lifestyle when moving.

    I stayed where I was, got a job closer to home, saved three hours per day in commuting time and
    at least three thousand pounds per year in car running costs, and got a salary increase into
    the bargain.

    >Meanwhile lets focus on making cyclists themselves be more aware of the risks out on the road, not
    >all of the blame can be apportioned to motorists you know.

    No, only most of it. About 75% of car v bike crashes are the fault of the car driver. You don't need
    to train me on the risks of the road, it's an inescapable lesson if you ride a bike daily.

    >If you want to have an impact on motorists (unfortunate choice of words) post the rants in their
    >newsgroups as I'm sure that's where you'll find the folk that you revile.

    Any discussion of cycling on uk.tosspot, for example, is immediately used as an excuse for trotting
    out tired old falsehoods like "you can't cycle unless you have showers at work" and "cyclists only
    use bikes because they can't afford cars." Not to mention the traffic light issue (it being a well-
    known fact that no motorist has ever run a red light).

    Some of us try this as a public service from time to time, but it is time consuming and dispiriting
    to see the amount of mindless aggression which cagers are prepared to direct against something they
    prove by their statements they know very little about.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  18. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:26 +0000, "vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Stand back and contemplate what you are saying. THe sentencing may appear to be unjust, the
    > >financial penalties are often less than a weeks wage but....do you honestly believe that just and
    > >fair sentences will alter the death rate of cyclists and other road users?
    >
    > Yes. One of the reasons people drive carelessly is that they are conditioned to think of
    > "accidents" as something caused by carelessness, which hgappens to below-average skilled drivers.
    > Since 90% of drivers consider they have above average skills, they have no reason to associate
    > this with themselves. Added to that, the risk to a driver in a car v cyclist crash is negligible.
    > So to redress the balance by introducing a real potential pain factor to the driver seems entirely
    > appropriate.

    I'm not greatly in favour of big punishments. They are, in any case, expensive to the public purse.
    But I don't see why we treat a driving license as something people have a right to have. When you
    hit twelve points, your license should be taken away, automatically, without appeal, and permanently
    - you will never legally drive again.

    Not as a punishment but because you have demonstrated that you are not competent to drive.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; better than your average performing pineapple
     
  19. "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]... .
    >
    > I'm not greatly in favour of big punishments. They are, in any case, expensive to the public
    > purse. But I don't see why we treat a driving license as something people have a right to have.
    > When you hit twelve points, your license should be taken away, automatically, without appeal, and
    > permanently - you will never legally drive again.
    >
    > Not as a punishment but because you have demonstrated that you are not competent to drive.
    >

    I don't know why I am bothering to rise to the bait, but that idea is complete bollox. The SP for
    any minor infraction with no harmful outcome and no aggravating factors is three points, four of
    those over three years and you can reach 12 without ever having been even close to having a single
    accident. It is no doubt worthy of a ban for a period, but to say that a short string of petty
    convictions with no accident history whatsoever, possibly in many years of driving, means you can't
    ever be allowed to drive again is just nonsense, frankly.

    Rich
     
  20. Mike Sales

    Mike Sales Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:
    > I'm not greatly in favour of big punishments. They are, in any case, expensive to the public
    > purse. But I don't see why we treat a driving license as something people have a right to have.
    > When you hit twelve points, your license should be taken away, automatically, without appeal, and
    > permanently - you will never legally drive again.
    >
    > Not as a punishment but because you have demonstrated that you are not competent to drive.

    Indeed, a large minority of their fellow citizens who have not been caught endangering their
    fellow citizens, and are on the contrary amongst the more endangered, are in the same position (
    no licence). Can't be too bad? A real risk of joining the non-driving underclass should be more
    effective in giving motorists that frisson of fear which the paul smiths seem to need to keep
    them honest.

    Mike Sales
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...