Four years jail...

[Ace]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:39:41 -0000, in
<[email protected]>, "Hog"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ace wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:15:49 -0800 (PST), in
>> <746d7cbb-7881-4dbb-9066-2679945ead4f@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> "TOG@Toil" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>>>
>>> I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
>>> through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
>>> a dozen of the other, surely?
>>
>> BTDTGTTS.
>
>Utterly utterly despicable. There is no justification IMHO.
>How much over the limit though?

"some"

>"never leave skid marks"

"Get a car with ABS."

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

 

[Hog]

Ace wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:39:41 -0000, in
> <[email protected]>, "Hog"

>> "never leave skid marks"
>
> "Get a car with ABS."

"never brake for cyclists and pedestrians"

--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400

 

[Hog]

Ace wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:39:41 -0000, in
> <[email protected]>, "Hog"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ace wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:15:49 -0800 (PST), in
>>> <746d7cbb-7881-4dbb-9066-2679945ead4f@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "TOG@Toil" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>>>>
>>>> I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
>>>> through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and
>>>> half a dozen of the other, surely?
>>>
>>> BTDTGTTS.
>>
>> Utterly utterly despicable. There is no justification IMHO.
>> How much over the limit though?
>
> "some"

I had this on a bike vs pedestrian around 1987. The Pedo lost. Sure I
was probably doing over 30 though it was dual carriageway. The beak had
no hesitation it deciding the other party owed me a duty of care by
looking before he ran out right in front of me.


--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400

 

[Doki]

"AW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Beav" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Car doors will bend at the drop of a hat, let along a fully grown bloke
>> hitting one. They're not made of bridge trusses, they're made of paper
>> thin
>> shite.
>
>
> This one's bloody heavy for something made of paper then!!

They're very light, IME, once you've taken the glass out.

 

[Lozzo]

Hog wrote:


> Something has obviously changed. In my day you had to have a Tufty
> Club badge.

I've still got mine.

--
Lozzo
Slightly bent Suzuki SV650S K5

 

[Hog]

Lozzo wrote:
> Hog wrote:
>
>
>> Something has obviously changed. In my day you had to have a Tufty
>> Club badge.
>
> I've still got mine.

We all knew *you* would ;o)

--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400

 

[Nick]

JNugent wrote:

> Passing through a red light does not only put oneself life in danger.
> There is the risk that someone else will fbe forced to brake violently
> and/or to change direction, potentially leading to loss of control with
> danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is why it's
> illegal to go through a red traffic light.


Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the lights
are against them.

 

[Hog]

Nick wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Passing through a red light does not only put oneself life in danger.
>> There is the risk that someone else will fbe forced to brake
>> violently and/or to change direction, potentially leading to loss of
>> control with danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that
>> this is why it's illegal to go through a red traffic light.
>
>
> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the
> lights are against them.

Don't we have any jaywalking type rules in the uk?

--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400

 

[Colin Irvine]

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 08:35:29 +0000, [email protected] squeezed out
the following:

> [email protected] (The Older Gentleman) wrote in message
><1id386a.1vbgwmr1nt83N%[email protected]>:
>
>>gbzzl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I too don't like the tone in which
>>> the item is presented but for entirely the opposite reasons you give, the
>>> cyclist going through a red light part could very well have been arriving
>>> at a light as it was changing
>>
>>Had that been the case, you can be sure it would have been presented in
>>court.
>>
>>> His stupidity (if any) pales into insignificance compared with hers.
>>
>>Oh yes.
>
>Oh no. He put his life in danger by going through a red light. She put
>other peoples' lives in danger by not paying proper attention.
>
>I'd say risking your own life rather than someone else's was the more
>stupid action.

Less reprehensible, though.

--
Colin Irvine
YZF1000R BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk

 

[JNugent]

Nick wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> Passing through a red light does not only put oneself life in danger.
>> There is the risk that someone else will fbe forced to brake violently
>> and/or to change direction, potentially leading to loss of control
>> with danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that this is
>> why it's illegal to go through a red traffic light.

> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the lights
> are against them.

Of course it is. Thank you for reminding me of that.

That's not to say that a pedestrian couldn't be liable in a civil case.

 

[Buzby]

Hog wibbled:

> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] (The Older Gentleman) wrote in
> > > message <1id386a.1vbgwmr1nt83N%[email protected]>:
> > >
> >>>gbzzl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I too don't like the tone in which
> > > > > the item is presented but for entirely the opposite reasons
> > > > > you give, the cyclist going through a red light part could
> > > > > very well have been arriving at a light as it was changing
> > > >
> > > > Had that been the case, you can be sure it would have been
> > > > presented in court.
> > > >
> > > > > His stupidity (if any) pales into insignificance compared with
> > > > > hers.
> > > >
> > > > Oh yes.
> > >
> > > Oh no. He put his life in danger by going through a red light.
> > > She put other peoples' lives in danger by not paying proper
> > > attention.
> > >
> > > I'd say risking your own life rather than someone else's was the
> > > more stupid action.
> >
> > Heh. It's a nice distinction.
>
> and we do not know she could have missed him at 30mph with all the
> care in the world.

Quite possibly.

Is it not the fact using your phone is akin to driving whilst boozed up
in terms of impaired judgement?

Can you imagine the uproar if she were ******? IMO using the phone is
exactly the same.

The cyclist was still a complete ****.

--
Buzby
There's nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot

 

[Beav]

"Pete Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In communiqué <[email protected]>, Beav
> <[email protected]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>
>>"Pete Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected]...
>>> In communiqué <[email protected]>, Rob
>>> Morley
>>> <[email protected]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Pete Fisher
>>>>[email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>>> Neither expected the unexpected. "Through a red light", is a bit
>>>>> lacking
>>>>> in detail no? Cyclists seem to routinely do it round here when turning
>>>>> left at lights. The sentence does seem OTT
>>>>
>>>>She was speeding while texting and she killed someone - how is the
>>>>sentence OTT?
>>>
>>> Note the use of the word "seem". I am not in possession of all the
>>> facts,
>>> are you? I can think of circumstances where the sentence would be
>>> entirely
>>> justified. In this case, it is possible that the cyclist might have been
>>> killed by another driver who wasn't texting, because he chose to run a
>>> red
>>> light. Should his actions not be taken into consideration at all?
>>
>>I think they were. He died for his art.
>>>
>
> The outcome was taken into consideration, rather than his actions.
>
>>> Someone has already answered that the judge must have decided that she
>>> could have avoided the accident if she hadn't been speeding and texting.
>>> If all the evidence supports the case that the texting and speeding were
>>> the only causes of the accident then the sentence was not OTT.
>>
>>And clearly, the evidence did.
>>
>>
>
> Were you a member of the jury then, or in the public gallery?

Do (did) I need to be? 'Course not, because it was only the evidence that
got her convicted.

>We will just have to trust the judge.

The judge handed out the sentence, but he didn't decide she was guilty, the
jury did that based on the evidence presented and that's good enough for me.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[Beav]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:29:22 -0800 (PST), [email protected]
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 29, 5:15 pm, "TOG@Toil" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>>>>
>>>> I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
>>>> through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
>>>> a dozen of the other, surely?
>>>
>>>Are you arguing that she should be killed as well? That seems
>>>excessive to me.
>>
>>But an understandable feeling of revenge under the circumstances.
>
> Actually, no, not at all. Can you explain who feels they need to be
> revenged here?

Possibly the family of the numptie on the bike?


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[Beav]

"Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "AW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Beav" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Car doors will bend at the drop of a hat, let along a fully grown bloke
>>> hitting one. They're not made of bridge trusses, they're made of paper
>>> thin
>>> shite.
>>
>>
>> This one's bloody heavy for something made of paper then!!
>
> They're very light, IME, once you've taken the glass out.

Is the correct answer.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[Beav]

"AW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:70b64b0f-cbfe-4c78-b91e-b115b1843374@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Perfectly correct. "Looked in her mirror" - except apparently not
>> terribly
>> carefully.
>
>
> That you can't say with any certainty


I think it's about the only thing you CAN say with certainty. If she'd
checked properly, she'd have seen him.

> - that the accident occurred
> doesn't automatically mean she did not check carefully.

So what exactly did she check for? Obviously not other road users. Maybe her
lipstick, makeup or hair?

> I believed
> her when she said she checked as she's a cyclist herself and well
> aware of the dangers of parked cars.

Maybe she DID check, but not (as already mentioned) particularly carefully.

> My Solicitor was the one that
> said that in any car/cyclist accident there is a presumption in favour
> of the cyclist.

What he says doesn't carry much weight though does it?


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[Beav]

"AW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:58a34653-2d83-43fd-beb7-2984e8305ef2@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 29, 8:32 pm, "Beav" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Obviously when she looked in her mirror, she was just checking her lippy
> instead of checking to see if anything was approaching. She got HER just
> desserts too.

Don't be daft. She doesn't wear lippy...

You're married to MY wife too? (Not that mine has taken out a bike rider)


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[Nick]

Hog wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Passing through a red light does not only put oneself life in danger.
>>> There is the risk that someone else will fbe forced to brake
>>> violently and/or to change direction, potentially leading to loss of
>>> control with danger to them and to other road users. I dare say that
>>> this is why it's illegal to go through a red traffic light.
>>
>> Nonsense. It is perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross when the
>> lights are against them.
>
> Don't we have any jaywalking type rules in the uk?
>

AIUI you are not allowed to walk on motorways but apart from that I
don't think so.

 

[Pete Fisher]

In communiqué <[email protected]>, Beav
<[email protected]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>
>"Pete Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Were you a member of the jury then, or in the public gallery?
>
>Do (did) I need to be? 'Course not, because it was only the evidence that
>got her convicted.

I'm not talking about the conviction. I'm talking about the sentence,
and every last detail of the evidence ought to be taken into account
when reaching a decision on that. You haven't heard all the evidence.

>
>>We will just have to trust the judge.
>
>The judge handed out the sentence, but he didn't decide she was guilty, the
>jury did that based on the evidence presented and that's good enough for me.
>
>

Precisely. No doubt about guilt, just whether the length of the sentence
was appropriate.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: [email protected] |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

[platypus]

gbzzl wrote:
>
> Cyclists tend to keep to the far left in order to allow faster
> traffic to pass them, were they not to do so and instead ride down
> the near middle of lanes with queues of traffic possibly building up
> behind them, as they are perfectly entitled to do, road rage
> incidents would soar, cyclists would be mown down or assaulted by
> mentally deficient motorists.

You misspelled "justifiably enraged". The survivors could be rounded up,
charged with obstruction or due care, and sentenced to hard labour for the
rest of their miserable existences.

 

[John B]

JNugent wrote:

> John B wrote:
> > AW wrote:
> >
> >>gbzzl <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What absolute nonsense, every post you have made on this has
> > > > been absolutely devoid of all reason, you have introduced
> > > > bizarre concepts such as the 'door zone' and alleged that the
> > > > cyclists speed was too fast. I really don't think you have a
> > > > leg to stand on here, your wriggling and justifications are
> > > > hysterically funny to watch but quite bonkers.
> > > So when the HC tells the cyclist that he is advised to ride away
> > > from parked cars, that's a bizarre concept is it?. ****.
> >
> > Are cyclists in the UK obliged to be aware of the HC?
> > Are cyclists in the UK even required to be able to read?
>
> This must be a different John B...

Different from what?

I'm the same all the time...

Anyway, here (in Norway) there is no rule requiring cyclists or
pedestrians to be capable of reading, and as for being aware of
something so complex as rules for thir behavior on roads and highways -
forget it.

--
John B