Four years jail...

[Mark T]

The Older Gentleman writtificated

>> Bollocks, we all share the same responsibility as any other road user.
>> It's time to bring in tests and compulsory insurance for cycles.

> Tests, I dunno. I suppose so. Compulsory insurance, definitely. You're a
> road user, you have a duty of care to other road users, you get insured.

"Tests? Insurance? Sod getting a bike, I'll continue to drive in. Oh
bugger, the place is gridlocked with cars."

**** in theory, **** in practice.

 

[DavidR]

"AW" <[email protected]> wrote >
>
> Indeed, and she did check. But it's also the responsibility of any
> road used not to ride so close to parked vehicles that a opening door
> could be a problem. Or at least it was when I did my bike test!

Very often it is difficult to drive a door's width from parked vehicles. If
she had opened the door in front of a passing car would you still be
complaining?

 

[JNugent]

Clive George wrote:
> "Cab" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Geo wrote:
>>
>>> "In Germany and the Netherlands, the onus is more on the motorist.
>>> Not stopping for pedestrians on crossings is an offence and a driver
>>> can be issued with a ticket even if they are waiting on the kerb
>>> (again, the expectation is that pedestrians should cross safely)"
>>
>> Apparently it's the same in France. So I've been told.
>
> Tee hee. I've come to the conclusion that the crossings in France are
> purely there for decoration.

And in Belgium.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:11:10 GMT in uk.rec.motorcycles, platypus says:

>Cab wrote:
>> platypus wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you completed CBT?
>>>
>>> Never touch the stuff.
>>
>> Wot's CBT?
>
>Cheese & Bacon Toastie.

Hmm Yum but coolly if you add peanut butter


--
Ian

 

[Higgins]

JNugent wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Cab" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Geo wrote:
>>>
>>>> "In Germany and the Netherlands, the onus is more on the motorist.
>>>> Not stopping for pedestrians on crossings is an offence and a driver
>>>> can be issued with a ticket even if they are waiting on the kerb
>>>> (again, the expectation is that pedestrians should cross safely)"
>>>
>>> Apparently it's the same in France. So I've been told.
>>
>> Tee hee. I've come to the conclusion that the crossings in France are
>> purely there for decoration.
>
> And in Belgium.
That's recently changed (or at least it's being enforced) so that peds
and cyclists have right of way. They've also recently confirmed that
'priorité á droite' is absolute.

 

[Hog]

Lozzo wrote:
> Andy Bonwick wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:38:14 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Hog wrote:
>>>> Don't we have any jaywalking type rules in the uk?
>>>
>>> Is this a troll or just an atypically stupid poster from ukrm?
>>> Without previous history it really isn't obvious.
>>>
>>>
>> Google will supply the answer. Hog is somewhat to the right of
>> thatcher on his most liberal days.
>
> Last I heard he was trying to expose Atilla the Hun as a left wing
> tree-hugger who was misunderstood.

Sometimes & Sometime

But my question was prefectly serious. Ok jaywalking is an American term
but do pedo's have any legal responsibilities or not?
As I said in this thread, I mowed one down years ago and the Beak seemed
to think he hadn't given me due care before crossing.

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

Hog wrote:
> Lozzo wrote:
>> Andy Bonwick wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:38:14 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hog wrote:
>>>>> Don't we have any jaywalking type rules in the uk?
>>>> Is this a troll or just an atypically stupid poster from ukrm?
>>>> Without previous history it really isn't obvious.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Google will supply the answer. Hog is somewhat to the right of
>>> thatcher on his most liberal days.
>> Last I heard he was trying to expose Atilla the Hun as a left wing
>> tree-hugger who was misunderstood.
>
> Sometimes & Sometime
>
> But my question was prefectly serious. Ok jaywalking is an American term
> but do pedo's have any legal responsibilities or not?

Actually the only people who have a legal right to be on the public
highway in England are pedestrians and horse riders. In Scotland
cyclists do as well because in Scotland cyclists count as pedestrians.
But motorists do not have a right to use the roads anywhere in Britain -
that's why you need a licence.

That doesn't excuse pedestrians from having the same obligations to
respect the rule of the road as anyone else, of course.

 

[The Older Gentleman]

Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:

> Pretty much yes, unless there is a yellow diamond sign to advise that
> that you have priority. 2nd last sign on this page
> http://www.alltravelbelgium.com/Belgium/Car_Rental/Road_Signs.htm
>
> It used to be that the driver to the right lost the priority if he
> stopped but recent case law has confirmed that the priority is absolute
> even in that situation. It's mostly that case in towns and smaller
> B-type roads and it's nearly caught me out a couple of times.

The PaD thing has bloody nearly caught me out a couple of times, always
in minor villages and towns where you still find it from time to time.



--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

 

[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]...
>>>
>>> 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.

But the judge did. He handed down the sentence, so you'd probably be better
off taking it up with him.
>
>>
>>>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.

She killed someone. I wonder if you'd be so liberal if it was a member of
your family she'd killed?



--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[Beav]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Beav" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>
>><[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?
>
> Were the family of the deceased in this thread?

Who knows who reads this?


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[Simon Brooke]

gbzzl wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:36:10 -0800, 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?. ****.
>
> 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.

Actually, a lot of work in cycle training is in training cyclists to ride in
the primary position most of the time, for exactly the same safety reasons
as motorcylists should ride in the primary position most of the time. If
you ride in the secondary position too many motorists pass you far to close
for safety, trying to squeeze past you without going over the white line,
and if you ride closer in you've nowhere to go when motorists start being
real arses. And, of course, it's critical to train cyclists to stay out of
the door-zone - one third of all deaths and serious injuries of cyclists in
London are the result of doorings.

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

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

 

[Simon Brooke]

serf wrote:

> Pete wrote:
>> AW wrote:
>>> Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> She looked in the mirror and still didn't see him?
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently not. In the blind spot, who knows.
>>>
>>>
>>>> He was going too fast? What speed would that be?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've no idea. I said fast rather than too fast.
>>>
>>>> Too close to the parked cars? In a side street? How far away can you
>>>> get?
>>>
>>> Well far enough away - this was a 1 way street - that you wouldn't
>>> need to be so close.
>>>
>>>> "Bent the door frame". If you hit the door nearer the outer edge, you
>>>> probably put quite a bit of leverage on the frame.
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> I'm not suggesting she was blameless, but the cyclist was also
>>> culpable.
>>>
>>
>> The law disagrees with you. Neither point you raise leads to any
>> culpability.
>
> *newsflash*
>
> The Highway Code does not carry the force of law.
>
> HTH

*newsflash*

The Road Traffic Act 1988 /does/.

It's about time you sat your driving test.

HTH.

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

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

 

[Beav]

"platypus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cab wrote:
>> platypus wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you completed CBT?
>>>
>>> Never touch the stuff.
>>
>> Wot's CBT?
>
> Cheese & Bacon Toastie.

I want one now.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

[[email protected]]

"Beav" <[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Beav" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>
>>><[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?
>>
>> Were the family of the deceased in this thread?
>
>Who knows who reads this?

*sigh*

Someone used the phrase "but an understandable feeling of revenge under
the circumstances".

I didn't understand *who* in this thread would be looking for revenge.

That's all.
--
K75RT, K1100LT, ZXR750H1, 5TA, Z500/Velorex chair.
ST1100.

 

[Clive George]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> *newsflash*
>
> The Road Traffic Act 1988 /does/.

(context: HC rule 239, you MUST check when opening doors)

I had a look and couldn't find the relevant bit - can you?

cheers,
clive

(mmm, nice FU setting. I've ignored it and just posted here).

 

[Adam Lea]

"Mark T"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...
> The Older Gentleman writtificated
>
>>> Bollocks, we all share the same responsibility as any other road user.
>>> It's time to bring in tests and compulsory insurance for cycles.
>
>> Tests, I dunno. I suppose so. Compulsory insurance, definitely. You're a
>> road user, you have a duty of care to other road users, you get insured.
>
> "Tests? Insurance? Sod getting a bike, I'll continue to drive in. Oh
> bugger, the place is gridlocked with cars."
>
> **** in theory, **** in practice.

Making insurance compulsary wouldn't make a lot of difference, would it, as
3rd party insurance is included in home contents insurance policies so
cyclists would be covered anyway.

 

[The Older Gentleman]

Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:

> Making insurance compulsary wouldn't make a lot of difference, would it, as
> 3rd party insurance is included in home contents insurance policies so
> cyclists would be covered anyway.

And that presupposes that all cyclists have home contents insurance.
Which they don't.

A quick google throws up a figure of 20% without any cover. This, in
some deprived areas, rises to 60%.

Next bright suggestion?


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

 

[The Older Gentleman]

The Older Gentleman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Making insurance compulsary wouldn't make a lot of difference, would it, as
> > 3rd party insurance is included in home contents insurance policies so
> > cyclists would be covered anyway.
>
> And that presupposes that all cyclists have home contents insurance.
> Which they don't.
>
> A quick google throws up a figure of 20% without any cover. This, in
> some deprived areas, rises to 60%.
>
> Next bright suggestion?

Bad form post - that is, both figures relate to householders with no
home contents insurance cover, not cyclists.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

 

[Pete Fisher]

In communiqué <[email protected]>, Beav
<[email protected]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>
>> 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.
>
>But the judge did. He handed down the sentence, so you'd probably be better
>off taking it up with him.
>>
>>>

Judges are not infallible. That is why the Court of Appeal exists.

>> Precisely. No doubt about guilt, just whether the length of the sentence
>> was appropriate.
>
>She killed someone. I wonder if you'd be so liberal if it was a member of
>your family she'd killed?
>
>
>

If you read my other posts, you will see that I accept that, given the
current sentencing guidelines and the assumption that the cyclist's
actions were such that anybody driving within the limit and not texting
would have avoided him, the sentence was correct.

I still would like to know if his failure to observe the red light was
taken in to account at all.

Otherwise, it seems to me that I am required to drive everywhere at 5
mph, in case a cyclist should decide to whizz down a steep hill as fast
as they can and through a red light in to my path and expect me to be
able to avoid them.


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

 

[Beav]

"Pete Fisher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In communiqué <[email protected]>, Beav
> <[email protected]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>But the judge did. He handed down the sentence, so you'd probably be
>>better
>>off taking it up with him.
>>>
>>>>
>
> Judges are not infallible. That is why the Court of Appeal exists.
>
>>> Precisely. No doubt about guilt, just whether the length of the sentence
>>> was appropriate.
>>
>>She killed someone. I wonder if you'd be so liberal if it was a member of
>>your family she'd killed?
>>
>>
>>
>
> If you read my other posts, you will see that I accept that, given the
> current sentencing guidelines and the assumption that the cyclist's
> actions were such that anybody driving within the limit and not texting
> would have avoided him, the sentence was correct.
>
> I still would like to know if his failure to observe the red light was
> taken in to account at all.

I would think so myself, or more precisely, I'm sure his story was put to
the court.
>
> Otherwise, it seems to me that I am required to drive everywhere at 5 mph,
> in case a cyclist should decide to whizz down a steep hill as fast as they
> can and through a red light in to my path and expect me to be able to
> avoid them.

Don't even try to avoid 'em, just don't be using the phone when you make
contact.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19