http://cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/News_Simpson_memorial_destroyed_in_Harworth_article_100252.html



Even being dead is no guarantee of safety. Is anybody else getting
really f**ed off with cars?
 
> Very sad news...

<url:www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/News_Simpson_memorial_destroyed_in_Harwor
th_article_100252.html>

At least it wasn't deliberate (cross fingers), and no one was hurt.
Hopefully the insurance company will pay for a new statue, and then recover
the costs from the driver, mwa ha ha.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson> has stuff about the chap <hangs
head in shame at not immediately knowing who he was>
 
Mark Thompson wrote on 11/11/2006 09:24 +0100:
>> Very sad news...

>
> <url:www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/News_Simpson_memorial_destroyed_in_Harwor
> th_article_100252.html>
>
> At least it wasn't deliberate (cross fingers), and no one was hurt.
>


It was deliberate. The driver was arrested on suspicion of drink
driving. Anyone who drinks and drives and then loses control of their
car did so through a deliberate and unacceptable act.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
> Anyone who drinks and drives and then loses control of their
> car did so through a deliberate and unacceptable act.


Unnaceptable yes, deliberate no.

For it to be deliberate, you'd have to say that when a senior member of a
local cyclist's organization fell off his bike in front of a policeman, it
was a deliberate act.

(they haven't run a cycling pub crawl since)
 
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:31:48 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mark Thompson wrote on 11/11/2006 09:24 +0100:
>>> Very sad news...

>>
>> <url:www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/News_Simpson_memorial_destroyed_in_Harwor
>> th_article_100252.html>
>>
>> At least it wasn't deliberate (cross fingers), and no one was hurt.
>>

>
>It was deliberate. The driver was arrested on suspicion of drink
>driving. Anyone who drinks and drives and then loses control of their
>car did so through a deliberate and unacceptable act.


*suspicion*

Although undoubtedly guilty, I think that we should allow the driver
to stand trial before chopping off his goolies. It will serve to
prolong his period of trepid anxiety and give false hope.
 
> *suspicion*
>
> Although undoubtedly guilty, I think that we should allow the driver
> to stand trial before chopping off his goolies. It will serve to
> prolong his period of trepid anxiety and give false hope.


<Guess>The blood or urine test will be the thing that confirms it, so they
can't arrest him for drink driving after just the breath test.</>

Sniper?
 
heed wrote:

> Even being dead is no guarantee of safety. Is anybody else getting
> really f**ed off with cars?


Yep.
Its been for a long time now, and I'm also getting pee'd off with the
hypocricy of many who use them :-(

John B
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> It was deliberate. The driver was arrested on suspicion of drink
> driving. Anyone who drinks and drives and then loses control of their
> car did so through a deliberate and unacceptable act.


as an aside I was talking to a clubmate yesterday who now lives in
Switzerland; over there you can lose your driving license for drunk
cycling on the basis that if you're willing to do it on a bike you'd be
willing to do it in a car...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> No more than a cyclist who peddles amphetamines and keels over - as bad
> as each other this lot!
>

That would be the "old pedalling dope peddler" then?
:))