Kill in a park and avoid prison.



"elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver obeying the 20mph limit ...
>in fact it looks distinctly odd.
>
>



My observation is different - the 20mph limit is observed by a reasonable
proportion of drivers - since I started road cycling round the park I have
found myself having to slow down frequently behind cars sticking to
20mph....errrrm ooops!

pk
 
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:33:56 -0000, "PK" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver obeying the 20mph limit ...
>>in fact it looks distinctly odd.
>>
>>

>
>
>My observation is different - the 20mph limit is observed by a reasonable
>proportion of drivers - since I started road cycling round the park I have
>found myself having to slow down frequently behind cars sticking to
>20mph....errrrm ooops!


Do you know that speed limits apply to cyclists in the Royal Parks?
 
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:29:32 -0000, "PK" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Certainly 20mph should be an
>> absolute limit in a park.

>
>
>
>for cyclists too?


Yes. I keep my speed down to 20mph on The Avenue. It is quite fast
enough. In October 2001 I crashed at 35mph on that very road. A
child lobbed a stick into a tree to gather conkers and ran into the
road without looking. I braked hard and swerved, either narrowly
missing the child or just catching him a glancing blow - with me
somehow remaining on the bike. My rear wheel was buckled beyond
repair.

I have advanced considerably in my standard of cycling since then.
 
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:03:34 -0000, "elyob" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>I do agree that the park limits should be reduced, however this won't stop
>>people travelling at a speed they feel comfortable with. This is what
>>happens in Richmond Park, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver
>>obeying the 20mph limit ... in fact it looks distinctly odd.

>
> The one time I cycled in Richmond Park I was particularly impressed
> with the standard of driving.


Was that a weekend? Try it in the morning/evening "rush".

It's not terrible driving, but I find that pretty much no-one sticks to
20mph .... (a few people do "squeeze past" though). Weekend drivers tend to
stick to 20mph due to being held up by other drivers.
 
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:33:56 -0000, "PK" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"elyob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver obeying the 20mph limit ...
> >>in fact it looks distinctly odd.
> >>
> >>

> >
> >
> >My observation is different - the 20mph limit is observed by a reasonable
> >proportion of drivers - since I started road cycling round the park I have
> >found myself having to slow down frequently behind cars sticking to
> >20mph....errrrm ooops!

>
> Do you know that speed limits apply to cyclists in the Royal Parks?


i'm guessing he does by PK's post.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:32:19 -0000, "elyob" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:03:34 -0000, "elyob" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I do agree that the park limits should be reduced, however this won't stop
>>>people travelling at a speed they feel comfortable with. This is what
>>>happens in Richmond Park, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver
>>>obeying the 20mph limit ... in fact it looks distinctly odd.

>>
>> The one time I cycled in Richmond Park I was particularly impressed
>> with the standard of driving.

>
>Was that a weekend? Try it in the morning/evening "rush".
>
>It's not terrible driving, but I find that pretty much no-one sticks to
>20mph .... (a few people do "squeeze past" though). Weekend drivers tend to
>stick to 20mph due to being held up by other drivers.


'Twas a Sunday afternoon about five weeks ago.

Waterlink Way Lewisham to South Norwood.
Wandle Way to Wimbledon Common.
Richmond Park.
Return to Lewisham by the Thames Path.
 
JNugent writtificated

>> This 'moments inattention' lasted a long time.

>
> I assume that's the nearest you'll come to a retraction of "Being
> convicted for dangerous driving requires a certain amount of driving
> like a **** as well".


What's not twattish about not being able to see a person through the
windscreen of the car you're driving along a straight road, and to continue
not seeing that person as you drive into them and *still* to continue not
to see them as their body smashes the windscreen?
 
JNugent writtificated

>>>>> Providing better alternatives is always the
>>>>> best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly
>>>>> isn't anted.

>
>>>> ...is the wrong answer

>
>>> ...because of the obvious typo?

>
>> No.

>
>>> Or because you think that others shouldn't travel?

>
>> No.

>
> So how can providing better alternatives be the wrong answer?


Now it's no longer the 1960s traffic does not necessarily take precedence
over more important things. The best solution may even be more
inconvenient for the traffic.
 
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>


Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip or
two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to become
cracks. That has happened to someone I know.
 
"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> He said the guy was hardly a reckless selfish ****, how does he know that?


His reaction to the consequences of what he had done make it likely that the
accident was due to an error of judgement rather than just driving like a
**** without care for possible consequences of his actions.
 
Adam Lea wrote:
> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
>> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
>> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>>

>
> Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip or
> two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to become
> cracks. That has happened to someone I know.


Not really.

I've had several windscreens replaced over the last twenty-odd years,
and it was only the older, laminated(?) screens that used to shatter
into opaqueness. And they used to shatter the first time that sufficient
force was used - they didn't chip or "star" and then crack later as
modern ones do.

Modern screens (toughened rather than laminated) are *meant* to chip or
star rather than shatter. An impact severe enough to cause a bad chip or
crack would have shattered an older screen anyway. But modern ones don't
craze over as in days of yore.

Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?
 
elyob <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:03:34 -0000, "elyob" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I do agree that the park limits should be reduced, however this won't stop
> >>people travelling at a speed they feel comfortable with. This is what
> >>happens in Richmond Park, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver
> >>obeying the 20mph limit ... in fact it looks distinctly odd.

> >
> > The one time I cycled in Richmond Park I was particularly impressed
> > with the standard of driving.

>
> Was that a weekend? Try it in the morning/evening "rush".
>
> It's not terrible driving, but I find that pretty much no-one sticks to
> 20mph .... (a few people do "squeeze past" though). Weekend drivers tend to
> stick to 20mph due to being held up by other drivers.


yes they are all of a hurry.

only bit i find i have to watch is coming up from ham gate and going on
rather than left, cars will try to come up on the right and turn left
cutting one up, or at least some will.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
JNugent wrote:

> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
>>> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
>>> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>>>

>>
>> Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip
>> or two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to
>> become cracks. That has happened to someone I know.

>
> Not really.
>
> I've had several windscreens replaced over the last twenty-odd years,
> and it was only the older, laminated(?) screens that used to shatter
> into opaqueness. And they used to shatter the first time that sufficient
> force was used - they didn't chip or "star" and then crack later as
> modern ones do.
>
> Modern screens (toughened rather than laminated) are *meant* to chip or
> star rather than shatter. An impact severe enough to cause a bad chip or
> crack would have shattered an older screen anyway. But modern ones don't
> craze over as in days of yore.
>
> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?


Honda, and reasonably modern (less than five years old) I think. But that's
my memory of the press articles and could be wrong. Like you I am deeply
sceptical of the story that the windscreen 'went white' /before/ the
impact.

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

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.
 
On Mar 30, 7:55 pm, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adam Lea wrote:
> > "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...


> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?


It was something like a merc A class or meriva. Silver IIRC. It
didn't look old (say up to 5-6 years). I don't recall the windscreen
being crazed opaque although by the time I saw it, it was
substantially damaged with a significant bend in the middle of the
roof at the front.

best wishes
james
 
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:58:57 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
wrote:

>On Mar 30, 7:55 pm, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>> > "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...

>
>> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?

>
>It was something like a merc A class or meriva. Silver IIRC.



From Anthony Austin's (Chair of Greenwich Cyclists) report:
"The crown prosecution said Voong's Honda had negotiated the
roundabout at the top of The Avenue in the park at around 4.45 pm on
June 26 and was heading downhill."
 
On 2008-03-30, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
>>> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
>>> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>>>

>>
>> Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip or
>> two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to become
>> cracks. That has happened to someone I know.

>
> Not really.
>
> I've had several windscreens replaced over the last twenty-odd years,
> and it was only the older, laminated(?) screens that used to shatter
> into opaqueness. And they used to shatter the first time that sufficient
> force was used - they didn't chip or "star" and then crack later as
> modern ones do.
>
> Modern screens (toughened rather than laminated) are *meant* to chip or
> star rather than shatter. An impact severe enough to cause a bad chip or
> crack would have shattered an older screen anyway. But modern ones don't
> craze over as in days of yore.


It's the other way round. Modern screens are laminated, the old ones
were toughened.

But it is the old kind that crazed over and shattered.

> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?


Very few cars on the road these days still have toughened screens.
 
On Mar 30, 10:16 pm, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:58:57 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 30, 7:55 pm, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Adam Lea wrote:
> >> > "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...

>
> >> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?

>
> >It was something like a merc A class or meriva. Silver IIRC.

>
> From Anthony Austin's (Chair of Greenwich Cyclists) report:
> "The crown prosecution said Voong's Honda had negotiated the
> roundabout at the top of The Avenue in the park at around 4.45 pm on
> June 26 and was heading downhill."


probably a jazz then

best wishes
james
 
Adam Lea wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> He said the guy was hardly a reckless selfish ****, how does he know that?

>
> His reaction to the consequences of what he had done make it likely that the
> accident was due to an error of judgement rather than just driving like a
> **** without care for possible consequences of his actions.
>
>


What?

He went to see a lawyer. The lawyer told him how to act to try an avoid
jail - Say you are sorry, make an offer to the family (no evidence he
actually did anything for them), don't drive before the trial, think up
an excuse as to why the accident happened (normally they say something
like the cyclist must have wobbled).

How do you think a reckless, selfish, **** would have handled it
differently? Do you think they wouldn't have done as their lawyer
advised? Do you think they wouldn't have acted in this way to try to
avoid jail? Do you think they wouldn't have introduced the entirely
irrelevant factor of their religion?

How you come to the conclusion his behaviour after the accident is a
bigger indicator of his normal driving practice than the actual facts of
the accident baffles me?

What do you mean error of judgement? Something like looking at the
pimple on his nose in the rear view mirror or concentrating on adjusting
the radio rather than look at the road. Performing these actions at 30
mph is the behaviour of a reckless, selfish ****.

But this was in a park, where kids play and might run out at any time.
He knew that but a few seconds before he stopped looking at the road he
had just negotiated a mini roundabout, a bend and accelerated to 30 mph
(or more). I guess he didn't brake so their were no skid marks to
ascertain his true speed.

Still he said he was very sorry so that means he is a nice man really?
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
>>> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
>>> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>>>

>> Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip or
>> two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to become
>> cracks. That has happened to someone I know.

>
> While on holiday in Bavaria last summer, we discovered a two-inch crack
> in our windscreen that, within a day or two, had developed into a foot
> long crack. As soon as we discovered the crack, we contacted the car's
> insurers about a windscreen replacement and were advised that we should
> not be concerned and we could safely have the screen replaced on our
> return to the UK, around 1500 miles later.


That happened to my car few years ago. It started as a starred chip,
then spread out to a few inches from the epicentre (slowly, over several
months).

Then, one day, it cracked right across the bottom of the screen,
parallel with the scuttle and upwards towards the offside top corner. It
looked *terrible*.

Autoglass fitted a new one free.
 
Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-03-30, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>> "Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> The cause of the windscreen shattering remains a mystery. I would
>>>> have expected police investigations to pick up a cause such as a loose
>>>> stone, or branch falling from a tree.
>>>>
>>> Is it possible that the windscreen shattered because of a previous chip or
>>> two that hadn't been repaired? It is possible for windscreen chips to become
>>> cracks. That has happened to someone I know.

>> Not really.
>>
>> I've had several windscreens replaced over the last twenty-odd years,
>> and it was only the older, laminated(?) screens that used to shatter
>> into opaqueness. And they used to shatter the first time that sufficient
>> force was used - they didn't chip or "star" and then crack later as
>> modern ones do.
>>
>> Modern screens (toughened rather than laminated) are *meant* to chip or
>> star rather than shatter. An impact severe enough to cause a bad chip or
>> crack would have shattered an older screen anyway. But modern ones don't
>> craze over as in days of yore.

>
> It's the other way round. Modern screens are laminated, the old ones
> were toughened.
>
> But it is the old kind that crazed over and shattered.


Cheers. I wasn't sure.

>> Anyone know what sort of car was involved (and how old it was)?


> Very few cars on the road these days still have toughened screens.


I guess so.