Major league asshole deliberately takes out pack of cyclists

[aeiouy]

Dylan Welch and Dan Emerson
May 8, 2008


About 50 cyclists - including Australian racer Kate Nichols, who was injured
in a 2005 German road racing crash in which a teammate was killed - have
been involved in a hit-and-run crash in Sydney this morning.

The resulting smash forced a semitrailer to lock up, jackknife and screech
to a halt behind the cyclists while cars had to swerve to avoid them.

Full article here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/beijing2008/cycle-pack-attack/2008/05/08/1210131112608.html?page=fullpage

 

[[email protected]]

Maybe if the stupid a** cyclists didnt obstruct traffic drivers
wouldnt get upset. In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
you at fault regardledd of reason. Also the cyclists "didnt have time
to stop". They were breaking another law by failing to maintain a
safe distance. If people want to ride race style they need to do it
on a closed course. If they rode like traffic instead of disrupting
it they wouldnt have problems. Hardly a "hit and run" The only ones
at fault were the careless cyclists

On May 27, 4:43 pm, "aeiouy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dylan Welch and Dan Emerson
> May 8, 2008
>
> About 50 cyclists - including Australian racer Kate Nichols, who was injured
> in a 2005 German road racing crash in which a teammate was killed - have
> been involved in a hit-and-run crash in Sydney this morning.
>
> The resulting smash forced a semitrailer to lock up, jackknife and screech
> to a halt behind the cyclists while cars had to swerve to avoid them.
>
> Full article here:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/beijing2008/cycle-pack-attack/2008/05/08/1...

 

[Brian Huntley]

On May 27, 7:11 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Maybe if the stupid a** cyclists didnt obstruct traffic drivers
> wouldnt get upset. In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
> you at fault regardledd of reason. Also the cyclists "didnt have time
> to stop". They were breaking another law by failing to maintain a
> safe distance. If people want to ride race style they need to do it
> on a closed course. If they rode like traffic instead of disrupting
> it they wouldnt have problems. Hardly a "hit and run" The only ones
> at fault were the careless cyclists

1) The article described the Ford driver's actions as swerving into
the lane and intentionally braking. How do you turn that into 'failing
to maintain a safe distance'?
2) Can car drive side by side where you live? Is that racing? The
cyclists were two abreast as local law allows.
3) There were 60 of them. How is that not 'traffic'?
4) The Ford driver caused a wreck, then left the scene despite injured
people all over the place. How is that not 'hit and run'?

You worry me.

 

[ZBicyclist]

[email protected] wrote:
> Maybe if the stupid a** cyclists didnt obstruct traffic drivers
> wouldnt get upset. In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle
> puts
> you at fault regardledd of reason. Also the cyclists "didnt have
> time
> to stop". They were breaking another law by failing to maintain a
> safe distance. If people want to ride race style they need to do
> it
> on a closed course. If they rode like traffic instead of
> disrupting
> it they wouldnt have problems. Hardly a "hit and run" The only
> ones
> at fault were the careless cyclists

Are you hanging around here because your cave was condemned by the
board of health?

 

[mitosis]

Maybe if the stupid a** cyclists didnt obstruct traffic drivers
wouldnt get upset. In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
you at fault regardledd of reason. Also the cyclists "didnt have time
to stop". They were breaking another law by failing to maintain a
safe distance. If people want to ride race style they need to do it
on a closed course. If they rode like traffic instead of disrupting
it they wouldnt have problems. Hardly a "hit and run" The only ones
at fault were the careless cyclists

On May 27, 4:43*pm, "aeiouy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dylan Welch and Dan Emerson
> May 8, 2008
>
> About 50 cyclists - including Australian racer Kate Nichols, who was injured
> in a 2005 German road racing crash in which a teammate was killed - have
> been involved in a hit-and-run crash in Sydney this morning.
>
> The resulting smash forced a semitrailer to lock up, jackknife and screech
> to a halt behind the cyclists while cars had to swerve to avoid them.
>
> Full article here:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/beijing2008/cycle-pack-attack/2008/05/08/1...

So why was the driver charged?

 

[aeiouy]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:32905293-e117-4e38-8259-dbb3f759584b@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Maybe if the stupid a** cyclists didnt obstruct traffic drivers
wouldnt get upset. In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
you at fault regardledd of reason. Also the cyclists "didnt have time
to stop". They were breaking another law by failing to maintain a
safe distance. If people want to ride race style they need to do it
on a closed course. If they rode like traffic instead of disrupting
it they wouldnt have problems. Hardly a "hit and run" The only ones
at fault were the careless cyclists


<- - - - - - - - - ->
* Pretty weak reply....only made a 1 1/2 on the Troll-o-meter

On May 27, 4:43 pm, "aeiouy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dylan Welch and Dan Emerson
> May 8, 2008
>
> About 50 cyclists - including Australian racer Kate Nichols, who was
> injured
> in a 2005 German road racing crash in which a teammate was killed - have
> been involved in a hit-and-run crash in Sydney this morning.
>
> The resulting smash forced a semitrailer to lock up, jackknife and screech
> to a halt behind the cyclists while cars had to swerve to avoid them.
>
> Full article here:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/beijing2008/cycle-pack-attack/2008/05/08/1...

 

[[email protected]]

Australians are fools- they take away citizens' guns and drive on the
wrong side

On May 27, 11:16 pm, mitosis <mitosis.3a3...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> [email protected] Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Maybe if the stupid a** cyclists didnt obstruct traffic drivers
> > wouldnt get upset.  In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
> > you at fault regardledd of reason.  Also the cyclists "didnt have time
> > to stop".  They were breaking another law by failing to maintain a
> > safe distance.   If people want to ride race style they need to do it
> > on a closed course.  If they rode like traffic instead of disrupting
> > it they wouldnt have problems.  Hardly a "hit and run" The only ones
> > at fault were the careless cyclists
>
> > On May 27, 4:43*pm, "aeiouy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Dylan Welch and Dan Emerson
> > > May 8, 2008
>
> > > About 50 cyclists - including Australian racer Kate Nichols, who was
> > injured
> > > in a 2005 German road racing crash in which a teammate was killed -
> > have
> > > been involved in a hit-and-run crash in Sydney this morning.
>
> > > The resulting smash forced a semitrailer to lock up, jackknife and
> > screech
> > > to a halt behind the cyclists while cars had to swerve to avoid
> > them.
>
> > > Full article here:
>
> >http://www.smh.com.au/news/beijing2008/cycle-pack-attack/2008/05/08/1...
>
> So why was the driver charged?
>
> --
> mitosis- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[[email protected]]

There is no excuse for riding two abreast on a public road. Cars only
drive two abreast on a TWO LANE road. There is no excuse for the
cyclists' action. They should ride single file as far to the right as
possible with a safe distance between them. Thei own fault they
caused this accident.

On May 27, 9:55 pm, Brian Huntley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 27, 7:11 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Maybe if the stupid a** cyclists didnt obstruct traffic drivers
> > wouldnt get upset.  In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
> > you at fault regardledd of reason.  Also the cyclists "didnt have time
> > to stop".  They were breaking another law by failing to maintain a
> > safe distance.   If people want to ride race style they need to do it
> > on a closed course.  If they rode like traffic instead of disrupting
> > it they wouldnt have problems.  Hardly a "hit and run" The only ones
> > at fault were the careless cyclists
>
> 1) The article described the Ford driver's actions as swerving into
> the lane and intentionally braking. How do you turn that into 'failing
> to maintain a safe distance'?
> 2) Can car drive side by side where you live? Is that racing? The
> cyclists were two abreast as local law allows.
> 3) There were 60 of them. How is that not 'traffic'?
> 4) The Ford driver caused a wreck, then left the scene despite injured
> people all over the place. How is that not 'hit and run'?
>
> You worry me.

 

[barry taylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:32905293-e117-4e38-8259-dbb3f759584b@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Maybe if the stupid a** cyclists didnt obstruct traffic drivers
wouldnt get upset. In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
you at fault regardledd of reason.

how about deliberately, and without signalling, changing lanes on a multi
lane road
and then braking suddenlt as did this turkey ?

Also the cyclists "didnt have time
to stop". They were breaking another law by failing to maintain a
safe distance.

there was no traffic ahead of them, in their lane, until the car driver
cut them off

If people want to ride race style they need to do it
on a closed course.

these people were riding two abreast, as allowed by law, on a multi lane
public road

If they rode like traffic instead of disrupting
it they wouldnt have problems.

who says they were disrupting the traffic ?

Hardly a "hit and run" The only ones
at fault were the careless cyclists

hit and run it was for sure, and failure to stop and render assistance
after involvement in a road accident

---

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly

 

[barry taylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:23778293-ccf0-4fa2-ac07-91b89c458d4e@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
There is no excuse for riding two abreast on a public road. Cars only
drive two abreast on a TWO LANE road.

but this was a multi lane road, and the law in this country allows
cyclists and motor cyclists to ride two abreast

There is no excuse for the
cyclists' action.

your opinion, and ignorant as it is you are entitled to it

They should ride single file as far to the right as
possible with a safe distance between them.

wrong again buddy - in this country we travel on the left side of the road

Thei own fault they
caused this accident.

fortunately the authorities [NSW Police] do not agree with your summation
of the situation


__ __ __ _ __
/__/ / /__/ /_ /_\ /_ /
/_ / _ / /__/ /__ / \ / \ ....Kawasaki Zephyr

barry j taylor < [email protected] >
Skype: ursus_australis



~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly

 

[barry taylor]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:09bdaea2-f337-4e43-ad2a-f4442d7fed86@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Australians are fools- they take away citizens' guns and drive on the
wrong side

T R O L L ......



---

a friendly growl from the bear on the Zephyr that roars

__ __ __ _ __
/__/ / /__/ /_ /_\ /_ /
/_ / _ / /__/ /__ / \ / \ ....Kawasaki Zephyr

barry j taylor < [email protected] >
Skype: ursus_australis



~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly

 

[Pat]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:09bdaea2-f337-4e43-ad2a-f4442d7fed86@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Australians are fools- they take away citizens' guns and drive on the
wrong side

You have proven you have no place in civilized discourse. You have nothing
to add but hate and bigotry.

<plonk>

 

[Doug Smith W9WI]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 02:53:53 -0700, bigjimpack wrote:

> There is no excuse for riding two abreast on a public road. Cars only
> drive two abreast on a TWO LANE road. There is no excuse for the
> cyclists' action. They should ride single file as far to the right as
> possible with a safe distance between them. Thei own fault they
> caused this accident.

I'm not in Australia but on most of the one-lane (in each direction) roads
around here, it wouldn't have made any difference whether the cyclists
were riding two abreast. There isn't enough room for a car to pass
*without getting into the opposite lane* even with just one bike riding as
far right as possible.

(in any case, in Australia don't you want them riding as far *left* as
possible?!)

This sounds like the same kind of driver who tailgates & cuts people off
on the freeway if they dare pass slow trucks while going less than 20 over
the speed limit. The same kind that blows through red lights. I'll bet
if you stuck a camera in this guy's car for a week your tape would show
enough moving violations against other motorists to get his license
yanked. I luckily have almost no trouble with this while cycling but have
sure run into (almost literally) way too many of them while driving.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Pat wrote:
> <[email protected]> (AKA Little Jimmy Buttpacker) wrote in message:
> news:09bdaea2-f337-4e43-ad2a-f4442d7fed86@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> Australians are fools- they take away citizens' guns and drive on the
> wrong side

> You have proven you have no place in civilized discourse. You have
> nothing to add but hate and bigotry.
>
> <plonk>

In case anyone wondered why I plonked "Little Jimmy Buttpacker" (a tribute
to his homophobic gay-bashing, by the way), now you know.

Bill "avoid the Christmas rush; block him today" S.

 

[Rick]

On May 27, 6:11 pm, [email protected] wrote:
<snip>
> In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
> you at fault regardledd of reason.  
<snip>
Not true, the person hitting the rear is commonly found at fault,
depending on the situation, but there is no "law" stating this as an
absolute rule, at least in "most states". I rear ended a Porsche on
the highway many years ago, when he pulled out from a stop in the
adjacent lane right in front of me, and he got the ticket. It is
uncommon but more than you think, and the cyclists were in a very
similar situation, even more so when the driver slammed on his brakes
purposefully - that is generally specifically against the law.

Rick

 

[[email protected]]

From the country founded as a prison- people are criticizing an
AMERICAN..... How great is that!!!! They think wannabe racers deserve
to obstruct traffic.



On May 28, 9:30 am, "barry taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>   <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:09bdaea2-f337-4e43-ad2a-f4442d7fed86@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>   Australians are fools- they take away citizens' guns and drive on the
>   wrong side
>
>   T R O L L ......
>
>   ---
>
>   a friendly growl from the bear on the Zephyr that roars
>
>          __       __    __   _      __
>        /__/   /  /__/  /_    /_\    /_ /
>       /_ / _ /  /__/  /__  /   \  /  \ ....Kawasaki Zephyr
>
>   barry j taylor   < [email protected] >
>                     Skype: ursus_australis
>
>   ~~~ ~ _@
>   ~~ ~ _- \,
>   ~~ (*)/  (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly

 

[DennisTheBald]

As ignorant as big jimp is he does have a point about the guns... Some
days the sun shines on a dog's ass.

An armed society is a polite society. It's not the bikes so much as
the spandex outfits that clearly show that there is no way that these
particular cyclists are packing heat. If these folks were dressed
regular and/or sporting luggage our armed motorist would have been
much less brave, or so my experience with the mobility impaired sort
has been.

If your jersey had the ruger logo instead of festina on the back...
well, then the moron probably would have felt it necessary to hit them
rather than to force them to hit him (I guess the net effect isn't
much different). Still fleeing the scene as he did would seem to
warrant the use of lethal force, but then I think you ought to be able
to cap a motorist if you smell alcohol at the stop light - You would
be defending life and limb from someone who was in the process of
committing a crime.

 

[Dane Buson]

Bill Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
>> You have proven you have no place in civilized discourse. You have
>> nothing to add but hate and bigotry.
>>
>> <plonk>
>
> In case anyone wondered why I plonked "Little Jimmy Buttpacker" (a tribute
> to his homophobic gay-bashing, by the way), now you know.

I come back from a posting hiatus and what do I find but a nym-shifted troll?

> Bill "avoid the Christmas rush; block him today" S.

I should go and look for how many nym-shifts he's done now.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
zeal, n.:
Quality seen in new graduates -- if you're quick.

 

[max]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Rick <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 27, 6:11 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> <snip>
> > In mosy states hitting the rear of a vehicle puts
> > you at fault regardledd of reason.  
> <snip>
> Not true, the person hitting the rear is commonly found at fault,
> depending on the situation, but there is no "law" stating this as an
> absolute rule, at least in "most states". I rear ended a Porsche on
> the highway many years ago, when he pulled out from a stop in the
> adjacent lane right in front of me, and he got the ticket. It is
> uncommon but more than you think, and the cyclists were in a very
> similar situation, even more so when the driver slammed on his brakes
> purposefully - that is generally specifically against the law.
>
> Rick

Excepting generalized clueless douchebag driving, the generic name for
this maneuver is "the swoop and squat". It's a favored maneuver of
scamming insurance felons in the US. bigger cities == worser.
<http://www.google.com/search?&q=swoop+and+squat>

bad juju.

COOL LINK ALERT:
**** like this makes me consider more seriously the possibility of maybe
ordering from <http://www.supercircuits.com/> *(ultra teensie video
cams and DVRs) -- bike or car, it's sounding more and more attractive,
if nothing else then for my survivors to use in my wrongful death
litigation. :-/

..max
*if http://www.supercircuits.com/ catalogue doesn't make you paranoid,
you have a brain lesion.

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

 

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

On 2008-05-29, max <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> COOL LINK ALERT:
> **** like this makes me consider more seriously the possibility of maybe
> ordering from <http://www.supercircuits.com/> *(ultra teensie video
> cams and DVRs) -- bike or car, it's sounding more and more attractive,
> if nothing else then for my survivors to use in my wrongful death
> litigation. :-/

I'm thinking one of these

<http://www.supercircuits.com/Recorders/MDVR20>

would be cool for recording a commute or training ride. I like the micro-SD
card for storage.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff
[email protected]