One slapped wrist coming up.



T

Tony Raven

Guest
What do you reckon? £200 and don't do it again or do you think the
Courts will be more lenient?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4535676.stm

'Santa' party girl dies in crash

A girl was knocked down and killed as she walked home from a party where
her father had been playing Santa Claus.

Charlotte Adams, five, and her mother Jean were hit by a BMW which
mounted a pavement yards from their home in Clapton, east London, on
Thursday.

Mrs Adams is seriously ill in hospital, her husband Martyn and daughter
Bernadette, 15, were not injured.

The family said Charlotte's death had left them devastated adding: "This
has ruined our lives."

In a statement they said: "We will never be the same again no matter how
much time goes by.

"We thought we were home, we thought we were safe and then this car took
away our precious baby and almost her mother too."

The accident happened at 2045 BST - two men ran from the car. A man has
been arrested and is being questioned.

Flowers were left at the scene on Friday.

Speaking at the family home, Mr Adams said he, Bernadette and their
other daughter Maria Chelsey, 17, were in shock.

"We were coming down the stairs outside the estate, more or less home,
and the next thing I hear a crunch. I look back and there's a car," he said.

"I see that my wife has gone flying and Charlotte disappeared. She was
under the car somewhere.

"My wife was at the side of the car. She was unconscious. Charlotte had
just disappeared and I realised she was gone."

He said his wife, 39, was in intensive care and had six broken ribs.

Sergeant Jim Mills, from the Collision Investigation Unit, said he was
astonished that those responsible had not taken responsibility for their
actions.

"We would appeal to them to do the right thing and give themselves up to
police," he said.

Police said the car was a J-registered BMW 520SE.

Anyone with information is asked to call police on 020 7321 9913.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> What do you reckon? £200 and don't do it again or do you think the
> Courts will be more lenient?


See down/up there on thread "Its all our fault"

I noted, "I wonder if the Daily Wail be be running a story on the
"four-wheeled menances"? Why do I think I'll be having more chance of seeing
porcine aviation ..."

Cheers, helen s
 
J

John Hearns

Guest
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:30:28 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

> What do you reckon? £200 and don't do it again or do you think the Courts
> will be more lenient?

Tony, I follow our sentiments, but this is still a bit raw.
We should pause and reflect a little.

I don't mean to start a fight with you - far from it. I agree with what
you say, and have made several comments on this group about hit and run
drivers.
 
B

Bertie Wiggins

Guest
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:30:28 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>'Santa' party girl dies in crash


My thoughts go out to the friends and family of the 5 year old victim.








[Trivial point]

>The accident happened at 2045 BST


Why has the time been given as BST rather than GMT?
 
J

John Hearns

Guest
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:30:28 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

> What do you reckon? £200 and don't do it again or do you think the Courts
> will be more lenient?
>


I just heard an item on Radio London on this.
The term "accident" was used, which is no surprise.
Then "a red BMW careered onto the pavement" - technically correct
I suppose but someone was driving this vehicle.
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"John Hearns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:30:28 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> What do you reckon? £200 and don't do it again or do you think the
>> Courts
>> will be more lenient?
>>

>
> I just heard an item on Radio London on this.
> The term "accident" was used, which is no surprise.
> Then "a red BMW careered onto the pavement" - technically correct
> I suppose but someone was driving this vehicle.



On BBC news this morning, it was also described as an 'accident' and in the
same breath it went on to say how two people got out of the vehicle and
ran-off. Cue my blood boiling.....

Cheers, helen s
 
A

A.Lee

Guest
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> What do you reckon? £200 and don't do it again or do you think the
> Courts will be more lenient?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4535676.stm


Although tragic, this really doesnt have anything to do with cycling,
this group is going the way of a .advocacy group, where the main aim is
to moan about powered vehicles bad manners/behaviour.With 1 cross post
the loons from uk.transport then join in, and what started as a few
comments ends up as a long thread with no real connection with cycling,
apart from the fact that everyone uses the roads.
It is quite easy to start another group with the present hierarchy, say,
something like uk.rec.cycling.advocacy
If you'd like to propose a new group, then I would support you.
Alan
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
John Hearns wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:30:28 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> What do you reckon? £200 and don't do it again or do you think the Courts
>> will be more lenient?
>>

>
> I just heard an item on Radio London on this.
> The term "accident" was used, which is no surprise.
> Then "a red BMW careered onto the pavement" - technically correct
> I suppose but someone was driving this vehicle.


Round our way a driver who killed a woman and seriously injured her
husband while talking on his mobile phone has just had his sentence
reduced to an 18 month ban and no retest (it was only a two year ban
before!) The reason? He "could not give customer quotes (for his
conservatory business) in the evening because he could not drive" Well
perhaps he should have thought of that before he killed someone.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"A.Lee" <[email protected]+.com> wrote in message
news:1h7pk6i.19irc14cx0lisN%[email protected]+.com...
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What do you reckon? £200 and don't do it again or do you think the
>> Courts will be more lenient?
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4535676.stm

>
> Although tragic, this really doesnt have anything to do with cycling,
> this group is going the way of a .advocacy group, where the main aim is
> to moan about powered vehicles bad manners/behaviour.With 1 cross post
> the loons from uk.transport then join in, and what started as a few
> comments ends up as a long thread with no real connection with cycling,
> apart from the fact that everyone uses the roads.
> It is quite easy to start another group with the present hierarchy, say,
> something like uk.rec.cycling.advocacy
> If you'd like to propose a new group, then I would support you.
> Alan
>


This does indeed have something to do with cycling as the attitude shown in
the report is symptomatic of the attitude shown whenever a person is killed
or injured by a motorist. It is symptomatic of the attitude shown towards
cyclists generally. Having read & posted on this newsgroup for many a year,
I do not read it as anti-powered vehicles, but there is a very strong
attitude of being anti the laid back attitude of the justice system and the
media when it comes to death & injury caused by people in charge of motor
vehicles. Do not forget that cyclists can also be motorists and I would
suggest that most of the posters on the group drive as well as cycle... The
fact that when we cycle we use the roads makes such a thread relevant to the
news group as the subject is one we face daily. Indeed I would be
exceedingly surprised is a cycling newsgroup had no comments to make on how
death and injury on the roads is dealt with, after all the group is made up
of people who, when cycling are vulnerable road users, and how matters such
as death & injury to vulnerable road users is viewed is highly relevant to
us as cyclists.

Cheers, helen s
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:48:42 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

>This does indeed have something to do with cycling as the attitude shown in
>the report is symptomatic of the attitude shown whenever a person is killed
>or injured by a motorist.


I agree with what you typed and would add two thoughts.

If the people hit by the motorist had been cycling along the
pavement, whether a "facility" or not, would the mass media treat it
slightly differently?

We have been told that only cyclists are a danger to pedestrians
walking along the pavement. The mass media are trying to blame the
car in their descriptions, rather then the driver. They never do so
with a bike operated by a cyclist.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:55:08 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>He "could not give customer quotes (for his
>conservatory business) in the evening because he could not drive"


Which is, in any case, Complete Bollocks unless he lives in a place
where there are no taxis and no unemployed people with driving
licenses prepared to ferry you round in your own car for a small fee.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
M

MartinM

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:55:08 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> >He "could not give customer quotes (for his
> >conservatory business) in the evening because he could not drive"

>
> Which is, in any case, Complete Bollocks unless he lives in a place
> where there are no taxis and no unemployed people with driving
> licenses prepared to ferry you round in your own car for a small fee.


Anyone who sells conservatories should be consigned to a B ark anyway
along with the telephone sanitisers; what a load of ****. Masonic
handshake anyone?
 
A

archierob

Guest
One tends to forget the subtle nuances of jurisprudence when you
identify a loved one in a mortuary. He/she has been deprived of life
because someone did not take care or obey the law. It just appears to
me and many in this NG that the law takes a lenient view or people who
kill by car negligently than say a mugger who stabs someone to death.
The end result is the same, heartbreak and broken lives and someone
dead in a mortuary.

There is a post further down indicating that we are discussing
something that has very little to do with cycling and are becoming
emotive and perhaps losing our way. Not so, we are all citizens, we
all have the vote, we all sit on juries in judgement of our peers.
 
A

A.Lee

Guest
wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > There's more to cycling than death and injury on the roads.


> Of course there is, but death and injury on the roads are a part of what
> cyclists face.


When?
I have travelled many thousands of miles on my bike in the last 25
years, and only once in that time have I been in a situation where I was
lucky to escape uninjured.I have been in many minor scrapes in that
time, and yes there are some real idiots on the road, but overall the
standard of driving is quite good, and to be honest, i'm sick of the
constant bitching here about things that are not directly related to
cycling.If you want(not you personally) to moan about drivers behaviour,
this really isnt the place for it, many of the recent threads shouldnt
be here, and to keep the moaners happy, maybe they should start an
advocacy or similar group in this hierarchy, then this group could be
used for its main reason - cycling discussion and thoughts.
This thread is one.Are we going to have a post on here every time
someone is killed on a road?
Thats how it seems it is going here.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"A.Lee" <[email protected]+.com> wrote in message
news:1h7q463.11e9d51lqyajeN%[email protected]+.com...
> wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>> "Wally" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > There's more to cycling than death and injury on the roads.

>
>> Of course there is, but death and injury on the roads are a part of what
>> cyclists face.

>
> When?


You don't know of anyone killed or injured whilst cycling? Let's see. My
husband was injured victim of hit-and-run in 04. Recently acquaintance Zak
Carr was killed... I could go on. That's not to say that cycling is
inherantly dangerous, but it is *stupid* to ignore the reality that when
cycling we *are* vulnerable road users and if hit by a terminally unobervant
twit in a motor vehicle,or in my husband's case, by a driver who
deliberatley aimed at him and crossed the carriageway to do so, then injury
or death is a probable outcome when hit by a tonne or more of metal. Yes,
the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks, but this is no excuse for
ignoring risks or wanting to stop discussion of the risks in a cycling
newsgroup.


> I have travelled many thousands of miles on my bike in the last 25
> years, and only once in that time have I been in a situation where I was
> lucky to escape uninjured.I have been in many minor scrapes in that
> time, and yes there are some real idiots on the road, but overall the
> standard of driving is quite good, and to be honest, i'm sick of the
> constant bitching here about things that are not directly related to
> cycling.If you want(not you personally) to moan about drivers behaviour,
> this really isnt the place for it, many of the recent threads shouldnt
> be here, and to keep the moaners happy, maybe they should start an
> advocacy or similar group in this hierarchy, then this group could be
> used for its main reason - cycling discussion and thoughts.
> This thread is one.Are we going to have a post on here every time
> someone is killed on a road?
> Thats how it seems it is going here.
> Alan.


Considering there are an average of nine deaths per day on UK roads, no it
is nothing like a post everytime as you describe. If you don't like such
posts or any other topic being discussed can I respectfully suggest that you
1. ignore them or 2. kill-file the posters or 3. delete the threads you
don't like.

Cheers, helen s
 
A

A.Lee

Guest
archierob <[email protected]> wrote:

> There is a post further down indicating that we are discussing
> something that has very little to do with cycling and are becoming
> emotive and perhaps losing our way. Not so, we are all citizens, we
> all have the vote, we all sit on juries in judgement of our peers.


Then take it to a more appropriate group.This case had nothing
whatsoever to do with cycling, hence there was no need for it to be
here.
If the argument was that everyone uses the roads, so it is on-topic,
then the same could be said for it to be posted in any other group - the
vast majority of people who use usenet also use the roads/pavement, so
it would be relevant to them.
It was posted here as there seems to be a growing trend toward
condemning anything that is to do with driving a vehicle.
If people want to moan about driver behaviour, perhaps there should be
another group for it - uk.transport is a candidate, though better would
be a new group for such posts.
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:06:50 +0000, [email protected]+.com (A.Lee) said
in <1h7q4jm.12u7evtguu1xcN%ala[email protected]+.com>:

>Then take it to a more appropriate group.This case had nothing
>whatsoever to do with cycling, hence there was no need for it to be
>here.


I beg to differ. The death was caused when a driver lost control of a
car and mounted the pavement. It is one more datum in the statistics
which show that, despite the fact no driver *ever* sets out to
complete all or any significant part of a journey on the footway,
while many cyclists do just that, you are at massively more risk on
the footway form cars than from cyclists.

It's not /very/ relevant, but it is relevant.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
J

Jim Ley

Guest
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:17:07 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:06:50 +0000, [email protected]+.com (A.Lee) said
>in <1h7q4jm.12u7evtguu1xcN%[email protected]+.com>:
>>Then take it to a more appropriate group.This case had nothing
>>whatsoever to do with cycling, hence there was no need for it to be
>>here.

>
>I beg to differ. The death was caused when a driver lost control of a
>car and mounted the pavement.


So no cyclst involved, how is it relevant to cycling?

> It is one more datum in the statistics
>which show that, despite the fact no driver *ever* sets out to
>complete all or any significant part of a journey on the footway,
>while many cyclists do just that, you are at massively more risk on
>the footway form cars than from cyclists.


When has that ever been a topic of debate? It's certainly not
relevant, however much more at risk you are from cars, it doesn't make
the lower risk of cycling okay, just like it's not okay to carry a 6
inch knife simply because you're more at risk from a sword.

It was a completely off-topic post that had nothing to do with
cycling, I can't understand how your justification makes any sense at
all, the risks to a pedestrian from a car or bike are not related,
they're completely independant.

Jim.
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:26:21 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) said in
<[email protected]>:

>>I beg to differ. The death was caused when a driver lost control of a
>>car and mounted the pavement.

>So no cyclst involved, how is it relevant to cycling?


A question neatly answered elsewhere in the paragraph you bisected:

>> It is one more datum in the statistics
>>which show that, despite the fact no driver *ever* sets out to
>>complete all or any significant part of a journey on the footway,
>>while many cyclists do just that, you are at massively more risk on
>>the footway form cars than from cyclists.


Like I said, it's not /very/ relevant, but it's relevant.

Nobody is forcing you to follow this thread.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken