Pillock on Bike malliciously mows down blind pensioner, escapes practically laughing

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 15 Sep 2004 22:09:33 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> I don't think that's contentious. There have been several threads on
>> urc where Pavement Petes and other nupmties have been roundly
>> castigated.

>IRT as "castrated". Which may well be appropriate.

Standard recommended punishment for cluelessness, as defined on urc,
is in fact "cut off their goolies" ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 15 Sep 2004 22:13:28 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> Really? So, for example, if it had been a shared use facility and the
>> victim had stepped backwards into the path of a bicycle on the bike
>> lane without looking, it would still be the bike's fault?

>If it had been a shared-use cycle path, and the ped had stepped back into
>the path of a car using the cycle path, I think it'd be safe to say it was
>the car driver's fault...

And the bit you snipped...

Actually in my book it would because shared-use facilities are a
work of Stan and should be Shunned, but legally the question is not
quite so clear-cut.

Councils painting pictures of bikes on the pavement at random is part
of the cause of the problem, IMO. My children (7 and 10) do not ride
on the pavement.

>However - as I said - and as you've managed to avoid answering - what about
>numbers of minor injuries to peds on pavements caused by bikes rather than
>cars?

What numbers? Post them. I only know the figures for fatalities,
which are as stated, and that indicates to me that even excluding the
dange rposed by cars on the roads, cars are so much more dangerous
than bikes as to amply justify the different legal requirmeents for
the two types of vehicle.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Ian Smith]

On 15 Sep 2004 18:41:47 GMT, Huge <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [19 lines snipped]
>
> >Unlike motorists, of course, the literal majority of whom break speed
> >limits (a fact which various surveys and studies have demonstrated).
>
> Fallacious. "Tu quoque".

Not in the context - were you paying attention?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Jon Senior]

Huge [email protected] opined the following...
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [19 lines snipped]
>
> >Unlike motorists, of course, the literal majority of whom break speed
> >limits (a fact which various surveys and studies have demonstrated).
>
> Fallacious. "Tu quoque".

The A1(M) near my parents has an observed average speed of over 80mph.
This takes into account lorries. ITYF that Ian's statement is in fact...
true. Conard!

> Next!

OK. Trou de cul! Tu veux se faire enculer avec un gode!

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Steve Firth [email protected] opined the following...
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > unecessary bureaucracy
>
> So we should scrap all bureaucracy relating to motor vehicles should we?

No. Because as has been quite patiently explained many times, there is a
far greater need for paperwork, traceability and accountability relating
to motor vehicles.

Which category kills the most people, and causes the most damage?

By what order of magnitude?

Which one should we regulate the most?

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Steve Firth [email protected] opined the following...
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > But of course cyclists are usually both uninsured and are unregistered
> > > and simply refuse to give details or give false details.
> >
> > There you go again. "Usually," you say. What data do you have to back that
> > up
>
> Name a registered cyclist.

Good of you to ignore the other side there. That bit about insurance.

And to answer your question, any Windcheetah rider is registered by
frame number. But you probably knew that already!

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Steve Firth [email protected] opined the following...
> Andy Leighton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > a) Some cyclists are below the age of legal respsonsibility
>
> Then they shoudl be permitted to cycle only on private land.

Let's try again to get some sense of proportion into you. Compare the
likelihood of an underage driver (In a vehicle designed for adults)
losing control and the amount of damage thus caused, with the same child
riding a bike. Why exactly do you think that the former is regulated
heavily against, but there is nothing against the latter?

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Steve Firth [email protected] opined the following...
> James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> >
> > > I have already stated that I took the *******
> > > to court.
> >
> > So what's your problem?
>
> I don't have one. You and some of the other lycra loons appear to have a
> problem with responsibility.

Not really. We've all agreed that in your (exceptional) case, the
cyclist was responsible and since you were failed by the legal system
(Or your legal team!) your proposal makes little or no sense.

> If youa re all, as you claim, insured then
> compulsory insurance presents no threat to you.

Threat? No. Waste of public money? Yes. I would rather see the same
money channelled into sensible provisions for bikes, or ideally, a
decent public transport network and a far more strigent driving test.

> If you are lying through
> your teeth then I understand your reaction to the suggestion.

No. You're just having problems understanding the real world. Your
proposed system of compulsory insurance + registration of cyclists is
unworkable, expensive (To the general public, not just cyclists) and
would gain nothing. It is unrealistic and frankly daft.

To continually compare cyclists to drivers (Or rather... bikes to cars)
without taking account of the enormous difference in actual risk posed
or damage caused between the two categories is either irresponsible or
stupid.[1]

I'm very sorry that a cyclist wrecked your car (I do find it quite funny
too, though that's just because I can think of at least two drivers I
met toady whom I would wish it on). I'm intrigued however, to understand
how your proposed system would have changed anything in your case.
Perhaps you might care to enlighten us?

Jon

[1] I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time and assume that you
were just trying to weasel your point in.

 

[Jon Senior]

Steve Firth [email protected] opined the following...
> Huge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > (Oh, and those who silently **** with the newsgroups line are ****heads.)
>
> Especially when they do so after being warned not to do so.
>
> Same sort of arrogant stupidity that sees them ride onto a pavement and
> around inconvenient red lights or across pedestrian crossings.

Sorry. Are we still talking about drivers here?

Jon

 

[JNugent]

Martin Newstead wrote:

> Paul Weaver wrote:

>> Of course mandortary proficency tests would prevent many POB's
>> getting on the road in the first place.

> Unlikely IMHO. There are many drivers who don't have licences or
> insurance when they are legally obliged to.

Are you serious?

If motor insurance, driver training and driving licences were not mandatory,
do you imagine there would be only as many unlicensed, uninsured and
untrained rivers as there are at present?

> There are many accidents
> on the roads caused by selfish and incompetent drivers who have
> passed their tests

....which has precisely nothing to do with the topic.

As per usual.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.755 / Virus Database: 505 - Release Date: 08/09/04

 

[Jon Senior]

Steve Firth [email protected] opined the following...
> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > you can go on hating all cyclists
>
> I didn't even start hating all cyclists.
>
> My but you are a bunch of hissy-fit prima donnas.

Probably because you are attempting to tar us all with a brush of your
own invention. Most people take that personally. How about "Bloody
pedestrians. So stupid. Keep walking into roads, in front of bikes and
cars. No sense of awareness of their surroundings. We should make them
all wear numbers so that the more stupid ones can be rounded up and shot
before they get a chance to breed.

> No wonder you're such arrogant little pricks when you run into
> pedestrians on the pavement.

Except that we don't run into pedestrians on the pavement, because (wait
for it) WE DON'T RIDE ON THE PAVEMENT! So far there doesn't appear to
have been a massive amount of support of your observations of these
pavement riding, red-light jumping cyclists. Are you sure that you're
taking the correct dose of your medication?

Jon

 

[JNugent]

Keith Willoughby wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:

>> Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>>> I would however agree with random stop checks of bikes to ensure
>>> that they are mechanically sound. Of course... a culture of
>>> cyclists rather than drivers would probably make sure of that
>>> anyway.

>> Bwhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha

>> Care to contrast the difference between the compulsory annual safety
>> checks on cars and the current situation with cycles?

> Badly maintained cars are a danger to everyone. Badly maintained bikes
> are mostly a danger to the cyclist.

Rubbish.

The person most at risk from a badly-maintained motor vehicle is its driver,
who is at risk all the time it is operated.

>> Or the compulsory insurance of cars against the situation for cycles?

> Cars do so much damage, insurance is compulsory and a multi-billion
> pound industry. Bikes do so little damage, insurance is thrown into
> the CTC membership price, household insurance policies, etc.

....in which case there is no disadvantage accruing to anyone from making it
compulsory, since apparently everyone already has it (allegedly).

> Anyone see the photo of the car embedded inside a house in the papers
> today? I guess that could happen on a bike, but it'd have to be going
> *really* fast.

I didn't see it.

But I did hear about a blind pensioner mown down by an untraceable lout on a
bike.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.755 / Virus Database: 505 - Release Date: 08/09/04

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Steve Firth wrote:

> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> you can go on hating all cyclists
>
> I didn't even start hating all cyclists.

You do surprise me. I though you had to hate all cyclists before they
let you into the club.

> My but you are a bunch of hissy-fit prima donnas.

I don't speak for anyone else but me. If you think I'm a hissy-fit prima
donna, say so, but don't drag anyone else into it.

> No wonder you're such arrogant little pricks when you run into
> pedestrians on the pavement.

I don't cycle on the pavement. I've never hit a pedestrian. If I did
manage to hit a pedestrian and caused them damage, I'd be insured
against it. I do, however, wear lycra, although I cover it up with
cotton. HTH.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without
fighting."
- Sun Tzu

 

[JNugent]

DavidR wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote

>> Bicycle insurance as you are well aware is cheaper than car
>> insurance a reflection fo the potential for inflicting damage and
>> hence it is easier to afford and there is *no* excuse for a cyclist
>> ducking their responsibility. So lets make it compulsory, subject to
>> the usual fines and other penalties and that will be another problem
>> dealt with, fairly.

> The fine for driving without insurance is roughly £150 compared to
> (what?) £750. I expect you will agree to a proportional fine for
> riding without insurance? So that will be £1.25 then.

Plus a ban from cycling for accruing two such fines within four years (six
penalty points a throw), you mean?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.755 / Virus Database: 505 - Release Date: 08/09/04

 

[Keith Willoughby]

JNugent wrote:

> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>> Care to contrast the difference between the compulsory annual safety
>>> checks on cars and the current situation with cycles?
>
>> Badly maintained cars are a danger to everyone. Badly maintained bikes
>> are mostly a danger to the cyclist.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> The person most at risk from a badly-maintained motor vehicle is its driver,
> who is at risk all the time it is operated.

The driver is surrounded by a couple of tons of metal, much of which is
designed to protect the driver. The pedestrian has no such protection.

>>> Or the compulsory insurance of cars against the situation for cycles?
>
>> Cars do so much damage, insurance is compulsory and a multi-billion
>> pound industry. Bikes do so little damage, insurance is thrown into
>> the CTC membership price, household insurance policies, etc.
>
> ...in which case there is no disadvantage accruing to anyone from making it
> compulsory, since apparently everyone already has it (allegedly).

Except for the cost of administering a compulsion. Feel free to lobby
your MP, though. If you want to pay to have my insurance formally
checked, that's your business and our money.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
I took the bus from Balmbras
And she was heavy laden

 

[Jon Senior]

JNugent [email protected] opined the following...
> Rubbish.
>
> The person most at risk from a badly-maintained motor vehicle is its driver,
> who is at risk all the time it is operated.

You poor deluded fool. The people most at risk from a badly-maintained
motor vehicle are those around it. Faulty brakes or a lack of tread will
likely lead to whiplash for driver (At worst) but could easily result in
the death of a pedestrian or cyclist.

> ...in which case there is no disadvantage accruing to anyone from making it
> compulsory, since apparently everyone already has it (allegedly).

Other than the aforementioned paperwork and associated costs for an
unnecessary bureaucracy. You can read right? You have read the rest of
this thread where this has been mentioned again and again? Do you have
trouble understanding it? Is there anything we can do to help?

> I didn't see it.
>
> But I did hear about a blind pensioner mown down by an untraceable lout on a
> bike.

OK. Challenge. Count the number of times this year that the national
press reports incidents of cyclists causing injury or death to anyone.
At the same time keep a tally of the number of car drivers doing the
same.

Then count the number of significant figures for each column and you'll
have some idea of the difference in magnitude of each problem.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

JNugent [email protected] opined the following...
> Plus a ban from cycling for accruing two such fines within four years (six
> penalty points a throw), you mean?

You've forgotten the proportionality again! ITYM to say "Plus a ban from
cycling for accruing two hundred such fines within four years (0.06
penalty points a throw)"

Jon

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:21:01 +0100, Jon Senior <> wrote:
> Steve Firth [email protected] opined the following...
> > Huge <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > (Oh, and those who silently **** with the newsgroups line are ****heads.)
> >
> > Especially when they do so after being warned not to do so.
> >
> > Same sort of arrogant stupidity that sees them ride onto a pavement and
> > around inconvenient red lights or across pedestrian crossings.
>
> Sorry. Are we still talking about drivers here?

I think so.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[[Not Responding]]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:41:44 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
Firth) wrote:

>Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> you can go on hating all cyclists
>
>I didn't even start hating all cyclists.
>
>My but you are a bunch of hissy-fit prima donnas.
>
>No wonder you're such arrogant little pricks when you run into
>pedestrians on the pavement.

I'm sure you'll be glad to know that I would never ride on the
pavement. Not even when the council puts poxy blue signs on it and
somehow thinks this makes it safe.

I stay on the road and you should hear the grief that gets me from
morons in cars.

 

[David Martin]

On 16/9/04 12:36 am, in article [email protected], "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The person most at risk from a badly-maintained motor vehicle is its driver,
> who is at risk all the time it is operated.

Risk = Hazard x Exposure

The occupant obviously has the greater exposure but is the hazard posed to
those outside sufficiently great to make their small exposure result in much
greater risk?

Your argument doesn't address risk, only exposure to hazard.

...d