six month ban for killing a cyclist

[Simonb]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:46:15 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "pk"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> I'm glad someone else thinks like that and ahs the courage to say it.
>
> Courage?
>
> What sort of courage is needed to express an opinion on
> uk.rec.cycling?

Why Keyboard Kourage of course!

 

[James Thomson]

"wafflycat" <wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk> wrote

[snip]

> Many years ago, I guy I knew told me why he didn't drive. He
> didn't drive because many years previously he'd been drinking
> - drove his car and promptly killed an innocent pedestrian. He
> never drove again, even though he was allowed to. He said it
> was the only thing he could do to show he was sorry

[snip]

Had he never heard of hara-kiri?

James Thomson

 

[David Hansen]

On 15 Mar 2005 14:13:18 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Cyclists do not miraculously come into existence embedded on
>> teh front of motor vehicles.
>
>No, but they can appear from behind parked trucks, or trees, or swerve
>onto the road from the footpath unexpectedly, or any one of many
>possibilities

They can indeed. Of course the Highway Code cautions, in various
ways, against assuming nothing is going to suddenly appear in such
circumstances.

It is however difficult to imagine a road junction with a lorry,
tree or footpath placed in such a position that this could happen to
someone operating their vehicle properly. Even if the road is lined
with trees one can normally easily see what is happening to the
front and side of one's vehicle.

>which some of those who have commented on this seem
>to have rejected out of hand,

Don't take up mind reading.

>instead preferring to believe that
>the motorist is completely at fault and the cyclist is not at all at
>fault.

Ditto.

What I have done is raise some counter points to those put forward
by the criminal's legal bod. That is the way discussion works.
Points are made from several directions and exposed to criticism to
see how valid they are. Personal attacks about why someone is making
particular points may be the stock in trade of party politicians,
journalists and some academics, but they ad little to the
discussion.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[pk]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:50:18 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "pk"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> I for one treat your remarks with similar caution.
>
> Kindly point to the part of my posting where I said that my remarks
> were based on having seen what happened.

I've seen many straw men in my time, but that takes the award for the bets
ever - no relationship whatsoever to the post is responds to.

pk

 

[Michael MacClancy]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:17:34 +0100, James Thomson wrote:

> "wafflycat" <wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk> wrote
>
> [snip]
>
>> Many years ago, I guy I knew told me why he didn't drive. He
>> didn't drive because many years previously he'd been drinking
>> - drove his car and promptly killed an innocent pedestrian. He
>> never drove again, even though he was allowed to. He said it
>> was the only thing he could do to show he was sorry
>
> [snip]
>
> Had he never heard of hara-kiri?
>
> James Thomson

I hope that was a joke. Or are you seriously suggesting that one's suicide
is a suitable gesture in the circumstances?

--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Dave Larrington]

Ian Smith wrote:

> Besides, cyclists do not just appear. Object permanence, and all
> that. Cyclists do not miraculously come into existence embedded on
> teh front of motor vehicles.

Tsk, Ian, of course they do. It stands to reason that if they instantly
Disapparate the moment they are behind a motor vehicle[1], the reverse must
also be the case.

1 - and we know /this/ to be true because otherwise we wouldn't constantly
have cars overtaking us and turning left, or buses forcing us into the kerb,
or, er, I'll get back to you on this...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:23:47 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "pk"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I've seen many straw men in my time, but that takes the award for the bets
>ever - no relationship whatsoever to the post is responds to.

I note your swerve.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:22:22 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2005 14:13:18 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> Cyclists do not miraculously come into existence embedded on
>>> teh front of motor vehicles.
>>
>>No, but they can appear from behind parked trucks, or trees, or swerve
>>onto the road from the footpath unexpectedly, or any one of many
>>possibilities
>
> They can indeed. Of course the Highway Code cautions, in various
> ways, against assuming nothing is going to suddenly appear in such
> circumstances.
>
> It is however difficult to imagine a road junction with a lorry,
> tree or footpath placed in such a position that this could happen to
> someone operating their vehicle properly. Even if the road is lined
> with trees one can normally easily see what is happening to the
> front and side of one's vehicle.

clearly it is difficult for you to imagine. I guess that's why you
hold the certainties you do.

>>which some of those who have commented on this seem
>>to have rejected out of hand,
>
> Don't take up mind reading.

Why not? You seem to be basing an entire verdict on clairvoyance.

>>instead preferring to believe that
>>the motorist is completely at fault and the cyclist is not at all at
>>fault.
>
> Ditto.
>
> What I have done is raise some counter points to those put forward
> by the criminal's legal bod. That is the way discussion works.

No you haven't. You've reiterated dogma and prejudice, and offered as
certainties or near certainties conclusions that you can have little
cause to reach given the information you have. You are basing your
speculations on frankly ludicrous statements, like "Even if the road
is lined with trees you can normally see ..." - well, that may be
your experiece, but your experience does not necessarily match that
of the area where the crash happenned. My point is, and remains,
that you have no reason other than prejudice and dogma to assume
the relative culpability of both parties. You are prejudiced against
the legal system, as you have demonstrated time and time again,
you are prejudiced against motorists in general, and you are
prejudiced against anyone who does not hold views that match
with those you would have in Hansen-world.

> Points are made from several directions and exposed to criticism to
> see how valid they are. Personal attacks about why someone is making
> particular points may be the stock in trade of party politicians,
> journalists and some academics, but they ad little to the
> discussion.

You still do not see the irony of someone who holds in contempt the
establishment around them expressing the prejudices you do towards
those who don't share your particular world-view.

I guess you'll probably dismiss all that stuff with your usual
"Nice try" or "Don't take up mind reading" or one of the other
meaningless little getouts you tend to spout when you find youself
talking rubbish. Still, it beats "plonk", I guess

--
Trevor Barton

 

[David Hansen]

On 15 Mar 2005 16:39:57 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>You've reiterated dogma and prejudice, and offered as
>certainties or near certainties conclusions that you can have little
>cause to reach given the information you have.

Yawn.

I refer you to my first posting in this thread. In its entirety that
was "Where was the motorist looking at the time? Presumably not
where the car was going." Twist my words as much as you like that is
hardly dogma, prejudice and certainty.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Tim Forcer]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:23wafflycat wrote:

> Patrick Blakesley, mitigating, said: "She turned right and,
> when she straightened up, the bicycle was across the
> front of the car.

So far, nobody seems to have mentioned the word "across" in the
above. To me, it implies the bike was at right-angles to the
direction of the road. I assume it is relatively easy to
determine whether a bike struck by the front of a car had been
travelling in essentially the same direction, or perpendicularly,
at the point of impact?

The junction in question is actually a staggered-junction
cross-roads, whereas the impression I got from the report was of
a T-junction:
<http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=616198&y=342900&z=1&sv=616250,342750>
<http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=52.9409&lon=1.2131&scale=5000&icon=x>.
When turning right at such a junction many road users concentrate
on traffic coming from only one direction, having got an
impression that the other directions are essentially clear or
non-threatening. Such behaviour is standard "driving without due
care and attention", but can be seen in action far too frequently
for comfort of vulnerable road users such as cyclists.

When there's a serious crash on a road in this part of the
country, with someone either killed or seriously injured, the
road is closed for hours while a full scene-of-crime inspection
is carried out, including measurement/photographing skid marks
etc. Anybody know if anything similar happened here? Any
indication of relative speed at impact? In some respects, a
low-ish speed might be worse, as it might knock the bike over,
whereas a higher speed would dump the rider onto the bonnet?

It seems the prosecution decided not to attempt any charge more
serious than "careless". The report indicates there was an adult
front-seat passenger, who does not appear to have given any
pertinent evidence. Which is strange?

As to the possibility of the cyclist appearing from the pavement,
what would have happened if a pedestrian had walked off the
pavement, or a child had run out from the pavement? These are
possibilities which road-users are supposed to consider, and
where speed limits are supposed to mitigate the consequences of
failure to consider.

Raises all sorts of questions, and I'm not sure any useful
general conclusions are possible.

Just my collection of questions - yours will probably differ.
--
Tim Forcer [email protected]
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions

 

[Mark Thompson]

> If you don't like it, change it

!?

ITYM "If you don't like it, tough."

 

[Trevor Barton]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2005 16:39:57 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>You've reiterated dogma and prejudice, and offered as
>>certainties or near certainties conclusions that you can have little
>>cause to reach given the information you have.
>
> Yawn.
>
> I refer you to my first posting in this thread. In its entirety that
> was "Where was the motorist looking at the time? Presumably not
> where the car was going." Twist my words as much as you like that is
> hardly dogma, prejudice and certainty.

Oh? You've presumed that she wasn't looking where the car was going, and
the clear inference of that statement is that (a) if she had been looking
where the car was going she wouldn't have hit the cyclist, and (b) that
looking where the car is going is at all times the best strategy for
not hitting anything or anybody. You have no evidence of the first,
and the second is palpably not the case, or there'd be no need for
most of the glass in the car, let alone the mirrors.

So, we're back to dogma, prejudice and uncertainty then.

--
Trevor Barton

 

[David Martin]

Trevor Barton wrote:
> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 15 Mar 2005 16:39:57 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>
>>>You've reiterated dogma and prejudice, and offered as
>>>certainties or near certainties conclusions that you can have little
>>>cause to reach given the information you have.
>>
>>Yawn.
>>
>>I refer you to my first posting in this thread. In its entirety that
>>was "Where was the motorist looking at the time? Presumably not
>>where the car was going." Twist my words as much as you like that is
>>hardly dogma, prejudice and certainty.
>
>
> Oh? You've presumed that she wasn't looking where the car was going, and
> the clear inference of that statement is that (a) if she had been looking
> where the car was going she wouldn't have hit the cyclist,

As the cyclist was stated in other reports to be 'waiting to turn right'
it beggars belief to understand how one could have not seen the cyclist
if one had not been looking where one was going. Cyclists do not
suddenly appear on the front bumper.

and (b) that
> looking where the car is going is at all times the best strategy for
> not hitting anything or anybody.
Interesting extension to 'at all times'. One is required to check that
where one is about to take ones vehicle is actually free from others, as
was patently not done and not the case.

> You have no evidence of the first,
Wrong. The cyclist was in front of the car, waiting to turn right.

> and the second is palpably not the case, or there'd be no need for
> most of the glass in the car, let alone the mirrors.
So you have knocked down your straw man. Well done!

> So, we're back to dogma, prejudice and uncertainty then.

No, just specious arguements.

...d

 

[Trevor Barton]

David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 Mar 2005 16:39:57 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
>>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>>
>>>
>>>>You've reiterated dogma and prejudice, and offered as
>>>>certainties or near certainties conclusions that you can have little
>>>>cause to reach given the information you have.
>>>
>>>Yawn.
>>>
>>>I refer you to my first posting in this thread. In its entirety that
>>>was "Where was the motorist looking at the time? Presumably not
>>>where the car was going." Twist my words as much as you like that is
>>>hardly dogma, prejudice and certainty.
>>
>>
>> Oh? You've presumed that she wasn't looking where the car was going, and
>> the clear inference of that statement is that (a) if she had been looking
>> where the car was going she wouldn't have hit the cyclist,
>
> As the cyclist was stated in other reports to be 'waiting to turn right'
> it beggars belief to understand how one could have not seen the cyclist
> if one had not been looking where one was going. Cyclists do not
> suddenly appear on the front bumper.

I'm commenting on Hansen's original post, which was made long before
teh other report was posted. The only evidence in that post of what
actually happenned was that the cyclist may have ridden off the
pavement, and if that was to be the case then clearly looking where
the car was going would not have resulted necessarily in the cyclist
being seen.

Subsequent information may have changed the facts at his and my disposal,
but that does not excuse the unwarranted leap to a conclusion that Hansen
made in his original post. That was based on dogma, prejudice and
a certainty that was not warranted by the information he had at the
time. My point is still valid.

>
> and (b) that
>> looking where the car is going is at all times the best strategy for
>> not hitting anything or anybody.
> Interesting extension to 'at all times'. One is required to check that
> where one is about to take ones vehicle is actually free from others, as
> was patently not done and not the case.
>
>> You have no evidence of the first,
> Wrong. The cyclist was in front of the car, waiting to turn right.

Not based on the evidence with which he posted.

>> and the second is palpably not the case, or there'd be no need for
>> most of the glass in the car, let alone the mirrors.
> So you have knocked down your straw man. Well done!

Which one would that be then?

>
>> So, we're back to dogma, prejudice and uncertainty then.
>
> No, just specious arguements.
>
> ..d

Do try to keep up.

--
Trevor Barton.

 

[pk]

David Martin wrote:
> As the cyclist was stated in other reports to be 'waiting to turn
> right' it beggars belief to understand how one could have not seen
> the cyclist if one had not been looking where one was going. Cyclists
> do not suddenly appear on the front bumper.


just to be clear, that report was an early newspaper report even before
relatives had been informed. It asked for witnesses. it may be that the
further investigation showed this not to be the case. None of us here know
one way or the other on the basis of evidence/information at our disposal.

Any firm conclusion on the matter must perforce be based more on
preconceptions and dogma.

I seek to understand where the cyclist was / came from to be at the front of
the car after it had straightened up ie after completing the turn out of the
road, as seems to be implied by the briefs' statement in court.

pk

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:43:48 -0000 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk> wrote this:-

>> FFS - I feel like a troll, just because I can't sometimes believe the
>> sheer vehemence in this group.
>
>Not vehemence at all - I haven't suggested she should be hanged, her
>entrails drawn out and then have her body quartered or have her shot at
>dawn.

Indeed. It's a bit like the "courage" that is apparently necessary
to post messages to this group that don't agree with what others
say. I haven't noticed anyone having pain inflicted on them for
making such a posting.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Martin]

Trevor Barton wrote:
> David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Trevor Barton wrote:
>>>David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On 15 Mar 2005 16:39:57 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
>>>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>>>>You've reiterated dogma and prejudice, and offered as
>>>>>certainties or near certainties conclusions that you can have little
>>>>>cause to reach given the information you have.
>>>>I refer you to my first posting in this thread. In its entirety that
>>>>was "Where was the motorist looking at the time? Presumably not
>>>>where the car was going." Twist my words as much as you like that is
>>>>hardly dogma, prejudice and certainty.
>>>Oh? You've presumed that she wasn't looking where the car was going, and
>>>the clear inference of that statement is that (a) if she had been looking
>>>where the car was going she wouldn't have hit the cyclist,
>>As the cyclist was stated in other reports to be 'waiting to turn right'
>>it beggars belief to understand how one could have not seen the cyclist
>>if one had not been looking where one was going. Cyclists do not
>>suddenly appear on the front bumper.
> I'm commenting on Hansen's original post, which was made long before
> teh other report was posted. The only evidence in that post of what
> actually happenned was that the cyclist may have ridden off the
> pavement, and if that was to be the case then clearly looking where
> the car was going would not have resulted necessarily in the cyclist
> being seen.

In the original post the car clearly drove into the cyclist. The cyclist
was not seen by the driver until she was on the bonnet. Had the driver
been looking where she was going instead of where she was about to be
going..

> Subsequent information may have changed the facts at his and my disposal,
> but that does not excuse the unwarranted leap to a conclusion that Hansen
> made in his original post. That was based on dogma, prejudice and
> a certainty that was not warranted by the information he had at the
> time. My point is still valid.
Your point is only valid if you stretch David's post to the limits and
place an intention behind the words.
>>and (b) that
>>
>>>looking where the car is going is at all times the best strategy for
>>>not hitting anything or anybody.
>>
>>Interesting extension to 'at all times'. One is required to check that
>>where one is about to take ones vehicle is actually free from others, as
>>was patently not done and not the case.
>>
>>
>>>You have no evidence of the first,
>>
>>Wrong. The cyclist was in front of the car, waiting to turn right.
>
>
> Not based on the evidence with which he posted.
>
OK.. I will accept that there was no evidence at the time of the cyclist
waiting. There was evidence of the cyclist being in front of the car
before being hit.

>
>>>and the second is palpably not the case, or there'd be no need for
>>>most of the glass in the car, let alone the mirrors.
>>
>>So you have knocked down your
> Which one would that be then?
>
The insertion of 'at all times'.

>
>>>So, we're back to dogma, prejudice and uncertainty then.
>>
>>No, just specious arguements.
> Do try to keep up.
I am fully up to speed. Did I say whose arguements I considered
specious? Maybe I consider both to be not entirely founded on fact?

...d

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:02:02 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>In the original post the car clearly drove into the cyclist. The cyclist
>was not seen by the driver until she was on the bonnet. Had the driver
>been looking where she was going instead of where she was about to be
>going..

And to go back to my original post. What I typed was, "Where was the
motorist looking at the time? Presumably not where the car was
going." Dogma, prejudice and certainty is not displayed by sentences
ending with question marks and starting with perhaps.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul - ***
('[email protected]') wrote:

> soup composed the following;:
>> Paul - *** popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on
>> and said
>>> But couldn't the exact same thing be said of the cyclist? If she
>>> had also been looking, then she wouldn't have left the pavement
>>> directly in front of the car ...
>>
>>> As no-one apparently knows what happened, why speculate?
>>
>> You do exactly that with your "left the pavement" sentence,
>> no-one but no-one alive knows if she was on the pavement.
>> Her brief made some comment about the possidility of her
>> (the cyclist) being on the pavement.
>
> I wasn't trying to speculate, just pointing out that either view has
> another, and speculation is pretty useless without more evidence.
>
> I just read it again and the line "Nobody knows precisely where the
> cyclist had come from, but it is one
> possibility that she had come off the pavement to cross the road."

The fact remains that the driver struck the cyclist. We know this
because 'when she straightened up, the bicycle was across the front of
the car'. So the driver was culpable, whether or not the cyclist was
also culpable. And, you know, I think the cyclist may just have been
Punished Enough[tm].

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

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:50:07 -0000, "dwb" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>FFS - I feel like a troll, just because I can't sometimes believe the sheer
>vehemence in this group.

I think I can explain that with the following three figures:

Cyclists to blame in crashes where they are killed or injured: 17%-40%
Cyclists killed or seriously injured in these crashes: 2,400 approx.
Drivers killed or seriously injured in these crashes: 0 approx.


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

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