Yet another cyclist death, this one near Edinburgh

[Richard Burton]

You are Paul Smith, you are a complete utter total imbecile. Please go on holiday permanently and
leave us adults to worry about things that you just don't understand.

And I'm only top-posting becaus I know it annoys you!

cheers

Rich "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Hansen, deftly scribbled ;
>
> > The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
> > http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003 I repeat most of the article for posterity.
> >
> > Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not
> > prevented by his helmet.
>
> It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of
whether
> the van driver or the cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you
'jumping
> the gun' a bit ? How do you know it wasn't the cyclists fault ? OK, circumstantial evidence of the
> driver not stopping does lend some weight
to
> that, but aren't you acting just like 'the car drivers' on the 'speed' websites ?
>
> What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he was
> 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have 'struck' the
> van, and the van driver
may
> have been an entirely innocent party. As it appears it was only the wing mirror that hit the
> cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a maybe) didn't
even
> know he'd hit anything.
>
> Unless you saw it, in which case I may be wrong.
>
> Your 'hidden agenda' of introducing your views on the wearing of cycle helmets, on the back of
> some persons death, is also noted with some disgust.
>
> --
> ...................................Paul-*** Seti 1358 wu in 9565 hours

 

[Just Meeeeeee.]

"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
> > http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003
>
> I neither know nor care what motivated the OP and not being a witness
can't
> lay blame, but if you look at the photograph certain things are readily apparent: The road has a
> bend and is surfaced with an extra grippy coating
suggesting
> it is a problem section. Also there is a central refuge, great for pedestrians and also useful for
> keeping ******** drivers to their own side of the road but creating a bottleneck for any motor
> vehicle behind a cyclist and perhaps ruling out
the
> feasibility of attempting an overtake if safety is to be considered.
>

Yes but you don't overtake on a bend if the road conditions do not allow it. So it may point to the
fact that the driver thought he could" Squeze " past and failed in his attempt. Result dead rider,
scared driver that may of panicked and done a runner.

My 2p worth.

helmets do and do not save lives it depends on the velocity of the body hitting or being hit by an
object that kills the body. If the velocity is more than the construction of the helmet then it will
fail so you end up injured or dead if it is less then you may survive. But you could end up with a
bleed inside your skull later that will kill you as a result of shock to the brain. So did it save
your life or prolong your death??

 

[Just Meeeeeee.]

"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
> > http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003
>
> I neither know nor care what motivated the OP and not being a witness
can't
> lay blame, but if you look at the photograph certain things are readily apparent: The road has a
> bend and is surfaced with an extra grippy coating
suggesting
> it is a problem section. Also there is a central refuge, great for pedestrians and also useful for
> keeping ******** drivers to their own side of the road but creating a bottleneck for any motor
> vehicle behind a cyclist and perhaps ruling out
the
> feasibility of attempting an overtake if safety is to be considered.
>

Yes but you don't overtake on a bend if the road conditions do not allow it. So it may point to the
fact that the driver thought he could" Squeze " past and failed in his attempt. Result dead rider,
scared driver that may of panicked and done a runner.

My 2p worth.

helmets do and do not save lives it depends on the velocity of the body hitting or being hit by an
object that kills the body. If the velocity is more than the construction of the helmet then it will
fail so you end up injured or dead if it is less then you may survive. But you could end up with a
bleed inside your skull later that will kill you as a result of shock to the brain. So did it save
your life or prolong your death??

 

[Paul - XXX]

LOL, actually it doesn't annoy me at all. One of the main groups I post in is a top or bttom posting
group ..

I am not Paul Smith.

As for being an imbecile, point out where I am wrong.

Richard Burton, deftly scribbled ;

> You are Paul Smith, you are a complete utter total imbecile. Please go on holiday permanently and
> leave us adults to worry about things that you just don't understand.
>
> And I'm only top-posting becaus I know it annoys you!
>
> cheers
>
> Rich "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> David Hansen, deftly scribbled ;
>>
>>> The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
>>> http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003 I repeat most of the article for posterity.
>>>
>>> Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not
>>> prevented by his helmet.
>>
>> It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of whether the van driver or the
>> cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you 'jumping the gun' a bit ? How do you know it wasn't
>> the cyclists fault ? OK, circumstantial evidence of the driver not stopping does lend some weight
>> to that, but aren't you acting just like 'the car drivers' on the 'speed' websites ?
>>
>> What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he was
>> 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have 'struck' the
>> van, and the van driver may have been an entirely innocent party. As it appears it was only the
>> wing mirror that hit the cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a maybe) didn't even know he'd hit
>> anything.
>>
>> Unless you saw it, in which case I may be wrong.
>>
>> Your 'hidden agenda' of introducing your views on the wearing of cycle helmets, on the back of
>> some persons death, is also noted with some disgust.
>>
>> --
>> ...................................Paul-*** Seti 1358 wu in 9565 hours

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1363 wu in 9630 hours

 

[Paul - XXX]

LOL, actually it doesn't annoy me at all. One of the main groups I post in is a top or bttom posting
group ..

I am not Paul Smith.

As for being an imbecile, point out where I am wrong.

Richard Burton, deftly scribbled ;

> You are Paul Smith, you are a complete utter total imbecile. Please go on holiday permanently and
> leave us adults to worry about things that you just don't understand.
>
> And I'm only top-posting becaus I know it annoys you!
>
> cheers
>
> Rich "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> David Hansen, deftly scribbled ;
>>
>>> The Edinburgh Evening News for Saturday 25/1/03 has news of the death of someone else.
>>> http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=99392003 I repeat most of the article for posterity.
>>>
>>> Note that he died due to a motor vehicle driver and the "massive head injuries" were not
>>> prevented by his helmet.
>>
>> It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of whether the van driver or the
>> cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you 'jumping the gun' a bit ? How do you know it wasn't
>> the cyclists fault ? OK, circumstantial evidence of the driver not stopping does lend some weight
>> to that, but aren't you acting just like 'the car drivers' on the 'speed' websites ?
>>
>> What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he was
>> 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have 'struck' the
>> van, and the van driver may have been an entirely innocent party. As it appears it was only the
>> wing mirror that hit the cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a maybe) didn't even know he'd hit
>> anything.
>>
>> Unless you saw it, in which case I may be wrong.
>>
>> Your 'hidden agenda' of introducing your views on the wearing of cycle helmets, on the back of
>> some persons death, is also noted with some disgust.
>>
>> --
>> ...................................Paul-*** Seti 1358 wu in 9565 hours

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1363 wu in 9630 hours

 

[W K]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"whats wrong" ...

> >> It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of whether the van driver or
> >> the cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you 'jumping the gun' a bit ? How do you know it
> >> wasn't the cyclists fault ?

Its the responsability of the driver to overtake safely. Unless the bike swerved enough to go 3 feet
to one side in less than 1 second, then it was the van drivers fault. As such unlikely.

> >> What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he
> >> was 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have 'struck'
> >> the van,

Again, an overtaking vehicle is hitting the cyclist from behind. Even if the cyclist did swerve
wildly, its the van hitting the cyclist.

 

[Paul - XXX]

W K, deftly scribbled ;

> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "whats wrong" ...
>
>>>> It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of whether the van driver or
>>>> the cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you 'jumping the gun' a bit ? How do you know it
>>>> wasn't the cyclists fault ?
>
> Its the responsability of the driver to overtake safely. Unless the bike swerved enough to go 3
> feet to one side in less than 1 second, then it was the van drivers fault. As such unlikely.
>
>>>> What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he
>>>> was 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have 'struck'
>>>> the van,
>
> Again, an overtaking vehicle is hitting the cyclist from behind. Even if the cyclist did swerve
> wildly, its the van hitting the cyclist.

Where do you get this scenario from ? How do you know he was being overtaken ? How do you know he
was struck from behind ? How do you know he wasn't struck head-on ? How do you know he didn't just
run into the van head-on ? How do you know he wasn't side-swiped ?

No-one actually saw what happened.

I didn't say it was the cyclists or the van drivers fault. All I'm suggesting is that the newspaper
report may be wrong and just a tad sensationalist. Or do you also believe there's a Moon Base, or
Martians ate someone's Hamster, because that's also been in the newspapers, so according to you it
must be true .. How do you KNOW the cyclist was hit from behind ?

All I'm saying is that no-one has yet proved what the root cause of the collision was, including the
police, you're simply going on the strength of a newspaper report. We don't even know if his head
hit the mirror. It was found at the scene OK, but maybe his head injuries were caused by hitting a
kerb, which are clearly shown both sides of the lane in the accompanying photo ... except the owner
of the inn in the report says it was "It was up around the corner from us so we didn't see what
actually happened" The photo may not even be the correct accident scene.

No-one saw what happened, and the police also appear not to know, so how anyone can so swiftly
apportion blame is beyond me.

I sincerely hope that the police do find out what happened, and if the van driver did kill the
cyclist then he deserves due punishment. We simply don't know, though, that he is to blame.

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1366 wu in 9653 hours

 

[Howard]

I am glad that it has been noted that the section of the road where this 'accident' happened was
fitted with a central island.

For one thing it is the responsibility of the overtaking party ONLY to overtake where it is safe
to do so. In most circumstances where there is a central traffic island it is NOT safe to overtake
a cyclist.

Look at page 36 of The current Highway code. This clearly shows that a driver should move out across
the central white line, and indicate, in order to overtake a cyclist. The 'code also says 'give
motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would a car when overtaking'.
This is a bit ambiguous but the accompanying drawing makes the question of what a suitable
overtaking gap is much clearer. Ie a full cars width.

In this case it seems pretty clear that the driver was at fault, despite what the hafwit apologists
for arrogant and dangerous drivers might try to claim.

This is a very common problem. In fact research shows that over 70% of drivers will attempt to
overtake a cyclist at or on the approach to a road narrowing. (So much for the careless
'minority'!). There is no point trying to claim that drivers are acting in ignorance when they
overtake cyclists in such circumstances.

I was involved in some TRL research on driver behaviour at pinchpoints and camera monotoring showed
that most drivers were quite willing to cut a cyclist dangerously close in order to overtake.
Interestingly enought if we made it obvious that monitoring was being done drivers would abort their
overtaking attempts in mid flow as soon as they saw us, good evidence that they were fully aware
that the knew what they were doing was wrong..

Read more at

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html

and

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/confessions/coaco6.html

Regards,

Howard.

 

[Paul - XXX]

Kona, deftly scribbled ;

> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote

>> What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he was
>> 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have 'struck' the
>> van, and the van driver may have been an entirely innocent party. As it appears it was only the
>> wing mirror that hit the cyclist, he maybe (and that is only a maybe) didn't even know he'd hit
>> anything.
>>
> I've been hit by a *50mph wing mirror* while cycling, it was 9 years ago. And I completely avoided
> that particular stretch of road for absolutely *months*. Because the idea of riding there again
> was too much for me. Mentally I mean.

Did the driver stop and help, or did he maybe (again, only maybe) not notice ? Or pretend not to
notice and carry on driving ?

> I cycle-commute eight months of the year, but have not got the nerve to do it after dark. But I
> admire those of you who do!!

I don't commute at all ..

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1366 wu in 9653 hours

 

[W K]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> W K, deftly scribbled ;
>
> > "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "whats wrong" ...
> >
> >>>> It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of whether the van driver or
> >>>> the cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you 'jumping the gun' a bit ? How do you know it
> >>>> wasn't the cyclists fault ?
> >
> > Its the responsability of the driver to overtake safely. Unless the bike swerved enough to go 3
> > feet to one side in less than 1 second, then it was the van drivers fault. As such unlikely.
> >
> >>>> What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he
> >>>> was 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have
> >>>> 'struck' the van,
> >
> > Again, an overtaking vehicle is hitting the cyclist from behind. Even if the cyclist did swerve
> > wildly, its the van hitting the cyclist.
>
> Where do you get this scenario from ? How do you know he was being overtaken ?

If he wasn't hit in this way it would be a bizarre accident.

> How do you know he was struck from behind ? How do you know he wasn't struck head-on ?
If the offside mirror, as police say found without glass in it, then he would have to be coming the
wrong way down the road on the wrong side.

> How do you know he didn't just run into the van head-on ?
As above.
> How do you know he wasn't side-swiped ?
If he had been the bike would have been completely squashed and the mirror not taken off.

> I didn't say it was the cyclists or the van drivers fault. All I'm suggesting is that the
> newspaper report may be wrong and just a tad sensationalist. Or do you also believe there's a Moon
> Base, or Martians
ate
> someone's Hamster, because that's also been in the newspapers, so
according
> to you it must be true .. How do you KNOW the cyclist was hit from behind
?

It seems a very likely conclusion. Unless they are grossly misquoting the police and from the
scenario its 99% certain that thats waht happened.

> All I'm saying is that no-one has yet proved what the root cause of the collision was, including
> the police, you're simply going on the strength
of
> a newspaper report. We don't even know if his head hit the mirror. It
was
> found at the scene OK, but maybe his head injuries were caused by hitting
a
> kerb, which are clearly shown both sides of the lane in the accompanying photo ... except the
> owner of the inn in the report says it was "It was up around the corner from us so we didn't see
> what actually happened" The photo may not even be the correct accident scene.
>
> No-one saw what happened, and the police also appear not to know, so how anyone can so swiftly
> apportion blame is beyond me.

On the off chance that the accident was lied about you might have a point.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 18:01:26 -0000 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>Only in that you want to debate this subject yet again ad nauseam and use the unfortunate death of
>a cyclist as your pretext to get started.

You presume to know my thoughts.

Fascinating.

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

 

[James Annan]

Paul - *** wrote:

>
> Where do you get this scenario from ? How do you know he was being overtaken ? How do you know he
> was struck from behind ? How do you know he wasn't struck head-on ? How do you know he didn't just
> run into the van head-on ? How do you know he wasn't side-swiped ?
>
> No-one actually saw what happened.

But it is certainly on the balance of probability if not beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence
described.

James

 

[Paul - XXX]

W K, deftly scribbled ;

> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> W K, deftly scribbled ;
>>
>>> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "whats wrong" ...
>>>
>>>>>> It's a sad loss when anyone dies, but you have no true knowledge of whether the van driver or
>>>>>> the cyclist caused the collision. So, aren't you 'jumping the gun' a bit ? How do you know it
>>>>>> wasn't the cyclists fault ?
>>>
>>> Its the responsability of the driver to overtake safely. Unless the bike swerved enough to go 3
>>> feet to one side in less than 1 second, then it was the van drivers fault. As such unlikely.
>>>
>>>>>> What the newspaper says is also not necesarily strictly accurate because they don't know he
>>>>>> was 'struck by' .. it's all conjecture until proven otherwise. The cyclist could have
>>>>>> 'struck' the van,
>>>
>>> Again, an overtaking vehicle is hitting the cyclist from behind. Even if the cyclist did swerve
>>> wildly, its the van hitting the cyclist.
>>
>> Where do you get this scenario from ? How do you know he was being overtaken ?
>
> If he wasn't hit in this way it would be a bizarre accident.

In other words you have absolutely no proof whatsoever how the accident happened.

>> How do you know he was struck from behind ? How do you know he wasn't struck head-on ?
> If the offside mirror, as police say found without glass in it, then he would have to be coming
> the wrong way down the road on the wrong side.

How can the van have been overtaking, and struck the cyclist, if it was the offside mirror,
as you say ?

>> How do you know he didn't just run into the van head-on ?
> As above.

But again, you have no idea what really happened.

>> How do you know he wasn't side-swiped ?
> If he had been the bike would have been completely squashed and the mirror not taken off.

Who says it wasn't ?

>> I didn't say it was the cyclists or the van drivers fault. All I'm suggesting is that the
>> newspaper report may be wrong and just a tad sensationalist. Or do you also believe there's a
>> Moon Base, or Martians ate someone's Hamster, because that's also been in the newspapers, so
>> according to you it must be true .. How do you KNOW the cyclist was hit from behind ?
>
> It seems a very likely conclusion. Unless they are grossly misquoting the police and from the
> scenario its 99% certain that thats waht happened.

Not to me it isn't, and also to a couple of colleagues who I asked to read the report and say
what they thought. They agreed that no conclusions as to how the accident happened could be
drawn. The report and the photo appear to contradict each other. We have no way to know which way
the cyclist was travelling with reference to the picture, or the van, so also have no idea how
the collision occurred.

You are drawing inferences that aren't there.

>> All I'm saying is that no-one has yet proved what the root cause of the collision was, including
>> the police, you're simply going on the strength of a newspaper report. We don't even know if his
>> head hit the mirror. It was found at the scene OK, but maybe his head injuries were caused by
>> hitting a kerb, which are clearly shown both sides of the lane in the accompanying photo ...
>> except the owner of the inn in the report says it was "It was up around the corner from us so we
>> didn't see what actually happened" The photo may not even be the correct accident scene.
>>
>> No-one saw what happened, and the police also appear not to know, so how anyone can so swiftly
>> apportion blame is beyond me.
>
> On the off chance that the accident was lied about you might have a point.

Why do you say it was lied about, see above ..

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1366 wu in 9653 hours

 

[James Annan]

David Hansen wrote:
>
> You presume to know my thoughts.
>
> Fascinating.

You aren't as inscrutable as you think!

Oops, I'm presuming that I can infer from your comment, what level of inscrutability you think
you have...

James

 

[Paul - XXX]

Paul - ***, deftly scribbled ;

> W K, deftly scribbled ;
>>> How do you know he was struck from behind ? How do you know he wasn't struck head-on ?
>> If the offside mirror, as police say found without glass in it, then he would have to be coming
>> the wrong way down the road on the wrong side.
>
> How can the van have been overtaking, and struck the cyclist, if it was the offside mirror, as
> you say ?

It was actually the nearside mirror that was found at the scene.

See how easy it is to make a mistake.

Maybe the newspaper report also has mistakes in it. And who's to say that the cyclist wasn't on the
wrong side of the road ? WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW.

Look, I'm not apologising for the van driver, I was originally commiserating for the cyclist, but I
really don't see that it was necessarily the van drivers fault. The paper screams 'Hit and Run
Driver' so you automatically assume he's guilty. Running away doesn't help, I fully understand and
agree. But there were no witnesses, no-one until the van driver's found, that can say exactly what
went wrong, unless maybe the police pathologists / scientific units have done a full analysis, and
they're hardly likely to say unless they're absolutely sure.

I actually agree that it seems to be the van drivers fault at first glance, but I'm not caught up in
cyclist against car / van driver hysteria so much that I can't see that we simply don't know who was
to blame and I feel it a tad unfair to call the van driver until it's known.

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1366 wu in 9653 hours

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:06:45 +0900, James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

>But it is certainly on the balance of probability if not beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence
>described.

Quite. And bear in mind that he had to either be sufficiently deaf not to hear a bang big enough to
rip off his mirror, or sufficiently guilty to want to flee the scene.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Peter B]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you know he wasn't struck head-on ? How do you know he didn't just run into the van head-on
> ? How do you know he wasn't side-swiped ?

So if the van driver hit him head-on he can hardly be unaware of it, how come he didn't stop.

IMHO not stopping at the scene of an accident that is not being attended is bad enough, not stopping
for an accident you're involved in, even if not at fault, is not only illegal but immoral.

Pete

 

[W K]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul - ***, deftly scribbled ;
>
> > W K, deftly scribbled ;
> >>> How do you know he was struck from behind ? How do you know he wasn't struck head-on ?
> >> If the offside mirror, as police say found without glass in it, then he would have to be coming
> >> the wrong way down the road on the wrong side.
> >
> > How can the van have been overtaking, and struck the cyclist, if it was the offside mirror, as
> > you say ?
>
> It was actually the nearside mirror that was found at the scene.
>
> See how easy it is to make a mistake.

I don't know the nomenclature.

> Maybe the newspaper report also has mistakes in it. And who's to say that the cyclist wasn't on
> the wrong side of the road ? WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW.

Jeez this isn't a court of law.

> Look, I'm not apologising for the van driver, I was originally commiserating for the cyclist, but
> I really don't see that it was necessarily the van drivers fault. The paper screams 'Hit and Run
> Driver' so you automatically assume he's guilty.

Its a newsgroup. What % possibility is there of the scenario not being correct.

BTW the photo was incorrect as it shows the pub and the pub owner said it was round the corner.

 

[Paul - XXX]

W K, deftly scribbled ;

> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> It was actually the nearside mirror that was found at the scene.
>>
>> See how easy it is to make a mistake.
>
> I don't know the nomenclature.

Nearside was what was written in the report ... the nomenclature had nothing to do with it. My point
was maybe the report isn't biased but simply mistaken ..

> BTW the photo was incorrect as it shows the pub and the pub owner said it was round the corner.

Which is what I said a few posts back ..

Look, this is a bit tedious and I feel I'm only repeating myself, I'd rather drop it now,
thanks ..

--
...................................Paul-*** Seti 1368 wu in 9690 hours

 

[Kennedy Fraser]

Peter B wrote:
> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> How do you know he wasn't struck head-on ? How do you know he didn't just run into the van
>> head-on ? How do you know he wasn't side-swiped ?
>

According to this morning's METRO they are still looking for the driver of the van.

Kennedy