Texting driver kills red-running cyclist, gets 4 yrs prison

[SS2.]

flemke said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Jason ... Coultas

Familiar use of first name, dismissive use of surname.

Any bias?

If ccfarnsworth insists on quoting names, perhaps he should bear in mind that the cyclist was actually called 'Jordan'...

[MilnerR]

SS2. said:

flemke said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Jason ... Coultas

Familiar use of first name, dismissive use of surname.

Any bias?

If ccfarnsworth insists on quoting names, perhaps he should bear in mind that the cyclist was actually called 'Jordan'...

please tell me that's true.

CCF has been talking about the unfortunate cyclist as though he was a family member.....

I've just re-read the BBC article, it is stated as Jordan. CCF, I'd get in touch with the BBC and get them to alter if I were you, either you or the BBC is wrong, and I can't see you admitting to ever being wrong

Edited by MilnerR on Friday 14th March 14:19

[SS2.]

MilnerR said:

SS2. said:

If ccfarnsworth insists on quoting names, perhaps he should bear in mind that the cyclist was actually called 'Jordan'...

please tell me that's true.

It is 100% true.

I know because the cyclist and my son were mates..

[MilnerR]

SS2. said:

MilnerR said:

SS2. said:

If ccfarnsworth insists on quoting names, perhaps he should bear in mind that the cyclist was actually called 'Jordan'...

please tell me that's true.

It is 100% true.

I know because the cyclist and my son were mates..

Sorry to hear that, hope your son is ok. My mirth was aimed at CCF who has been banging on about respecting the dead and then doesn't even have the decency to get his name right!

[SS2.]

MilnerR said:

SS2. said:

MilnerR said:

SS2. said:

If ccfarnsworth insists on quoting names, perhaps he should bear in mind that the cyclist was actually called 'Jordan'...

please tell me that's true.

It is 100% true.

I know because the cyclist and my son were mates..

Sorry to hear that, hope your son is ok. My mirth was aimed at CCF who has been banging on about respecting the dead and then doesn't even have the decency to get his name right!

Thanks. My nipper is fine - they were mates as kids a couple of years before the incident. Even so, its still a bit of a shocker when something like that happens to a person you know.

And the irony of ccf's postings did not escape me either..

Edited by SS2. on Friday 14th March 15:25

[JustinP1]

MilnerR said:

SS2. said:

flemke said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Jason ... Coultas

Familiar use of first name, dismissive use of surname.

Any bias?

If ccfarnsworth insists on quoting names, perhaps he should bear in mind that the cyclist was actually called 'Jordan'...

please tell me that's true.

CCF has been talking about the unfortunate cyclist as though he was a family member.....

I've just re-read the BBC article, it is stated as Jordan. CCF, I'd get in touch with the BBC and get them to alter if I were you, either you or the BBC is wrong, and I can't see you admitting to ever being wrong

Edited by MilnerR on Friday 14th March 14:19

I woudn't worry. In the world of ccfarnsworth there are 5,999,999,999 liars and ccfarnsworth, I don't think that will change things...

[TonyHetherington]

Mr ccfarnsworth has been on this site twice before, in different incarnations, and both previous incarnations have been banned also.

In line with consistency

[10 Pence Short]

TonyHetherington said:

Mr ccfarnsworth has been on this site twice before, in different incarnations, and both previous incarnations have been banned also.

In line with consistency

And the names of these banned souls (is this going to be a surprise?)?

[JustinP1]

10 Pence Short said:

TonyHetherington said:

Mr ccfarnsworth has been on this site twice before, in different incarnations, and both previous incarnations have been banned also.

In line with consistency

And the names of these banned souls (is this going to be a surprise?)?

Do I read into that that his other 'personalities' have *also* been banned that he is banned now?

I would be genuinely interested in knowing who the other two were - one I think i know.

[TonyHetherington]

No, his previous two were banned already (hence his third)...I can't remember the names now though, I'll check...

[JustinP1]

TonyHetherington said:

No, his previous two were banned already (hence his third)...I can't remember the names now though, I'll check...

Brill!

[MilnerR]

SS2. said:

Thanks. My nipper is fine - they were mates as kids a couple of years before the incident. Even so, its still a bit of a shocker when something like that happens to a person you know.

Very true, a school friend of mine ended up under a range rover. Not spoken to him for about 15 years but still a shock to think that you never will!

CCF will be back I expect, if it's who I think it is he can't help himself.

[esselte]

ccfarnsworth said:

esselte said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Davi said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Davi said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Davi said:

Without going back through the thread to check wibble wibble wibble

AAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

I'll rephrase for the mentally unstable and emotionally crippled... Despite having read the thread, I have not noted evidence of what the cyclist was wearing or how well he was lit, did anyone find any?

Anyone else fancy a multi-lateral suspension of childish insults?

what you mean like "Care to put your money where your offensive, ignorant mouth is?" - or do you only view childish insults as those aimed at you, not produced by you - You're confusing me, I'm just trying to post in a manner I think you'll be able to comprehend.

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth said:

"As such, I wont ride through a red light with the knowledge that there will be 2 tonne cars crossing my path... The cyclist did."


More lies.

read the thread, form an opinion after reading the evidence, not before.

And what pray tell is the evidence you are referring to?

Please, for the umpteenth time, stop asking dumbass questions that prove nothing more than your inability to read the thread, it's really lazy and disruptive. You're like a chorus of shrill time-wasting goonsacks too idle to actually read what's been written. I explained that re-posting stuff that's already appeared was boring, I'm not doing it any more, read the thread properly.

So did you post some EVIDENCE or did you link some new reports?

Or maybe that is why you can't answer the question?

OK Justin.

You claim, because you haven't extended the courtesy of reading what's been written, that Jason rode out when he knew a car was coming.

Care to put your money where your offensive, ignorant mouth is?

£50 to a charity of your choice if you care to wager that the evidence made it clear that this is true.

Get ready for more evasion.

Every morning when I leave for work, I approach the junction at the top of our hill knowing that at that time of day, there WILL be cars crossing. I know this because living there means I've previous experience to call on.

For the same reason you can say with 99% certainty that the cyclist knew there was an EXTREMELY high likelihood of cars crossing - it's a bloody busy junction even at that time. You say "form an opinion after reading the evidence, not before." - I have. What are you basing your opinion on?

1/
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multilatera...

2/
The cyclist did not know a car was coming, that's pure invention.

But when you go through a red light the possibilty of another vehicle coming is not beyond the realms of possibilty....

I agree.

That's not what was claimed though.

So you're just being pedantic then?

[WildCat]

CommanderJameson said:

WildCat said:

Exactly. All my posts on the topic have been about the act of reading the message being interpreted in the courts as "texting" - whereby everyone seem to think she actually typing away at the time. Whilst I still disapprove strongly - it put slightly different slant on the case - as you can glance down at sat nav or old fashioned map.. at the wrong split second. Looking ahead . seeing a light on GREEN for SOME TIME in a free flowing traffic situation...

Actually, if I saw a green that had been there for some time, I'd regard it as "stale" and be ready to stop but looking to go. I wouldn't be fiddling with my phone on approach to any hazard.

But yes, two road users, two offences, two idiots, one dead. And all for the want of a little attention to what they were doing.

As said already. you know a traffic light will change. You know this. I already said a fool try to beat it.

But a BIGGER fool with no reason to do so - he ignore when on amber or red setting. Person on green will hit.

Liebster Dibble was on blues und twos that time. He pass on red as he entitled when so flashing und sirening. Muppet was blind.. but Dibble the policee officer on duty went though a lot of hell und brimstone und worry there. He was entitled as he sirened /. was on legit business .. serving .. protecting und trying to do what best for us all there.
This cyclist was not. He chose to ignore. He pay highest price for this. She pay highest price for being slave to Handy phone.

BUT.. I see umpteen cyclists pedalling away on these faddish phones - oblivious to all around

So I say. any person on any wheels .. law prohibiting such use apply.

In the good old days . we used phone box/booth. It so easier really

In the good old days .. we not so colour blind either

[WildCat]

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth - In case you missed it, it was you who who quoted my post.

Then you called me a liar above. I have asked a few times for this evidence that I have somehow have the mistaken assumption that the cyclist did not ride through a red light and did not ride into the path of cars.

I have asked a few times, and the best you can do is call me 'evasive'....!

So, are you going to answer the question or not, otherwise please retract your public assertion that I am a liar.

You've changed the question.


Third time.

OK, your choice which you answer.

But answer one, or retract that I am a liar.

You posted:

"As such, I wont ride through a red light with the knowledge that there will be 2 tonne cars crossing my path... The cyclist did."


You are a liar. retract and apologise, sharpish.

ccfarnsworth, I will say again, if you can bring forward evidence which shows I am a liar do so. Otherwise, please refrain from public accusations.

You made the claim, prove it.

Or read the thread.

Until you do so you remain a liar.

Smearing the dead too, classy.

Hallo Spindrift. You are only TROLL who use the L word. Still it take one to know one.

[WildCat]

ccfarnsworth said:

"As such, I wont ride through a red light with the knowledge that there will be 2 tonne cars crossing my path... The cyclist did."


More lies.

read the thread, form an opinion after reading the evidence, not before.

I do not ahve to read anything again

Fact - he went through a red light.

Allegation - she read a text message one second before she hit him. She not know her speed but suspects she above the lolly sign. Daft enough to admit a precise but unveirfied speed. She could only be so precise if she looked at speedo und not the phone.

Question mark then over burden of proof here. Ergo
she could have legally backed cause to appeal her sentence.

Let us not forget that doubts over peer reviewed shaken baby syndrome just as over cot death. New research always supersed teh older if proven to be more clarifying und proving the earlier opinions as incorrect or in some error. All medical science question the past - take on board the past .. blend with the new.. present the new findings to peer review (which mean EQUALLY qualified test the methodology which lead to the conclusions. or suppostisitions - which not mean correct.. but mean the logic/means to that logic was sound in practice.

But as we learn more.. we develop und even disprove past notions such as the earth being flat und also centre of universe und the reality of God. (AM brought up Catholic. I rather like the idea of God but I like the Idea of God.. which not the same thing as a single minded Belief in Him

[WildCat]

ccfarnsworth said:

10 Pence Short said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Guffaw, what was that about evasion again...

Are you saying a cyclist is not responsible for looking where they are going?

A big hello to the straw man everybody!!

Cooo-eeee!!

We know who "strawman" ist. Paulie banned this guy before he died.

[WildCat]

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth said:

"As such, I wont ride through a red light with the knowledge that there will be 2 tonne cars crossing my path... The cyclist did."


More lies.

read the thread, form an opinion after reading the evidence, not before.

And what pray tell is the evidence you are referring to?

Please, for the umpteenth time, stop asking dumbass questions that prove nothing more than your inability to read the thread, it's really lazy and disruptive. You're like a chorus of shrill time-wasting goonsacks too idle to actually read what's been written. I explained that re-posting stuff that's already appeared was boring, I'm not doing it any more, read the thread properly.

So did you post some EVIDENCE or did you link some new reports?

Or maybe that is why you can't answer the question?

OK Justin.

You claim, because you haven't extended the courtesy of reading what's been written, that Jason rode out when he knew a car was coming.

Care to put your money where your offensive, ignorant mouth is?

£50 to a charity of your choice if you care to wager that the evidence made it clear that this is true.

Get ready for more evasion.

Fact he jumped a red light.

Fact .. jumping red light ist illegal for cyclist same as for driver.

I do not ever use a Handy when driving or cycling. I would sugest using Handy also illegal for cyclist when riding.

No one condoning reading the text message (which ist "texting in eyes of law&quot. But she was not really proven to have read message when she hit the cyclist who ignored the red light nor was there proven evidence other than a forced admission perhaps of the speed. This speed not recorded by any doo-dah. If she said 45 mph..per glance at speedo.. she 42 mph (which still above the lolly.. but if she looked at lolly to admit this SO PRECISELY ... then she not reading a text of sending text... but accelerating then to beat a traffic light . which not exonerate her standard here,.. but cast doubt as to her "texting"

So.. nothing absolutely proven here und I am surprised she not appeal.. but then she not "rich enough" perhaps

[WildCat]

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth said:

JustinP1 said:

ccfarnsworth - In case you missed it, it was you who who quoted my post.

Then you called me a liar above. I have asked a few times for this evidence that I have somehow have the mistaken assumption that the cyclist did not ride through a red light and did not ride into the path of cars.

I have asked a few times, and the best you can do is call me 'evasive'....!

So, are you going to answer the question or not, otherwise please retract your public assertion that I am a liar.

You've changed the question.


Third time.

OK, your choice which you answer.

But answer one, or retract that I am a liar.

You posted:

"As such, I wont ride through a red light with the knowledge that there will be 2 tonne cars crossing my path... The cyclist did."


You are a liar. retract and apologise, sharpish.

ccfarnsworth, I will say again, if you can bring forward evidence which shows I am a liar do so. Otherwise, please refrain from public accusations.

You made the claim, prove it.

Or read the thread.

Until you do so you remain a liar.

Smearing the dead too, classy.

Only spindrift post like this Justin. This ist spindrift. Look at the wording .. use of the L word.

It not fool us really.

Notorious troll who does not ride anywhere .. he only surfs.. not high waves.. but internet sites feeding off anyone who disagree with it

[WildCat]

ccfarnsworth said:

Davi said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Davi said:

ccfarnsworth said:

Guffaw, what was that about evasion again...

Does that mean you are going to point me to where it shows his clothing and lighting setup?

Nope. I'm asking, politely, yet again, to read the thread.

can you see why it's frustrating that you blunder into a thread and demand that we repeat everything for your benefit?

Sorry, I thought the bit where I said I'd read the thread and couldn't find mention was both polite and sufficient. If I'm wrong and it is there, great, point it out so I can check and help re-form my opinion. If it isn't, or you haven't seen it either, say "no it hasn't been covered, you are correct".

Or are you just being evasive?

Once again, £50 if you can prove this has not been covered.

Deal?

Ja.. it use this one in the past. Check out the thread Petrol Ted close in July 2005 on the Mountain thread. As I recall - it was going to donate a fiver to charity then .. likewise on every other thread across internet it posted on.

DO check the archives chaps.

Ach.. by the way.. I have the curse or blessing of the instant recall long term memory - which why I not need to look at old or new Highway Code .. und ist my boring party trick to recite it at random