Texting driver kills red-running cyclist, gets 4 yrs prison
Discussion
SS2. said:
flemke said:
ccfarnsworth said:
Jason ... Coultas
Familiar use of first name, dismissive use of surname.Any bias?
Same style.. same tone.. same old same boring old. YAWN!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
NOte ./.. it does not use the quote button hardly. It uses In line with consistency
"......................" - cuts .. pastes....... YAWN!
JustinP1 said:
Kevin 996C4 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.
You claim as lies the statement that the cyclist rode through a red light. According to all the reports the motorist had a green light, that being the case how could the cyclist have had anything other than a red light?More lies.
read the thread, form an opinion after reading the evidence, not before.
JustinP1 said:
Cheers Wildcat,
So, whats the betting, he is Brother Mycroft and Spindrift?
Any takers, or will Tony come and put us out of our misery!?
Nein Justin.. BM was different in style. So, whats the betting, he is Brother Mycroft and Spindrift?
Any takers, or will Tony come and put us out of our misery!?
Spinny =ccf = alexsnelling=Cathy Brown=ben potter und other such. I made that series of posts to alert as to the style. If mods have banned him... it will be back. Be on guard und try not to feed it as this what it thrive on.
You cannot reason with it. If you argue or try to put the other point.. it not matter how politely you phrase it.. it retort that you are a "liar". It cannot avoid this word. But the only liar here ist the one who purport to be so many folk und post so abusively as well.
On Wednesday I did say....
I was thinking more along the lines of "Brother Mycroft".Hmmmm not quite high pitched enough for "spindrift"?
esselte said:
CommanderJameson said:
sultanbrown said:
ccfarnsworth said:
1/
Nobody's "forcing" anyone to do anything. What is it with the daft straw men arguments here?
You are Rothbook AICMFP.Nobody's "forcing" anyone to do anything. What is it with the daft straw men arguments here?
If you read back through CCfs posts, the only area where he is consistent is in his defence of whom he perceives as the victim.
If a motorist gets blinded by low sun and bumps into something as a result, and tragically this turns out to be a cyclist, the motorist needs locking up for good. If a cyclist fails to see an oncoming car in perfect visibility, he refers to the cyclist by his christian name, (even if he does get his name wrong
).
If a motorist skids on ice and piles into a bunch of cyclists, again the motorist wants shooting. But if a speeding, cannabis consuming motorist crashes into a lorry and is killed, then its the lorry drivers fault, and ccf even excuses the use of cannabis, despite the expert witness in the case stating that he wouldn't have wanted to be a passenger to a driver with that much cannabis in his system.
CCF tells us that the magazine Cycling Weekly is not biased, but when my racing-cycling chum handed me his copy of CW he laughed and said "they don't mention the cyclist ran a red light". But CCF says the mag isn't biased! In a case of a texting driver killing a red light jumping cyclist, how can you not mention the fact that the cyclist jumped a red light?
And of course the biggest give away, CCF calls everyone a liar. We've had these trolls here before, haven't we? They're all consistent in their desire to be offensive.
There's nothing more to say. CCF is a nutter, who unwittingly and unknowingly puts us all off any idea we might have of throwing a leg over a treader and taking up the otherwise worthwhile pursuit of cycling.
My greatest fear of taking up cycling, is not that i might get knocked off my bike, it's that i might find myself in the company of a CCF.
If a motorist gets blinded by low sun and bumps into something as a result, and tragically this turns out to be a cyclist, the motorist needs locking up for good. If a cyclist fails to see an oncoming car in perfect visibility, he refers to the cyclist by his christian name, (even if he does get his name wrong
).If a motorist skids on ice and piles into a bunch of cyclists, again the motorist wants shooting. But if a speeding, cannabis consuming motorist crashes into a lorry and is killed, then its the lorry drivers fault, and ccf even excuses the use of cannabis, despite the expert witness in the case stating that he wouldn't have wanted to be a passenger to a driver with that much cannabis in his system.
CCF tells us that the magazine Cycling Weekly is not biased, but when my racing-cycling chum handed me his copy of CW he laughed and said "they don't mention the cyclist ran a red light". But CCF says the mag isn't biased! In a case of a texting driver killing a red light jumping cyclist, how can you not mention the fact that the cyclist jumped a red light?
And of course the biggest give away, CCF calls everyone a liar. We've had these trolls here before, haven't we? They're all consistent in their desire to be offensive.
There's nothing more to say. CCF is a nutter, who unwittingly and unknowingly puts us all off any idea we might have of throwing a leg over a treader and taking up the otherwise worthwhile pursuit of cycling.
My greatest fear of taking up cycling, is not that i might get knocked off my bike, it's that i might find myself in the company of a CCF.
heebeegeetee said:
If you read back through CCfs posts, the only area where he is consistent is in his defence of whom he perceives as the victim.
If a motorist gets blinded by low sun and bumps into something as a result, and tragically this turns out to be a cyclist, the motorist needs locking up for good. If a cyclist fails to see an oncoming car in perfect visibility, he refers to the cyclist by his christian name, (even if he does get his name wrong).
Liebchen . ist par for course here. If a motorist gets blinded by low sun and bumps into something as a result, and tragically this turns out to be a cyclist, the motorist needs locking up for good. If a cyclist fails to see an oncoming car in perfect visibility, he refers to the cyclist by his christian name, (even if he does get his name wrong
).heebeegeetee said:
If a motorist skids on ice and piles into a bunch of cyclists, again the motorist wants shooting. But if a speeding, cannabis consuming motorist crashes into a lorry and is killed, then its the lorry drivers fault, and ccf even excuses the use of cannabis, despite the expert witness in the case stating that he wouldn't have wanted to be a passenger to a driver with that much cannabis in his system.
i AGREE. Drugs... some say they "need" them. I disagree. You take ny choice. Ach sure.. the big time crooks will hook their rent boys/hookers/runners/gofors.. by offering them these drugs.. or even FORCING these drugs on them with menaces. Yes.. these are the evil types und the ones which the late Mike Todd did clear off the streets of Manchester. Only a thankless task as another replaces the one his teams of decent hard working cops 
s locked up. 
Off topic comment but slightly perhaps related .. but no matter do not read the small print here if you object to digression from tthread topic
No wonder he got down und depressed .. when his force move mountains but still per some silly stats not meet some target.. und this man COMPLAINED at ring marked cash for "plastics" when laying off real ones in 2007.
He was sassy bloke. Any red blooded woman would feel that sassy appraisal. I met him on the Fells walking once with my Mad Doc. I felt his attractiveness to a woman - even though my husband was by my side.heebeegeetee said:
CCF tells us that the magazine Cycling Weekly is not biased, but when my racing-cycling chum handed me his copy of CW he laughed and said "they don't mention the cyclist ran a red light". But CCF says the mag isn't biased! In a case of a texting driver killing a red light jumping cyclist, how can you not mention the fact that the cyclist jumped a red light?
My cousin IG subscribe to CW. He posts up the best enticing snippets to encourage folk to get own copy or discuss stuff -- good . bad .. informative He post on safespeed site the fact that this story warrant small article by comparison to other stories of "horrid driver". He also comment that there no mention of the red light jumping .. with every pointer being to a texting driver who was typing a reply at time she collide.. when truth of matter given this sent message not reported .. but the received message was.. would seem to indicate that she had read the message at some point .. but nothing seem to establish whether or not she reading it when she hit him.
I am NOT condoning her.. but simply suggesting that the message given out by this case ist unhelpful on learning curve issues to others out there - und can have been unfair to the driver in term of the sentence handed down to her here. And of course the biggest give away, CCF calls everyone a liar. We've had these trolls here before, haven't we? They're all consistent in their desire to be offensive.
heebeegeetee said:
There's nothing more to say. CCF is a nutter, who unwittingly and unknowingly puts us all off any idea we might have of throwing a leg over a treader and taking up the otherwise worthwhile pursuit of cycling.
My greatest fear of taking up cycling, is not that i might get knocked off my bike, it's that i might find myself in the company of a CCF.
True. But this troll suggest life only safe if you agree with it. My greatest fear of taking up cycling, is not that i might get knocked off my bike, it's that i might find myself in the company of a CCF.
He ist one silly person. But he does not ride a bicycle. Nor does he ride the Tourmalet or attend CM .. as he posting when CM occur. und he cannot ride those hard climbs as these require TRAINING. JustinP1 said:
Kevin 996C4 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.
You claim as lies the statement that the cyclist rode through a red light. According to all the reports the motorist had a green light, that being the case how could the cyclist have had anything other than a red light?More lies.
read the thread, form an opinion after reading the evidence, not before.
Ignore or become unnecessarily frustrated at a spiteful, ill-informed and worthless individual.
If you read the thread, ccf or spindrift or whichever CyclingPlus nutter he is (whom collectively absolutely ruin the pastime of cycling) he always sides with the 'victim'.
Thus, had Keira Coultas ran into a lorry whilst texting and driving and killed herself, he'd be siding with her. As it was she killed a cyclist, so he is siding with the cyclist, even referring to him by the (wrong) forename, and disregarding the cyclists law breaking and basic lack of attention.
Thus, had Keira Coultas ran into a lorry whilst texting and driving and killed herself, he'd be siding with her. As it was she killed a cyclist, so he is siding with the cyclist, even referring to him by the (wrong) forename, and disregarding the cyclists law breaking and basic lack of attention.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff