Cyclist ignores red light, gets hit, driver is prosecuted...
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Mandalore said:
Digby said:
The way this is going, it sounds like should you jump a red light in your car and a cyclist who went through a green crashes in to the side of you, they are going to pick themselves up and tell you it's their fault. 
Everybody that reads these threads comes away with the clear and obvious view that the PH resident cyclist's are not concerned in any way with right/wrong or cause/effect, - they just live in a la-la-land of their own creation where everybody else is responsible for their stupidity.They really are bonkers mad as that world doesn't exist!
Red means STOP.
Red for anything more that the split second you pass means, 'Mate, you are a freakin retard who needs locking up, because you are obviously incapable of common sense'.
Is that clear enough, or are you truly so deliberately conceited that you are actually trying to shift the blame of running a clearly red light away from yourself?
Mandalore said:
For clarity's sake,
Red means STOP.
Red for anything more that the split second you pass means, 'Mate, you are a freakin retard who needs locking up, because you are obviously incapable of common sense'.
Is that clear enough, or are you truly so deliberately conceited that you are actually trying to shift the blame of running a clearly red light away from yourself?
Nobody on here has questioned the meaning of the red light.Red means STOP.
Red for anything more that the split second you pass means, 'Mate, you are a freakin retard who needs locking up, because you are obviously incapable of common sense'.
Is that clear enough, or are you truly so deliberately conceited that you are actually trying to shift the blame of running a clearly red light away from yourself?
The premise of the OP and comments made subsequently, really does give the impression that many drivers do not know nwhat the green light means. This is what I wish to discuss. Not red.
Is that clear enough?
Only it does seem tha regarding the green light drivers are not concerned in any way with right/wrong or cause/effect, - they just live in a la-la-land of their own creation where everybody else is responsible for their stupidity.
In this case the driver admitted his stupidity, it just seems to resident PHers who have a clear problem with understanding a green light.
DoubleD said:
I think that we can all agree that if the cyclist had stopped at the red light then the 2 would have never met.
Of course, just like we can agree that in any collision of two people, had one of them not been there then the collision would not have happened.Not stopping at red lights, regarding a green light as a signal to go regardless, both will lead to incidents.
(Mind you here in Birmingham, a great many drivers don't move on a green 'cos they've got the heads down looking at their smart phones. It's vital to leave tyres and tarmac visible so you can just drive straight past them).
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Moonhawk said:
I didn't see them accepting 1/3rd of the culpability in the "die in". The blame seem to be being levelled 100% on the motorist.
I couldn't comment, I have no idea what this "die in" thing is that you're referring to.heebeegeetee said:
Mandalore said:
For clarity's sake,
Red means STOP.
Red for anything more that the split second you pass means, 'Mate, you are a freakin retard who needs locking up, because you are obviously incapable of common sense'.
Is that clear enough, or are you truly so deliberately conceited that you are actually trying to shift the blame of running a clearly red light away from yourself?
Nobody on here has questioned the meaning of the red light.Red means STOP.
Red for anything more that the split second you pass means, 'Mate, you are a freakin retard who needs locking up, because you are obviously incapable of common sense'.
Is that clear enough, or are you truly so deliberately conceited that you are actually trying to shift the blame of running a clearly red light away from yourself?
The premise of the OP and comments made subsequently, really does give the impression that many drivers do not know nwhat the green light means. This is what I wish to discuss. Not red.
Is that clear enough?
Only it does seem tha regarding the green light drivers are not concerned in any way with right/wrong or cause/effect, - they just live in a la-la-land of their own creation where everybody else is responsible for their stupidity.
In this case the driver admitted his stupidity, it just seems to resident PHers who have a clear problem with understanding a green light.
DoubleD said:
I think that we can all agree that if the cyclist had stopped at the red light then the 2 would have never met.
Of course, just like we can agree that in any collision of two people, had one of them not been there then the collision would not have happened.Not stopping at red lights, regarding a green light as a signal to go regardless, both will lead to incidents.
(Mind you here in Birmingham, a great many drivers don't move on a green 'cos they've got the heads down looking at their smart phones. It's vital to leave tyres and tarmac visible so you can just drive straight past them).
This has become a question of distances with regards trying to share the blame.
How far away does a red light jumping rider need to be before you pull away on your green to declare it safe? How far away do the riders who ignore pedestrians on crossings need to be before you set foot on that crossing able to declare it safe?
If London is anything to go by, you can be half way across a clear junction on a green and still have riders appear around you; just as you can be almost all the way over a crossing only to look behind and see riders weaving in and out of people.
Stupid doesn't cover this. Maybe
s?
Still, one good thing has come from all of this; the next time a car jumps a red and punts a rider into a field, we can all defend the car driver and tell cyclists they must not talk about the red light.
How far away does a red light jumping rider need to be before you pull away on your green to declare it safe? How far away do the riders who ignore pedestrians on crossings need to be before you set foot on that crossing able to declare it safe?
If London is anything to go by, you can be half way across a clear junction on a green and still have riders appear around you; just as you can be almost all the way over a crossing only to look behind and see riders weaving in and out of people.
Stupid doesn't cover this. Maybe
s?Still, one good thing has come from all of this; the next time a car jumps a red and punts a rider into a field, we can all defend the car driver and tell cyclists they must not talk about the red light.
Moonhawk said:
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Moonhawk said:
I didn't see them accepting 1/3rd of the culpability in the "die in". The blame seem to be being levelled 100% on the motorist.
I couldn't comment, I have no idea what this "die in" thing is that you're referring to.DoubleD said:
So the cyclist caused the coming together then. Im glad we agree.
So why did the driver admit to dwdcaa then? It takes two to tangle and nobody forced the driver to do anything. Both at fault, both prosecuted. Had either of them done as they should the collision wouldn't have happened.
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
So the cyclist caused the coming together then. Im glad we agree.
So why did the driver admit to dwdcaa then? It takes two to tangle and nobody forced the driver to do anything. Both at fault, both prosecuted. Had either of them done as they should the collision wouldn't have happened.
DoubleD said:
The cyclist made the first mistake. This put the two of them in the same place at the same time.
Anyone with a few cells working upstairs knows that you can never trust running a red. Even if you have a PHD in 'making sure it's clear before going on green', you wouldn't run a red.To know that others probably don't have a PHD in it being clear before going on green, makes you even more stupid for going on red.
Basically, the biggest idiot here is the rider.
Trying to deny that in any way, or trying to shift focus away from that is laughable.
I'm absolutely amazed more of them are not hit.
DoubleD said:
The cyclist made the first mistake. This put the two of them in the same place at the same time.
The cyclist said he was ticketed for going through an amber, which means the footballer couldn't have passed through on green. Personally I disbelieve this but the problem is, it's the Daily Mail saying he went through on red.
Nevertheless some of you guys are taking the Daily Mail at face value. This doesn't surprise me because although the Daily Mail is often ridiculed on this site, it is unmissable that the opinions of Daily Mail readers and most PHers are the same.
I mean, such is the bias against cyclists, and so utterly desperate are you guys to blame the cyclist at every level in every incident, you're even prepared to accept every word of the Daily Mail!
We don't know if the actions of either party were as a result of mistake or intent, but what we do know is that yet again, as will happens to tens of thousands of people this year, someone's bad driving has led to them harming somebody.
You guys will spend pages blaming cyclists, even the one recently who apparently wouldn't have been run down from behind had he dismounted instead of ridden his bike (I think, it was not clear which cyclists the sign was intended for, but it was clung on to by the victim blamers nonetheless).
You'll post pages trying to blame a cyclist, you'll say nothing about what we are going to do about drivers who hurt or kill people.
Digby said:
Extremely vulnerable people, ignoring the fact they are extremely vulnerable.
Welcome to the world of cycling.
Drivers immune to the fact they can hurt people, ignoring the more vulnerable.Welcome to the world of cycling.
Welcome to the world of motoring.
I'd be devastated if I was to hurt someone else, that is the biggest no-no of all imo, yet every time we take to the roads we can see that countless drivers could not care less.
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
The cyclist made the first mistake. This put the two of them in the same place at the same time.
The cyclist said he was ticketed for going through an amber, which means the footballer couldn't have passed through on green. Personally I disbelieve this but the problem is, it's the Daily Mail saying he went through on red.
Nevertheless some of you guys are taking the Daily Mail at face value. This doesn't surprise me because although the Daily Mail is often ridiculed on this site, it is unmissable that the opinions of Daily Mail readers and most PHers are the same.
I mean, such is the bias against cyclists, and so utterly desperate are you guys to blame the cyclist at every level in every incident, you're even prepared to accept every word of the Daily Mail!
We don't know if the actions of either party were as a result of mistake or intent, but what we do know is that yet again, as will happens to tens of thousands of people this year, someone's bad driving has led to them harming somebody.
You guys will spend pages blaming cyclists, even the one recently who apparently wouldn't have been run down from behind had he dismounted instead of ridden his bike (I think, it was not clear which cyclists the sign was intended for, but it was clung on to by the victim blamers nonetheless).
You'll post pages trying to blame a cyclist, you'll say nothing about what we are going to do about drivers who hurt or kill people.
DoubleD said:
You can never accept that cyclists ever do anything wrong.
On page 2 of this thread I said both were at fault, and I've repeated that on this thread, so you're wrong. It's motorists who can't accept the evidence of the annual statistics, or in this case, the court who did not get their info from the Daily Mail.Edited by heebeegeetee on Saturday 18th February 09:40
heebeegeetee said:
The cyclist said he was ticketed for going through an amber, which means the footballer couldn't have passed through on green.
Personally I disbelieve this but the problem is, it's the Daily Mail saying he went through on red.
Nevertheless some of you guys are taking the Daily Mail at face value. This doesn't surprise me because although the Daily Mail is often ridiculed on this site, it is unmissable that the opinions of Daily Mail readers and most PHers are the same.
I mean, such is the bias against cyclists, and so utterly desperate are you guys to blame the cyclist at every level in every incident, you're even prepared to accept every word of the Daily Mail!
We don't know if the actions of either party were as a result of mistake or intent, but what we do know is that yet again, as will happens to tens of thousands of people this year, someone's bad driving has led to them harming somebody.
You guys will spend pages blaming cyclists, even the one recently who apparently wouldn't have been run down from behind had he dismounted instead of ridden his bike (I think, it was not clear which cyclists the sign was intended for, but it was clung on to by the victim blamers nonetheless).
You'll post pages trying to blame a cyclist, you'll say nothing about what we are going to do about drivers who hurt or kill people.
You are the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen on here..Personally I disbelieve this but the problem is, it's the Daily Mail saying he went through on red.
Nevertheless some of you guys are taking the Daily Mail at face value. This doesn't surprise me because although the Daily Mail is often ridiculed on this site, it is unmissable that the opinions of Daily Mail readers and most PHers are the same.
I mean, such is the bias against cyclists, and so utterly desperate are you guys to blame the cyclist at every level in every incident, you're even prepared to accept every word of the Daily Mail!
We don't know if the actions of either party were as a result of mistake or intent, but what we do know is that yet again, as will happens to tens of thousands of people this year, someone's bad driving has led to them harming somebody.
You guys will spend pages blaming cyclists, even the one recently who apparently wouldn't have been run down from behind had he dismounted instead of ridden his bike (I think, it was not clear which cyclists the sign was intended for, but it was clung on to by the victim blamers nonetheless).
You'll post pages trying to blame a cyclist, you'll say nothing about what we are going to do about drivers who hurt or kill people.
No one here is more desperate to blame than you. If the car had jumped the light & the cyclist had hit the car your attention would be focussed on blaming the car for jumping the light.
Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Saturday 18th February 10:02
heebeegeetee said:
On page 2 of this thread I said both were at fault, and I've repeated that on this thread, so you're wrong. It's motorists who can't accept the evidence of the annual statistics, or in this case, the court who did not get their info from the Daily Mail.
What court is that?Edited by heebeegeetee on Saturday 18th February 09:40
mygoldfishbowl said:
You are the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen on here..
No one here is more desperate to blame than you. If the car had jumped the light & the cyclist had hit the car your attention would be focussed on blaming the car for jumping the light.
This is very true. No one here is more desperate to blame than you. If the car had jumped the light & the cyclist had hit the car your attention would be focussed on blaming the car for jumping the light.
Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Saturday 18th February 10:02
heebeegeetee said:
The cyclist said he was ticketed for going through an amber, which means the footballer couldn't have passed through on green.
Personally I disbelieve this but the problem is, it's the Daily Mail saying he went through on red.
Nevertheless some of you guys are taking the Daily Mail at face value. This doesn't surprise me because although the Daily Mail is often ridiculed on this site, it is unmissable that the opinions of Daily Mail readers and most PHers are the same.
I mean, such is the bias against cyclists, and so utterly desperate are you guys to blame the cyclist at every level in every incident, you're even prepared to accept every word of the Daily Mail!
We don't know if the actions of either party were as a result of mistake or intent, but what we do know is that yet again, as will happens to tens of thousands of people this year, someone's bad driving has led to them harming somebody.
You guys will spend pages blaming cyclists, even the one recently who apparently wouldn't have been run down from behind had he dismounted instead of ridden his bike (I think, it was not clear which cyclists the sign was intended for, but it was clung on to by the victim blamers nonetheless).
You'll post pages trying to blame a cyclist, you'll say nothing about what we are going to do about drivers who hurt or kill people.
Whilst I appreciate not wanting to believe the Daily Mail, making up your own scenario to support your own argument is a bit much. Where is the evidence to say that the cyclist went through an amber light rather than a red? Clearly we can't rely on his own memory given that he admits to not remembering much of what went on. Personally I disbelieve this but the problem is, it's the Daily Mail saying he went through on red.
Nevertheless some of you guys are taking the Daily Mail at face value. This doesn't surprise me because although the Daily Mail is often ridiculed on this site, it is unmissable that the opinions of Daily Mail readers and most PHers are the same.
I mean, such is the bias against cyclists, and so utterly desperate are you guys to blame the cyclist at every level in every incident, you're even prepared to accept every word of the Daily Mail!
We don't know if the actions of either party were as a result of mistake or intent, but what we do know is that yet again, as will happens to tens of thousands of people this year, someone's bad driving has led to them harming somebody.
You guys will spend pages blaming cyclists, even the one recently who apparently wouldn't have been run down from behind had he dismounted instead of ridden his bike (I think, it was not clear which cyclists the sign was intended for, but it was clung on to by the victim blamers nonetheless).
You'll post pages trying to blame a cyclist, you'll say nothing about what we are going to do about drivers who hurt or kill people.
Did the police confirm it was an amber? I must have missed that if they did. If Austin had gone through an amber/red and hit the cyclist, he would have (rightly) got a much more significant punishment.
Motorists do need to be encouraged to drive more considerately, but assuming that cyclists can never be in the wrong because they cause less damage does not help.
here's another one...
let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
I do hope that the motorist was prosecuted for being a st driver though!
let's be clear here THE CAR DRIVER IS IN THE WRONG!! But (and you knew that there had to be one) substitute the cyclist for a car driver and people would be saying that he was driving too fast for the conditions/he should have been driving at a speed where he was able to stop etc etc. What's sauce for the goose and all that...
I do hope that the motorist was prosecuted for being a s
t driver though!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff