wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.
Discussion
mygoldfishbowl said:
Or he may have, thank you for agreeing with me. Also you forgot the bit of speculation brought up by cyclists that the pedestrian in the later incident had been drinking, a fact obviously so important the coroner doesn't even mention it.
Unless you have a complete transcript of the proceedings you don't know whether the coroner mentioned the drinking. You do know that the Mail didn't mention it and you seem happy to take the Mail's account as gospel.Other media outlets report that the pedestrian and his friend had just left the pub where they had been drinking.
Just out of curiosity, how closely allied do you think your thoughts on this and those of the Mail and it's contributors would be if this collision had involved a pedestrian and the driver of a nice tasty classic 911 RS instead of a cyclist?
Same circumstances, same consequences - the driver dead, not the pedestrian - same unknowns concerning the traffic lights, same speed, same alcohol consumption etc?
IroningMan said:
Unless you have a complete transcript of the proceedings you don't know whether the coroner mentioned the drinking. You do know that the Mail didn't mention it and you seem happy to take the Mail's account as gospel.
Other media outlets report that the pedestrian and his friend had just left the pub where they had been drinking.
Just out of curiosity, how closely allied do you think your thoughts on this and those of the Mail and it's contributors would be if this collision had involved a pedestrian and the driver of a nice tasty classic 911 RS instead of a cyclist?
Same circumstances, same consequences - the driver dead, not the pedestrian - same unknowns concerning the traffic lights, same speed, same alcohol consumption etc?
A driver wouldn't even have to break a finger nail. When a pedestrian steps out in front of a car, it's his fault end of, and if the car gets damaged as a result of striking a pedestrian, then the pedestrian will be the biggest Other media outlets report that the pedestrian and his friend had just left the pub where they had been drinking.
Just out of curiosity, how closely allied do you think your thoughts on this and those of the Mail and it's contributors would be if this collision had involved a pedestrian and the driver of a nice tasty classic 911 RS instead of a cyclist?
Same circumstances, same consequences - the driver dead, not the pedestrian - same unknowns concerning the traffic lights, same speed, same alcohol consumption etc?
going, whether he survives or not.And even then, in that scenario, there'll be no mention of helmets, none of insurance, none of registration, no slagging off of pedestrians even though they (we, of course) take no more regard of laws than anyone else, despite our vulnerability.
It'll barely make the local news, won't be multiple threads on ph, nobody would give a kipper.
Here in Sutton Coldfield last year a mother and child were ran down on a zebra crossing, resulting in the death of the child and the mother seriously injured, but that's not so an unusual event so it's not discussed on ph, parliament, barely in the national news, yet one of the aspects of that case was also a total lack of remorse by the elderly driver, not even in court when being sentenced.
A customer of my garage business had his car damaged when a woman pulled out of a church car park and struck his. He told me how the other church goers all went to comfort her, and none of them enquired if he or his screaming child who was in the car, was ok.
Nobody really gives that much of a kipper, it's all regarded as the norm, to a degree- unless a cyclist is involved, and then a completely different set of standards is brought to bear.
It truly is amazing.
heebeegeetee said:
A driver wouldn't even have to break a finger nail. When a pedestrian steps out in front of a car, it's his fault end of, and if the car gets damaged as a result of striking a pedestrian, then the pedestrian will be the biggest going, whether he survives or not.
And even then, in that scenario, there'll be no mention of helmets, none of insurance, none of registration, no slagging off of pedestrians even though they (we, of course) take no more regard of laws than anyone else, despite our vulnerability.
It'll barely make the local news, won't be multiple threads on ph, nobody would give a kipper.
Here in Sutton Coldfield last year a mother and child were ran down on a zebra crossing, resulting in the death of the child and the mother seriously injured, but that's not so an unusual event so it's not discussed on ph, parliament, barely in the national news, yet one of the aspects of that case was also a total lack of remorse by the elderly driver, not even in court when being sentenced.
A customer of my garage business had his car damaged when a woman pulled out of a church car park and struck his. He told me how the other church goers all went to comfort her, and none of them enquired if he or his screaming child who was in the car, was ok.
Nobody really gives that much of a kipper, it's all regarded as the norm, to a degree- unless a cyclist is involved, and then a completely different set of standards is brought to bear.
It truly is amazing.
What's amazing is that you are still wittering on in some show of sympathy for the tosser. He was riding a bike that was illegal, it was missing a legally required braking device, as a result he could not stop. He then blamed everyone but himself. If the driver of a car did the same he/she would be castigated in the same way and rightfully so. So stop wite the whinging and get a grip on the reality of the situation FFS!!!!! going, whether he survives or not.And even then, in that scenario, there'll be no mention of helmets, none of insurance, none of registration, no slagging off of pedestrians even though they (we, of course) take no more regard of laws than anyone else, despite our vulnerability.
It'll barely make the local news, won't be multiple threads on ph, nobody would give a kipper.
Here in Sutton Coldfield last year a mother and child were ran down on a zebra crossing, resulting in the death of the child and the mother seriously injured, but that's not so an unusual event so it's not discussed on ph, parliament, barely in the national news, yet one of the aspects of that case was also a total lack of remorse by the elderly driver, not even in court when being sentenced.
A customer of my garage business had his car damaged when a woman pulled out of a church car park and struck his. He told me how the other church goers all went to comfort her, and none of them enquired if he or his screaming child who was in the car, was ok.
Nobody really gives that much of a kipper, it's all regarded as the norm, to a degree- unless a cyclist is involved, and then a completely different set of standards is brought to bear.
It truly is amazing.
Engineer792 said:
On the plus side, any publicity which may make pedestrians think twice before stepping into the road without ensuring there's no vehicles coming along - bicycles included, can't be all bad.
This is exactly it. If you make sure the road is clear and safe before crossing then the chance of a car or bicycle hitting you is greatly reduced, regardless if they have adequate braking or not.
mygoldfishbowl said:
I didn't see any blatant anti cyclist reporting, I am seeing lots of blatant anti pedestrian, driver, anyone that isn't a cyclist posting going on though.
The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
Do you really not see the words used in the article as being pejorative and ant-cyclist?The coroner could not prove the lights were red which means that he couldn't prove they were green either. In other words the cyclist MAY have gone through on red.
I mean, the "journalist" thought fit to mention that the cyclist may have gone through a red light - but didn't think it fit to mention that the pedestrian may have been drunk. Do you think that is balanced reporting?
mygoldfishbowl said:
Or he may have, thank you for agreeing with me. Also you forgot the bit of speculation brought up by cyclists that the pedestrian in the later incident had been drinking, a fact obviously so important the coroner doesn't even mention it.
Yet the coroner doesn't mention the red-light either, but the fact that the cyclists may have gone through a red light seems very important to you (and many others on here). Why the double standards?So what about all the BMXs I've seen being used everywhere (including pedestrianised areas with no cycling signs) with neither front, rear, nor coaster brakes fitted?
Rubbing your sneakers on the tread of the rear tyre isn't enough.
Ditto "jump" bikes. Hefty hydraulic discs at the back. Nothing up front except suspension forks.
Rubbing your sneakers on the tread of the rear tyre isn't enough.
Ditto "jump" bikes. Hefty hydraulic discs at the back. Nothing up front except suspension forks.
heebeegeetee said:
A driver wouldn't even have to break a finger nail. When a pedestrian steps out in front of a car, it's his fault end of, and if the car gets damaged as a result of striking a pedestrian, then the pedestrian will be the biggest going, whether he survives or not.
...
It truly is amazing.
The level of utter b going, whether he survives or not....
It truly is amazing.
ks you are constantly posting is truly amazing.cb1965 said:
What's amazing is that you are still wittering on in some show of sympathy for the tosser. He was riding a bike that was illegal, it was missing a legally required braking device, as a result he could not stop. He then blamed everyone but himself. If the driver of a car did the same he/she would be castigated in the same way and rightfully so. So stop wite the whinging and get a grip on the reality of the situation FFS!!!!!
I think I have a grip on reality. This case is exceptional and very rare. A cyclist is going to prison yet for the past 30 years, I've rarely seen anything but a derisory punishment for drivers who kil people on two wheels or on foot. There is now a current case where a 4x4 has collided with a group of walkers, killed two and injured two. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4872726/Tw...It's barely made the news; no names given; no multiple threads; no mention in parliament; no circumstances given, etc etc. But I know, as a road user, which is more likely to do me and mine harm - cyclists or drivers, and drivers are more likely to hurt yours two.
It's untrue to say a driver would be castigated for doing the same - indeed they're possibly more likely to be celebrated, such as Ian Wright on Top Gear, when he recounted the (not uncommon) story of what happens when he disables safety systems in a powerful car - by using the switches so thoughtfully provided by the manufacturer, ending in the not uncommon result of a smashed car http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oou0g
Here's a chap who has removed his front brakes and replaced them with something inferior, resulting in a similar braking distance increase as our f
kwit cyclist: https://youtu.be/OakZc3RsSGc?t=9m31sHe says the brakes are not bedded in, to which my thoughts were
a) brakes haven't needed a bedding in process for decades.
b) why would you drive a car on public roads with unbedded brakes?
c) do "performance" brakes require a bedding in process - in which case what is he doing on the public road with them?
I mentioned this on another thread and a reply was that high performance brakes can require considerable bedding in process,but this M3 just has big sliding calipers with a single piston, nothing fancy at all and very effective - plus it's on a car on road tyres, so will never generate the genuine high performance of a car on slick tyres - in other words, only high performance in context of road cars.
But either way, I don't see any castigation in the comments.
heebeegeetee said:
I think I have a grip on reality.
Grip harder.heebeegeetee said:
This case is exceptional and very rare. A cyclist is going to prison yet for the past 30 years, I've rarely seen anything but a derisory punishment for drivers who kil people on two wheels or on foot. There is now a current case where a 4x4 has collided with a group of walkers, killed two and injured two. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4872726/Tw...
It's barely made the news; no names given; no multiple threads; no mention in parliament; no circumstances given, etc etc. But I know, as a road user, which is more likely to do me and mine harm - cyclists or drivers, and drivers are more likely to hurt yours two.
If it turns out the driver had no front brakes and posts comments to social media saying the pedestrians deserved to get hit, then I think you could expect this case to get a lot more coverage.It's barely made the news; no names given; no multiple threads; no mention in parliament; no circumstances given, etc etc. But I know, as a road user, which is more likely to do me and mine harm - cyclists or drivers, and drivers are more likely to hurt yours two.
BMWBen said:
Why don't you deal with the questions/points he raises rather than just spouting childish noise?
Oh FFS!!! Really?a) Because the points he raises are concerning events mutually exclusive to those on which the thread subject refers to.
b) He's trying to compare the incomparable.
c) Debating with the likes of heebee is a fruitless task.
Hope you an find it in your 'intellect' to grasp the above!
cb1965 said:
BMWBen said:
Why don't you deal with the questions/points he raises rather than just spouting childish noise?
Oh FFS!!! Really?a) Because the points he raises are concerning events mutually exclusive to those on which the thread subject refers to.
b) He's trying to compare the incomparable.
c) Debating with the likes of heebee is a fruitless task.
Hope you an find it in your 'intellect' to grasp the above!
heebeegeetee said:
Here's a chap who has removed his front brakes and replaced them with something inferior, resulting in a similar braking distance increase as our fkwit cyclist: https://youtu.be/OakZc3RsSGc?t=9m31s
He says the brakes are not bedded in, to which my thoughts were
a) brakes haven't needed a bedding in process for decades.
b) why would you drive a car on public roads with unbedded brakes?
c) do "performance" brakes require a bedding in process - in which case what is he doing on the public road with them?
I mentioned this on another thread and a reply was that high performance brakes can require considerable bedding in process,but this M3 just has big sliding calipers with a single piston, nothing fancy at all and very effective - plus it's on a car on road tyres, so will never generate the genuine high performance of a car on slick tyres - in other words, only high performance in context of road cars.
But either way, I don't see any castigation in the comments.
You mentioned this on the other thread and it was complete and utter rubbish back then. I'm not sure it's worth me, or anyone else, rebutting all your incorrect assertions yet again, since you'll only keep on posting them anyway. Despite driving a car, you clearly have relatively little knowledge of them, and as always that's a dangerous thing.kwit cyclist: https://youtu.be/OakZc3RsSGc?t=9m31sHe says the brakes are not bedded in, to which my thoughts were
a) brakes haven't needed a bedding in process for decades.
b) why would you drive a car on public roads with unbedded brakes?
c) do "performance" brakes require a bedding in process - in which case what is he doing on the public road with them?
I mentioned this on another thread and a reply was that high performance brakes can require considerable bedding in process,but this M3 just has big sliding calipers with a single piston, nothing fancy at all and very effective - plus it's on a car on road tyres, so will never generate the genuine high performance of a car on slick tyres - in other words, only high performance in context of road cars.
But either way, I don't see any castigation in the comments.
Retroman said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
No, I've never even implied that the lights were red. I have only insisted on the fact that they may have been after others have stated the fact that they may have been as "bks" or " click bate" etc. The only fact we know is, the coroner could not prove they were red, so the cyclist MAY have gone through them while they were.
Indeed. They may have been red. They may have been green as well. ks" or " click bate" etc. The only fact we know is, the coroner could not prove they were red, so the cyclist MAY have gone through them while they were.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff