Updated: Cyclist killed in A35 collision

A35 closed following serious accident near Charmouth

A35 closed following serious accident near Charmouth

First published in News
Last updated

A CYCLIST has been killed in a collision on the A35 near Charmouth.

Police closed the road following the fatal collision between the cyclist, a 43-year-old visitor to the area, and a car.

Officers have now issued an appeal for witnesses, urging anyone with information about the collision this afternoon to get in contact.

A Dorset Police spokesman said: “Police are appealing for witnesses to a fatal road traffic collision which occurred on the A35 near to Charmouth at about 3.30pm.

“At this stage it is believed that a 43-year-old male cyclist, who was a visitor to the area, was hit from the rear by an 83-year-old male driver in his small silver hatchback motor vehicle whilst travelling up the hill westbound away from the Charmouth roundabout.

“The cyclist suffered fatal injuries as a result of the collision and the male driver was uninjured but is helping police with their investigations.

“Police would like to hear from any witnesses to the collision or to seeing either the cyclist or the male driver prior to the collision.”

The road was closed between the B3165 at Raymond’s Hill and the Charmouth roundabout with diversions put in place while officers investigated the scene.

The route was reopened at around 9.15pm last night.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Dorset Police on 101, quoting incident number 02:300.

Comments (97)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:51pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Phaedrus says...

B3165 not B3156?
B3165 not B3156? Phaedrus
  • Score: -12

9:10pm Sat 2 Aug 14

bargain price says...

Such sad news, They are saying that Dorset has the highest rate of accidents maybe its about time we put as much effort into the speeding campaign into finding out how many older drivers shouldn't be on the roads..... Such a sad time for the riders family R.I.P
Such sad news, They are saying that Dorset has the highest rate of accidents maybe its about time we put as much effort into the speeding campaign into finding out how many older drivers shouldn't be on the roads..... Such a sad time for the riders family R.I.P bargain price
  • Score: 34

10:01pm Sat 2 Aug 14

yar2007 says...

I agree. My nan is 86 and can hardly walk or see so how is this man allowed to drive?!!
I agree. My nan is 86 and can hardly walk or see so how is this man allowed to drive?!! yar2007
  • Score: 36

10:59pm Sat 2 Aug 14

sweetdreamgirl says...

Another fatality in the County in a short space of time,cyclists are so vulnerable on our roads,but I do think all drivers having reached 70 yes old should take a test for checking reaction and response times so often I see elderly people get out of cars with walking sticks tottering around,how can they possibly have quick reactions,and before anyone says I'm knocking the elderly I'm one.
Another fatality in the County in a short space of time,cyclists are so vulnerable on our roads,but I do think all drivers having reached 70 yes old should take a test for checking reaction and response times so often I see elderly people get out of cars with walking sticks tottering around,how can they possibly have quick reactions,and before anyone says I'm knocking the elderly I'm one. sweetdreamgirl
  • Score: 49

9:15am Sun 3 Aug 14

GAVW30 says...

Surely restrictions on elderly drivers must be put in place, as a cyclist myself my thoughts are with the victims family. The amount of near misses ive had with elderly drivers who "just didn't see" is a crime in itself. Before the trolls start, I'll also add that I'm sure the elderly driver involved in this accident would of had no intentions of harming anyone on the roads. Nor, im sure, would any of the drivers involved in any of my near misses. Time to act though, although I'll guess we will be seeing another 'fatal road crash' headline in the echo within the next month. Such a shame.
Surely restrictions on elderly drivers must be put in place, as a cyclist myself my thoughts are with the victims family. The amount of near misses ive had with elderly drivers who "just didn't see" is a crime in itself. Before the trolls start, I'll also add that I'm sure the elderly driver involved in this accident would of had no intentions of harming anyone on the roads. Nor, im sure, would any of the drivers involved in any of my near misses. Time to act though, although I'll guess we will be seeing another 'fatal road crash' headline in the echo within the next month. Such a shame. GAVW30
  • Score: 16

9:32am Sun 3 Aug 14

Honestytruth says...

Not putting any blame on the drive as I am sure he is very shaken but agree instead of just being able to renew a license at 70 people should have to take a reaction assesment. I would happily do this before I get to 70. I truly believe there are elderly drivers out there that would pass with with flying colours & would have nothing to worry about. I was driving behind an elderly lady jut recently & she came onto the roundabout right in front of me & didn't look. I had to break very quickly. As I followed her I kept my distance because she was all over the road. To my shock she hit the kerb but seemed that she didn't even notice. As we came up to the next roundabout she was turning left no indication I was going straight on. To my shock & horror she could not see over the dash & her chest was almost touching the steering wheel. She looked a very frail tiny elderly lady that clearly should not have been driving
Not putting any blame on the drive as I am sure he is very shaken but agree instead of just being able to renew a license at 70 people should have to take a reaction assesment. I would happily do this before I get to 70. I truly believe there are elderly drivers out there that would pass with with flying colours & would have nothing to worry about. I was driving behind an elderly lady jut recently & she came onto the roundabout right in front of me & didn't look. I had to break very quickly. As I followed her I kept my distance because she was all over the road. To my shock she hit the kerb but seemed that she didn't even notice. As we came up to the next roundabout she was turning left no indication I was going straight on. To my shock & horror she could not see over the dash & her chest was almost touching the steering wheel. She looked a very frail tiny elderly lady that clearly should not have been driving Honestytruth
  • Score: 19

10:13am Sun 3 Aug 14

annotater says...

At the moment driving is down to honesty, telling the DVLA that they are fit, self assesment in other words.
Old age creeps up on all of us in time and I do believe as part of the eye test, the DVLA is informed automatically if the person is not fit to drive through ailment in eye sight. Why not use your Doctor for a simple reaction test?
On the other side is the cyclist. Pedalling up any hill and the legs get tired, the steering is not controlled and they do wander about erraticaly in the road, so there is a recipe for disaster.
At the moment driving is down to honesty, telling the DVLA that they are fit, self assesment in other words. Old age creeps up on all of us in time and I do believe as part of the eye test, the DVLA is informed automatically if the person is not fit to drive through ailment in eye sight. Why not use your Doctor for a simple reaction test? On the other side is the cyclist. Pedalling up any hill and the legs get tired, the steering is not controlled and they do wander about erraticaly in the road, so there is a recipe for disaster. annotater
  • Score: 1

10:28am Sun 3 Aug 14

anotherfatslob says...

They don't wander erratically in the road,they wander predictably.

Highway code says be careful around bikes,they may wander in the road.

At least the report doesn't say the cyclist was in collision with the car.
They don't wander erratically in the road,they wander predictably. Highway code says be careful around bikes,they may wander in the road. At least the report doesn't say the cyclist was in collision with the car. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 18

10:30am Sun 3 Aug 14

anotherfatslob says...

My mistake,it says bike was in collision with car,not car was in collision with bike,which is what happened,so well done ,abhorrent journalism,again.
My mistake,it says bike was in collision with car,not car was in collision with bike,which is what happened,so well done ,abhorrent journalism,again. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 6

11:35am Sun 3 Aug 14

Iianjames says...

Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same. Iianjames
  • Score: -3

11:47am Sun 3 Aug 14

PossumGoose says...

Don't know why Dorset bothers with police investigations or coroners courts. Just rely on the instant verdicts dished out by Echo readers. No facts, no expert knowledge but, in this instance, clear cut guilty verdict just because one party was 83.
Don't know why Dorset bothers with police investigations or coroners courts. Just rely on the instant verdicts dished out by Echo readers. No facts, no expert knowledge but, in this instance, clear cut guilty verdict just because one party was 83. PossumGoose
  • Score: 28

12:11pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Saddler says...

There are good and bad drivers of all ages. Statistics however show the most vulnerable are under 25.
There are good and bad drivers of all ages. Statistics however show the most vulnerable are under 25. Saddler
  • Score: 23

1:49pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Dorset69 says...

i was out on the roads yesterday and there was a lot of cyclists about, to be honest they are not blameless either riding sometimes four abreast
i was out on the roads yesterday and there was a lot of cyclists about, to be honest they are not blameless either riding sometimes four abreast Dorset69
  • Score: 10

2:32pm Sun 3 Aug 14

navelgazer says...

Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
I'm glad that you said SOME cyclists.
I'm one of those adult 'head-down' cyclists who does wear high vis clothing. Nevertheless, I've been cut up and had near misses from SOME motorists who, when I've caught up with them at a junction, use the unjustifiable excuse that they 'didn't see me'.
Had they been honest, they would have admitted that they were driving without due care and attention

Ref age: I don't have to long to go until my 70th. From personal family knowledge I'd strongly agree that those above a certain age should have to take a medical to determine their suitability to be able to continue driving.
I'd also suggest that the test should be conducted by an independent authority, not a family GP who may be inclined to take the patient's personal circumstances into account. )Personal family experience again)

Although the cause / fault of this incident may yet to be determined, the following extracts are from a ROSPA report on older drivers:

# Reported statistics indicate that the risk of being involved in an accident increases after the age of 70, and up to that age drivers are no more likely to cause a crash than to be the victim of another road user's mistake. However, drivers over 70 and especially over 80 years, drivers are more likely to be at fault when they crash.

# Older drivers are commonly involved in collisions at junctions, often because they mis-judge the speed/distance of other vehicles or fail to see a hazard. Visual impairment may be a factor in this type of crash.

# It is clear that many older drivers recognise that their driving ability has changed and consequently change when and where they drive (through self-regulation). However, not all older drivers do this, and there is little guidance for them or their relatives about it.

# A major deterrent to self-regulation or stopping driving is the lack, or perceived lack, of viable alternatives to the car.

# A key question is how and when drivers should be relicensed. In the UK this occurs at 70 years (and every three years thereafter) and requires only the driver to self certify that they are fit to drive.
[quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]I'm glad that you said SOME cyclists. I'm one of those adult 'head-down' cyclists who does wear high vis clothing. Nevertheless, I've been cut up and had near misses from SOME motorists who, when I've caught up with them at a junction, use the unjustifiable excuse that they 'didn't see me'. Had they been honest, they would have admitted that they were driving without due care and attention Ref age: I don't have to long to go until my 70th. From personal family knowledge I'd strongly agree that those above a certain age should have to take a medical to determine their suitability to be able to continue driving. I'd also suggest that the test should be conducted by an independent authority, not a family GP who may be inclined to take the patient's personal circumstances into account. )Personal family experience again) Although the cause / fault of this incident may yet to be determined, the following extracts are from a ROSPA report on older drivers: # Reported statistics indicate that the risk of being involved in an accident increases after the age of 70, and up to that age drivers are no more likely to cause a crash than to be the victim of another road user's mistake. However, drivers over 70 and especially over 80 years, drivers are more likely to be at fault when they crash. # Older drivers are commonly involved in collisions at junctions, often because they mis-judge the speed/distance of other vehicles or fail to see a hazard. Visual impairment may be a factor in this type of crash. # It is clear that many older drivers recognise that their driving ability has changed and consequently change when and where they drive (through self-regulation). However, not all older drivers do this, and there is little guidance for them or their relatives about it. # A major deterrent to self-regulation or stopping driving is the lack, or perceived lack, of viable alternatives to the car. # A key question is how and when drivers should be relicensed. In the UK this occurs at 70 years (and every three years thereafter) and requires only the driver to self certify that they are fit to drive. navelgazer
  • Score: 17

8:22pm Sun 3 Aug 14

livid99 says...

PossumGoose wrote:
Don't know why Dorset bothers with police investigations or coroners courts. Just rely on the instant verdicts dished out by Echo readers. No facts, no expert knowledge but, in this instance, clear cut guilty verdict just because one party was 83.
Indeed ! So many "experts" here who can immediately issue judgement based on Echo standard journalism.
The staff at the Echo once again have shown they have no sense of when comments should or should not be allowed.
RIP to the cyclist, and thoughts also with the elderly gentleman who must also be feeling devastated (something no-one seems to have considered in their rush to issue blame based on his age).
[quote][p][bold]PossumGoose[/bold] wrote: Don't know why Dorset bothers with police investigations or coroners courts. Just rely on the instant verdicts dished out by Echo readers. No facts, no expert knowledge but, in this instance, clear cut guilty verdict just because one party was 83.[/p][/quote]Indeed ! So many "experts" here who can immediately issue judgement based on Echo standard journalism. The staff at the Echo once again have shown they have no sense of when comments should or should not be allowed. RIP to the cyclist, and thoughts also with the elderly gentleman who must also be feeling devastated (something no-one seems to have considered in their rush to issue blame based on his age). livid99
  • Score: 7

8:37pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Dr Lodge says...

I am 47 and a keen cyclist, and I had the unfortunate experience of passing this accident before the road was closed. The drivers car was quite badly damaged at the top of the windscreen and roof in line with the passenger, I then saw the cyclist lying limp and bloody on the floor as he was given CPR. I can only deduce this elderly man didn't see the cyclist at all and simply ran into the back of him, throwing him up, into the front of the car and over the roof landing behind. It really made my stomach turn and I can't get those images out of my head. RIP poor chap, I just wonder if he leaves a wife/children as they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives.
I am 47 and a keen cyclist, and I had the unfortunate experience of passing this accident before the road was closed. The drivers car was quite badly damaged at the top of the windscreen and roof in line with the passenger, I then saw the cyclist lying limp and bloody on the floor as he was given CPR. I can only deduce this elderly man didn't see the cyclist at all and simply ran into the back of him, throwing him up, into the front of the car and over the roof landing behind. It really made my stomach turn and I can't get those images out of my head. RIP poor chap, I just wonder if he leaves a wife/children as they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives. Dr Lodge
  • Score: 35

9:58pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Dorset69 says...

Dr Lodge wrote:
I am 47 and a keen cyclist, and I had the unfortunate experience of passing this accident before the road was closed. The drivers car was quite badly damaged at the top of the windscreen and roof in line with the passenger, I then saw the cyclist lying limp and bloody on the floor as he was given CPR. I can only deduce this elderly man didn't see the cyclist at all and simply ran into the back of him, throwing him up, into the front of the car and over the roof landing behind. It really made my stomach turn and I can't get those images out of my head. RIP poor chap, I just wonder if he leaves a wife/children as they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives.
You werent there at the time so cant really comment either way to be honest
[quote][p][bold]Dr Lodge[/bold] wrote: I am 47 and a keen cyclist, and I had the unfortunate experience of passing this accident before the road was closed. The drivers car was quite badly damaged at the top of the windscreen and roof in line with the passenger, I then saw the cyclist lying limp and bloody on the floor as he was given CPR. I can only deduce this elderly man didn't see the cyclist at all and simply ran into the back of him, throwing him up, into the front of the car and over the roof landing behind. It really made my stomach turn and I can't get those images out of my head. RIP poor chap, I just wonder if he leaves a wife/children as they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives.[/p][/quote]You werent there at the time so cant really comment either way to be honest Dorset69
  • Score: -33

9:58pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Dorset69 says...

Dr Lodge wrote:
I am 47 and a keen cyclist, and I had the unfortunate experience of passing this accident before the road was closed. The drivers car was quite badly damaged at the top of the windscreen and roof in line with the passenger, I then saw the cyclist lying limp and bloody on the floor as he was given CPR. I can only deduce this elderly man didn't see the cyclist at all and simply ran into the back of him, throwing him up, into the front of the car and over the roof landing behind. It really made my stomach turn and I can't get those images out of my head. RIP poor chap, I just wonder if he leaves a wife/children as they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives.
You werent there at the time so cant really comment either way to be honest
[quote][p][bold]Dr Lodge[/bold] wrote: I am 47 and a keen cyclist, and I had the unfortunate experience of passing this accident before the road was closed. The drivers car was quite badly damaged at the top of the windscreen and roof in line with the passenger, I then saw the cyclist lying limp and bloody on the floor as he was given CPR. I can only deduce this elderly man didn't see the cyclist at all and simply ran into the back of him, throwing him up, into the front of the car and over the roof landing behind. It really made my stomach turn and I can't get those images out of my head. RIP poor chap, I just wonder if he leaves a wife/children as they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives.[/p][/quote]You werent there at the time so cant really comment either way to be honest Dorset69
  • Score: -25

10:49pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

livid99 wrote:
PossumGoose wrote:
Don't know why Dorset bothers with police investigations or coroners courts. Just rely on the instant verdicts dished out by Echo readers. No facts, no expert knowledge but, in this instance, clear cut guilty verdict just because one party was 83.
Indeed ! So many "experts" here who can immediately issue judgement based on Echo standard journalism.
The staff at the Echo once again have shown they have no sense of when comments should or should not be allowed.
RIP to the cyclist, and thoughts also with the elderly gentleman who must also be feeling devastated (something no-one seems to have considered in their rush to issue blame based on his age).
You've got to be kidding right?
If this were a hooded spotty teenager everyone would be calling for his blood. Sorry - you get into a car, you realise that mishandling can kill as part of deal. Accident maybe, but never the less he is still culpable for manslaughter and should get a sentence , just like anyone else. Age should not come into a question of leniency.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PossumGoose[/bold] wrote: Don't know why Dorset bothers with police investigations or coroners courts. Just rely on the instant verdicts dished out by Echo readers. No facts, no expert knowledge but, in this instance, clear cut guilty verdict just because one party was 83.[/p][/quote]Indeed ! So many "experts" here who can immediately issue judgement based on Echo standard journalism. The staff at the Echo once again have shown they have no sense of when comments should or should not be allowed. RIP to the cyclist, and thoughts also with the elderly gentleman who must also be feeling devastated (something no-one seems to have considered in their rush to issue blame based on his age).[/p][/quote]You've got to be kidding right? If this were a hooded spotty teenager everyone would be calling for his blood. Sorry - you get into a car, you realise that mishandling can kill as part of deal. Accident maybe, but never the less he is still culpable for manslaughter and should get a sentence , just like anyone else. Age should not come into a question of leniency. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 10

12:32am Mon 4 Aug 14

Dr Lodge says...

I would certainly like to see drivers being held 100% responsible for their actions, and much tougher sentences when people are injured or killed. You drive a car, you take responsibility for your actions. If you end up killing someone, then you should pay for it.

Sometimes accidents are simply that - no one is to blame and sometimes sh1t happens. but when someone is clearly responsible and it is their *fault* then they should face the consequences. I would like to see the driver in these types of cases explain himself to the family of the deceased.

Oh and Dorset69. I was there and I certainly can comment. There were quite a few cars pulled over presumably as witnesses which is a good thing for getting to the truth of what happened.
I would certainly like to see drivers being held 100% responsible for their actions, and much tougher sentences when people are injured or killed. You drive a car, you take responsibility for your actions. If you end up killing someone, then you should pay for it. Sometimes accidents are simply that - no one is to blame and sometimes sh1t happens. but when someone is clearly responsible and it is their *fault* then they should face the consequences. I would like to see the driver in these types of cases explain himself to the family of the deceased. Oh and Dorset69. I was there and I certainly can comment. There were quite a few cars pulled over presumably as witnesses which is a good thing for getting to the truth of what happened. Dr Lodge
  • Score: 13

6:58am Mon 4 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Dorset69 wrote:
Dr Lodge wrote:
I am 47 and a keen cyclist, and I had the unfortunate experience of passing this accident before the road was closed. The drivers car was quite badly damaged at the top of the windscreen and roof in line with the passenger, I then saw the cyclist lying limp and bloody on the floor as he was given CPR. I can only deduce this elderly man didn't see the cyclist at all and simply ran into the back of him, throwing him up, into the front of the car and over the roof landing behind. It really made my stomach turn and I can't get those images out of my head. RIP poor chap, I just wonder if he leaves a wife/children as they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives.
You werent there at the time so cant really comment either way to be honest
Sounds pretty convincing to me. What does a whiteness need to do? Provide video tape of the incident?
We all know that going into the back of someone makes you the at fault party - no questions. No experts needed.
Unless of course the cyclist managed to cycle backwards at hundreds of miles an hour...
[quote][p][bold]Dorset69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Lodge[/bold] wrote: I am 47 and a keen cyclist, and I had the unfortunate experience of passing this accident before the road was closed. The drivers car was quite badly damaged at the top of the windscreen and roof in line with the passenger, I then saw the cyclist lying limp and bloody on the floor as he was given CPR. I can only deduce this elderly man didn't see the cyclist at all and simply ran into the back of him, throwing him up, into the front of the car and over the roof landing behind. It really made my stomach turn and I can't get those images out of my head. RIP poor chap, I just wonder if he leaves a wife/children as they are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives.[/p][/quote]You werent there at the time so cant really comment either way to be honest[/p][/quote]Sounds pretty convincing to me. What does a whiteness need to do? Provide video tape of the incident? We all know that going into the back of someone makes you the at fault party - no questions. No experts needed. Unless of course the cyclist managed to cycle backwards at hundreds of miles an hour... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 15

7:03am Mon 4 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
[quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 14

7:59am Mon 4 Aug 14

livid99 says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
livid99 wrote:
PossumGoose wrote:
Don't know why Dorset bothers with police investigations or coroners courts. Just rely on the instant verdicts dished out by Echo readers. No facts, no expert knowledge but, in this instance, clear cut guilty verdict just because one party was 83.
Indeed ! So many "experts" here who can immediately issue judgement based on Echo standard journalism.
The staff at the Echo once again have shown they have no sense of when comments should or should not be allowed.
RIP to the cyclist, and thoughts also with the elderly gentleman who must also be feeling devastated (something no-one seems to have considered in their rush to issue blame based on his age).
You've got to be kidding right?
If this were a hooded spotty teenager everyone would be calling for his blood. Sorry - you get into a car, you realise that mishandling can kill as part of deal. Accident maybe, but never the less he is still culpable for manslaughter and should get a sentence , just like anyone else. Age should not come into a question of leniency.
Oh I'm sorry - I didn't realise you were actually there when the accident happened and know ALL the circumstances and details. You clearly know ALL the facts and are happy to condemn the elderly man on the spot.
No point in arguing with know-it-all people like you, is there ?
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PossumGoose[/bold] wrote: Don't know why Dorset bothers with police investigations or coroners courts. Just rely on the instant verdicts dished out by Echo readers. No facts, no expert knowledge but, in this instance, clear cut guilty verdict just because one party was 83.[/p][/quote]Indeed ! So many "experts" here who can immediately issue judgement based on Echo standard journalism. The staff at the Echo once again have shown they have no sense of when comments should or should not be allowed. RIP to the cyclist, and thoughts also with the elderly gentleman who must also be feeling devastated (something no-one seems to have considered in their rush to issue blame based on his age).[/p][/quote]You've got to be kidding right? If this were a hooded spotty teenager everyone would be calling for his blood. Sorry - you get into a car, you realise that mishandling can kill as part of deal. Accident maybe, but never the less he is still culpable for manslaughter and should get a sentence , just like anyone else. Age should not come into a question of leniency.[/p][/quote]Oh I'm sorry - I didn't realise you were actually there when the accident happened and know ALL the circumstances and details. You clearly know ALL the facts and are happy to condemn the elderly man on the spot. No point in arguing with know-it-all people like you, is there ? livid99
  • Score: -14

8:04am Mon 4 Aug 14

livid99 says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
And YOU completely ignore the totally valid and accurate first sentence of Iianjames comment.
Yes, there clearly is a moron here....
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]And YOU completely ignore the totally valid and accurate first sentence of Iianjames comment. Yes, there clearly is a moron here.... livid99
  • Score: -4

9:26am Mon 4 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine. JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

11:54am Mon 4 Aug 14

February1948 says...

navelgazer wrote:
Iianjames wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
I'm glad that you said SOME cyclists. I'm one of those adult 'head-down' cyclists who does wear high vis clothing. Nevertheless, I've been cut up and had near misses from SOME motorists who, when I've caught up with them at a junction, use the unjustifiable excuse that they 'didn't see me'. Had they been honest, they would have admitted that they were driving without due care and attention Ref age: I don't have to long to go until my 70th. From personal family knowledge I'd strongly agree that those above a certain age should have to take a medical to determine their suitability to be able to continue driving. I'd also suggest that the test should be conducted by an independent authority, not a family GP who may be inclined to take the patient's personal circumstances into account. )Personal family experience again) Although the cause / fault of this incident may yet to be determined, the following extracts are from a ROSPA report on older drivers: # Reported statistics indicate that the risk of being involved in an accident increases after the age of 70, and up to that age drivers are no more likely to cause a crash than to be the victim of another road user's mistake. However, drivers over 70 and especially over 80 years, drivers are more likely to be at fault when they crash. # Older drivers are commonly involved in collisions at junctions, often because they mis-judge the speed/distance of other vehicles or fail to see a hazard. Visual impairment may be a factor in this type of crash. # It is clear that many older drivers recognise that their driving ability has changed and consequently change when and where they drive (through self-regulation). However, not all older drivers do this, and there is little guidance for them or their relatives about it. # A major deterrent to self-regulation or stopping driving is the lack, or perceived lack, of viable alternatives to the car. # A key question is how and when drivers should be relicensed. In the UK this occurs at 70 years (and every three years thereafter) and requires only the driver to self certify that they are fit to drive.
In my job (I am 68), anyone over 65 who drives any of the company's vehicles, has to take an annual driving assessment, including a theory test. This is a proper driving test, not a box-ticking exercise. I don't have a problem with this and find an annual update with a qualified assessor extremely useful. There's never been a problem with my driving, but it does keep you on your toes and also reminds you about all the updates, road signs etc.
I believe there should be a mandatory driving reassessment for everyone, not just older drivers, say every 5 years. There's always something to learn, even for Audi-drivers, who do seem to think they are kings of the road!!
[quote][p][bold]navelgazer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]I'm glad that you said SOME cyclists. I'm one of those adult 'head-down' cyclists who does wear high vis clothing. Nevertheless, I've been cut up and had near misses from SOME motorists who, when I've caught up with them at a junction, use the unjustifiable excuse that they 'didn't see me'. Had they been honest, they would have admitted that they were driving without due care and attention Ref age: I don't have to long to go until my 70th. From personal family knowledge I'd strongly agree that those above a certain age should have to take a medical to determine their suitability to be able to continue driving. I'd also suggest that the test should be conducted by an independent authority, not a family GP who may be inclined to take the patient's personal circumstances into account. )Personal family experience again) Although the cause / fault of this incident may yet to be determined, the following extracts are from a ROSPA report on older drivers: # Reported statistics indicate that the risk of being involved in an accident increases after the age of 70, and up to that age drivers are no more likely to cause a crash than to be the victim of another road user's mistake. However, drivers over 70 and especially over 80 years, drivers are more likely to be at fault when they crash. # Older drivers are commonly involved in collisions at junctions, often because they mis-judge the speed/distance of other vehicles or fail to see a hazard. Visual impairment may be a factor in this type of crash. # It is clear that many older drivers recognise that their driving ability has changed and consequently change when and where they drive (through self-regulation). However, not all older drivers do this, and there is little guidance for them or their relatives about it. # A major deterrent to self-regulation or stopping driving is the lack, or perceived lack, of viable alternatives to the car. # A key question is how and when drivers should be relicensed. In the UK this occurs at 70 years (and every three years thereafter) and requires only the driver to self certify that they are fit to drive.[/p][/quote]In my job (I am 68), anyone over 65 who drives any of the company's vehicles, has to take an annual driving assessment, including a theory test. This is a proper driving test, not a box-ticking exercise. I don't have a problem with this and find an annual update with a qualified assessor extremely useful. There's never been a problem with my driving, but it does keep you on your toes and also reminds you about all the updates, road signs etc. I believe there should be a mandatory driving reassessment for everyone, not just older drivers, say every 5 years. There's always something to learn, even for Audi-drivers, who do seem to think they are kings of the road!! February1948
  • Score: 11

11:58am Mon 4 Aug 14

JonnyT says...

Dorset69 wrote:
i was out on the roads yesterday and there was a lot of cyclists about, to be honest they are not blameless either riding sometimes four abreast
So if they're "invisible" that's wrong and when they are visible, that's wrong as well?
[quote][p][bold]Dorset69[/bold] wrote: i was out on the roads yesterday and there was a lot of cyclists about, to be honest they are not blameless either riding sometimes four abreast[/p][/quote]So if they're "invisible" that's wrong and when they are visible, that's wrong as well? JonnyT
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Mon 4 Aug 14

codlips says...

JonnyT wrote:
Dorset69 wrote:
i was out on the roads yesterday and there was a lot of cyclists about, to be honest they are not blameless either riding sometimes four abreast
So if they're "invisible" that's wrong and when they are visible, that's wrong as well?
There's being visable and there's being a pain in the arse to other road users.Four abreast is just ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]JonnyT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset69[/bold] wrote: i was out on the roads yesterday and there was a lot of cyclists about, to be honest they are not blameless either riding sometimes four abreast[/p][/quote]So if they're "invisible" that's wrong and when they are visible, that's wrong as well?[/p][/quote]There's being visable and there's being a pain in the arse to other road users.Four abreast is just ridiculous. codlips
  • Score: 10

6:29pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -4

6:35pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

livid99 wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
And YOU completely ignore the totally valid and accurate first sentence of Iianjames comment.
Yes, there clearly is a moron here....
No - it is totally invalid an inaccurate.
This is very much analogous to women being called responsible for being raped because they are wearing a short skirt. Its wholly unacceptable - a car driver is responsible for any cyclist that he is in the vicinity of, whether that person is drunk, using shopping bags, fat, Swedish makes no odds. The car is a killing machine, and thousands of cyclists deaths prove that, so the car driver is 100% responsible - if you don't get that very very basic fact Id get yourself down to a local police station and hand in your licence before you kill someone...
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]And YOU completely ignore the totally valid and accurate first sentence of Iianjames comment. Yes, there clearly is a moron here....[/p][/quote]No - it is totally invalid an inaccurate. This is very much analogous to women being called responsible for being raped because they are wearing a short skirt. Its wholly unacceptable - a car driver is responsible for any cyclist that he is in the vicinity of, whether that person is drunk, using shopping bags, fat, Swedish makes no odds. The car is a killing machine, and thousands of cyclists deaths prove that, so the car driver is 100% responsible - if you don't get that very very basic fact Id get yourself down to a local police station and hand in your licence before you kill someone... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -4

6:43pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

codlips wrote:
JonnyT wrote:
Dorset69 wrote:
i was out on the roads yesterday and there was a lot of cyclists about, to be honest they are not blameless either riding sometimes four abreast
So if they're "invisible" that's wrong and when they are visible, that's wrong as well?
There's being visable and there's being a pain in the arse to other road users.Four abreast is just ridiculous.
Again - I endless hear motorists bleating on about cyclists riding the wrong way down roads, weaving in and out.
The figures speak for themselves. The hard truth is that we simply don't need any more motorists. They are trying to join a well over saturated market.
We do need cyclist. The cases of bad cycling in ratio to bad car driving is so laughable its untrue.
40,000,000 car drivers. A few tens of thousand cyclist. There is always some excuse to run them down, mark them out, but amazingly car drivers always forget to look at themselves. Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding.
But there they are - the four abreast, stunt performing cyclist that car drivers always seem to know.
[quote][p][bold]codlips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JonnyT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorset69[/bold] wrote: i was out on the roads yesterday and there was a lot of cyclists about, to be honest they are not blameless either riding sometimes four abreast[/p][/quote]So if they're "invisible" that's wrong and when they are visible, that's wrong as well?[/p][/quote]There's being visable and there's being a pain in the arse to other road users.Four abreast is just ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Again - I endless hear motorists bleating on about cyclists riding the wrong way down roads, weaving in and out. The figures speak for themselves. The hard truth is that we simply don't need any more motorists. They are trying to join a well over saturated market. We do need cyclist. The cases of bad cycling in ratio to bad car driving is so laughable its untrue. 40,000,000 car drivers. A few tens of thousand cyclist. There is always some excuse to run them down, mark them out, but amazingly car drivers always forget to look at themselves. Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding. But there they are - the four abreast, stunt performing cyclist that car drivers always seem to know. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -6

7:20pm Mon 4 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling.

Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling. Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions. JackJohnson
  • Score: 7

8:17pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling.

Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.
You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't.
No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile.
You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling. Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.[/p][/quote]You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't. No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile. You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -9

8:43pm Mon 4 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling.

Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.
You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't.
No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile.
You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...
ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'.

All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make.

Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing.
...
...
...
...
...

Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling. Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.[/p][/quote]You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't. No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile. You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...[/p][/quote]ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'. All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make. Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing. ... ... ... ... ... Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down. JackJohnson
  • Score: 6

9:16pm Mon 4 Aug 14

ksmain says...

Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
Sorry - but if the accident happened beyond the roundabout going up the hill in the main photo I am struggling to see how the driver could not have seen the cyclist - unless there was a problem with his/her peripheral vision. It isn't as if the road is narrow up there either.

The driving licence has to be reapplied for at age 70 - I can't understand why drivers that age aren't put through a medical and a rigorous driving test (especially as some of them haven't ever sat one). And that is not a poke at the over 70s (as a number of them are very good drivers) - to me it is just common sense. Either that - or the driving licence is revoked at that point.
[quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]Sorry - but if the accident happened beyond the roundabout going up the hill in the main photo I am struggling to see how the driver could not have seen the cyclist - unless there was a problem with his/her peripheral vision. It isn't as if the road is narrow up there either. The driving licence has to be reapplied for at age 70 - I can't understand why drivers that age aren't put through a medical and a rigorous driving test (especially as some of them haven't ever sat one). And that is not a poke at the over 70s (as a number of them are very good drivers) - to me it is just common sense. Either that - or the driving licence is revoked at that point. ksmain
  • Score: 6

10:01pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling.

Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.
You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't.
No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile.
You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...
ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'.

All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make.

Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing.
...
...
...
...
...

Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.
What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling. Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.[/p][/quote]You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't. No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile. You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...[/p][/quote]ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'. All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make. Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing. ... ... ... ... ... Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.[/p][/quote]What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -6

11:04pm Mon 4 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling.

Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.
You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't.
No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile.
You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...
ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'.

All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make.

Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing.
...
...
...
...
...

Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.
What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...
POSSIBILITY (if you understand the meaning of the word). Cyclist moves out to turn right at the junction - without signalling and without a LIFE-SAVER look back. Moves to the right into the path of a vehicle.

I've seen it happen. Fortunately that cyclist didn't receive a Darwin Award - just a bent frame, buckled wheels and a couple of bruises. I was one of the witnesses who told the police what I saw. The police decided the accident was the cyclist's fault and the driver was not held responsible or charged with anything. I never heard anything from the driver's insurance company so I don't know what happened there. I'd lay odds on the cyclist getting a new bike out of it as it's more economic for the driver's insurance company just to accept blame and pay out instead of putting up a fight.

This accident, however, is not (just) about financial responsibility. Whatever you, I, or anyone else, think happened the accident investigators will try to get to the truth. If they find sufficient doubt it's unlikely they'll prosecute the driver. They will NOT make any assumptions as, in case you hadn't noticed, someone died.

Before you start spouting on about drivers trying to cover up and make excuses for other drivers, I was a cyclist at the time - and was behind the one who made a mistake. I was going straight on., she tried to turn right.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling. Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.[/p][/quote]You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't. No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile. You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...[/p][/quote]ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'. All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make. Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing. ... ... ... ... ... Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.[/p][/quote]What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...[/p][/quote]POSSIBILITY (if you understand the meaning of the word). Cyclist moves out to turn right at the junction - without signalling and without a LIFE-SAVER look back. Moves to the right into the path of a vehicle. I've seen it happen. Fortunately that cyclist didn't receive a Darwin Award - just a bent frame, buckled wheels and a couple of bruises. I was one of the witnesses who told the police what I saw. The police decided the accident was the cyclist's fault and the driver was not held responsible or charged with anything. I never heard anything from the driver's insurance company so I don't know what happened there. I'd lay odds on the cyclist getting a new bike out of it as it's more economic for the driver's insurance company just to accept blame and pay out instead of putting up a fight. This accident, however, is not (just) about financial responsibility. Whatever you, I, or anyone else, think happened the accident investigators will try to get to the truth. If they find sufficient doubt it's unlikely they'll prosecute the driver. They will NOT make any assumptions as, in case you hadn't noticed, someone died. Before you start spouting on about drivers trying to cover up and make excuses for other drivers, I was a cyclist at the time - and was behind the one who made a mistake. I was going straight on., she tried to turn right. JackJohnson
  • Score: 5

12:03am Tue 5 Aug 14

Dr Lodge says...

The silver car in the photo is the car that hit the cyclist. The cyclist and his bike were just behind this car, almost at the end of the junction so I find it hard to believe the cyclist was turning right. He would have moved to the right way before this point.

That's just my opinion, the facts are to be determined.

Its also possible the dip in the road contributed to the cyclist not being seen and/or the car drifting to the left.
The silver car in the photo is the car that hit the cyclist. The cyclist and his bike were just behind this car, almost at the end of the junction so I find it hard to believe the cyclist was turning right. He would have moved to the right way before this point. That's just my opinion, the facts are to be determined. Its also possible the dip in the road contributed to the cyclist not being seen and/or the car drifting to the left. Dr Lodge
  • Score: 5

6:15am Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling.

Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.
You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't.
No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile.
You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...
ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'.

All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make.

Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing.
...
...
...
...
...

Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.
What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...
POSSIBILITY (if you understand the meaning of the word). Cyclist moves out to turn right at the junction - without signalling and without a LIFE-SAVER look back. Moves to the right into the path of a vehicle.

I've seen it happen. Fortunately that cyclist didn't receive a Darwin Award - just a bent frame, buckled wheels and a couple of bruises. I was one of the witnesses who told the police what I saw. The police decided the accident was the cyclist's fault and the driver was not held responsible or charged with anything. I never heard anything from the driver's insurance company so I don't know what happened there. I'd lay odds on the cyclist getting a new bike out of it as it's more economic for the driver's insurance company just to accept blame and pay out instead of putting up a fight.

This accident, however, is not (just) about financial responsibility. Whatever you, I, or anyone else, think happened the accident investigators will try to get to the truth. If they find sufficient doubt it's unlikely they'll prosecute the driver. They will NOT make any assumptions as, in case you hadn't noticed, someone died.

Before you start spouting on about drivers trying to cover up and make excuses for other drivers, I was a cyclist at the time - and was behind the one who made a mistake. I was going straight on., she tried to turn right.
No. Not a chance. You are totally wrong - and a danger to others. You need to get yourself a refresher in Highway Code.
You are behind, you are overtaking, you are absolutely responsible.
It's exactly this type of reason that older car licence holders need to be retested. In my opinion any points above 6 should be a retest and certainly major infractions like being caught using a mobile, knocking someone over, generally a serious RTA should be a retest. You automatically loose your licence and have to prove your able to be trusted.
If the driver was giving the cyclist enough room and was going slowly enough to be safe, any deviation could be accommodated without killing the cyclist.
What he has done is not seen him, or worse he has seen him but not given him enough room.
Cyclists get sick of motorists that don't give them enough room. We are not second class road users. You need to treat cyclists with the same courtesy you would another car. If you cannot get by you have to wait. This never happens as we know. Car drivers rely on cyclists knowing what's behind them, trusting they will not move in any way.
Some drivers realise they are in the secondary position when overtaking a cyclist, and must be extra careful, and give them room, and not assume that it's ok to push through, and others should not have a licence.
The very very worst offenders are those that actually accelerate to get by when you signal to go right across the stream of traffic. You signal early, give plenty of notice, but you always get some total see you next Tuesday that cannot wait five seconds to allow someone to cross. They should be given a custodial sentence for maiming and a serious one for killing.
This older guy, if he's complus menti, he is 100% responsible for that cyclist death and should be looking at prison. If he's not, he should not have a driving licence and the person that's responsible for him should get the manslaughter charge.
There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling. Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.[/p][/quote]You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't. No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile. You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...[/p][/quote]ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'. All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make. Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing. ... ... ... ... ... Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.[/p][/quote]What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...[/p][/quote]POSSIBILITY (if you understand the meaning of the word). Cyclist moves out to turn right at the junction - without signalling and without a LIFE-SAVER look back. Moves to the right into the path of a vehicle. I've seen it happen. Fortunately that cyclist didn't receive a Darwin Award - just a bent frame, buckled wheels and a couple of bruises. I was one of the witnesses who told the police what I saw. The police decided the accident was the cyclist's fault and the driver was not held responsible or charged with anything. I never heard anything from the driver's insurance company so I don't know what happened there. I'd lay odds on the cyclist getting a new bike out of it as it's more economic for the driver's insurance company just to accept blame and pay out instead of putting up a fight. This accident, however, is not (just) about financial responsibility. Whatever you, I, or anyone else, think happened the accident investigators will try to get to the truth. If they find sufficient doubt it's unlikely they'll prosecute the driver. They will NOT make any assumptions as, in case you hadn't noticed, someone died. Before you start spouting on about drivers trying to cover up and make excuses for other drivers, I was a cyclist at the time - and was behind the one who made a mistake. I was going straight on., she tried to turn right.[/p][/quote]No. Not a chance. You are totally wrong - and a danger to others. You need to get yourself a refresher in Highway Code. You are behind, you are overtaking, you are absolutely responsible. It's exactly this type of reason that older car licence holders need to be retested. In my opinion any points above 6 should be a retest and certainly major infractions like being caught using a mobile, knocking someone over, generally a serious RTA should be a retest. You automatically loose your licence and have to prove your able to be trusted. If the driver was giving the cyclist enough room and was going slowly enough to be safe, any deviation could be accommodated without killing the cyclist. What he has done is not seen him, or worse he has seen him but not given him enough room. Cyclists get sick of motorists that don't give them enough room. We are not second class road users. You need to treat cyclists with the same courtesy you would another car. If you cannot get by you have to wait. This never happens as we know. Car drivers rely on cyclists knowing what's behind them, trusting they will not move in any way. Some drivers realise they are in the secondary position when overtaking a cyclist, and must be extra careful, and give them room, and not assume that it's ok to push through, and others should not have a licence. The very very worst offenders are those that actually accelerate to get by when you signal to go right across the stream of traffic. You signal early, give plenty of notice, but you always get some total see you next Tuesday that cannot wait five seconds to allow someone to cross. They should be given a custodial sentence for maiming and a serious one for killing. This older guy, if he's complus menti, he is 100% responsible for that cyclist death and should be looking at prison. If he's not, he should not have a driving licence and the person that's responsible for him should get the manslaughter charge. There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 2

9:45am Tue 5 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling.

Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.
You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't.
No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile.
You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...
ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'.

All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make.

Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing.
...
...
...
...
...

Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.
What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...
POSSIBILITY (if you understand the meaning of the word). Cyclist moves out to turn right at the junction - without signalling and without a LIFE-SAVER look back. Moves to the right into the path of a vehicle.

I've seen it happen. Fortunately that cyclist didn't receive a Darwin Award - just a bent frame, buckled wheels and a couple of bruises. I was one of the witnesses who told the police what I saw. The police decided the accident was the cyclist's fault and the driver was not held responsible or charged with anything. I never heard anything from the driver's insurance company so I don't know what happened there. I'd lay odds on the cyclist getting a new bike out of it as it's more economic for the driver's insurance company just to accept blame and pay out instead of putting up a fight.

This accident, however, is not (just) about financial responsibility. Whatever you, I, or anyone else, think happened the accident investigators will try to get to the truth. If they find sufficient doubt it's unlikely they'll prosecute the driver. They will NOT make any assumptions as, in case you hadn't noticed, someone died.

Before you start spouting on about drivers trying to cover up and make excuses for other drivers, I was a cyclist at the time - and was behind the one who made a mistake. I was going straight on., she tried to turn right.
No. Not a chance. You are totally wrong - and a danger to others. You need to get yourself a refresher in Highway Code.
You are behind, you are overtaking, you are absolutely responsible.
It's exactly this type of reason that older car licence holders need to be retested. In my opinion any points above 6 should be a retest and certainly major infractions like being caught using a mobile, knocking someone over, generally a serious RTA should be a retest. You automatically loose your licence and have to prove your able to be trusted.
If the driver was giving the cyclist enough room and was going slowly enough to be safe, any deviation could be accommodated without killing the cyclist.
What he has done is not seen him, or worse he has seen him but not given him enough room.
Cyclists get sick of motorists that don't give them enough room. We are not second class road users. You need to treat cyclists with the same courtesy you would another car. If you cannot get by you have to wait. This never happens as we know. Car drivers rely on cyclists knowing what's behind them, trusting they will not move in any way.
Some drivers realise they are in the secondary position when overtaking a cyclist, and must be extra careful, and give them room, and not assume that it's ok to push through, and others should not have a licence.
The very very worst offenders are those that actually accelerate to get by when you signal to go right across the stream of traffic. You signal early, give plenty of notice, but you always get some total see you next Tuesday that cannot wait five seconds to allow someone to cross. They should be given a custodial sentence for maiming and a serious one for killing.
This older guy, if he's complus menti, he is 100% responsible for that cyclist death and should be looking at prison. If he's not, he should not have a driving licence and the person that's responsible for him should get the manslaughter charge.
There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple.
You completely miss my point. In the real world nothing is as clear-cut as you appear to think. On top of that we have, in Britain, a legal and judicial system that (in theory, at least) should not allow anyone to be convicted without due process, or a possible victim of crime or negligence go without justice. Even Rolf Harris had a fair trial (though not a fair sentence). Jimmy Saville never had a fair trial because nobody who had been abused by him was given a fair hearing while he was alive - Saville was unfairly prejudged, and considered to be innocent, by biased people in authority, so he was never brought to account.

Due process, in a case like this, means:

1) Investigation of the accident by trained, professional, unbiased accident investigators,

2) probably an autopsy to determine the clinical cause of death,

3) a Court of Inquiry at which the cause of death will be formally determined, from the evidence, and recorded. Culpability will also be determined, after which there might, or might not, be charges brought against the driver. Until that determination is made he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts.

It's going to be a very tough time for the relatives and friends of the cyclist, but without due process what have we got? Lawlessness, kangaroo courts and a lynch mob mentality. I know which I prefer. Due process every time.

Again, it is not your place, or mine, to prejudge the outcome of that due process.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling. Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.[/p][/quote]You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't. No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile. You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...[/p][/quote]ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'. All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make. Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing. ... ... ... ... ... Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.[/p][/quote]What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...[/p][/quote]POSSIBILITY (if you understand the meaning of the word). Cyclist moves out to turn right at the junction - without signalling and without a LIFE-SAVER look back. Moves to the right into the path of a vehicle. I've seen it happen. Fortunately that cyclist didn't receive a Darwin Award - just a bent frame, buckled wheels and a couple of bruises. I was one of the witnesses who told the police what I saw. The police decided the accident was the cyclist's fault and the driver was not held responsible or charged with anything. I never heard anything from the driver's insurance company so I don't know what happened there. I'd lay odds on the cyclist getting a new bike out of it as it's more economic for the driver's insurance company just to accept blame and pay out instead of putting up a fight. This accident, however, is not (just) about financial responsibility. Whatever you, I, or anyone else, think happened the accident investigators will try to get to the truth. If they find sufficient doubt it's unlikely they'll prosecute the driver. They will NOT make any assumptions as, in case you hadn't noticed, someone died. Before you start spouting on about drivers trying to cover up and make excuses for other drivers, I was a cyclist at the time - and was behind the one who made a mistake. I was going straight on., she tried to turn right.[/p][/quote]No. Not a chance. You are totally wrong - and a danger to others. You need to get yourself a refresher in Highway Code. You are behind, you are overtaking, you are absolutely responsible. It's exactly this type of reason that older car licence holders need to be retested. In my opinion any points above 6 should be a retest and certainly major infractions like being caught using a mobile, knocking someone over, generally a serious RTA should be a retest. You automatically loose your licence and have to prove your able to be trusted. If the driver was giving the cyclist enough room and was going slowly enough to be safe, any deviation could be accommodated without killing the cyclist. What he has done is not seen him, or worse he has seen him but not given him enough room. Cyclists get sick of motorists that don't give them enough room. We are not second class road users. You need to treat cyclists with the same courtesy you would another car. If you cannot get by you have to wait. This never happens as we know. Car drivers rely on cyclists knowing what's behind them, trusting they will not move in any way. Some drivers realise they are in the secondary position when overtaking a cyclist, and must be extra careful, and give them room, and not assume that it's ok to push through, and others should not have a licence. The very very worst offenders are those that actually accelerate to get by when you signal to go right across the stream of traffic. You signal early, give plenty of notice, but you always get some total see you next Tuesday that cannot wait five seconds to allow someone to cross. They should be given a custodial sentence for maiming and a serious one for killing. This older guy, if he's complus menti, he is 100% responsible for that cyclist death and should be looking at prison. If he's not, he should not have a driving licence and the person that's responsible for him should get the manslaughter charge. There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple.[/p][/quote]You completely miss my point. In the real world nothing is as clear-cut as you appear to think. On top of that we have, in Britain, a legal and judicial system that (in theory, at least) should not allow anyone to be convicted without due process, or a possible victim of crime or negligence go without justice. Even Rolf Harris had a fair trial (though not a fair sentence). Jimmy Saville never had a fair trial because nobody who had been abused by him was given a fair hearing while he was alive - Saville was unfairly prejudged, and considered to be innocent, by biased people in authority, so he was never brought to account. Due process, in a case like this, means: 1) Investigation of the accident by trained, professional, unbiased accident investigators, 2) probably an autopsy to determine the clinical cause of death, 3) a Court of Inquiry at which the cause of death will be formally determined, from the evidence, and recorded. Culpability will also be determined, after which there might, or might not, be charges brought against the driver. Until that determination is made he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts. It's going to be a very tough time for the relatives and friends of the cyclist, but without due process what have we got? Lawlessness, kangaroo courts and a lynch mob mentality. I know which I prefer. Due process every time. Again, it is not your place, or mine, to prejudge the outcome of that due process. JackJohnson
  • Score: 4

10:06am Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that? Portlandgary
  • Score: 10

10:56am Tue 5 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Portlandgary wrote:
So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?[/p][/quote]At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man. JackJohnson
  • Score: 6

12:29pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.
Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving.
I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving.

Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta
ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?[/p][/quote]At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.[/p][/quote]Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving. I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving. Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -4

12:36pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote:
Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence.
Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so.
No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise).

I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob.

Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic.
40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary.
Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling.

Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.
You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't.
No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile.
You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...
ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'.

All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make.

Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing.
...
...
...
...
...

Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.
What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...
POSSIBILITY (if you understand the meaning of the word). Cyclist moves out to turn right at the junction - without signalling and without a LIFE-SAVER look back. Moves to the right into the path of a vehicle.

I've seen it happen. Fortunately that cyclist didn't receive a Darwin Award - just a bent frame, buckled wheels and a couple of bruises. I was one of the witnesses who told the police what I saw. The police decided the accident was the cyclist's fault and the driver was not held responsible or charged with anything. I never heard anything from the driver's insurance company so I don't know what happened there. I'd lay odds on the cyclist getting a new bike out of it as it's more economic for the driver's insurance company just to accept blame and pay out instead of putting up a fight.

This accident, however, is not (just) about financial responsibility. Whatever you, I, or anyone else, think happened the accident investigators will try to get to the truth. If they find sufficient doubt it's unlikely they'll prosecute the driver. They will NOT make any assumptions as, in case you hadn't noticed, someone died.

Before you start spouting on about drivers trying to cover up and make excuses for other drivers, I was a cyclist at the time - and was behind the one who made a mistake. I was going straight on., she tried to turn right.
No. Not a chance. You are totally wrong - and a danger to others. You need to get yourself a refresher in Highway Code.
You are behind, you are overtaking, you are absolutely responsible.
It's exactly this type of reason that older car licence holders need to be retested. In my opinion any points above 6 should be a retest and certainly major infractions like being caught using a mobile, knocking someone over, generally a serious RTA should be a retest. You automatically loose your licence and have to prove your able to be trusted.
If the driver was giving the cyclist enough room and was going slowly enough to be safe, any deviation could be accommodated without killing the cyclist.
What he has done is not seen him, or worse he has seen him but not given him enough room.
Cyclists get sick of motorists that don't give them enough room. We are not second class road users. You need to treat cyclists with the same courtesy you would another car. If you cannot get by you have to wait. This never happens as we know. Car drivers rely on cyclists knowing what's behind them, trusting they will not move in any way.
Some drivers realise they are in the secondary position when overtaking a cyclist, and must be extra careful, and give them room, and not assume that it's ok to push through, and others should not have a licence.
The very very worst offenders are those that actually accelerate to get by when you signal to go right across the stream of traffic. You signal early, give plenty of notice, but you always get some total see you next Tuesday that cannot wait five seconds to allow someone to cross. They should be given a custodial sentence for maiming and a serious one for killing.
This older guy, if he's complus menti, he is 100% responsible for that cyclist death and should be looking at prison. If he's not, he should not have a driving licence and the person that's responsible for him should get the manslaughter charge.
There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple.
You completely miss my point. In the real world nothing is as clear-cut as you appear to think. On top of that we have, in Britain, a legal and judicial system that (in theory, at least) should not allow anyone to be convicted without due process, or a possible victim of crime or negligence go without justice. Even Rolf Harris had a fair trial (though not a fair sentence). Jimmy Saville never had a fair trial because nobody who had been abused by him was given a fair hearing while he was alive - Saville was unfairly prejudged, and considered to be innocent, by biased people in authority, so he was never brought to account.

Due process, in a case like this, means:

1) Investigation of the accident by trained, professional, unbiased accident investigators,

2) probably an autopsy to determine the clinical cause of death,

3) a Court of Inquiry at which the cause of death will be formally determined, from the evidence, and recorded. Culpability will also be determined, after which there might, or might not, be charges brought against the driver. Until that determination is made he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts.

It's going to be a very tough time for the relatives and friends of the cyclist, but without due process what have we got? Lawlessness, kangaroo courts and a lynch mob mentality. I know which I prefer. Due process every time.

Again, it is not your place, or mine, to prejudge the outcome of that due process.
You are just kidding yourself. Its desperate.
Again to belabour the figures but 100 adults killed, 10 children roughly every year by car drivers.
Your arguments are a way of making a very black and white thing grey. The bigger picture is that car drivers kill cyclists. You cannot argue it away, so just shut up.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]How do you know that the cyclist didn't try to use the junction - very visible in the photograph. He wouldn't be the first to change his position in the road without looking back first, and without signalling. Best let the accident investigators find out what really happened. You do both the cyclist and the driver an unforgivable disservice with your knee-jerk reactions.[/p][/quote]You are just another pig ignorant car driver that thinks they have some kind of 'insider knowledge' borne of being higher up the evolutionary ladder because just like 40,000,000 other people in the uk some idiot at the testing center deemed you could have a driving licence. There's nothing special about you my friend, you are just another car driver that thinks they know better and you don't. No investigation is needed. If you go into the back of someone it's all over. We know this - we are drilled in this to go on the roads. Child, lorry, concrete post, cliff - hit it going forwards and there is absolutely no excuse. It's your own fault. That is common bloody sense to all but an imbecile. You are wrong - and if you don't know it you are a bloody fool...[/p][/quote]ROFLMAO. I'm the one who is NOT jumping to conclusions, yet you think I 'think I have sort of insider knowledge'. All I DO know about this accident is that it is not obvious who is to blame, and that that determination is not mine, or yours, to make. Hold on a mo while I get my breath back from all that laughing. ... ... ... ... ... Take some advice. Quit digging and put your shovel down.[/p][/quote]What part about the story do you not understand by the car went into the cyclist from behind you idiot? What in that statement leads you to believe that the car driver is not at fault? I'm fascinated to understand how this suspension of ordinary physics has happened, please enlighten us all...[/p][/quote]POSSIBILITY (if you understand the meaning of the word). Cyclist moves out to turn right at the junction - without signalling and without a LIFE-SAVER look back. Moves to the right into the path of a vehicle. I've seen it happen. Fortunately that cyclist didn't receive a Darwin Award - just a bent frame, buckled wheels and a couple of bruises. I was one of the witnesses who told the police what I saw. The police decided the accident was the cyclist's fault and the driver was not held responsible or charged with anything. I never heard anything from the driver's insurance company so I don't know what happened there. I'd lay odds on the cyclist getting a new bike out of it as it's more economic for the driver's insurance company just to accept blame and pay out instead of putting up a fight. This accident, however, is not (just) about financial responsibility. Whatever you, I, or anyone else, think happened the accident investigators will try to get to the truth. If they find sufficient doubt it's unlikely they'll prosecute the driver. They will NOT make any assumptions as, in case you hadn't noticed, someone died. Before you start spouting on about drivers trying to cover up and make excuses for other drivers, I was a cyclist at the time - and was behind the one who made a mistake. I was going straight on., she tried to turn right.[/p][/quote]No. Not a chance. You are totally wrong - and a danger to others. You need to get yourself a refresher in Highway Code. You are behind, you are overtaking, you are absolutely responsible. It's exactly this type of reason that older car licence holders need to be retested. In my opinion any points above 6 should be a retest and certainly major infractions like being caught using a mobile, knocking someone over, generally a serious RTA should be a retest. You automatically loose your licence and have to prove your able to be trusted. If the driver was giving the cyclist enough room and was going slowly enough to be safe, any deviation could be accommodated without killing the cyclist. What he has done is not seen him, or worse he has seen him but not given him enough room. Cyclists get sick of motorists that don't give them enough room. We are not second class road users. You need to treat cyclists with the same courtesy you would another car. If you cannot get by you have to wait. This never happens as we know. Car drivers rely on cyclists knowing what's behind them, trusting they will not move in any way. Some drivers realise they are in the secondary position when overtaking a cyclist, and must be extra careful, and give them room, and not assume that it's ok to push through, and others should not have a licence. The very very worst offenders are those that actually accelerate to get by when you signal to go right across the stream of traffic. You signal early, give plenty of notice, but you always get some total see you next Tuesday that cannot wait five seconds to allow someone to cross. They should be given a custodial sentence for maiming and a serious one for killing. This older guy, if he's complus menti, he is 100% responsible for that cyclist death and should be looking at prison. If he's not, he should not have a driving licence and the person that's responsible for him should get the manslaughter charge. There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple.[/p][/quote]You completely miss my point. In the real world nothing is as clear-cut as you appear to think. On top of that we have, in Britain, a legal and judicial system that (in theory, at least) should not allow anyone to be convicted without due process, or a possible victim of crime or negligence go without justice. Even Rolf Harris had a fair trial (though not a fair sentence). Jimmy Saville never had a fair trial because nobody who had been abused by him was given a fair hearing while he was alive - Saville was unfairly prejudged, and considered to be innocent, by biased people in authority, so he was never brought to account. Due process, in a case like this, means: 1) Investigation of the accident by trained, professional, unbiased accident investigators, 2) probably an autopsy to determine the clinical cause of death, 3) a Court of Inquiry at which the cause of death will be formally determined, from the evidence, and recorded. Culpability will also be determined, after which there might, or might not, be charges brought against the driver. Until that determination is made he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts. It's going to be a very tough time for the relatives and friends of the cyclist, but without due process what have we got? Lawlessness, kangaroo courts and a lynch mob mentality. I know which I prefer. Due process every time. Again, it is not your place, or mine, to prejudge the outcome of that due process.[/p][/quote]You are just kidding yourself. Its desperate. Again to belabour the figures but 100 adults killed, 10 children roughly every year by car drivers. Your arguments are a way of making a very black and white thing grey. The bigger picture is that car drivers kill cyclists. You cannot argue it away, so just shut up. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -1

1:37pm Tue 5 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Park Your Shovel - your heart is in the right place, but you will achieve nothing with your extreme, Cycling Taliban ideas. All you are doing is playing the victim, and creating further division between different groups of road users. Precisely the opposite of what is required.

Do not think that, by my views, I am writing this off as 'pffft - just another cyclist'. Far from it. What I seek is that the cause of this accident is properly identified and the guilty party (if there is one) brought to account within the law and/or any necessary changes to that road/junction made - hopefully before anyone else gets killed. You never know, cyclists might even get a nice, useful cycle lane for their own safety.

Reading about it in the OHEC does not qualify anyone to make a proper determination of what happened, or how best to try to prevent it from happening again.
Park Your Shovel - your heart is in the right place, but you will achieve nothing with your extreme, Cycling Taliban ideas. All you are doing is playing the victim, and creating further division between different groups of road users. Precisely the opposite of what is required. Do not think that, by my views, I am writing this off as 'pffft - just another cyclist'. Far from it. What I seek is that the cause of this accident is properly identified and the guilty party (if there is one) brought to account within the law and/or any necessary changes to that road/junction made - hopefully before anyone else gets killed. You never know, cyclists might even get a nice, useful cycle lane for their own safety. Reading about it in the OHEC does not qualify anyone to make a proper determination of what happened, or how best to try to prevent it from happening again. JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

2:34pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Park Your Shovel - your heart is in the right place, but you will achieve nothing with your extreme, Cycling Taliban ideas. All you are doing is playing the victim, and creating further division between different groups of road users. Precisely the opposite of what is required.

Do not think that, by my views, I am writing this off as 'pffft - just another cyclist'. Far from it. What I seek is that the cause of this accident is properly identified and the guilty party (if there is one) brought to account within the law and/or any necessary changes to that road/junction made - hopefully before anyone else gets killed. You never know, cyclists might even get a nice, useful cycle lane for their own safety.

Reading about it in the OHEC does not qualify anyone to make a proper determination of what happened, or how best to try to prevent it from happening again.
You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it? Are you frightened or simply too old to change?
I understand you find it uncomfortable to be told that motorists kill over a hundred people every year, ten or so of those children.
Its very shocking and upsetting. Its meant to be.

Im just an ordinary family man. Im appalled by the death on the roads and the ignorance of car drivers. If I get one ignorant driver to think about the amount of death and destruction Im doing well as far as Im concerned.
I might also add I have two licence, one a car licence so my knowledge of how totally awful drivers are in Weymouth and the UK is borne out of first hand knowledge. I drive and see other drivers trying to squeeze in past cyclists, motorbikes and scooters. Taking unacceptable risks. For what - to get somewhere a little quicker. Its totally unnaceptable.
Society in the UK have a sickness, and its root is in the motorcar. Its more important than life, you can't be overtaken, you can't be told what to do, you can't be told where to park or slow down or take better care.
If Im the cycling Taliban then so be it.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Park Your Shovel - your heart is in the right place, but you will achieve nothing with your extreme, Cycling Taliban ideas. All you are doing is playing the victim, and creating further division between different groups of road users. Precisely the opposite of what is required. Do not think that, by my views, I am writing this off as 'pffft - just another cyclist'. Far from it. What I seek is that the cause of this accident is properly identified and the guilty party (if there is one) brought to account within the law and/or any necessary changes to that road/junction made - hopefully before anyone else gets killed. You never know, cyclists might even get a nice, useful cycle lane for their own safety. Reading about it in the OHEC does not qualify anyone to make a proper determination of what happened, or how best to try to prevent it from happening again.[/p][/quote]You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it? Are you frightened or simply too old to change? I understand you find it uncomfortable to be told that motorists kill over a hundred people every year, ten or so of those children. Its very shocking and upsetting. Its meant to be. Im just an ordinary family man. Im appalled by the death on the roads and the ignorance of car drivers. If I get one ignorant driver to think about the amount of death and destruction Im doing well as far as Im concerned. I might also add I have two licence, one a car licence so my knowledge of how totally awful drivers are in Weymouth and the UK is borne out of first hand knowledge. I drive and see other drivers trying to squeeze in past cyclists, motorbikes and scooters. Taking unacceptable risks. For what - to get somewhere a little quicker. Its totally unnaceptable. Society in the UK have a sickness, and its root is in the motorcar. Its more important than life, you can't be overtaken, you can't be told what to do, you can't be told where to park or slow down or take better care. If Im the cycling Taliban then so be it. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -1

2:37pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.
Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving.
I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving.

Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta

ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.
So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt?

I don't think so do you?

If I can quote you a couple of times please?

"You drive a car, you drive a killing machine"

"There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple."

"Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding."

I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not!

Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family.

I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself.

Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really.

If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?[/p][/quote]At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.[/p][/quote]Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving. I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving. Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.[/p][/quote]So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so do you? If I can quote you a couple of times please? "You drive a car, you drive a killing machine" "There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple." "Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding." I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not! Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family. I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself. Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really. If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully? Portlandgary
  • Score: 4

3:03pm Tue 5 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.
Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving.
I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving.

Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta


ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.
So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt?

I don't think so do you?

If I can quote you a couple of times please?

"You drive a car, you drive a killing machine"

"There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple."

"Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding."

I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not!

Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family.

I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself.

Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really.

If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?
I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again.

In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty...

Jeez.

I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?[/p][/quote]At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.[/p][/quote]Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving. I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving. Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.[/p][/quote]So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so do you? If I can quote you a couple of times please? "You drive a car, you drive a killing machine" "There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple." "Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding." I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not! Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family. I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself. Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really. If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?[/p][/quote]I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again. In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty... Jeez. I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet. JackJohnson
  • Score: 2

3:33pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.
Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving.
I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving.

Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta



ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.
So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt?

I don't think so do you?

If I can quote you a couple of times please?

"You drive a car, you drive a killing machine"

"There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple."

"Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding."

I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not!

Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family.

I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself.

Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really.

If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?
I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again.

In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty...

Jeez.

I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.
Well unless you show any signs of independent cognitive thinking rather than toeing the line, I shall conclude your are both sock puppets. After all sock puppets operate by someone sticking a hand up the derrière.
You are attempting to drown out the message by involving wider political issues.
I have been commenting on cycling issues in these pages for quite a while now. Car drivers consistently try to bully, bleat on about the same old things and moan about stuff. They also try to pull the old cycling is dangerous routine. Cyclists get a hard time of it, from everyone - despite doing a far more helpful job generally than anyone else.
Come the day a cyclists is killed by a car driver on our doorstep - in a totally open and shut case, and I completely ignore what you say as it has no relevance. Investigations - meh. Anybody with a modicum of intellect can quite clearly extrapolate a guilty verdict. If anyone can give me an absolutely copper bottomed reason as to why the motorist hit the cyclist from behind, I will concede, but nobodies going to do that because they cannot.
So, ostensibly then for arguments sake, we have a most likely cyclists death by car, and what do I find? Is it contrite motorists? No - quelle surprise, I find motorists hell bent on trying to prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive...
All you are doing is reinforcing my view that a lot of motorists are unfit to drive and care more about themselves than they do the life of a cyclist. With this type of attitude you should not find it unexpected if you come to some form of harm for endangering someones well being, karma and all that...
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?[/p][/quote]At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.[/p][/quote]Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving. I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving. Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.[/p][/quote]So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so do you? If I can quote you a couple of times please? "You drive a car, you drive a killing machine" "There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple." "Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding." I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not! Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family. I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself. Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really. If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?[/p][/quote]I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again. In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty... Jeez. I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.[/p][/quote]Well unless you show any signs of independent cognitive thinking rather than toeing the line, I shall conclude your are both sock puppets. After all sock puppets operate by someone sticking a hand up the derrière. You are attempting to drown out the message by involving wider political issues. I have been commenting on cycling issues in these pages for quite a while now. Car drivers consistently try to bully, bleat on about the same old things and moan about stuff. They also try to pull the old cycling is dangerous routine. Cyclists get a hard time of it, from everyone - despite doing a far more helpful job generally than anyone else. Come the day a cyclists is killed by a car driver on our doorstep - in a totally open and shut case, and I completely ignore what you say as it has no relevance. Investigations - meh. Anybody with a modicum of intellect can quite clearly extrapolate a guilty verdict. If anyone can give me an absolutely copper bottomed reason as to why the motorist hit the cyclist from behind, I will concede, but nobodies going to do that because they cannot. So, ostensibly then for arguments sake, we have a most likely cyclists death by car, and what do I find? Is it contrite motorists? No - quelle surprise, I find motorists hell bent on trying to prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive... All you are doing is reinforcing my view that a lot of motorists are unfit to drive and care more about themselves than they do the life of a cyclist. With this type of attitude you should not find it unexpected if you come to some form of harm for endangering someones well being, karma and all that... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -2

3:54pm Tue 5 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.
Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving.
I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving.

Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta




ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.
So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt?

I don't think so do you?

If I can quote you a couple of times please?

"You drive a car, you drive a killing machine"

"There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple."

"Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding."

I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not!

Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family.

I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself.

Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really.

If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?
I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again.

In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty...

Jeez.

I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.
Well unless you show any signs of independent cognitive thinking rather than toeing the line, I shall conclude your are both sock puppets. After all sock puppets operate by someone sticking a hand up the derrière.
You are attempting to drown out the message by involving wider political issues.
I have been commenting on cycling issues in these pages for quite a while now. Car drivers consistently try to bully, bleat on about the same old things and moan about stuff. They also try to pull the old cycling is dangerous routine. Cyclists get a hard time of it, from everyone - despite doing a far more helpful job generally than anyone else.
Come the day a cyclists is killed by a car driver on our doorstep - in a totally open and shut case, and I completely ignore what you say as it has no relevance. Investigations - meh. Anybody with a modicum of intellect can quite clearly extrapolate a guilty verdict. If anyone can give me an absolutely copper bottomed reason as to why the motorist hit the cyclist from behind, I will concede, but nobodies going to do that because they cannot.
So, ostensibly then for arguments sake, we have a most likely cyclists death by car, and what do I find? Is it contrite motorists? No - quelle surprise, I find motorists hell bent on trying to prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive...
All you are doing is reinforcing my view that a lot of motorists are unfit to drive and care more about themselves than they do the life of a cyclist. With this type of attitude you should not find it unexpected if you come to some form of harm for endangering someones well being, karma and all that...
Nobody is trying to 'prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive'. What we are trying to do is give him 'due process' by ensuring that the incident is properly investigated, recorded and tried. That is his legal entitlement and any other process - including your summary decision - would result in an unsafe conviction - which would, in all probability be dropped on appeal.

As it happens I think that this incident is PROBABLY exactly what it appears to be. Without the investigation the probability is not likely to be high enough to get a safe conviction.

We may well find that he puts his hands up and admits to being at fault, in which case there will almost certainly be an inquest, charges and a sentence, but no lengthy trial. That may be his best option at his stage.

Now - your last sentence. Should I interpret that as the workings of an over-active imagination, your lack of ability (already clearly demonstrated) to correctly link cause and effect, or some kind of foolish veiled threat?
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?[/p][/quote]At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.[/p][/quote]Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving. I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving. Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.[/p][/quote]So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so do you? If I can quote you a couple of times please? "You drive a car, you drive a killing machine" "There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple." "Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding." I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not! Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family. I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself. Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really. If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?[/p][/quote]I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again. In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty... Jeez. I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.[/p][/quote]Well unless you show any signs of independent cognitive thinking rather than toeing the line, I shall conclude your are both sock puppets. After all sock puppets operate by someone sticking a hand up the derrière. You are attempting to drown out the message by involving wider political issues. I have been commenting on cycling issues in these pages for quite a while now. Car drivers consistently try to bully, bleat on about the same old things and moan about stuff. They also try to pull the old cycling is dangerous routine. Cyclists get a hard time of it, from everyone - despite doing a far more helpful job generally than anyone else. Come the day a cyclists is killed by a car driver on our doorstep - in a totally open and shut case, and I completely ignore what you say as it has no relevance. Investigations - meh. Anybody with a modicum of intellect can quite clearly extrapolate a guilty verdict. If anyone can give me an absolutely copper bottomed reason as to why the motorist hit the cyclist from behind, I will concede, but nobodies going to do that because they cannot. So, ostensibly then for arguments sake, we have a most likely cyclists death by car, and what do I find? Is it contrite motorists? No - quelle surprise, I find motorists hell bent on trying to prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive... All you are doing is reinforcing my view that a lot of motorists are unfit to drive and care more about themselves than they do the life of a cyclist. With this type of attitude you should not find it unexpected if you come to some form of harm for endangering someones well being, karma and all that...[/p][/quote]Nobody is trying to 'prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive'. What we are trying to do is give him 'due process' by ensuring that the incident is properly investigated, recorded and tried. That is his legal entitlement and any other process - including your summary decision - would result in an unsafe conviction - which would, in all probability be dropped on appeal. As it happens I think that this incident is PROBABLY exactly what it appears to be. Without the investigation the probability is not likely to be high enough to get a safe conviction. We may well find that he puts his hands up and admits to being at fault, in which case there will almost certainly be an inquest, charges and a sentence, but no lengthy trial. That may be his best option at his stage. Now - your last sentence. Should I interpret that as the workings of an over-active imagination, your lack of ability (already clearly demonstrated) to correctly link cause and effect, or some kind of foolish veiled threat? JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

4:20pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.
Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving.
I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving.

Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta




ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.
So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt?

I don't think so do you?

If I can quote you a couple of times please?

"You drive a car, you drive a killing machine"

"There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple."

"Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding."

I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not!

Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family.

I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself.

Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really.

If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?
I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again.

In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty...

Jeez.

I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.
Well unless you show any signs of independent cognitive thinking rather than toeing the line, I shall conclude your are both sock puppets. After all sock puppets operate by someone sticking a hand up the derrière.
You are attempting to drown out the message by involving wider political issues.
I have been commenting on cycling issues in these pages for quite a while now. Car drivers consistently try to bully, bleat on about the same old things and moan about stuff. They also try to pull the old cycling is dangerous routine. Cyclists get a hard time of it, from everyone - despite doing a far more helpful job generally than anyone else.
Come the day a cyclists is killed by a car driver on our doorstep - in a totally open and shut case, and I completely ignore what you say as it has no relevance. Investigations - meh. Anybody with a modicum of intellect can quite clearly extrapolate a guilty verdict. If anyone can give me an absolutely copper bottomed reason as to why the motorist hit the cyclist from behind, I will concede, but nobodies going to do that because they cannot.
So, ostensibly then for arguments sake, we have a most likely cyclists death by car, and what do I find? Is it contrite motorists? No - quelle surprise, I find motorists hell bent on trying to prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive...
All you are doing is reinforcing my view that a lot of motorists are unfit to drive and care more about themselves than they do the life of a cyclist. With this type of attitude you should not find it unexpected if you come to some form of harm for endangering someones well being, karma and all that...
This is the ramblings of a mad man, our breath of sensible conversation is totally wasted on you.
I am not attempting to drown out anything, I am just telling you the facts, something that you have not considered once.
You are obviously one of those persons that jumps to immediate conclusions without viewing all facts (as you have done many times before on numerous topics), at present none of us on here know the facts 100% At the moment it is all possibles and probables. I was always taught that a little knowledge is dangerous, a very apt saying for you my friend.
There are a 101 different scenarios that could of caused this accident and until the relevant people make their findings/verdict official then I have an open mind, unlike your judgemental narrow mindedness.
I can not give you a copper bottomed reason as to why the cyclist was hit from behind, as I keep unsuccessfully trying to explain to you, I was not there, I am not an investigating officer, therefore I can not say what happened, yes the guy could of drove into the back of him, yes the cyclist could of swerved to miss a pot hole, something ran out in front of him....... The possibilities are endless, but like it or not until the investigation is over nobody knows 100% what happened.

Your comment, I quote "investigations-meh" not very mature really is it, how do you expect me to take your comments seriously when you are making such child like remarks?

I am no sock puppet, just able to comprehend that there are a lot of different factors that need to be looked into before making judgement.

You could save our county constabulary millions by your computer verdicts!!
Car hits cyclist..... Guilty!
Dog owners..... Guilty!

I think the truth is this web page is your only contact with the outside world as a lot of your comments are totally ludicrous.

And for the record, yes I have a car and yes I cycle around the Weymouth, Portland, Dorchester area quite often, and yes I have come across some stupid car drivers when out on my bike, but likewise I have come across some stupid cyclists when in my car, so I do not fit into your category of being an arrogant driver that rules the roads where cyclists don't belong!
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?[/p][/quote]At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.[/p][/quote]Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving. I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving. Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.[/p][/quote]So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so do you? If I can quote you a couple of times please? "You drive a car, you drive a killing machine" "There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple." "Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding." I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not! Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family. I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself. Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really. If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?[/p][/quote]I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again. In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty... Jeez. I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.[/p][/quote]Well unless you show any signs of independent cognitive thinking rather than toeing the line, I shall conclude your are both sock puppets. After all sock puppets operate by someone sticking a hand up the derrière. You are attempting to drown out the message by involving wider political issues. I have been commenting on cycling issues in these pages for quite a while now. Car drivers consistently try to bully, bleat on about the same old things and moan about stuff. They also try to pull the old cycling is dangerous routine. Cyclists get a hard time of it, from everyone - despite doing a far more helpful job generally than anyone else. Come the day a cyclists is killed by a car driver on our doorstep - in a totally open and shut case, and I completely ignore what you say as it has no relevance. Investigations - meh. Anybody with a modicum of intellect can quite clearly extrapolate a guilty verdict. If anyone can give me an absolutely copper bottomed reason as to why the motorist hit the cyclist from behind, I will concede, but nobodies going to do that because they cannot. So, ostensibly then for arguments sake, we have a most likely cyclists death by car, and what do I find? Is it contrite motorists? No - quelle surprise, I find motorists hell bent on trying to prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive... All you are doing is reinforcing my view that a lot of motorists are unfit to drive and care more about themselves than they do the life of a cyclist. With this type of attitude you should not find it unexpected if you come to some form of harm for endangering someones well being, karma and all that...[/p][/quote]This is the ramblings of a mad man, our breath of sensible conversation is totally wasted on you. I am not attempting to drown out anything, I am just telling you the facts, something that you have not considered once. You are obviously one of those persons that jumps to immediate conclusions without viewing all facts (as you have done many times before on numerous topics), at present none of us on here know the facts 100% At the moment it is all possibles and probables. I was always taught that a little knowledge is dangerous, a very apt saying for you my friend. There are a 101 different scenarios that could of caused this accident and until the relevant people make their findings/verdict official then I have an open mind, unlike your judgemental narrow mindedness. I can not give you a copper bottomed reason as to why the cyclist was hit from behind, as I keep unsuccessfully trying to explain to you, I was not there, I am not an investigating officer, therefore I can not say what happened, yes the guy could of drove into the back of him, yes the cyclist could of swerved to miss a pot hole, something ran out in front of him....... The possibilities are endless, but like it or not until the investigation is over nobody knows 100% what happened. Your comment, I quote "investigations-meh" not very mature really is it, how do you expect me to take your comments seriously when you are making such child like remarks? I am no sock puppet, just able to comprehend that there are a lot of different factors that need to be looked into before making judgement. You could save our county constabulary millions by your computer verdicts!! Car hits cyclist..... Guilty! Dog owners..... Guilty! I think the truth is this web page is your only contact with the outside world as a lot of your comments are totally ludicrous. And for the record, yes I have a car and yes I cycle around the Weymouth, Portland, Dorchester area quite often, and yes I have come across some stupid car drivers when out on my bike, but likewise I have come across some stupid cyclists when in my car, so I do not fit into your category of being an arrogant driver that rules the roads where cyclists don't belong! Portlandgary
  • Score: 2

4:21pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
So many Judge and Jurors on here!

Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls.

Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here.

Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty.

Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?
At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.
Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving.
I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving.

Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta





ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.
So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt?

I don't think so do you?

If I can quote you a couple of times please?

"You drive a car, you drive a killing machine"

"There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple."

"Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding."

I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not!

Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family.

I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself.

Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really.

If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?
I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again.

In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty...

Jeez.

I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.
Well unless you show any signs of independent cognitive thinking rather than toeing the line, I shall conclude your are both sock puppets. After all sock puppets operate by someone sticking a hand up the derrière.
You are attempting to drown out the message by involving wider political issues.
I have been commenting on cycling issues in these pages for quite a while now. Car drivers consistently try to bully, bleat on about the same old things and moan about stuff. They also try to pull the old cycling is dangerous routine. Cyclists get a hard time of it, from everyone - despite doing a far more helpful job generally than anyone else.
Come the day a cyclists is killed by a car driver on our doorstep - in a totally open and shut case, and I completely ignore what you say as it has no relevance. Investigations - meh. Anybody with a modicum of intellect can quite clearly extrapolate a guilty verdict. If anyone can give me an absolutely copper bottomed reason as to why the motorist hit the cyclist from behind, I will concede, but nobodies going to do that because they cannot.
So, ostensibly then for arguments sake, we have a most likely cyclists death by car, and what do I find? Is it contrite motorists? No - quelle surprise, I find motorists hell bent on trying to prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive...
All you are doing is reinforcing my view that a lot of motorists are unfit to drive and care more about themselves than they do the life of a cyclist. With this type of attitude you should not find it unexpected if you come to some form of harm for endangering someones well being, karma and all that...
Nobody is trying to 'prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive'. What we are trying to do is give him 'due process' by ensuring that the incident is properly investigated, recorded and tried. That is his legal entitlement and any other process - including your summary decision - would result in an unsafe conviction - which would, in all probability be dropped on appeal.

As it happens I think that this incident is PROBABLY exactly what it appears to be. Without the investigation the probability is not likely to be high enough to get a safe conviction.

We may well find that he puts his hands up and admits to being at fault, in which case there will almost certainly be an inquest, charges and a sentence, but no lengthy trial. That may be his best option at his stage.

Now - your last sentence. Should I interpret that as the workings of an over-active imagination, your lack of ability (already clearly demonstrated) to correctly link cause and effect, or some kind of foolish veiled threat?
What you did was precisely rush to defend him, despite massive overwhelming odds that he was guilty. You might have felt that you were not, but its a matter well beyond simple procedure.
This is typical of the type of prejudice that cyclists face. Despite actually helping motorists, and pedestrians, they are pretty much universally hated.
Just karma brother, just karma. What goes around comes around.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: So many Judge and Jurors on here! Professional critics, jumped up arrogant opinionated trolls. Yes we have our personal opinions of what happened here, however my guess is that nobody on here is a SOCO or accident investigations officer involved in this incident. My apologies if you are, but then I would question your professionalism if you are commenting on here. Lets just remember that this has to go through correct judicial procedures and then it will be decided by the correct person when all evidence is submitted and viewed by the professional bodies and the evidence then proves "beyond all reasonable doubt" who is guilty. Spare a thought for the deceased and what the driver is going through, surely you have enough feelings in your judgemental hearts to do that?[/p][/quote]At last, a voice of reason. Well said, that man.[/p][/quote]Another person ostensibly more concerned with the judicial system than the fact that another cyclist has been killed by negligent driving. I know whats happened because it happens all the bloody time. We are not talking about a domestic murder here, that needs forensics. We are talking about the common killing of a cyclist by a car driver that should not have been driving. Accept the fact that car drivers kill cyclist, about 100 adults and about 10 children each year. 10 children...Unaccepta ble and drivers of whatever age and background should do time for it.[/p][/quote]So all the officers, SOCO's, accident investigators etc etc. have no need to be at that tragic scene, to gather forensics and evidence because you know what has happened 100% beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so do you? If I can quote you a couple of times please? "You drive a car, you drive a killing machine" "There is no excuse for killing another person through negligence, it's manslaughter plain and simple." "Car driving offences every year - what do we recon? Must be hundreds of thousands, ranging from pretty much murder to speeding." I agree with all of your statements above. However each and every one of them require, investigation, evidence and the judicial system followed by a verdict. Whether you like it or not! Perhaps you should do something that I pride myself in, put yourself in those persons shoes, yes the deceased cyclist and his family and the driver that was involved and his family. I'm sure they will appreciate a professional investigation followed by an official verdict rather than hearing it from a rude, opinionated, arrogant person like yourself. Because people have a different opinion than you, you have to lower yourself to personal insults. Not very professional or mature really. If you are unable to have a conversion without doing this perhaps you should bow down gracefully?[/p][/quote]I can't believe how much money, time and effort have been wasted, over the years, trying to make the road network safer by thoroughly investigating serious incidents, coming to rational decisions about the cause and deciding what - if anything - needs to change to reduce the chances of it happening again. In all that time, all that was needed was to print the story in the OHEC and let ParkStreetShuffle reach his verdict. I certainly hope he never gets called up for jury duty... Jeez. I wonder how long it'll take him to conclude that one of us is a sockpuppet.[/p][/quote]Well unless you show any signs of independent cognitive thinking rather than toeing the line, I shall conclude your are both sock puppets. After all sock puppets operate by someone sticking a hand up the derrière. You are attempting to drown out the message by involving wider political issues. I have been commenting on cycling issues in these pages for quite a while now. Car drivers consistently try to bully, bleat on about the same old things and moan about stuff. They also try to pull the old cycling is dangerous routine. Cyclists get a hard time of it, from everyone - despite doing a far more helpful job generally than anyone else. Come the day a cyclists is killed by a car driver on our doorstep - in a totally open and shut case, and I completely ignore what you say as it has no relevance. Investigations - meh. Anybody with a modicum of intellect can quite clearly extrapolate a guilty verdict. If anyone can give me an absolutely copper bottomed reason as to why the motorist hit the cyclist from behind, I will concede, but nobodies going to do that because they cannot. So, ostensibly then for arguments sake, we have a most likely cyclists death by car, and what do I find? Is it contrite motorists? No - quelle surprise, I find motorists hell bent on trying to prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive... All you are doing is reinforcing my view that a lot of motorists are unfit to drive and care more about themselves than they do the life of a cyclist. With this type of attitude you should not find it unexpected if you come to some form of harm for endangering someones well being, karma and all that...[/p][/quote]Nobody is trying to 'prove the innocence of a man in a car that was unfit to drive'. What we are trying to do is give him 'due process' by ensuring that the incident is properly investigated, recorded and tried. That is his legal entitlement and any other process - including your summary decision - would result in an unsafe conviction - which would, in all probability be dropped on appeal. As it happens I think that this incident is PROBABLY exactly what it appears to be. Without the investigation the probability is not likely to be high enough to get a safe conviction. We may well find that he puts his hands up and admits to being at fault, in which case there will almost certainly be an inquest, charges and a sentence, but no lengthy trial. That may be his best option at his stage. Now - your last sentence. Should I interpret that as the workings of an over-active imagination, your lack of ability (already clearly demonstrated) to correctly link cause and effect, or some kind of foolish veiled threat?[/p][/quote]What you did was precisely rush to defend him, despite massive overwhelming odds that he was guilty. You might have felt that you were not, but its a matter well beyond simple procedure. This is typical of the type of prejudice that cyclists face. Despite actually helping motorists, and pedestrians, they are pretty much universally hated. Just karma brother, just karma. What goes around comes around. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -2

4:41pm Tue 5 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Foolish veiled threat it is, then.

God how I wish the OHEC had an 'Ignore' button.

I am not, in any way, prejudiced against cyclists. I am, prejudiced against bad cyclists, just as I am against bad drivers. I am also prejudiced against extremists and knee-jerk reactionaries of any type.

Work with the system and you will, gradually, change it. Work against the system and no-one is ever going to take you seriously enough to allow you to make the slightest difference.
Foolish veiled threat it is, then. God how I wish the OHEC had an 'Ignore' button. I am not, in any way, prejudiced against cyclists. I am, prejudiced against bad cyclists, just as I am against bad drivers. I am also prejudiced against extremists and knee-jerk reactionaries of any type. Work with the system and you will, gradually, change it. Work against the system and no-one is ever going to take you seriously enough to allow you to make the slightest difference. JackJohnson
  • Score: 2

4:52pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Here's the update from the Echo.

An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2.

A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday.

The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November.

Must mean there is a pending investigation!!
Here's the update from the Echo. An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2. A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday. The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November. Must mean there is a pending investigation!! Portlandgary
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Tue 5 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Here's the update from the Echo.

An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2.

A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday.

The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November.

Must mean there is a pending investigation!!
Quote Me at 09:45.

"he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts."

All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: Here's the update from the Echo. An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2. A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday. The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November. Must mean there is a pending investigation!![/p][/quote]Quote Me at 09:45. "he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts." All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction. JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

5:18pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Here's the update from the Echo.

An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2.

A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday.

The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November.

Must mean there is a pending investigation!!
Quote Me at 09:45.

"he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts."

All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.
Totally agreed.

And speaking for both of us, if you don't mind?

We have never denied that this may happen, but have remained open and none judgemental until the authorities have an official verdict.

If that makes us sock puppets, glove puppets whatever the term may be? Then I guess we are a pair, but I for one would prefer to be like that than be a guilty of making knee jerk assumptions.

Did you notice that a lot of my questions/points were ignored and skirted a round by a certain somebody?
The only comebacks were insults or child like remarks, quite amusing really.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: Here's the update from the Echo. An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2. A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday. The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November. Must mean there is a pending investigation!![/p][/quote]Quote Me at 09:45. "he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts." All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.[/p][/quote]Totally agreed. And speaking for both of us, if you don't mind? We have never denied that this may happen, but have remained open and none judgemental until the authorities have an official verdict. If that makes us sock puppets, glove puppets whatever the term may be? Then I guess we are a pair, but I for one would prefer to be like that than be a guilty of making knee jerk assumptions. Did you notice that a lot of my questions/points were ignored and skirted a round by a certain somebody? The only comebacks were insults or child like remarks, quite amusing really. Portlandgary
  • Score: 3

5:25pm Tue 5 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion. JackJohnson
  • Score: 4

5:37pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Foolish veiled threat it is, then.

God how I wish the OHEC had an 'Ignore' button.

I am not, in any way, prejudiced against cyclists. I am, prejudiced against bad cyclists, just as I am against bad drivers. I am also prejudiced against extremists and knee-jerk reactionaries of any type.

Work with the system and you will, gradually, change it. Work against the system and no-one is ever going to take you seriously enough to allow you to make the slightest difference.
Waffle waffle waffle.
The right to vote worked out quite well, as I remember those running the system were not very keen on the 'upstart' workers wanting to vote. Now we all have a vote don't we.
Sit on their a*se types like yourself are the ones that never achieve anything, because its all waffle and conjecture never caked up with passion or conviction.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Foolish veiled threat it is, then. God how I wish the OHEC had an 'Ignore' button. I am not, in any way, prejudiced against cyclists. I am, prejudiced against bad cyclists, just as I am against bad drivers. I am also prejudiced against extremists and knee-jerk reactionaries of any type. Work with the system and you will, gradually, change it. Work against the system and no-one is ever going to take you seriously enough to allow you to make the slightest difference.[/p][/quote]Waffle waffle waffle. The right to vote worked out quite well, as I remember those running the system were not very keen on the 'upstart' workers wanting to vote. Now we all have a vote don't we. Sit on their a*se types like yourself are the ones that never achieve anything, because its all waffle and conjecture never caked up with passion or conviction. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -3

6:04pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion.
If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it?
Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.[/p][/quote]You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion. If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it? Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -3

6:14pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Here's the update from the Echo.

An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2.

A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday.

The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November.

Must mean there is a pending investigation!!
Quote Me at 09:45.

"he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts."

All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.
What makes me laugh is that if this person were a drug dealing yob in a black BMW 5 series with a hooded top and a dog, you would be saying he should be hung from the yard arm. Yet because he's an old man, we are supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for him. He's a killer. Thats what the story is telling us. He's just killed someone - he's a killer. He should get a custodial sentence. Your obvious reluctance to agree to me signals your double standards and I suspect despite your attempts to persuade us otherwise a highly judgemental attitude.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: Here's the update from the Echo. An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2. A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday. The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November. Must mean there is a pending investigation!![/p][/quote]Quote Me at 09:45. "he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts." All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.[/p][/quote]What makes me laugh is that if this person were a drug dealing yob in a black BMW 5 series with a hooded top and a dog, you would be saying he should be hung from the yard arm. Yet because he's an old man, we are supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for him. He's a killer. Thats what the story is telling us. He's just killed someone - he's a killer. He should get a custodial sentence. Your obvious reluctance to agree to me signals your double standards and I suspect despite your attempts to persuade us otherwise a highly judgemental attitude. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -4

6:29pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion.
If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it?
Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?
This person is impossible!

It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it.

I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict.
Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course.

Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on.

Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think.

Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions.

I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure.

There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal!
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.[/p][/quote]You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion. If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it? Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?[/p][/quote]This person is impossible! It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it. I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict. Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course. Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on. Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think. Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions. I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted. I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure. There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal! Portlandgary
  • Score: 1

6:38pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Here's the update from the Echo.

An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2.

A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday.

The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November.

Must mean there is a pending investigation!!
Quote Me at 09:45.

"he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts."

All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.
What makes me laugh is that if this person were a drug dealing yob in a black BMW 5 series with a hooded top and a dog, you would be saying he should be hung from the yard arm. Yet because he's an old man, we are supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for him. He's a killer. Thats what the story is telling us. He's just killed someone - he's a killer. He should get a custodial sentence. Your obvious reluctance to agree to me signals your double standards and I suspect despite your attempts to persuade us otherwise a highly judgemental attitude.
I think BMW's dog owners etc. are another one of your hates aren't they Parkstreet? And lets not forget if they're tattooed, that automatically makes them scum in your eyes.
So in this scenario that you have just given whether this BMW driving, hooded top, dog owning yob was innocent or not you would be calling for the gallows as on many occasions you have publicly expressed your hatred for all of these things.
You need to take a good long look inside yourself.
"Judgemental attitude" Pot and kettle spring to mind.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: Here's the update from the Echo. An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2. A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday. The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November. Must mean there is a pending investigation!![/p][/quote]Quote Me at 09:45. "he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts." All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.[/p][/quote]What makes me laugh is that if this person were a drug dealing yob in a black BMW 5 series with a hooded top and a dog, you would be saying he should be hung from the yard arm. Yet because he's an old man, we are supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for him. He's a killer. Thats what the story is telling us. He's just killed someone - he's a killer. He should get a custodial sentence. Your obvious reluctance to agree to me signals your double standards and I suspect despite your attempts to persuade us otherwise a highly judgemental attitude.[/p][/quote]I think BMW's dog owners etc. are another one of your hates aren't they Parkstreet? And lets not forget if they're tattooed, that automatically makes them scum in your eyes. So in this scenario that you have just given whether this BMW driving, hooded top, dog owning yob was innocent or not you would be calling for the gallows as on many occasions you have publicly expressed your hatred for all of these things. You need to take a good long look inside yourself. "Judgemental attitude" Pot and kettle spring to mind. Portlandgary
  • Score: 3

6:46pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion.
If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it?
Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?
This person is impossible!

It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it.

I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict.
Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course.

Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on.

Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think.

Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions.

I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure.

There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal!
What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from?
Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry.
Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds.
I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality.
Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.[/p][/quote]You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion. If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it? Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?[/p][/quote]This person is impossible! It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it. I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict. Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course. Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on. Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think. Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions. I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted. I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure. There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal![/p][/quote]What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from? Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry. Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds. I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality. Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -3

6:55pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion.
If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it?
Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?
This person is impossible!

It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it.

I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict.
Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course.

Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on.

Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think.

Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions.

I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure.

There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal!
What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from?
Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry.
Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds.
I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality.
Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?
You have a short memory my friend, you and I had quite a discussion on here about Tattoos and dogs a while ago!

You are totally missing the point. I can not provide you with a scenario, neither will I trawl the internet to find one.

My point is purely, not one of us can judge without knowing the full facts, if you were a judge would what an Echo reporter writes on an incident be enough evidence for you to pass sentence?
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.[/p][/quote]You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion. If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it? Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?[/p][/quote]This person is impossible! It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it. I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict. Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course. Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on. Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think. Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions. I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted. I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure. There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal![/p][/quote]What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from? Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry. Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds. I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality. Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?[/p][/quote]You have a short memory my friend, you and I had quite a discussion on here about Tattoos and dogs a while ago! You are totally missing the point. I can not provide you with a scenario, neither will I trawl the internet to find one. My point is purely, not one of us can judge without knowing the full facts, if you were a judge would what an Echo reporter writes on an incident be enough evidence for you to pass sentence? Portlandgary
  • Score: 3

7:14pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Here's the update from the Echo.

An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2.

A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday.

The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November.

Must mean there is a pending investigation!!
Quote Me at 09:45.

"he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts."

All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.
What makes me laugh is that if this person were a drug dealing yob in a black BMW 5 series with a hooded top and a dog, you would be saying he should be hung from the yard arm. Yet because he's an old man, we are supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for him. He's a killer. Thats what the story is telling us. He's just killed someone - he's a killer. He should get a custodial sentence. Your obvious reluctance to agree to me signals your double standards and I suspect despite your attempts to persuade us otherwise a highly judgemental attitude.
I think BMW's dog owners etc. are another one of your hates aren't they Parkstreet? And lets not forget if they're tattooed, that automatically makes them scum in your eyes.
So in this scenario that you have just given whether this BMW driving, hooded top, dog owning yob was innocent or not you would be calling for the gallows as on many occasions you have publicly expressed your hatred for all of these things.
You need to take a good long look inside yourself.
"Judgemental attitude" Pot and kettle spring to mind.
Hang on wheres all this anti dog thing? I have had dogs. I don't dislike tattoos. I don't dislike BMWs, a car which Ive also had, recently. I do hate scum bags. I hate scumbags that think that their dog somehow makes them a swinging dick. Thats not the dogs fault. I hate owners that don't clear up their dogs cr*p, again not the dogs fault. Some scumabgs have suits and ties and manipulate the weak and stupid. Some scumabgs have black BMW and manipulate the weak and stupid. How someone looks is no guide to who they are inside. Their attitude is, and can be less apparent with someone in a suit I do admit, but in the end it all comes out.
I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Im making the point that @JackJohnson is full of it. If it were to be someone the polar opposite of an old man, he would be the first to be calling for blood. He talks of fairness and due process and would be I suspect the kind of person to use a position of influence without batting an eyelid. To spell it out, the talk of justice for all is a smoke screen. We have no idea who anyone on here is, only though what they say.
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: Here's the update from the Echo. An 81-year-old man from Bridport has been arrested following the fatal collision on the A35 near Charmouth on Saturday, August 2. A 43-year-old male cyclist was killed when he was hit by a car at around 3.30pm on Saturday. The 81-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and has been released on police bail until early November. Must mean there is a pending investigation!![/p][/quote]Quote Me at 09:45. "he will, probably, have been arrested so the police have some control over him and his whereabouts." All going as predicted. Now his movements will be restricted until an inquest apportions culpability and, if necessary, it goes to a trial. The outcome of a trial will probably be the one our little inconsequential friend wants, but at least it'll be a safe conviction.[/p][/quote]What makes me laugh is that if this person were a drug dealing yob in a black BMW 5 series with a hooded top and a dog, you would be saying he should be hung from the yard arm. Yet because he's an old man, we are supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for him. He's a killer. Thats what the story is telling us. He's just killed someone - he's a killer. He should get a custodial sentence. Your obvious reluctance to agree to me signals your double standards and I suspect despite your attempts to persuade us otherwise a highly judgemental attitude.[/p][/quote]I think BMW's dog owners etc. are another one of your hates aren't they Parkstreet? And lets not forget if they're tattooed, that automatically makes them scum in your eyes. So in this scenario that you have just given whether this BMW driving, hooded top, dog owning yob was innocent or not you would be calling for the gallows as on many occasions you have publicly expressed your hatred for all of these things. You need to take a good long look inside yourself. "Judgemental attitude" Pot and kettle spring to mind.[/p][/quote]Hang on wheres all this anti dog thing? I have had dogs. I don't dislike tattoos. I don't dislike BMWs, a car which Ive also had, recently. I do hate scum bags. I hate scumbags that think that their dog somehow makes them a swinging dick. Thats not the dogs fault. I hate owners that don't clear up their dogs cr*p, again not the dogs fault. Some scumabgs have suits and ties and manipulate the weak and stupid. Some scumabgs have black BMW and manipulate the weak and stupid. How someone looks is no guide to who they are inside. Their attitude is, and can be less apparent with someone in a suit I do admit, but in the end it all comes out. I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Im making the point that @JackJohnson is full of it. If it were to be someone the polar opposite of an old man, he would be the first to be calling for blood. He talks of fairness and due process and would be I suspect the kind of person to use a position of influence without batting an eyelid. To spell it out, the talk of justice for all is a smoke screen. We have no idea who anyone on here is, only though what they say. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -2

7:27pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion.
If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it?
Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?
This person is impossible!

It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it.

I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict.
Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course.

Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on.

Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think.

Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions.

I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure.

There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal!
What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from?
Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry.
Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds.
I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality.
Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?
You have a short memory my friend, you and I had quite a discussion on here about Tattoos and dogs a while ago!

You are totally missing the point. I can not provide you with a scenario, neither will I trawl the internet to find one.

My point is purely, not one of us can judge without knowing the full facts, if you were a judge would what an Echo reporter writes on an incident be enough evidence for you to pass sentence?
Are you not fit to judge then? Who told you that? Let he without sin cast the first stone?
You hear about a car accident involving a rear ender thats resulted in death, you are more than fit to judge. It requires common sense, not a full scale crash investigation. Trying to persuaded everyone of your integrity because you want a 'fair' outcome cuts no headway with me. It smacks of look at me I think Im really important.
The guys dead and he's dead because a car driver did not take care. Thats all we need to know. People are dying on the roads and we are not doing enough to prevent it.
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.[/p][/quote]You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion. If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it? Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?[/p][/quote]This person is impossible! It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it. I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict. Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course. Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on. Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think. Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions. I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted. I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure. There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal![/p][/quote]What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from? Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry. Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds. I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality. Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?[/p][/quote]You have a short memory my friend, you and I had quite a discussion on here about Tattoos and dogs a while ago! You are totally missing the point. I can not provide you with a scenario, neither will I trawl the internet to find one. My point is purely, not one of us can judge without knowing the full facts, if you were a judge would what an Echo reporter writes on an incident be enough evidence for you to pass sentence?[/p][/quote]Are you not fit to judge then? Who told you that? Let he without sin cast the first stone? You hear about a car accident involving a rear ender thats resulted in death, you are more than fit to judge. It requires common sense, not a full scale crash investigation. Trying to persuaded everyone of your integrity because you want a 'fair' outcome cuts no headway with me. It smacks of look at me I think Im really important. The guys dead and he's dead because a car driver did not take care. Thats all we need to know. People are dying on the roads and we are not doing enough to prevent it. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -3

7:49pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion.
If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it?
Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?
This person is impossible!

It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it.

I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict.
Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course.

Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on.

Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think.

Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions.

I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure.

There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal!
What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from?
Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry.
Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds.
I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality.
Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?
You have a short memory my friend, you and I had quite a discussion on here about Tattoos and dogs a while ago!

You are totally missing the point. I can not provide you with a scenario, neither will I trawl the internet to find one.

My point is purely, not one of us can judge without knowing the full facts, if you were a judge would what an Echo reporter writes on an incident be enough evidence for you to pass sentence?
Are you not fit to judge then? Who told you that? Let he without sin cast the first stone?
You hear about a car accident involving a rear ender thats resulted in death, you are more than fit to judge. It requires common sense, not a full scale crash investigation. Trying to persuaded everyone of your integrity because you want a 'fair' outcome cuts no headway with me. It smacks of look at me I think Im really important.
The guys dead and he's dead because a car driver did not take care. Thats all we need to know. People are dying on the roads and we are not doing enough to prevent it.
What are you on about?
You answer none of my questions directly.
We are all guilty of judging at sometime or other, thats what makes us human, but there are occasions where you should only give your opinion and wait for the official verdict, in my opinion.
I don't care whether my integrity cuts headway with you or not, you are just another small person behind a keyboard, apart from on here when you shout, rant and abuse people about this is wrong and that is wrong, how many times have you gone out into that big wide world where everything is actually real and tried to make a difference and get things changed?
I can say I have, I have been frontline and seen it, I know the procedures and the investigations that are required, yes the investigations that you "meh" about. Really quite pathetic.
Me important?..... Yes I am, as important as the next man, woman or child. So please don't try and act all righteous as you have to many times been rude and arrogant, not good traits.
I will now do the mature thing and close my conversation with you as you do not listen, I have listened to you and some of which I agree with but likewise a lot of it I don't, which you can not accept. I feel you haven't a clue what you are on about and impossible to have an adult conversation with.
I hope you have a good evening.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.[/p][/quote]You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion. If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it? Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?[/p][/quote]This person is impossible! It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it. I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict. Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course. Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on. Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think. Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions. I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted. I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure. There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal![/p][/quote]What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from? Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry. Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds. I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality. Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?[/p][/quote]You have a short memory my friend, you and I had quite a discussion on here about Tattoos and dogs a while ago! You are totally missing the point. I can not provide you with a scenario, neither will I trawl the internet to find one. My point is purely, not one of us can judge without knowing the full facts, if you were a judge would what an Echo reporter writes on an incident be enough evidence for you to pass sentence?[/p][/quote]Are you not fit to judge then? Who told you that? Let he without sin cast the first stone? You hear about a car accident involving a rear ender thats resulted in death, you are more than fit to judge. It requires common sense, not a full scale crash investigation. Trying to persuaded everyone of your integrity because you want a 'fair' outcome cuts no headway with me. It smacks of look at me I think Im really important. The guys dead and he's dead because a car driver did not take care. Thats all we need to know. People are dying on the roads and we are not doing enough to prevent it.[/p][/quote]What are you on about? You answer none of my questions directly. We are all guilty of judging at sometime or other, thats what makes us human, but there are occasions where you should only give your opinion and wait for the official verdict, in my opinion. I don't care whether my integrity cuts headway with you or not, you are just another small person behind a keyboard, apart from on here when you shout, rant and abuse people about this is wrong and that is wrong, how many times have you gone out into that big wide world where everything is actually real and tried to make a difference and get things changed? I can say I have, I have been frontline and seen it, I know the procedures and the investigations that are required, yes the investigations that you "meh" about. Really quite pathetic. Me important?..... Yes I am, as important as the next man, woman or child. So please don't try and act all righteous as you have to many times been rude and arrogant, not good traits. I will now do the mature thing and close my conversation with you as you do not listen, I have listened to you and some of which I agree with but likewise a lot of it I don't, which you can not accept. I feel you haven't a clue what you are on about and impossible to have an adult conversation with. I hope you have a good evening. Portlandgary
  • Score: 3

9:31pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion.
If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it?
Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?
This person is impossible!

It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it.

I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict.
Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course.

Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on.

Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think.

Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions.

I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure.

There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal!
What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from?
Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry.
Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds.
I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality.
Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?
You have a short memory my friend, you and I had quite a discussion on here about Tattoos and dogs a while ago!

You are totally missing the point. I can not provide you with a scenario, neither will I trawl the internet to find one.

My point is purely, not one of us can judge without knowing the full facts, if you were a judge would what an Echo reporter writes on an incident be enough evidence for you to pass sentence?
Are you not fit to judge then? Who told you that? Let he without sin cast the first stone?
You hear about a car accident involving a rear ender thats resulted in death, you are more than fit to judge. It requires common sense, not a full scale crash investigation. Trying to persuaded everyone of your integrity because you want a 'fair' outcome cuts no headway with me. It smacks of look at me I think Im really important.
The guys dead and he's dead because a car driver did not take care. Thats all we need to know. People are dying on the roads and we are not doing enough to prevent it.
What are you on about?
You answer none of my questions directly.
We are all guilty of judging at sometime or other, thats what makes us human, but there are occasions where you should only give your opinion and wait for the official verdict, in my opinion.
I don't care whether my integrity cuts headway with you or not, you are just another small person behind a keyboard, apart from on here when you shout, rant and abuse people about this is wrong and that is wrong, how many times have you gone out into that big wide world where everything is actually real and tried to make a difference and get things changed?
I can say I have, I have been frontline and seen it, I know the procedures and the investigations that are required, yes the investigations that you "meh" about. Really quite pathetic.
Me important?..... Yes I am, as important as the next man, woman or child. So please don't try and act all righteous as you have to many times been rude and arrogant, not good traits.
I will now do the mature thing and close my conversation with you as you do not listen, I have listened to you and some of which I agree with but likewise a lot of it I don't, which you can not accept. I feel you haven't a clue what you are on about and impossible to have an adult conversation with.
I hope you have a good evening.
You know the investigations and procedures and yet you don't know how the accident could have occurred without the car driver being in the wrong.
You along with several other people on the forum illustrate just how poorly cyclists are treated. A car driver kills someone and you start calling for procedure and fairness.
I haven't ranted at anyone. I'm prepared to have a conversation, is that ranting? I've called a few people names, but it think I was not alone there, so what...
I'd like some justice for the guy that was killed, because I think one day it could easily be me. How about them apples...
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.[/p][/quote]You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion. If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it? Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?[/p][/quote]This person is impossible! It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it. I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict. Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course. Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on. Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think. Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions. I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted. I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure. There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal![/p][/quote]What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from? Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry. Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds. I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality. Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?[/p][/quote]You have a short memory my friend, you and I had quite a discussion on here about Tattoos and dogs a while ago! You are totally missing the point. I can not provide you with a scenario, neither will I trawl the internet to find one. My point is purely, not one of us can judge without knowing the full facts, if you were a judge would what an Echo reporter writes on an incident be enough evidence for you to pass sentence?[/p][/quote]Are you not fit to judge then? Who told you that? Let he without sin cast the first stone? You hear about a car accident involving a rear ender thats resulted in death, you are more than fit to judge. It requires common sense, not a full scale crash investigation. Trying to persuaded everyone of your integrity because you want a 'fair' outcome cuts no headway with me. It smacks of look at me I think Im really important. The guys dead and he's dead because a car driver did not take care. Thats all we need to know. People are dying on the roads and we are not doing enough to prevent it.[/p][/quote]What are you on about? You answer none of my questions directly. We are all guilty of judging at sometime or other, thats what makes us human, but there are occasions where you should only give your opinion and wait for the official verdict, in my opinion. I don't care whether my integrity cuts headway with you or not, you are just another small person behind a keyboard, apart from on here when you shout, rant and abuse people about this is wrong and that is wrong, how many times have you gone out into that big wide world where everything is actually real and tried to make a difference and get things changed? I can say I have, I have been frontline and seen it, I know the procedures and the investigations that are required, yes the investigations that you "meh" about. Really quite pathetic. Me important?..... Yes I am, as important as the next man, woman or child. So please don't try and act all righteous as you have to many times been rude and arrogant, not good traits. I will now do the mature thing and close my conversation with you as you do not listen, I have listened to you and some of which I agree with but likewise a lot of it I don't, which you can not accept. I feel you haven't a clue what you are on about and impossible to have an adult conversation with. I hope you have a good evening.[/p][/quote]You know the investigations and procedures and yet you don't know how the accident could have occurred without the car driver being in the wrong. You along with several other people on the forum illustrate just how poorly cyclists are treated. A car driver kills someone and you start calling for procedure and fairness. I haven't ranted at anyone. I'm prepared to have a conversation, is that ranting? I've called a few people names, but it think I was not alone there, so what... I'd like some justice for the guy that was killed, because I think one day it could easily be me. How about them apples... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -4

10:22pm Tue 5 Aug 14

patriot5502 says...

I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section. patriot5502
  • Score: 1

10:24pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Right..........

I shall try and break this down as simple as possible.

As you say "how the accident COULD of occurred" Could being the operative word, Yes into the equation we bring in 'probable, possible' and 'likely' but not until the investigation is complete can anybody say 'this definitely happened' (apart from yourself of course)

I have not disputed once the 'probable' cause however you choose to immediately jump to conclusions on the say so of a local news reporter.

That is not viewing all possibilities. Where I have chosen to sit back and wait to see all of the evidence, not that the likes of you and me will get to see or hear of the evidence, we will get to hear the verdict.

I totally agree with you if, and yes probably more likely when this driver is brought before the courts he should be punished accordingly, age, sex colour does not come into it, again I agree with you, you commit a crime you should be punished.

Perhaps ranting was the wrong word, but I feel your reasoning and listening to others opinions needs working on.

As for the name calling, don't you think you're better than that? Where you state that "you don't think you were alone there" is that really the excuse of a grown man? It sounds like the sort of excuse kids come out with when they're bickering in the playground.

Again you forget my earlier comment about me being a keen cyclist and as I stated earlier I have seen good and bad cyclist, as a driver and likewise I have seen good and bad drivers as a cyclist, so I would appreciate you retracting your comment about me illustrating how poorly cyclists are treated as I know first hand how hazardous it can be out on the roads on a bike!

I hope you are going to be able to digest my comments in a positive manner.
Right.......... I shall try and break this down as simple as possible. As you say "how the accident COULD of occurred" Could being the operative word, Yes into the equation we bring in 'probable, possible' and 'likely' but not until the investigation is complete can anybody say 'this definitely happened' (apart from yourself of course) I have not disputed once the 'probable' cause however you choose to immediately jump to conclusions on the say so of a local news reporter. That is not viewing all possibilities. Where I have chosen to sit back and wait to see all of the evidence, not that the likes of you and me will get to see or hear of the evidence, we will get to hear the verdict. I totally agree with you if, and yes probably more likely when this driver is brought before the courts he should be punished accordingly, age, sex colour does not come into it, again I agree with you, you commit a crime you should be punished. Perhaps ranting was the wrong word, but I feel your reasoning and listening to others opinions needs working on. As for the name calling, don't you think you're better than that? Where you state that "you don't think you were alone there" is that really the excuse of a grown man? It sounds like the sort of excuse kids come out with when they're bickering in the playground. Again you forget my earlier comment about me being a keen cyclist and as I stated earlier I have seen good and bad cyclist, as a driver and likewise I have seen good and bad drivers as a cyclist, so I would appreciate you retracting your comment about me illustrating how poorly cyclists are treated as I know first hand how hazardous it can be out on the roads on a bike! I hope you are going to be able to digest my comments in a positive manner. Portlandgary
  • Score: 0

7:00am Wed 6 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Right..........

I shall try and break this down as simple as possible.

As you say "how the accident COULD of occurred" Could being the operative word, Yes into the equation we bring in 'probable, possible' and 'likely' but not until the investigation is complete can anybody say 'this definitely happened' (apart from yourself of course)

I have not disputed once the 'probable' cause however you choose to immediately jump to conclusions on the say so of a local news reporter.

That is not viewing all possibilities. Where I have chosen to sit back and wait to see all of the evidence, not that the likes of you and me will get to see or hear of the evidence, we will get to hear the verdict.

I totally agree with you if, and yes probably more likely when this driver is brought before the courts he should be punished accordingly, age, sex colour does not come into it, again I agree with you, you commit a crime you should be punished.

Perhaps ranting was the wrong word, but I feel your reasoning and listening to others opinions needs working on.

As for the name calling, don't you think you're better than that? Where you state that "you don't think you were alone there" is that really the excuse of a grown man? It sounds like the sort of excuse kids come out with when they're bickering in the playground.

Again you forget my earlier comment about me being a keen cyclist and as I stated earlier I have seen good and bad cyclist, as a driver and likewise I have seen good and bad drivers as a cyclist, so I would appreciate you retracting your comment about me illustrating how poorly cyclists are treated as I know first hand how hazardous it can be out on the roads on a bike!

I hope you are going to be able to digest my comments in a positive manner.
Well I don't think my reasoning needs working on at all.
What we have seen here is absolutely typical of the kind of reaction that you get when you try to defend cycling or criticise the car drivers of this country.
I've been called bitter and twisted, the cycling Taliban and told that I hate this and hate that. Every attempt to assassinate my character.
In actual fact all I did was say the driver was a killer - which he is, and point out the awful statistics of death of cyclists by drivers in the uk.
What you and several of your fellow poster have done is shown yourselves to be absolutely typical of thoughtless, self centred I go first car drivers that are more interested in shutting someone up when they start to tell the truth.
It's the tone in which you wrote the replies, it wasn't you are probably right, that only came after I showed you up for being wrong in your response. You wanted to defend the rights of the car driver initially despite the fact that he has killed someone.
It's very sad to me that I live in the same vicinity as people like this but not a great surprise.
I suggest that the next time you drive your car by a cyclist and think about giving them 10cm of room rather than a good 1m, you think long and hard about me calling this old man a killer and whether you would like that name yourself...
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: Right.......... I shall try and break this down as simple as possible. As you say "how the accident COULD of occurred" Could being the operative word, Yes into the equation we bring in 'probable, possible' and 'likely' but not until the investigation is complete can anybody say 'this definitely happened' (apart from yourself of course) I have not disputed once the 'probable' cause however you choose to immediately jump to conclusions on the say so of a local news reporter. That is not viewing all possibilities. Where I have chosen to sit back and wait to see all of the evidence, not that the likes of you and me will get to see or hear of the evidence, we will get to hear the verdict. I totally agree with you if, and yes probably more likely when this driver is brought before the courts he should be punished accordingly, age, sex colour does not come into it, again I agree with you, you commit a crime you should be punished. Perhaps ranting was the wrong word, but I feel your reasoning and listening to others opinions needs working on. As for the name calling, don't you think you're better than that? Where you state that "you don't think you were alone there" is that really the excuse of a grown man? It sounds like the sort of excuse kids come out with when they're bickering in the playground. Again you forget my earlier comment about me being a keen cyclist and as I stated earlier I have seen good and bad cyclist, as a driver and likewise I have seen good and bad drivers as a cyclist, so I would appreciate you retracting your comment about me illustrating how poorly cyclists are treated as I know first hand how hazardous it can be out on the roads on a bike! I hope you are going to be able to digest my comments in a positive manner.[/p][/quote]Well I don't think my reasoning needs working on at all. What we have seen here is absolutely typical of the kind of reaction that you get when you try to defend cycling or criticise the car drivers of this country. I've been called bitter and twisted, the cycling Taliban and told that I hate this and hate that. Every attempt to assassinate my character. In actual fact all I did was say the driver was a killer - which he is, and point out the awful statistics of death of cyclists by drivers in the uk. What you and several of your fellow poster have done is shown yourselves to be absolutely typical of thoughtless, self centred I go first car drivers that are more interested in shutting someone up when they start to tell the truth. It's the tone in which you wrote the replies, it wasn't you are probably right, that only came after I showed you up for being wrong in your response. You wanted to defend the rights of the car driver initially despite the fact that he has killed someone. It's very sad to me that I live in the same vicinity as people like this but not a great surprise. I suggest that the next time you drive your car by a cyclist and think about giving them 10cm of room rather than a good 1m, you think long and hard about me calling this old man a killer and whether you would like that name yourself... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -4

7:52am Wed 6 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

And perhaps you, as a driver could do the same when I am cycling! You sir are impossible.
If thinking you have 'shown me up' makes you feel better and boosts your ego that is fine.
Again you fail to understand that I have been non-judgemental, again as a driver and a keen cyclist, but I am sure you will flit over my comments as you have done before ignoring what I am trying to say and reading my words how you want to so as to make yourself look high and mighty on here.
And perhaps you, as a driver could do the same when I am cycling! You sir are impossible. If thinking you have 'shown me up' makes you feel better and boosts your ego that is fine. Again you fail to understand that I have been non-judgemental, again as a driver and a keen cyclist, but I am sure you will flit over my comments as you have done before ignoring what I am trying to say and reading my words how you want to so as to make yourself look high and mighty on here. Portlandgary
  • Score: 4

9:09am Wed 6 Aug 14

whatever66 says...

Regardless of age some people just don't bother using mirror signal maneuver ..... Cyclist's and Motorists alike its a game of oh lets guess what your doing next??? lets turn here ..... last minute signalling that's if they bother at all.... I think its about time all road user's read the highway code and updated there road knowledge skills as I can assure you it has changed in the last 15 years.... I also think they should bring back the Green Cross Code on the telly as people seem to forgotten how to cross the road properly this is also explained in the highway code you know basic skills like stop look listen..... I have seen cyclist's and runners with headphones on, infact a jogger just run out in front of my car causing me to brake due to her recklessness of not even bothering to check if it was safe to cross ????? these should be banned as obviously there is no concentration or road awareness going on but if I had hit her it would of been a case of oh I was speeding ??? was I drunk etc etc etc I Think people should be made to be responsible for their own actions while they use the roads, I also think the Echo should stop these comment threads on the accidents occurring through out the county arguing amongst yourselves does not help the families involved..... e.g last week it was the motorbikes fault this week its the car drivers was he speeding maybe he was on drugs!!!! hold up was the cyclist drunk etc etc etc
Regardless of age some people just don't bother using mirror signal maneuver ..... Cyclist's and Motorists alike its a game of oh lets guess what your doing next??? lets turn here ..... last minute signalling that's if they bother at all.... I think its about time all road user's read the highway code and updated there road knowledge skills as I can assure you it has changed in the last 15 years.... I also think they should bring back the Green Cross Code on the telly as people seem to forgotten how to cross the road properly this is also explained in the highway code you know basic skills like stop look listen..... I have seen cyclist's and runners with headphones on, infact a jogger just run out in front of my car causing me to brake due to her recklessness of not even bothering to check if it was safe to cross ????? these should be banned as obviously there is no concentration or road awareness going on but if I had hit her it would of been a case of oh I was speeding ??? was I drunk etc etc etc I Think people should be made to be responsible for their own actions while they use the roads, I also think the Echo should stop these comment threads on the accidents occurring through out the county arguing amongst yourselves does not help the families involved..... e.g last week it was the motorbikes fault this week its the car drivers was he speeding maybe he was on drugs!!!! hold up was the cyclist drunk etc etc etc whatever66
  • Score: 4

9:20am Wed 6 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'.

His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive.

@ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.
You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion.
If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it?
Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?
This person is impossible!

It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it.

I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict.
Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course.

Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on.

Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think.

Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions.

I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted.

I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure.

There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal!
What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from?
Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry.
Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds.
I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality.
Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?
I've already given you a scenario where I witnessed a cyclist get rear-ended by a motorist - and the police agreed it was the cyclist's fault because she moved out of position to turn right without signalling and a life-saver look back. It was only by luck she didn't suffer serious injuries or get killed.

I've also pointed out that there is a junction, visible in the image, that could have had something to do with this accident.

That, alone, raises enough doubt about what really happened to make a more thorough investigation necessary - and important to make sure that the right person is held responsible and cannot get away with it on a technicality.

Someone who drove past ('Dr Lodge', I think) later pointed out that the positions don't really support that possibility. Nevertheless, not ruling it out properly could destroy any chances of the driver being convicted.

What more do you want?

As for your interpretation of statistics....

If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 10 times in a row what is the probability that it will come up heads on the 11th flip?
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: He seems to tend towards 'bitter and twisted'. His heart's in the right place, but his approach is very negative and counter-productive. @ ParkStreetShuffle - take a good. honest look at yourself and decide if you're the sort of person who should really be trying to influence public opinion.[/p][/quote]You can call me whatever you like, but you cannot deny my logic, and nor can you deny my statistics. One hundred cyclists are killed every year by cars, so are about ten children. Go look it up. You idiots have ben trying to defend someones right to pretty much murder another human. Thats makes you far more zealous and extremist in my opinion. If you want to talk about negativity, your sole input to this discussion is to run my input down. Not very positive is it? Perhaps you should consider your own online countenance before reflecting on others?[/p][/quote]This person is impossible! It is not logic it is assumptions, no if's or but's about it. I am not trying to influence public opinion in anyway shape or form, but when somebody makes snap assumptions about somebody else, and yes you my friend are a pro at this. I will speak my mind and my reason, I feel you have no argument or defence on your crazy statements, our country and Judicial system relies on evidence, facts, a hearing and then verdict. Where as you work on if's, but's, possibles and maybes. I will even give you probable, but that does not make it cut and dry until all evidence is gathered and the correct court procedure has taken its course. Nobody is denying statistic, something that you heavily rely on. Nobody is defending him, where have you read anywhere that I have said he is innocent, I have simply repeatedly stated that it will be investigated and so on and so on until a verdict is reached by our judicial system, quite simple to understand I think. Once again you have let yourself down with pathetic name calling because somebody is challenging your opinions. I do have to agree with the comments about you seeming bitter and twisted. I wonder what your opinion would be if you were in the position of either of these guys or their families? Very different I'm sure. There is no getting away from the fact that you are arrogant and opinionated beyond belief, this story, dogs, people with tattoos, the list goes on, you are so judgemental it is unreal![/p][/quote]What - I don't dislike dogs? nor tattoos? where did you get that from? Don't try and whitewash anger with bitter and twisted. Anger - yes. Rightly so, people needlessly die it makes me angry. Don't mistake opinionated for conviction. I don't stick my neck out without knowing the odds. I dont rely on the statistic - Im making people aware of it because they seem to think that car drivers don't don anything wrong apparently. Car drivers kill cyclists including children - that is a fact. Don't be angry with me for it. Im just making sure we are all aware of it, because its a reality. Please provide me with a scenario whereby the car driver went into the back of the cyclist, killed him outright and its wasn't his fault?[/p][/quote]I've already given you a scenario where I witnessed a cyclist get rear-ended by a motorist - and the police agreed it was the cyclist's fault because she moved out of position to turn right without signalling and a life-saver look back. It was only by luck she didn't suffer serious injuries or get killed. I've also pointed out that there is a junction, visible in the image, that could have had something to do with this accident. That, alone, raises enough doubt about what really happened to make a more thorough investigation necessary - and important to make sure that the right person is held responsible and cannot get away with it on a technicality. Someone who drove past ('Dr Lodge', I think) later pointed out that the positions don't really support that possibility. Nevertheless, not ruling it out properly could destroy any chances of the driver being convicted. What more do you want? As for your interpretation of statistics.... If you flip a coin and it comes up heads 10 times in a row what is the probability that it will come up heads on the 11th flip? JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

1:53pm Wed 6 Aug 14

tarka says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
Shame on you!
What gave you the right to pre judge?
Any loss of life is to be regretted and I feel for person’s family concerned. But you think you have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. The reason we live in a democracy to protect us dictators like you.

How much longer do we have to put up with your constant narrow minded dribble that only cyclist have the right to inhabit this planet.

If your reply spent more of its content showing compassion for the loss of life than banging your own soapbox perhaps you might get support.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]Shame on you! What gave you the right to pre judge? Any loss of life is to be regretted and I feel for person’s family concerned. But you think you have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. The reason we live in a democracy to protect us dictators like you. How much longer do we have to put up with your constant narrow minded dribble that only cyclist have the right to inhabit this planet. If your reply spent more of its content showing compassion for the loss of life than banging your own soapbox perhaps you might get support. tarka
  • Score: 7

2:17pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

tarka wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
Shame on you!
What gave you the right to pre judge?
Any loss of life is to be regretted and I feel for person’s family concerned. But you think you have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. The reason we live in a democracy to protect us dictators like you.

How much longer do we have to put up with your constant narrow minded dribble that only cyclist have the right to inhabit this planet.

If your reply spent more of its content showing compassion for the loss of life than banging your own soapbox perhaps you might get support.
A breath of fresh air, I totally agree with you 100% tarka.

However prepare yourself for a bombardment of drivel and evasion of your points, and for your valid comments to be manipulated into another meaning, quite possibly you will be accused of being a car driver that thinks you own the road and that cyclists are an inconvenience!

Comments like "bikes don't cause accidents, cars do because there are so many of them" another favourite of mine, one of his many crazy statements.

Many years ago I remember a small child being knocked over near my home, it was established through police investigation that the vehicle was travelling way below the speed limit and the child had run out of his front door, straight between two parked cars into the path of the vehicle. Yes and accident, a very unfortunate one but neither the less, an accident.
In park streets court evidence wouldn't of been necessary as it would of been the drivers fault plain and simple.
As I have tried to unsuccessfully explain, that is why we have a system in place in our country that to be guilty it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I have given up trying to get this through to him with examples such as this as he is very narrow minded.

As you say my thoughts are with the family of this tragic loss of life.

Your comment is well spoken, however you will not find me conversing with this guy again as it is impossible to reason with him, a dictator is a good description.
[quote][p][bold]tarka[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]Shame on you! What gave you the right to pre judge? Any loss of life is to be regretted and I feel for person’s family concerned. But you think you have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. The reason we live in a democracy to protect us dictators like you. How much longer do we have to put up with your constant narrow minded dribble that only cyclist have the right to inhabit this planet. If your reply spent more of its content showing compassion for the loss of life than banging your own soapbox perhaps you might get support.[/p][/quote]A breath of fresh air, I totally agree with you 100% tarka. However prepare yourself for a bombardment of drivel and evasion of your points, and for your valid comments to be manipulated into another meaning, quite possibly you will be accused of being a car driver that thinks you own the road and that cyclists are an inconvenience! Comments like "bikes don't cause accidents, cars do because there are so many of them" another favourite of mine, one of his many crazy statements. Many years ago I remember a small child being knocked over near my home, it was established through police investigation that the vehicle was travelling way below the speed limit and the child had run out of his front door, straight between two parked cars into the path of the vehicle. Yes and accident, a very unfortunate one but neither the less, an accident. In park streets court evidence wouldn't of been necessary as it would of been the drivers fault plain and simple. As I have tried to unsuccessfully explain, that is why we have a system in place in our country that to be guilty it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I have given up trying to get this through to him with examples such as this as he is very narrow minded. As you say my thoughts are with the family of this tragic loss of life. Your comment is well spoken, however you will not find me conversing with this guy again as it is impossible to reason with him, a dictator is a good description. Portlandgary
  • Score: 5

3:06pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Friendlyfacey says...

patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
[quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this. Friendlyfacey
  • Score: 13

7:49am Thu 7 Aug 14

The Fish says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
Though more cyclists are killed by being hit by a car statistically you are more likely (chance/percentage) to be killed by one of the fewer cyclists on our roads than the 40 million cars - interesting fact bourne out be figures issued in 2012/13!
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]Though more cyclists are killed by being hit by a car statistically you are more likely (chance/percentage) to be killed by one of the fewer cyclists on our roads than the 40 million cars - interesting fact bourne out be figures issued in 2012/13! The Fish
  • Score: -2

1:31pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Friendlyfacey wrote:
patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists.
If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears.
If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem.
We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.
[quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.[/p][/quote]There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists. If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears. If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem. We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -10

1:35pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

The Fish wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Iianjames wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.
You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...
Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.
Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.
Though more cyclists are killed by being hit by a car statistically you are more likely (chance/percentage) to be killed by one of the fewer cyclists on our roads than the 40 million cars - interesting fact bourne out be figures issued in 2012/13!
Supposing we were to say this were true for arguments sake,
The number of people that get killed or seriously maimed by a by cycle hitting them? Negligible, as opposed to the thousands that get killed and maimed by cars...
Therefore it's not really helping the argument either way...
[quote][p][bold]The Fish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Iianjames[/bold] wrote: Before the elderly driver and slow reactions get the blame some cyclists don't make themselves easy to see, The black lycra clad head down arse up ones riding in the shadows on tree clad roads suddenly appear from the shadows and don't pay any attention to the vehicle approaching from behind. We teach our kids to be visible on the roads with bright hats and hi vis clothing so perhaps adults should do the same.[/p][/quote]You are a moron, and I hope to god that you don't own a licence. Car drivers - and I say this as a car driver - are completely responsible for what they do on the roads. You drive a car, you drive a killing machine - as proved here. No excuses can be acceptable. You hit a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter you face the full force of the law and quite rightly so. No excuses...[/p][/quote]Agreed - as a motorist you should be completely responsible for your own actions, but you should never be held responsible for anyone else's (with the possible exception of children - who may not be adequately street-wise). I see nothing about this story that proves the motorist is to blame. I see only possibilities and probabilities. It's for the accident investigators to apportion blame - not the OHEC lynch-mob. Drive irresponsibly and you drive a killing machine. Ride irresponsibly and you ride a suicide machine.[/p][/quote]Again - another person thats is woefully - woefully uneducated about the state of the road and traffic. 40,000,000 cars on the road. Hundreds of needless cyclist deaths every year. Some of them are children - so lets see you make a joke out of that, because Im not laughing. Motorists seem to think that bike safety is something arbitrary. Try to be a smart ar*se is not going to cut it. Bikes do not cause accidents. Cars cause accidents because there are so bloody many of them. This accident has been caused by a motorist that should not have been in charge of a car. Why is an expert needed please??? He went into the back go him - end.of.story. I hope the police throw the book at him.[/p][/quote]Though more cyclists are killed by being hit by a car statistically you are more likely (chance/percentage) to be killed by one of the fewer cyclists on our roads than the 40 million cars - interesting fact bourne out be figures issued in 2012/13![/p][/quote]Supposing we were to say this were true for arguments sake, The number of people that get killed or seriously maimed by a by cycle hitting them? Negligible, as opposed to the thousands that get killed and maimed by cars... Therefore it's not really helping the argument either way... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -3

2:40pm Thu 7 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

In The Times (report dated 8 May 2013) there is a report giving some accident statistics accumulated by the City of Westminster. A fair summary of that report is that although the driver was to blame in the majority of car/cycle accidents (68 per cent) cyclists were responsible for 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent either no cause could be found, or both parties were to blame. 20 per cent - that's 1/5th. I don't know what the size of the sample was but over a few years it'll be a significant number.

Obviously the probability of the driver being responsible for this particular accident will be far higher than 68 per cent but I think that statistic (1/5th) should make you pause for thought.

It's bad enough that anyone has to go to court to defend the death of a loved one, but what could happen if the prosecutors turn up without preparing their case properly (that would be evidence gathered by experts, witness statements and statements from friends/relatives about the cyclist's destination/route/in
tention) just doesn't bear thinking about. They would, effectively, be relying on the driver to plead guilty to have any real hope of getting any sort of justice.

Add to that, that jumping to conclusions will lead to ineffective,, inappropriate, or even dangerous, attempts at solutions and it makes even more of a mockery of your summary approach to justice. Even the Witchfinder General brought his victims to trial (of sorts).

A further thought about this incident - how do you know that the car was not recently serviced by a bad mechanic? When I was driving 50,000 miles a year I kept a tow-rope and a set of jump-leads in the boot. At least once, sometimes twice, a year I had to help move a car away from a dangerous place - sometimes the middle lane of the M1 during rush hour. The driver, almost invariably, told me they'd "just had it serviced". If that turns out to be the case, it's possible the driver is a victim too.
In The Times (report dated 8 May 2013) there is a report giving some accident statistics accumulated by the City of Westminster. A fair summary of that report is that although the driver was to blame in the majority of car/cycle accidents (68 per cent) cyclists were responsible for 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent either no cause could be found, or both parties were to blame. 20 per cent - that's 1/5th. I don't know what the size of the sample was but over a few years it'll be a significant number. Obviously the probability of the driver being responsible for this particular accident will be far higher than 68 per cent but I think that statistic (1/5th) should make you pause for thought. It's bad enough that anyone has to go to court to defend the death of a loved one, but what could happen if the prosecutors turn up without preparing their case properly (that would be evidence gathered by experts, witness statements and statements from friends/relatives about the cyclist's destination/route/in tention) just doesn't bear thinking about. They would, effectively, be relying on the driver to plead guilty to have any real hope of getting any sort of justice. Add to that, that jumping to conclusions will lead to ineffective,, inappropriate, or even dangerous, attempts at solutions and it makes even more of a mockery of your summary approach to justice. Even the Witchfinder General brought his victims to trial (of sorts). A further thought about this incident - how do you know that the car was not recently serviced by a bad mechanic? When I was driving 50,000 miles a year I kept a tow-rope and a set of jump-leads in the boot. At least once, sometimes twice, a year I had to help move a car away from a dangerous place - sometimes the middle lane of the M1 during rush hour. The driver, almost invariably, told me they'd "just had it serviced". If that turns out to be the case, it's possible the driver is a victim too. JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

6:53pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Friendlyfacey says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists.
If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears.
If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem.
We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.
Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course.
Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?"
Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way.
If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day.
Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety.
For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.[/p][/quote]There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists. If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears. If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem. We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.[/p][/quote]Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course. Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?" Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way. If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day. Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety. For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain. Friendlyfacey
  • Score: 14

7:01pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
In The Times (report dated 8 May 2013) there is a report giving some accident statistics accumulated by the City of Westminster. A fair summary of that report is that although the driver was to blame in the majority of car/cycle accidents (68 per cent) cyclists were responsible for 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent either no cause could be found, or both parties were to blame. 20 per cent - that's 1/5th. I don't know what the size of the sample was but over a few years it'll be a significant number.

Obviously the probability of the driver being responsible for this particular accident will be far higher than 68 per cent but I think that statistic (1/5th) should make you pause for thought.

It's bad enough that anyone has to go to court to defend the death of a loved one, but what could happen if the prosecutors turn up without preparing their case properly (that would be evidence gathered by experts, witness statements and statements from friends/relatives about the cyclist's destination/route/in

tention) just doesn't bear thinking about. They would, effectively, be relying on the driver to plead guilty to have any real hope of getting any sort of justice.

Add to that, that jumping to conclusions will lead to ineffective,, inappropriate, or even dangerous, attempts at solutions and it makes even more of a mockery of your summary approach to justice. Even the Witchfinder General brought his victims to trial (of sorts).

A further thought about this incident - how do you know that the car was not recently serviced by a bad mechanic? When I was driving 50,000 miles a year I kept a tow-rope and a set of jump-leads in the boot. At least once, sometimes twice, a year I had to help move a car away from a dangerous place - sometimes the middle lane of the M1 during rush hour. The driver, almost invariably, told me they'd "just had it serviced". If that turns out to be the case, it's possible the driver is a victim too.
Still trying to prove the innocence of a killer.

Westminster - a place I know well, and have ridden in, has about conservatively ten times the number of cyclists than other parts of the country, all the rules are different, the roads are different, the traffic signals are different. Net result - you stats are meaningless.

Don't talk to me of justice. This old man will probably get a slap on the wrist by the time his lawyer has rolled out extenuating circumstance. Wheels the justice or this mans family going to come from? Not the law courts I can assure you.

The fact that this is up a hill makes the chances of the car having been the reason for the accident so ifitesimally small as to be void in this discussion. Besides even if the brakes are faulty in some way the driver should still not be so close that avoiding action could be taken.
Not one person that's desperate to prove the car driver innocent has provided a convincing reason as to how he could have killed the cyclist without it being his fault - because they can't. This attempt is quite frankly sh*te.

Your talk of this and that is so much subterfuge. This man is a killer, all be it not pre meditated one but a killer all the same, he should serve a sentence in a prison for his crime, which we all know he won't because the law is an ****.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: In The Times (report dated 8 May 2013) there is a report giving some accident statistics accumulated by the City of Westminster. A fair summary of that report is that although the driver was to blame in the majority of car/cycle accidents (68 per cent) cyclists were responsible for 20 per cent. In the remaining 12 per cent either no cause could be found, or both parties were to blame. 20 per cent - that's 1/5th. I don't know what the size of the sample was but over a few years it'll be a significant number. Obviously the probability of the driver being responsible for this particular accident will be far higher than 68 per cent but I think that statistic (1/5th) should make you pause for thought. It's bad enough that anyone has to go to court to defend the death of a loved one, but what could happen if the prosecutors turn up without preparing their case properly (that would be evidence gathered by experts, witness statements and statements from friends/relatives about the cyclist's destination/route/in tention) just doesn't bear thinking about. They would, effectively, be relying on the driver to plead guilty to have any real hope of getting any sort of justice. Add to that, that jumping to conclusions will lead to ineffective,, inappropriate, or even dangerous, attempts at solutions and it makes even more of a mockery of your summary approach to justice. Even the Witchfinder General brought his victims to trial (of sorts). A further thought about this incident - how do you know that the car was not recently serviced by a bad mechanic? When I was driving 50,000 miles a year I kept a tow-rope and a set of jump-leads in the boot. At least once, sometimes twice, a year I had to help move a car away from a dangerous place - sometimes the middle lane of the M1 during rush hour. The driver, almost invariably, told me they'd "just had it serviced". If that turns out to be the case, it's possible the driver is a victim too.[/p][/quote]Still trying to prove the innocence of a killer. Westminster - a place I know well, and have ridden in, has about conservatively ten times the number of cyclists than other parts of the country, all the rules are different, the roads are different, the traffic signals are different. Net result - you stats are meaningless. Don't talk to me of justice. This old man will probably get a slap on the wrist by the time his lawyer has rolled out extenuating circumstance. Wheels the justice or this mans family going to come from? Not the law courts I can assure you. The fact that this is up a hill makes the chances of the car having been the reason for the accident so ifitesimally small as to be void in this discussion. Besides even if the brakes are faulty in some way the driver should still not be so close that avoiding action could be taken. Not one person that's desperate to prove the car driver innocent has provided a convincing reason as to how he could have killed the cyclist without it being his fault - because they can't. This attempt is quite frankly sh*te. Your talk of this and that is so much subterfuge. This man is a killer, all be it not pre meditated one but a killer all the same, he should serve a sentence in a prison for his crime, which we all know he won't because the law is an ****. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -11

7:10pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Friendlyfacey wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists.
If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears.
If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem.
We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.
Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course.
Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?"
Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way.
If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day.
Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety.
For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.
Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.

I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low.

I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think.

But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.
[quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.[/p][/quote]There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists. If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears. If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem. We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.[/p][/quote]Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course. Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?" Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way. If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day. Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety. For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.[/p][/quote]Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low. I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think. But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -12

8:03pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists.
If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears.
If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem.
We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.
Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course.
Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?"
Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way.
If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day.
Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety.
For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.
Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.

I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low.

I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think.

But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.
" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. "

Your own words.

Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said.

"If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign."

However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong!

You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people.

I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.[/p][/quote]There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists. If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears. If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem. We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.[/p][/quote]Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course. Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?" Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way. If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day. Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety. For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.[/p][/quote]Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low. I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think. But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.[/p][/quote]" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. " Your own words. Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said. "If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign." However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong! You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people. I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do. Portlandgary
  • Score: 12

8:12pm Thu 7 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

Do you really think I'm 'trying to prove his innocence'?

I couldn't prove anything one way or the other, even if I wanted to, or I thought it was my raison d'etre. NEITHER CAN YOU.

I'm not an accident investigator, I'm not a witness, I'm not a relative or friend, and I'm not a legal representative on either side. NEITHER ARE YOU (AFAIK). I do, however, have a view of the English adversarial legal system that helps me understand what's likely to happen, and what will need to happen to get this to a conclusion of some sort. We all know what we think that conclusion is likely to be, but if the prosecutors leave any escape route for his defence they will take it and leave this cyclist's family and friends with nothing. Not even the short-lived satisfaction of a guilty verdict and an insurance payout they'd swap - in a heartbeat - to turn the clock back.

It doesn't surprise me that your retort is 'those statistics mean nothing - it's different there'. Of course it is - the statistics don't match your world view so, of course, they're irrelevant. To be honest, I think statistics collected by Westminster and reported in The Times are just a tad more credible than some of the rubbish you have been spouting.

Don't forget, if this turns out to be something other than what you so vehemently assert it is without the benefit of a formal investigation you should watch out for your 'Karma' thing catching up with you. My guess is it'll probably be something that shatters your black-and-white, over-simplistic, boolean world view.

Now, let them grieve in peace, and make what preparations they can for the tough times ahead.
Do you really think I'm 'trying to prove his innocence'? I couldn't prove anything one way or the other, even if I wanted to, or I thought it was my raison d'etre. NEITHER CAN YOU. I'm not an accident investigator, I'm not a witness, I'm not a relative or friend, and I'm not a legal representative on either side. NEITHER ARE YOU (AFAIK). I do, however, have a view of the English adversarial legal system that helps me understand what's likely to happen, and what will need to happen to get this to a conclusion of some sort. We all know what we think that conclusion is likely to be, but if the prosecutors leave any escape route for his defence they will take it and leave this cyclist's family and friends with nothing. Not even the short-lived satisfaction of a guilty verdict and an insurance payout they'd swap - in a heartbeat - to turn the clock back. It doesn't surprise me that your retort is 'those statistics mean nothing - it's different there'. Of course it is - the statistics don't match your world view so, of course, they're irrelevant. To be honest, I think statistics collected by Westminster and reported in The Times are just a tad more credible than some of the rubbish you have been spouting. Don't forget, if this turns out to be something other than what you so vehemently assert it is without the benefit of a formal investigation you should watch out for your 'Karma' thing catching up with you. My guess is it'll probably be something that shatters your black-and-white, over-simplistic, boolean world view. Now, let them grieve in peace, and make what preparations they can for the tough times ahead. JackJohnson
  • Score: 5

8:29pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Do you really think I'm 'trying to prove his innocence'?

I couldn't prove anything one way or the other, even if I wanted to, or I thought it was my raison d'etre. NEITHER CAN YOU.

I'm not an accident investigator, I'm not a witness, I'm not a relative or friend, and I'm not a legal representative on either side. NEITHER ARE YOU (AFAIK). I do, however, have a view of the English adversarial legal system that helps me understand what's likely to happen, and what will need to happen to get this to a conclusion of some sort. We all know what we think that conclusion is likely to be, but if the prosecutors leave any escape route for his defence they will take it and leave this cyclist's family and friends with nothing. Not even the short-lived satisfaction of a guilty verdict and an insurance payout they'd swap - in a heartbeat - to turn the clock back.

It doesn't surprise me that your retort is 'those statistics mean nothing - it's different there'. Of course it is - the statistics don't match your world view so, of course, they're irrelevant. To be honest, I think statistics collected by Westminster and reported in The Times are just a tad more credible than some of the rubbish you have been spouting.

Don't forget, if this turns out to be something other than what you so vehemently assert it is without the benefit of a formal investigation you should watch out for your 'Karma' thing catching up with you. My guess is it'll probably be something that shatters your black-and-white, over-simplistic, boolean world view.

Now, let them grieve in peace, and make what preparations they can for the tough times ahead.
Yes that's right, let's all do what you say, because obviously your best intentions are to make sure that the due process of the law is followed.
You talk about what I've done wrong, and don't have the decency to sympathy with a man that's been killed by a bad driver.
You are a shameful human being.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Do you really think I'm 'trying to prove his innocence'? I couldn't prove anything one way or the other, even if I wanted to, or I thought it was my raison d'etre. NEITHER CAN YOU. I'm not an accident investigator, I'm not a witness, I'm not a relative or friend, and I'm not a legal representative on either side. NEITHER ARE YOU (AFAIK). I do, however, have a view of the English adversarial legal system that helps me understand what's likely to happen, and what will need to happen to get this to a conclusion of some sort. We all know what we think that conclusion is likely to be, but if the prosecutors leave any escape route for his defence they will take it and leave this cyclist's family and friends with nothing. Not even the short-lived satisfaction of a guilty verdict and an insurance payout they'd swap - in a heartbeat - to turn the clock back. It doesn't surprise me that your retort is 'those statistics mean nothing - it's different there'. Of course it is - the statistics don't match your world view so, of course, they're irrelevant. To be honest, I think statistics collected by Westminster and reported in The Times are just a tad more credible than some of the rubbish you have been spouting. Don't forget, if this turns out to be something other than what you so vehemently assert it is without the benefit of a formal investigation you should watch out for your 'Karma' thing catching up with you. My guess is it'll probably be something that shatters your black-and-white, over-simplistic, boolean world view. Now, let them grieve in peace, and make what preparations they can for the tough times ahead.[/p][/quote]Yes that's right, let's all do what you say, because obviously your best intentions are to make sure that the due process of the law is followed. You talk about what I've done wrong, and don't have the decency to sympathy with a man that's been killed by a bad driver. You are a shameful human being. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -9

8:35pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists.
If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears.
If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem.
We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.
Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course.
Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?"
Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way.
If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day.
Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety.
For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.
Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.

I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low.

I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think.

But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.
" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. "

Your own words.

Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said.

"If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign."

However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong!

You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people.

I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.
Really. Well I don't think so.
Imagine - someone on their soap box after a cyclist gets killed by a driver that's quite clearly not meant to be driving. What in inconsiderate fool. What a clown.
One day it will be me on the slab. That's why I do it. Because people like you think that laws are more important than lives.
So determined to put me down or prover wrong. It's your intentions that betray you. Your are full of sh1t. I bet you've never even left your bedroom, it wouldn't surprise me if your a 10 year old with access to a computer.
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.[/p][/quote]There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists. If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears. If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem. We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.[/p][/quote]Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course. Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?" Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way. If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day. Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety. For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.[/p][/quote]Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low. I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think. But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.[/p][/quote]" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. " Your own words. Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said. "If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign." However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong! You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people. I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.[/p][/quote]Really. Well I don't think so. Imagine - someone on their soap box after a cyclist gets killed by a driver that's quite clearly not meant to be driving. What in inconsiderate fool. What a clown. One day it will be me on the slab. That's why I do it. Because people like you think that laws are more important than lives. So determined to put me down or prover wrong. It's your intentions that betray you. Your are full of sh1t. I bet you've never even left your bedroom, it wouldn't surprise me if your a 10 year old with access to a computer. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -8

8:51pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists.
If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears.
If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem.
We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.
Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course.
Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?"
Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way.
If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day.
Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety.
For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.
Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.

I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low.

I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think.

But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.
" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. "

Your own words.

Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said.

"If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign."

However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong!

You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people.

I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.
Really. Well I don't think so.
Imagine - someone on their soap box after a cyclist gets killed by a driver that's quite clearly not meant to be driving. What in inconsiderate fool. What a clown.
One day it will be me on the slab. That's why I do it. Because people like you think that laws are more important than lives.
So determined to put me down or prover wrong. It's your intentions that betray you. Your are full of sh1t. I bet you've never even left your bedroom, it wouldn't surprise me if your a 10 year old with access to a computer.
Oh little do you know.
Your anger and aggressive tones give you away. Very defensive behaviour.
My only intention with you is to try and reason with you and try to make you realise that there is a law in our land which is followed. I am not trying to put you down or prove you wrong, If that is how you feel perhaps I and a couple of others on here have touched a nerve?
I know what I have done and seen in my life, some of which I wouldn't wish anybody to see.
I would imagine it is a lot more than you have ever done with your life by your wild ramblings
Again you leave yourself wide open to reveal yourself to be what a few people on here have already commented on. anger and bad language!
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.[/p][/quote]There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists. If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears. If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem. We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.[/p][/quote]Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course. Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?" Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way. If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day. Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety. For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.[/p][/quote]Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low. I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think. But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.[/p][/quote]" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. " Your own words. Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said. "If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign." However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong! You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people. I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.[/p][/quote]Really. Well I don't think so. Imagine - someone on their soap box after a cyclist gets killed by a driver that's quite clearly not meant to be driving. What in inconsiderate fool. What a clown. One day it will be me on the slab. That's why I do it. Because people like you think that laws are more important than lives. So determined to put me down or prover wrong. It's your intentions that betray you. Your are full of sh1t. I bet you've never even left your bedroom, it wouldn't surprise me if your a 10 year old with access to a computer.[/p][/quote]Oh little do you know. Your anger and aggressive tones give you away. Very defensive behaviour. My only intention with you is to try and reason with you and try to make you realise that there is a law in our land which is followed. I am not trying to put you down or prove you wrong, If that is how you feel perhaps I and a couple of others on here have touched a nerve? I know what I have done and seen in my life, some of which I wouldn't wish anybody to see. I would imagine it is a lot more than you have ever done with your life by your wild ramblings Again you leave yourself wide open to reveal yourself to be what a few people on here have already commented on. anger and bad language! Portlandgary
  • Score: 11

9:17pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Dr Lodge says...

Blimey, you two still arguing...
Blimey, you two still arguing... Dr Lodge
  • Score: 10

9:20pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists.
If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears.
If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem.
We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.
Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course.
Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?"
Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way.
If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day.
Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety.
For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.
Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.

I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low.

I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think.

But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.
" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. "

Your own words.

Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said.

"If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign."

However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong!

You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people.

I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.
Really. Well I don't think so.
Imagine - someone on their soap box after a cyclist gets killed by a driver that's quite clearly not meant to be driving. What in inconsiderate fool. What a clown.
One day it will be me on the slab. That's why I do it. Because people like you think that laws are more important than lives.
So determined to put me down or prover wrong. It's your intentions that betray you. Your are full of sh1t. I bet you've never even left your bedroom, it wouldn't surprise me if your a 10 year old with access to a computer.
Oh little do you know.
Your anger and aggressive tones give you away. Very defensive behaviour.
My only intention with you is to try and reason with you and try to make you realise that there is a law in our land which is followed. I am not trying to put you down or prove you wrong, If that is how you feel perhaps I and a couple of others on here have touched a nerve?
I know what I have done and seen in my life, some of which I wouldn't wish anybody to see.
I would imagine it is a lot more than you have ever done with your life by your wild ramblings
Again you leave yourself wide open to reveal yourself to be what a few people on here have already commented on. anger and bad language!
If you have done as you say I don't think you would even entertain having a discussion on a very backwater forum, that in all fairness concerns very few people.
I think you are an angry teenager, or an adult that's never really done very much so like to use online synonym to hide your identity.
I think you should realise that it's a serious thing, when someone dies like this needlessly. Think about how you would feel if it were your father, or uncle or grandad. The legal system is a very slow thing, and unfortunately modern life changes very quickly. People live to an older age. The driving laws should have been changed a long time ago with regards to the road. They are changing but they will not help out this guy unfortunately. That doesn't mean that something can't be done. So many people dying is unnecessary, but it will mean that the law needs to change and that will only happen if the people that are responsible for it realise that ordinary people find it unacceptable. Maybe you could do something about that?
[quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.[/p][/quote]There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists. If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears. If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem. We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.[/p][/quote]Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course. Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?" Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way. If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day. Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety. For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.[/p][/quote]Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low. I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think. But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.[/p][/quote]" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. " Your own words. Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said. "If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign." However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong! You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people. I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.[/p][/quote]Really. Well I don't think so. Imagine - someone on their soap box after a cyclist gets killed by a driver that's quite clearly not meant to be driving. What in inconsiderate fool. What a clown. One day it will be me on the slab. That's why I do it. Because people like you think that laws are more important than lives. So determined to put me down or prover wrong. It's your intentions that betray you. Your are full of sh1t. I bet you've never even left your bedroom, it wouldn't surprise me if your a 10 year old with access to a computer.[/p][/quote]Oh little do you know. Your anger and aggressive tones give you away. Very defensive behaviour. My only intention with you is to try and reason with you and try to make you realise that there is a law in our land which is followed. I am not trying to put you down or prove you wrong, If that is how you feel perhaps I and a couple of others on here have touched a nerve? I know what I have done and seen in my life, some of which I wouldn't wish anybody to see. I would imagine it is a lot more than you have ever done with your life by your wild ramblings Again you leave yourself wide open to reveal yourself to be what a few people on here have already commented on. anger and bad language![/p][/quote]If you have done as you say I don't think you would even entertain having a discussion on a very backwater forum, that in all fairness concerns very few people. I think you are an angry teenager, or an adult that's never really done very much so like to use online synonym to hide your identity. I think you should realise that it's a serious thing, when someone dies like this needlessly. Think about how you would feel if it were your father, or uncle or grandad. The legal system is a very slow thing, and unfortunately modern life changes very quickly. People live to an older age. The driving laws should have been changed a long time ago with regards to the road. They are changing but they will not help out this guy unfortunately. That doesn't mean that something can't be done. So many people dying is unnecessary, but it will mean that the law needs to change and that will only happen if the people that are responsible for it realise that ordinary people find it unacceptable. Maybe you could do something about that? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -6

9:32pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Portlandgary says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Portlandgary wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Friendlyfacey wrote:
patriot5502 wrote:
I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.
How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate.
Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502?
A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments?
Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.
There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists.
If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears.
If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem.
We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.
Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course.
Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?"
Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way.
If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day.
Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety.
For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.
Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.

I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low.

I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think.

But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.
" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. "

Your own words.

Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said.

"If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign."

However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong!

You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people.

I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.
Really. Well I don't think so.
Imagine - someone on their soap box after a cyclist gets killed by a driver that's quite clearly not meant to be driving. What in inconsiderate fool. What a clown.
One day it will be me on the slab. That's why I do it. Because people like you think that laws are more important than lives.
So determined to put me down or prover wrong. It's your intentions that betray you. Your are full of sh1t. I bet you've never even left your bedroom, it wouldn't surprise me if your a 10 year old with access to a computer.
Oh little do you know.
Your anger and aggressive tones give you away. Very defensive behaviour.
My only intention with you is to try and reason with you and try to make you realise that there is a law in our land which is followed. I am not trying to put you down or prove you wrong, If that is how you feel perhaps I and a couple of others on here have touched a nerve?
I know what I have done and seen in my life, some of which I wouldn't wish anybody to see.
I would imagine it is a lot more than you have ever done with your life by your wild ramblings
Again you leave yourself wide open to reveal yourself to be what a few people on here have already commented on. anger and bad language!
If you have done as you say I don't think you would even entertain having a discussion on a very backwater forum, that in all fairness concerns very few people.
I think you are an angry teenager, or an adult that's never really done very much so like to use online synonym to hide your identity.
I think you should realise that it's a serious thing, when someone dies like this needlessly. Think about how you would feel if it were your father, or uncle or grandad. The legal system is a very slow thing, and unfortunately modern life changes very quickly. People live to an older age. The driving laws should have been changed a long time ago with regards to the road. They are changing but they will not help out this guy unfortunately. That doesn't mean that something can't be done. So many people dying is unnecessary, but it will mean that the law needs to change and that will only happen if the people that are responsible for it realise that ordinary people find it unacceptable. Maybe you could do something about that?
No sir the law is not in my profession.

You may "think" what you will of me "I know exactly" who I am and what I have done and seen.

Dr Lodge has just made fair comment, but for the record Dr Lodge I would like to think I have been discussing/airing my views not arguing, not once have I written anything in anger during this debate, I feel I have remained rational and polite.

I think the main thing that must come from this tragic accident is that the person is tried and convicted fairly, for the sake of the accused and more than anything for the sake of the grieving family, as it has already been said on here, if a defence solicitor can find away, on a technicality of getting the case dismissed he will.

Parkstreet, I think you and I should now call a truce as I feel this is getting personal and that is not right.

Agree to disagree and once again my condolences to the family.

This is my last comment on this sad thread.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Portlandgary[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendlyfacey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]patriot5502[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the bile commented here, my niece lost a loving husband and their three small children a wonderful father because a motorist hit him at speed from behind.. I know he didn't intend to do this but he was in control of a vehicle which killed him, I hope he gets a prison sentence and if he suffers half as much as this family is suffering then he is a very lucky man. I just hope my niece doesn't ever feel the need to read this news section.[/p][/quote]How very sad. You almost appear to be taking pleasure in making this a cyclist vs motorist debate. Did none of you read the comments from Patriot 5502? A man has died. He had a wife. He had 3 children. This is not the time or place to enter into such childish debate and name calling. Do you really think his family (including his children in years to come) will want to read your theories and petty backbiting comments? Write a message of condolence for the man who died. Then go and hug your own family. I sincerely hope none of you ever has to go through this.[/p][/quote]There's nothing childish about the debate. What is childish is that some people that post on this forum cannot accept that cars kill cyclists. If you can suggest a better time to start a conversation about how motorists kill cyclist, then please do tell me I'm ears. If it were me that died, I would want my death to mean something rather than just being another statistic. It precisely doing what you suggest that will amount to more deaths because nobody is aware of the problem. We are all sad when someone dies, but when someone dies needlessly it is time to get angry and do something about the situation.[/p][/quote]Trust me. This man's death means something to me. It means very much to me. I also want for justice to be done, which I trust it will be in due course. Whilst my post was not directed at you personally may I remind you that you have called people "a moron", "pig ignorant", "bloody fool", "idiot" and "sock puppet". You have told people to "shut up". You have replied with a comment that "You were born with a perfectly good brain - why do you refuse to use it?" Perhaps you do feel strongly about cyclist safety but I fail to see how your comments worded as they are are helpful or constructive in any way. If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign. Do not hijack a man's death and comment on a thread in the tones that have been used here when his family may read it one day. Posting here achieves nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think that your comments do anything for cyclists' safety. For my part, this will be my last post on the point. I am not prepared to get drawn into debate. Instead I will look for a practical way to campaign for cyclist's safety. That way this tragic death will not be in vain.[/p][/quote]Regards the names so what. You want an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. I'm not hijacking his death, those that are desperate to prove the innocence if the diver are - despite overwhelming odds, there inclination is still to presume the dead cyclist did something wrong, which is disgraceful - and indicates in my opinion the lowest if the low. I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. Even a death is not enough for some of them to stop and think. But I do know they do not like to be told they are wrong. And wrong they very much are.[/p][/quote]" I don't expect to do anything for cycling safety because how know how pig ignorant car drivers can be when it comes to covering themselves. " Your own words. Far more effort is involved to do something positive, as Friendlyfacey said. "If you want to debate cyclist safety than start a group on Facebook, petition your local MP or join a charity campaign." However you are happy to sit behind a keyboard spouting, very easy to do, and even easier to criticise people who do try to do something, whether their efforts are right or wrong! You really are making yourself look quite ridiculous, insulting and spouting off at people. I think people would warm to you if you were making the effort to make changes but you are to busy on your soap box on here, very very easy to do.[/p][/quote]Really. Well I don't think so. Imagine - someone on their soap box after a cyclist gets killed by a driver that's quite clearly not meant to be driving. What in inconsiderate fool. What a clown. One day it will be me on the slab. That's why I do it. Because people like you think that laws are more important than lives. So determined to put me down or prover wrong. It's your intentions that betray you. Your are full of sh1t. I bet you've never even left your bedroom, it wouldn't surprise me if your a 10 year old with access to a computer.[/p][/quote]Oh little do you know. Your anger and aggressive tones give you away. Very defensive behaviour. My only intention with you is to try and reason with you and try to make you realise that there is a law in our land which is followed. I am not trying to put you down or prove you wrong, If that is how you feel perhaps I and a couple of others on here have touched a nerve? I know what I have done and seen in my life, some of which I wouldn't wish anybody to see. I would imagine it is a lot more than you have ever done with your life by your wild ramblings Again you leave yourself wide open to reveal yourself to be what a few people on here have already commented on. anger and bad language![/p][/quote]If you have done as you say I don't think you would even entertain having a discussion on a very backwater forum, that in all fairness concerns very few people. I think you are an angry teenager, or an adult that's never really done very much so like to use online synonym to hide your identity. I think you should realise that it's a serious thing, when someone dies like this needlessly. Think about how you would feel if it were your father, or uncle or grandad. The legal system is a very slow thing, and unfortunately modern life changes very quickly. People live to an older age. The driving laws should have been changed a long time ago with regards to the road. They are changing but they will not help out this guy unfortunately. That doesn't mean that something can't be done. So many people dying is unnecessary, but it will mean that the law needs to change and that will only happen if the people that are responsible for it realise that ordinary people find it unacceptable. Maybe you could do something about that?[/p][/quote]No sir the law is not in my profession. You may "think" what you will of me "I know exactly" who I am and what I have done and seen. Dr Lodge has just made fair comment, but for the record Dr Lodge I would like to think I have been discussing/airing my views not arguing, not once have I written anything in anger during this debate, I feel I have remained rational and polite. I think the main thing that must come from this tragic accident is that the person is tried and convicted fairly, for the sake of the accused and more than anything for the sake of the grieving family, as it has already been said on here, if a defence solicitor can find away, on a technicality of getting the case dismissed he will. Parkstreet, I think you and I should now call a truce as I feel this is getting personal and that is not right. Agree to disagree and once again my condolences to the family. This is my last comment on this sad thread. Portlandgary
  • Score: 11

9:33pm Thu 7 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

So start campaigning for sensible, effective change. As you say it will take a long time, but it will be worth it, in the end, if it helps make roads safer for all user groups.

I've said this before, and really do believe it. Your heart is in the right place, but your approach is too divisive.

It is not division that will bring lasting, meaningful change, but cooperation from all the good cyclists and motorists out there to identify the bad ones and see that they are either helped to improve, or excluded if they demonstrate that they are beyond redemption.

Unfortunately there is no quick and easy fix, however frustrated you get.
So start campaigning for sensible, effective change. As you say it will take a long time, but it will be worth it, in the end, if it helps make roads safer for all user groups. I've said this before, and really do believe it. Your heart is in the right place, but your approach is too divisive. It is not division that will bring lasting, meaningful change, but cooperation from all the good cyclists and motorists out there to identify the bad ones and see that they are either helped to improve, or excluded if they demonstrate that they are beyond redemption. Unfortunately there is no quick and easy fix, however frustrated you get. JackJohnson
  • Score: 9

11:56am Fri 8 Aug 14

tarka says...

I have no axe to grind and I am fully aware that not all car drivers give due respect to cyclist on our roads and the same can be said for cyclists. However I am sick to my back teeth of seeing constant letters and posts vilifying all motorists as grim reapers whose sole purpose in life is to violently remove all cyclists from our roads.

Not all cyclists are perfect citizens or are knights of the road for example today papers alone

Dorset Echo :- A MAN cycling with his nine-year-old daughter was punched in the face by another cyclist.

Daly Mail:- OAP cyclist used M25 as 'short cut'

I am sure the regular bored posters with nothing else to do but trawl the web for statistic and articles will be happy to find twenty press reports to reply with.

I despair (gravity is a myth the earth sucks)

How must the poor bereaved family feel looking and this constant drivel
I have no axe to grind and I am fully aware that not all car drivers give due respect to cyclist on our roads and the same can be said for cyclists. However I am sick to my back teeth of seeing constant letters and posts vilifying all motorists as grim reapers whose sole purpose in life is to violently remove all cyclists from our roads. Not all cyclists are perfect citizens or are knights of the road for example today papers alone Dorset Echo :- A MAN cycling with his nine-year-old daughter was punched in the face by another cyclist. Daly Mail:- OAP cyclist used M25 as 'short cut' I am sure the regular bored posters with nothing else to do but trawl the web for statistic and articles will be happy to find twenty press reports to reply with. I despair (gravity is a myth the earth sucks) How must the poor bereaved family feel looking and this constant drivel tarka
  • Score: 3

6:14pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

tarka wrote:
I have no axe to grind and I am fully aware that not all car drivers give due respect to cyclist on our roads and the same can be said for cyclists. However I am sick to my back teeth of seeing constant letters and posts vilifying all motorists as grim reapers whose sole purpose in life is to violently remove all cyclists from our roads.

Not all cyclists are perfect citizens or are knights of the road for example today papers alone

Dorset Echo :- A MAN cycling with his nine-year-old daughter was punched in the face by another cyclist.

Daly Mail:- OAP cyclist used M25 as 'short cut'

I am sure the regular bored posters with nothing else to do but trawl the web for statistic and articles will be happy to find twenty press reports to reply with.

I despair (gravity is a myth the earth sucks)

How must the poor bereaved family feel looking and this constant drivel
Clearly you have never experienced a sense of injustice. I would imagine the bereaved family would be extremely angry with the driver that killed their loved one. I would imagine that if they read some of the responses in here they would be shocked at the suggestion an investigation and due process is a lot more important than feeling a sense of injustice for a man that been murdered by the car drivers ineptitude.
Drivel - well I can't account for anyone else, but I believe that the best time to **** peoples conscience is when a death occurs because its serious enough for people to take notice sadly.
Also clearly you didn't read the statistics that I posted multiple times.
Last year 100 deaths, 10 of which were children. Thats pretty consistent, and not a very difficult statistic to corroborate. Grim reaper is a pretty good analogy.
If the fact that you get sick to the back teeth of motorists being vilified, why not be part of the solution rather than the problem...
[quote][p][bold]tarka[/bold] wrote: I have no axe to grind and I am fully aware that not all car drivers give due respect to cyclist on our roads and the same can be said for cyclists. However I am sick to my back teeth of seeing constant letters and posts vilifying all motorists as grim reapers whose sole purpose in life is to violently remove all cyclists from our roads. Not all cyclists are perfect citizens or are knights of the road for example today papers alone Dorset Echo :- A MAN cycling with his nine-year-old daughter was punched in the face by another cyclist. Daly Mail:- OAP cyclist used M25 as 'short cut' I am sure the regular bored posters with nothing else to do but trawl the web for statistic and articles will be happy to find twenty press reports to reply with. I despair (gravity is a myth the earth sucks) How must the poor bereaved family feel looking and this constant drivel[/p][/quote]Clearly you have never experienced a sense of injustice. I would imagine the bereaved family would be extremely angry with the driver that killed their loved one. I would imagine that if they read some of the responses in here they would be shocked at the suggestion an investigation and due process is a lot more important than feeling a sense of injustice for a man that been murdered by the car drivers ineptitude. Drivel - well I can't account for anyone else, but I believe that the best time to **** peoples conscience is when a death occurs because its serious enough for people to take notice sadly. Also clearly you didn't read the statistics that I posted multiple times. Last year 100 deaths, 10 of which were children. Thats pretty consistent, and not a very difficult statistic to corroborate. Grim reaper is a pretty good analogy. If the fact that you get sick to the back teeth of motorists being vilified, why not be part of the solution rather than the problem... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -3

6:31pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
So start campaigning for sensible, effective change. As you say it will take a long time, but it will be worth it, in the end, if it helps make roads safer for all user groups.

I've said this before, and really do believe it. Your heart is in the right place, but your approach is too divisive.

It is not division that will bring lasting, meaningful change, but cooperation from all the good cyclists and motorists out there to identify the bad ones and see that they are either helped to improve, or excluded if they demonstrate that they are beyond redemption.

Unfortunately there is no quick and easy fix, however frustrated you get.
Your understanding of how things operate in a world where you have 40,000,000 car drivers and a few hundred thousand cyclists is just not very sensible or intelligent.
You are highly objectionable to any suggestion that the legal system is circumvented and yet you do not seem to understand that change is normally initiated by people doing exactly that. At one time many of the liberties we take for granted were simply not available to common people and it wasn't until people illegally demonstrated or took action that they changed.
You might pay on average a bit more in tax than cyclists, many of who are drivers, but we will all pay for the car drivers that sit on their backsides their whole life and expect to get top flight treatment from the NHS for their obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure - not to mention the countries dependency on petrol, supplied by the middle east or America.
There are a hundred reasons for promoting cycling and altering the law, but it will never be done without some form of direct action because the lobbying of pro motoring groups and a direct source of income for the government would simply prevent any democratic reform.
For a very small increase in the number of cyclists, the savings to the NHS would be in billions. Its a national scandal that the NHS does support people that do nothing towards keeping fit, when millions strive to do so.
For people of my generation there is only hardship and heartbreak ahead as the country tries to accommodate a massive number of obese and unhealthy citizens as they reach retirement. For the next generation there will undoubtedly be a better outlook, but it won't be in time for me, thats providing I don't get killed by someone like the guy in this story...
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: So start campaigning for sensible, effective change. As you say it will take a long time, but it will be worth it, in the end, if it helps make roads safer for all user groups. I've said this before, and really do believe it. Your heart is in the right place, but your approach is too divisive. It is not division that will bring lasting, meaningful change, but cooperation from all the good cyclists and motorists out there to identify the bad ones and see that they are either helped to improve, or excluded if they demonstrate that they are beyond redemption. Unfortunately there is no quick and easy fix, however frustrated you get.[/p][/quote]Your understanding of how things operate in a world where you have 40,000,000 car drivers and a few hundred thousand cyclists is just not very sensible or intelligent. You are highly objectionable to any suggestion that the legal system is circumvented and yet you do not seem to understand that change is normally initiated by people doing exactly that. At one time many of the liberties we take for granted were simply not available to common people and it wasn't until people illegally demonstrated or took action that they changed. You might pay on average a bit more in tax than cyclists, many of who are drivers, but we will all pay for the car drivers that sit on their backsides their whole life and expect to get top flight treatment from the NHS for their obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure - not to mention the countries dependency on petrol, supplied by the middle east or America. There are a hundred reasons for promoting cycling and altering the law, but it will never be done without some form of direct action because the lobbying of pro motoring groups and a direct source of income for the government would simply prevent any democratic reform. For a very small increase in the number of cyclists, the savings to the NHS would be in billions. Its a national scandal that the NHS does support people that do nothing towards keeping fit, when millions strive to do so. For people of my generation there is only hardship and heartbreak ahead as the country tries to accommodate a massive number of obese and unhealthy citizens as they reach retirement. For the next generation there will undoubtedly be a better outlook, but it won't be in time for me, thats providing I don't get killed by someone like the guy in this story... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -5

7:41pm Fri 8 Aug 14

JackJohnson says...

I hardly think anarchy and civil disobedience, which is the alternative you are suggesting, is likely to get you anywhere other than the inside of a jail cell. That'll be if you're lucky.

If you're unlucky your anti-motoring actions will become so aggressive that, eventually, you'll meet an equally (or more) aggressive anti-cyclist willing to take the law into his own hands.

I expect that the friends and relatives of the cyclist in this incident at the moment - and for a considerable time into the future - are, quite rightly, very angry. Anger is a normal component of the grieving process - especially when the death was violent, unforeseen and pointless. I hope, though, that they all have the intelligence and restraint to let the authorities do what they must to ensure the guilty party is properly dealt with.

That really is my last post on this thread, now, because it has gone from the realms of the bizarre to a fantasy land best reached by means of magic mushrooms and lots of Beer Tickets redeemed at The Park.
I hardly think anarchy and civil disobedience, which is the alternative you are suggesting, is likely to get you anywhere other than the inside of a jail cell. That'll be if you're lucky. If you're unlucky your anti-motoring actions will become so aggressive that, eventually, you'll meet an equally (or more) aggressive anti-cyclist willing to take the law into his own hands. I expect that the friends and relatives of the cyclist in this incident at the moment - and for a considerable time into the future - are, quite rightly, very angry. Anger is a normal component of the grieving process - especially when the death was violent, unforeseen and pointless. I hope, though, that they all have the intelligence and restraint to let the authorities do what they must to ensure the guilty party is properly dealt with. That really is my last post on this thread, now, because it has gone from the realms of the bizarre to a fantasy land best reached by means of magic mushrooms and lots of Beer Tickets redeemed at The Park. JackJohnson
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree