Pedestrians need more hi-vis and walking helmets

[swldx...@gmail.com]

QUOTE:

An 88-year-old woman is in a serious condition in hospital after being hit by a cyclist, police have said.

The woman was walking along Cowling Brow in Chorley, Lancashire, when she was struck at about 18:30 BST on Friday.

She fell to the ground and suffered head, chest and pelvic injuries.

Police said the road was closed for *THREE HOURS* (EMPHASIS MINE) while investigations took place. They appealed for witnesses to contact them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-44015316

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

I know this road and it is not a good road.
Chances are the cyclist was going hell for leather and not looking where he
was going.
If the lady dies I hope this twat on a bike is brought to law as a driver
would be.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

Do we know who is guilty party is yet?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Hopefully a court can answer your question.
In the mind of the cyclist the guilty party must be the lady off 88 years
who sprinted into the road and into the path of the cyclist.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:16:06 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

> >> driver would be.
> >
> > Do we know who is guilty party is yet?
>
> Hopefully a court can answer your question.
> In the mind of the cyclist the guilty party must be the lady off 88 years
> who sprinted into the road and into the path of the cyclist.

These old biddies are secretly vicious old battleaxes - did you not see Ena Sharples and Nora Batty? As for the audiences in wrestling...

[JNugent]

It's always the one who hass the greater mass, or something, isn't it?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Many years ago I acquired Ena's fridge freezer. The insulation on the
freezer was well shot. But I sold the fridge part as they came apart.
She had a bungalow on All Hallows Road in Bispham Blackpool. Or probably
other places as well. Dunno and don't care
I've never heard of this Nora Batty person.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 9:52:40 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

> I've never heard of this Nora Batty person.

http://nora-battys.co.uk/norawp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/losw_nora_steps.jpg

[Simon Jester]

You mean he will be able to say "It was a momentary lapse in concentration", and get away with it.

[Simon Jester]

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:57:03 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

That looks like a 30mph road which means a typical law abiding motorist would be doing 40-45mph, I doubt the cyclist was travelling faster than that.

[Simon Jester]

Does it matter? If a cyclist had been hit by a motorist on that road, lack of hi-vis and helmet would automatically make it the cyclists fault.

[Simon Jester]

Last of the Summer Wine, the only TV show in history more boring than Football.

[JNugent]

On the footway, I should hope not.

<https://tinyurl.com/yb2p74qo>

[JNugent]

At least it isn't about gardening. Or even (yawn) covering a raceof an sort.

As you will agree, a film of drying paint would be more entertaining
than a cycle, car, rowing, horse or running race.

[TMS320]

On 06/05/18 12:05, Simon Jester wrote:

> You mean he will be able to say "It was a momentary lapse in
> concentration", and get away with it.

Notice how the article says that she "was hit by a cyclist"? In other
circumstances she would have "been in collision with a car".

I expect the pavement was blocked by a load of abandoned vehicles as in
the picture which forced her to walk in the road.

[JNugent]

You have snipped the source URL but there was no mention of the victim
walking in the road (ie, the carriageway).

What are the relative chances of the victim walking on the carriageway
and the cyclist not hurtling along the footway?

[TMS320]

On 07/05/18 00:43, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/05/2018 23:28, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>> I expect the pavement was blocked by a load of abandoned vehicles as
>> in the picture which forced her to walk in the road.
>
> You have snipped the source URL but there was no mention of the victim
> walking in the road (ie, the carriageway).

You can easily find the url from earlier messages (if you fixed your
news reader properly).

> What are the relative chances of the victim walking on the carriageway
> and the cyclist not hurtling along the footway?

The article makes no mention of a pavement. You can be certain the
reporter would be all over it if there was any hint of wrong doing.

[JNugent]

Cowling Brow, Chorley? There is a footway on either side of the road.
But you prefer - for understandable reasons - to believe that an elderly
and vulnerable lady pedestrian was walking down the middle of the
carriageway.

Can you spell "evasive"?

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 8:49:12 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

>
> The article makes no mention of a pavement. You can be certain the
> reporter would be all over it if there was any hint of wrong doing.

One can clearly see that there are cars and vans ILLEGALLY parked on the footway in the photo attached to the article.It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the poor old lady had to step onto the main road to avoid these selfish gits.

The cyclist would have had no chance due to the narrowness of the road/footway system.

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/04C2/production/_101181210_cb.jpg

[TMS320]

On 07/05/18 15:55, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 06/05/2018 23:28, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I expect the pavement was blocked by a load of abandoned vehicles as
>>>> in the picture which forced her to walk in the road.

> Cowling Brow, Chorley? There is a footway on either side of the road.
> But you prefer - for understandable reasons - to believe that an elderly
> and vulnerable lady pedestrian was walking down the middle of the
> carriageway.

What is a strong *possibility* has already been written. Please try to
read posts in their entirety before reply.

[JNugent]

You didn't wrote it as a mere possibility.

You wrote that the cyclist's victim was to blame because she'd been out
on the carriageway, just as if no cyclist ever hurtled along the
footway, as a confident account of what you expected to have happened.
You adnmitted of no other possibility than the cyclist being blameless.

Sensible people are well aware that the liklihood of the cyclist being
blameless and the elderly victim blameworthy (which is what you believe)
to be very low indeed.

[TMS320]

On 08/05/18 14:05, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/05/2018 08:58, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/05/18 15:55, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 06/05/2018 23:28, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>>>> I expect the pavement was blocked by a load of abandoned vehicles
>>>>>> as in the picture which forced her to walk in the road.
>
>>> Cowling Brow, Chorley? There is a footway on either side of the road.
>>> But you prefer - for understandable reasons - to believe that an
>>> elderly and vulnerable lady pedestrian was walking down the middle of
>>> the carriageway.
>
>> What is a strong *possibility* has already been written. Please try to
>> read posts in their entirety before reply.
>
> You didn't wrote it as a mere possibility.

How does "I expect" not express a possibity?

> You wrote that the cyclist's victim was to blame because she'd been out
> on the carriageway,

The general idea is to read and try to comprehend what has been written,
not to regurtitate something that you wish had been written.

> just as if no cyclist ever hurtled along the
> footway, as a confident account of what you expected to have happened.
> You adnmitted of no other possibility than the cyclist being blameless.

What on earth are you wittering on about?

> Sensible people are well aware that the liklihood of the cyclist being
> blameless and the elderly victim blameworthy (which is what you believe)
> to be very low indeed.

That paragraph is essentially correct. However, sensible people are also
well aware that drivers frequently abandon their vehicles in a way that
blocks the pavement.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 8:58:38 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

> What is a strong *possibility* has already been written. Please try to
> read posts in their entirety before reply.

+1

More details.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16207528.Pensioner_in___39_serious_condition__39__following_collision_with_cyclist/#comments-anchor

QUOTE:

Those cyclists are becoming a pain in the ar*e same as folk with extending dog leads! To*sers. thats what i think anyhow..........

Last Updated: 7th May 12:20 am
6
HelmshoreMan2010 5th May 5:41 pm


Do you know what happened? You really should contact the police if you are a witness.

++++++++++++++++If you aren't a witness you should keep your opinionated gob shut as anything could have happened here so speculating serves no purpose.++++++++++++++++ EMPHASIS MINE.


AND!

+++++++++++++++++++Hold on the cyclist it says was on the road. Should it not be up to the pedestrian to see if it's safe to walk into the road. Just asking. Oh and by the way I am not a cyclist.++++++++++++++++++++

[swldx...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 8:01:26 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

>
> That paragraph is essentially correct. However, sensible people are also
> well aware that drivers frequently abandon their vehicles in a way that
> blocks the pavement.

Indeed.

QUOTE:

Drivers on the pavement kill +++++ten times++++++ 10TIMES! as many people every year as cyclists do in all circumstances. It was a driver on the pavement who killed the four year old girl in Liverpool. Drivers use the pavement for their convenience. The price we pay is children crushed to death under their wheel.

Our old friends the ABD are at it again.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/car-drivers-say-parking-pavement-226403

[TMS320]

I should add, if the part in brackets is removed. What makes you think
you know what I believe? I recently related an event about a pedestrian
that had to step back and *you* defended the driver.

[JNugent]

I know it is. You didn't need to tell me that.

> However, sensible people are also
> well aware that drivers frequently abandon their vehicles in a way that
> blocks the pavement.

I don't know about "frequently" (that just sounds like more of your
sociopathic hyperbole), but even so, so what?

There isn't the slightest evidence to suggest that the elderly victim of
the cyclist was walking in the middle of the road or that she had any
reason to do so.

But everyone knows that cyclists (well, many of them, and that probably
means most) regard themselves as entitled to hurtle along footways.

[JNugent]

On 08/05/2018 23:51, TMS320 wrote:

> On 08/05/18 20:01, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 08/05/18 14:05, JNugent wrote:

>>> Sensible people are well aware that the liklihood of the cyclist
>>> being blameless and the elderly victim blameworthy (which is what you
>>> believe) to be very low indeed.

>> That paragraph is essentially correct.

> I should add, if the part in brackets is removed. What makes you think
> you know what I believe?

You betray your beliefs every time you post.

You could not care less about pedestrians. Whenever a cyclist kills or
injures a pedestrian, it's always the victim's fault as far as you are
concerned. There are no lengths, no extensions of illogical thought, to
which you will not descend in order to suggest - almost always, as in
the instant case, without evidence and in the face of the experience of
peope with eyes to see - that the cyclist was entirely innocent and that
the big bad 90-yr-old woman (or whoever) was, must have, been to blame.

> I recently related an event about a pedestrian
> that had to step back and *you* defended the driver.

Straightforward experience. I have stepped out in front of traffic
myself and then realised my mistake. I have seen lots of silly people
push prams off footways into the carriageway even as traffic is
approaching. You have seen it too.

[TMS320]

On 09/05/18 01:54, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/05/2018 23:51, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 08/05/18 20:01, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 08/05/18 14:05, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> Sensible people are well aware that the liklihood of the cyclist
>>>> being blameless and the elderly victim blameworthy (which is what
>>>> you believe) to be very low indeed.
>
>>> That paragraph is essentially correct.
>
>> I should add, if the part in brackets is removed. What makes you think
>> you know what I believe?
>
> You betray your beliefs every time you post.
>
> You could not care less about pedestrians. Whenever a cyclist kills or
> injures a pedestrian, it's always the victim's fault as far as you are
> concerned.

Oh? Obviously you can quote anything of mine to support that view. Have
you heard of something known as libel?

>> I recently related an event about a pedestrian that had to step back
>> and *you* defended the driver.
>
> Straightforward experience. I have stepped out in front of traffic
> myself and then realised my mistake.

Let's all hope that one day it will be too late when you realise your

mistake.

> I have seen lots of silly people
> push prams off footways into the carriageway even as traffic is
> approaching. You have seen it too.

Moron. It was about a driver coming out of a driveway.

[TMS320]

You also give much away when you describe them as "silly".