Woman killed by racing cyclist

MrCheerful

unread,

Sep 9, 2017, 7:00:19 AM9/9/17

to

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-67-who-was-critically-injured-in-crash-with-ridelondon-cyclist-dies-in-hospital-a3630906.html

Simon Jester

unread,

Sep 9, 2017, 12:23:03 PM9/9/17

to

On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 12:00:19 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-67-who-was-critically-injured-in-crash-with-ridelondon-cyclist-dies-in-hospital-a3630906.html

Clearly these

http://www.demon-tweeks.co.uk/motorsport/helmets/stilo-st5f-n-zero-carbon-helmet

Should be compulsory for all pedestrians.

JNugent

unread,

Sep 9, 2017, 4:31:28 PM9/9/17

to

On 09/09/2017 12:00, MrCheerful wrote:

> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-67-who-was-critically-injured-in-crash-with-ridelondon-cyclist-dies-in-hospital-a3630906.html

Cyclist kills pedestrian (again)?

But this *cannot* happen (we've been told that so many times here).

But still, if the cyclist had been driving a car, it would have been worse.

TMS320

unread,

Sep 11, 2017, 5:12:19 AM9/11/17

to

On 09/09/17 21:31, JNugent wrote:

> Cyclist kills pedestrian (again)?
>
> But this *cannot* happen (we've been told that so many times here).
>
> But still, if the cyclist had been driving a car, it would have been
> worse.

Yes, if the cyclist had been driving a car in such circumstances there
would have been 5 dead and 25 injured.

But we would be told the driver wasn't at fault. Like most of the 400
drivers every year that kill a pedestrian.

JNugent

unread,

Sep 14, 2017, 7:26:49 AM9/14/17

to

On 11/09/2017 10:12, TMS320 wrote:
> On 09/09/17 21:31, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Cyclist kills pedestrian (again)?
>>
>> But this *cannot* happen (we've been told that so many times here).
>>
>> But still, if the cyclist had been driving a car, it would have been
>> worse.
>
> Yes, if the cyclist had been driving a car in such circumstances there
> would have been 5 dead and 25 injured.

Even if there were only one pedestrian there?

TMS320

unread,

Sep 19, 2017, 9:29:07 AM9/19/17

to

Well, over time, the ratio is normally something like 200 to 1 but in
this case it seems the rider was taking part in a publicly sanctioned
race on a route lined with people spectating. So unless people and
pedestrians are different things, I think it is fairly safe to assume
there was more than one.

JNugent

unread,

Sep 19, 2017, 10:41:03 AM9/19/17

to

Here's the $64,000 one: why would a contestant drive a car in a bicycle
race?

TMS320

unread,

Sep 19, 2017, 12:23:26 PM9/19/17

to

Plenty of cars are driven in bicycle races. Must the driver be a contestant?

Besides, that isn't the point as you (should) know perfectly well.

JNugent

unread,

Sep 19, 2017, 8:35:21 PM9/19/17

to

What would you consider the clause "...taking part in a publicly
sanctioned race on a route..." to mean?

Supervising the race or taking part in it?

TMS320

unread,

Sep 20, 2017, 6:30:21 AM9/20/17

to

Do you really expect a response to that?

JNugent

unread,

Sep 20, 2017, 10:20:50 AM9/20/17

to

No, of course not, since the only truthful one would undermine your
imagined position.

That was sort of the point in asking you that particular question.

TMS320

unread,

Sep 21, 2017, 7:34:41 PM9/21/17

to

Your question is irrelevant to the proven fact that cars are more
dangerous than bicycles. You have obviously forgotten that that was the
subject.

JNugent

unread,

Sep 21, 2017, 8:24:37 PM9/21/17

to

So you dare not answer the question: "What would you consider the clause

"...taking part in a publicly sanctioned race on a route..." to mean?

Supervising the race or taking part in it?".

Well, we never thought you would.

And on your attempted swerve, you are, of course, s per usual, quite wrong.

That's because even a low-speed prang can prove fatal for a cyclist,
whereas due to the many safety improvements to cars and vans over the
past few decades, low-speed accidents rarely injure a car occupant. In
fact, even crashes on the motorway frequently don't cause very much
injury (unless a lorry driver is involved).

TMS320

unread,

Sep 22, 2017, 5:16:38 AM9/22/17

to

Tell me the answer you're looking for. You can then suggest why the
question is relevant to the difference between car and bicycle.

> Well, we never thought you would.
>
> And on your attempted swerve, you are, of course, s per usual, quite wrong.
>
> That's because even a low-speed prang can prove fatal for a cyclist,
> whereas due to the many safety improvements to cars and vans over the
> past few decades, low-speed accidents rarely injure a car occupant. In
> fact, even crashes on the motorway frequently don't cause very much
> injury (unless a lorry driver is involved).

The matter was about safety to others. (Since you have obviously
forgotten, scroll up to the top of this post.)