Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had 'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Mr Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel track bicycle with no front brake,
which is illegal on British roads.

He allegedly shouted to her to "get out of the way" twice before their heads
smashed together.

What an arrogant wanker this piece of shit really is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/14/cyclist-killed-pedestrian-high-speed-crash-said-people-had-zero/

[MrCheerful]

By his own admission he had 60 feet (at least) to stop, slow down or
swerve, before hitting her. Remarkable that he stayed for the Police,
perhaps he was stunned. How he can be denying manslaughter is beyond
explanation, he caused her death, regardless of any other factors.

[Simon Jester]

Did you or did you not claim it takes 37 metres to stop a bicycle from 20mph?

[JNugent]

Does it take thirty seven meters to slow down or change direction?

[JNugent]

ERRATUM:

metres

[Peter Keller]

Totally agree.
It is people like him who give bicyclists a bad name, including those
who stop at red lights, let pedestrians go first at pedestrian
crossings, don't ride on footpaths except at low speed (max 5mph) for
safety reasons, etc ---

[Peter Keller]

The bike had no front brake.

[Judith]

Now come on : he was only doing twenty miles an hour : and we know that the
average cyclist can stop in a shorter distance than a car at that speed.

I think the accident came about because the pedestrian was not paying enough
attention and did not know that cyclists always have the right of way.

[Simon Jester]

Ask the 'experts' [1] who claim it takes a bicycle exactly 37 metres to stop from 20mph in all circumstances.

[1] You will have to ask Mr Friendless who these 'experts' are.

[Simon Jester]

Was the pedestrian wearing a helmet?
If not, why not?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Look you lump of shit. The thing on the illegal bicycle killed a pedestrian
and the above is the best that you can come out with.
You disgust me.

[JNugent]

No point in asking you, then?

[Simon Jester]

So you agree the victim was not to blame when the pedestrian, on her phone, walked in to the road in front of him.

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 6:28:45 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Simon Jester wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 5:15:52 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
> > wrote:
> >> Mr Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel track bicycle with no
> >> front brake, which is illegal on British roads.
> >>
> >> He allegedly shouted to her to "get out of the way" twice before
> >> their heads smashed together.
> >>
> >> What an arrogant wanker this piece of shit really is.
> >>
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/14/cyclist-killed-pedestrian-high-speed-crash-said-people-had-zero/
> >
> > Was the pedestrian wearing a helmet?
> > If not, why not?
>
> Look you lump of shit.

And lost the argument.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

I've put my text back. The text you snipped, you little snowflake who has a
job "working" behind a desk.
Now, please show us what argument I've lost and just where I was arguing.
Please do that.

[Simon Jester]

You resorted to childish name calling which means you have nothing coherent to contribute.
I am prepared to debate this issue on an adult basis.

[Bod]

That'll be a challenge with Mr Pounder, he only knows childish abusive
language.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Awww, did I call you a nasty name then?
Poor little snowflake cyclist, I've hurt your feelings and now you are all
upset. Do you wear pink lycra?
Care to answer my question?
Here it is again for you:

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

I've *again* asked the little snowflake to answer my question.
He is not very bright. Neither are you.
Taking the piss out of dim witted cyclists is fun. Surely you must agree?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

He's also wrong. It is not illegal to have no brake on your bicycle. There are no rules governing bicycle state of repair. I rode a bike with no brakes at all for a year once, I just used my feet to stop, until I realised I was getting through shoes rather quickly.

--
Women have large buttocks because they need airbags behind them. They're shit at reversing.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Almost as fun as taking the piss out of you.

--
Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Did you even read the report Hucker?

"Mr Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel track bicycle with no front
brake, which is illegal on British roads".

You really are a stupid unemployable pikey.
Please kill yourself, you know that it is the right thing to do.
BTW, somebody said that the dropbox pic of your degree is fake. This makes
all the sense in the world as you always were a cheating lying little fuck
all. And always will be.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:41:25 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> I've *again* asked the little snowflake to answer my question.
>> He is not very bright. Neither are you.
>> Taking the piss out of dim witted cyclists is fun. Surely you must agree?
>
> Almost as fun as taking the piss out of you.

Says, of course, the most pissed on loser of all the UK groups! LOL

--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic
"life":
"When I were a lad, I was a vegetarian and my friend wasn't. But I broke
the necks of the rabbits we caught and he couldn't bring himself to. Yet he
would eat the result and I wouldn't. Very odd."
MID: <op.y3834...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:41:07 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> That'll be a challenge with Mr Pounder, he only knows childish abusive
>> language.
>
> He's also wrong. It is not illegal to have no brake on your bicycle.
> There are no rules governing bicycle state of repair. I rode a bike with
> no brakes at all for a year once, I just used my feet to stop, until I
> realised I was getting through shoes rather quickly.

And Birdbrain, the village idiot of all the UK groups, shows again what the
matter is with him! LOL

--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic world:
"Oh come on, wars are fun!"
MID: <op.y4pq7...@red.lan>

[MrCheerful]

the need for braking on bicycles is legally written here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1176/pdfs/uksi_19831176_en.pdf

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Stupid Hucker thinks that he is above the law. This is why he is a 43 year
old (cyclist) benefit claiming delivery boy driving a lump of shit, no
money, no woman, no hot running water, no future, 11 cats, several parrots
and can't afford to buy disinfectant.
The nation does not need such trash and I have told him that the best thing
to do is to kill himself. But, he signs on tomorrow at 10am. So hopefully it
will be next week when he takes his worthless life.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

There are no such rules for bicycles. Cars require an MOT, bicycles do not.

> You really are a stupid unemployable pikey.
> Please kill yourself, you know that it is the right thing to do.

I'd rather take your life than mine. Meet you in Carlisle.

> BTW, somebody said that the dropbox pic of your degree is fake. This makes
> all the sense in the world as you always were a cheating lying little fuck
> all. And always will be.

It is not fake. But I admit a degree is a pointless thing to have.

--
Landing: A controlled mid-air collision with a planet.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Funny how the police don't do safety checks on them, yet they do on cars. Funny how my car needs a yearly MOT, yet my bike does not.

What you need to learn is there are some laws that are just words on paper, they mean fuck all in real life.

--
A worried father confronted his daughter one night.
"I don't like that new boyfriend, he's rough and common and bloody stupid with it."
"Oh no, Daddy," the daughter replied, "Fred's ever so clever, we've only been going out nine weeks and he's cured me of that illness I used to get once a month."

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Everybody is. Most people break laws every day.

> This is why he is a 43 year
> old

At least count my age correctly. Your clock is fast.

> (cyclist)

I use my bicycle about three times a year, mainly offroad, and when I do use roads, I go on the pavement and don't obstruct traffic.

> benefit claiming

Your own stupid fault if you don't take what's available.

> delivery boy

Easy job with flexible hours, so why not?

> driving a lump of shit,

4 grand car actually.

> no money,

You are really pathetic if that's how you measure your life.

By the way, you live in a semi detached house. You are retired and still only own half a building between the two of you. How pathetic is that?

> no woman,

Your life is controlled by your wife, mine is not.

> no hot running water,

I have hot water where I need it.

> no future,

You live in a semi detached house and you're much older than me. You are retired and still only own half a building between the two of you. How pathetic is that?

> 11 cats,

Funny, it was 15 when you made the complaint. The real number is 6. Get your facts straight. I told them to fine you but they couldn't be bothered.

> several parrots

3.

> and can't afford to buy disinfectant.

You are too scared to use a toilet brush. It's you that's odd.

> The nation does not need such trash and I have told him that the best thing
> to do is to kill himself. But, he signs on tomorrow at 10am.

No, I'm asleep at 10am.

> So hopefully it will be next week when he takes his worthless life.

It won't be mine I take. I know where you live.

--
Our parents got divorced when we were kids and it was kind of cool.

We got to go to divorce court with them. It was like a game show. My mom won the house and car. We're all excited. My dad got some luggage.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:15:28 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH the sick idiot's sick BLATHER>

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) about toddlers:
"There's this thing called evolution where the thick little bastards do
stupid stuff and die, leaving the rest of the population smarter. Protect
the idiots, and you fuck up the next generation."
MID: <op.y0ho3...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:10:08 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

In fact, they occasionally do, you braindead sociopathic braindamaged idiot!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) life as a wanker:
"When I was 14, there were places in forests where people would leave
magazines for anyone to use."
MID: <op.y3mmy...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:09:05 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>>> He's also wrong. It is not illegal to have no brake on your bicycle.
>>> There are no rules governing bicycle state of repair. I rode a bike
>>> with no brakes at all for a year once, I just used my feet to stop,
>>> until I realised I was getting through shoes rather quickly.
>>
>> Did you even read the report Hucker?
>>
>> "Mr Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel track bicycle with no front
>> brake, which is illegal on British roads".
>
> There are no such rules for bicycles.

It's ILLEGAL do ride a bicycle with no brakes and lights on public roads,
you abnormal abysmally stupid sociopathic cunt!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "wisdom":
"Look at a donkey with a 2 foot penis. Does it require underwear? No."
MID: <op.yq5fr...@red.lan>

[JNugent]

You denigrate the deceased victim of that turd cyclist and really expect
to be taken seriously?

Do you "think" that to be clever?

[JNugent]

Do you really believe that?

You are prepared to debate only in playground terms (eg, referring to
the killer cyclist as the victim and referring to the victim as the
pedestrian")..

[JNugent]

To be fair to him, many cyclists confidently believe that they are above
the law.

But credit where credit is due, so far, of all the regulars here, only
Jester has had the temerity to attack the victim and defend the killer.
The others have more or less stuck to a respectful silence.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I hadn't read the article yet, but now I have. So this pedestrian just walked in front of him did she? So he didn't avoid the accident, so what? She caused it.

--
63% of men have had sex in the shower.
The other 37% have never been to prison.

[TMS320]

On 16/08/17 01:37, JNugent wrote:

> To be fair to him, many cyclists confidently believe that they are above
> the law.

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

Have you managed to find a law stipulating the walking of bicycles yet?

[JNugent]

No-one ever claimed that such a law exists. You're being even dafter
than usual, aren't you?

Will a law forbidding the riding of bicycles (or the use of any other
carriage) in certain places and in certain circumstances, suffice?

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:28:29 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:

> Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 5:15:52 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
>> wrote:
>>> Mr Alliston had been riding a fixed wheel track bicycle with no
>>> front brake, which is illegal on British roads.
>>>
>>> He allegedly shouted to her to "get out of the way" twice before
>>> their heads smashed together.
>>>
>>> What an arrogant wanker this piece of shit really is.
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/14/cyclist-killed-pedestrian-high-speed-crash-said-people-had-zero/
>>
>> Was the pedestrian wearing a helmet?
>> If not, why not?
>

> Look you lump of shit. The thing on the illegal bicycle killed a pedestrian
> and the above is the best that you can come out with.
> You disgust me.

All cyclists disgust you. All of the time. You're just like a Daily Mail reader; you keep coming back for more things to be outraged about. "Rational thought" pah.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[TMS320]

On 16/08/17 12:47, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/08/2017 09:26, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 16/08/17 01:37, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair to him, many cyclists confidently believe that they are
>>> above the law.
>>
>> Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
>>
>> Have you managed to find a law stipulating the walking of bicycles yet?
>
> No-one ever claimed that such a law exists. You're being even dafter
> than usual, aren't you?

Your amnesia is getting the better of you again:

On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:
> You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
> assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than what
> it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that cyclists
> can't dismount (and obey the law) because they are disabled in some
> way.

Are you sure you don't want instruction on changing your Thunderbird
settings?

> Will a law forbidding the riding of bicycles (or the use of any other
> carriage) in certain places and in certain circumstances, suffice?

It might.


I found another good quote:

Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and
get used to the idea.

[JNugent]

On 16/08/2017 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
> On 16/08/17 12:47, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/08/2017 09:26, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 16/08/17 01:37, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be fair to him, many cyclists confidently believe that they are
>>>> above the law.
>>>
>>> Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
>>>
>>> Have you managed to find a law stipulating the walking of bicycles yet?
>>
>> No-one ever claimed that such a law exists. You're being even dafter
>> than usual, aren't you?
>
> Your amnesia is getting the better of you again:
>
> On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:
> > You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
> > assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than what
> > it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that cyclists
> > can't dismount (and obey the law) because they are disabled in some
> > way.

That was only because you had claimed that there is no practical
difference between riding a bicycle where that is not allowed (illegal)
and pushing it on foot (legal, as long as pedestrians are allowed to use
the route in question).

I asked you why a cyclist would choose the illegal and anti-social
option when the lawful one is of the same utility to him.

Assuming that you are right about there being no difference, it would
seem that the only feasible answer is that cyclists are childishly
rebellious and determined not to respect the rights of others.

> Are you sure you don't want instruction on changing your Thunderbird
> settings?

If I ever wanted that, I would seek it from someone knowledgeable on the
subject.

So, no thanks.

>> Will a law forbidding the riding of bicycles (or the use of any other
>> carriage) in certain places and in certain circumstances, suffice?
>
> It might.

Good.

So see Mr Cheerful's response to that question, some days ago.

> I found another good quote:
>
> Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and
> get used to the idea.

Here's another (from someone called Rod Liddle):

"Cyclists are a menace to society — and self-righteous to boot.
You are just pedalling, you plastic-hatted ninnies, not saving the
bloody planet."

I bet the Spectator insisted on "ninnies" rather than the word in the draft.

[JNugent]

Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London for
manslaughter?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Aww, the guy is a little snowflake who rides a kids toy. He gets very upset
very easily.
I've long suspected that he is a bit of a Ginger.

[Bod]

The point being, that Mr Pounder is a miserable sod who hates nearly
everything. The list includes, but not comprehensive:
Australians
Council tenants
Cyclists
Southerners
Several of his neighbours
Cats
He is also a rabid racist

By complete contrast, I do not hate anything or anyone.
Hate affects the person who hates.

[JNugent]

[Nick]

On 16/08/2017 17:33, Bod wrote:

> The point being, that Mr Pounder is a miserable sod who hates nearly
> everything. The list includes, but not comprehensive:
> Australians
> Council tenants
> Cyclists
> Southerners
> Several of his neighbours
> Cats
> He is also a rabid racist
>
> By complete contrast, I do not hate anything or anyone.
> Hate affects the person who hates.

I was amused to see him complaining that his neighbour has turned a
little cantankerous to him lately. I did want to ask if that was before
or after threatening to kill the guy's cat, but it was in ulm so I
behaved myself and didn't.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Says the drug addict caravan dweller.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

He claims he HAS killed the cat. With antifreeze I think.

--
My wife doesn't surf the net, she paddles.

[Bod]

>>> Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
>>> during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London
>>> for manslaughter?
>> >
>> The point being, that Mr Pounder is a miserable sod who hates nearly
>> everything. The list includes, but not comprehensive:
>> Australians
>> Council tenants
>> Cyclists
>> Southerners
>> Several of his neighbours
>> Cats
>> He is also a rabid racist
>>
>> By complete contrast, I do not hate anything or anyone.
>> Hate affects the person who hates.
>
> Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
> during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London for
> manslaughter?
>

Disgusted? yes, but what puzzles me is that there are about three of you
obssessed with targetting the misdemeaners of cyclists, when other
vehicles drivers do equally heinous crimes.
Hit and run drivers are regularly in the papers, as are many drunk drivers.
What about a bit of balance!

I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in all
of my years of driving and cycling. The odd twat and inconsiderate
driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from low
life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

To be honest the only things cyclists do wrong around here are:

1) Dress up like they're in the Tour de France.
2) Cycle along a road with a queue of 10 cars behind them when they could be on the pavement out of our way.

They don't seem to have cameras, judging by having had zero complaints by the police for me overtaking them with a 6 inch gap.

--
I've been charged with murder for killing a man with sandpaper. To be honest I only intended to rough him up a bit.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Bod wrote:
>>>> Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
>>>> during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London
>>>> for manslaughter?
>>> >
>>> The point being, that Mr Pounder is a miserable sod who hates nearly
>>> everything. The list includes, but not comprehensive:
>>> Australians
>>> Council tenants
>>> Cyclists
>>> Southerners
>>> Several of his neighbours
>>> Cats
>>> He is also a rabid racist
>>>
>>> By complete contrast, I do not hate anything or anyone.
>>> Hate affects the person who hates.
>>
>> Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
>> during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London
>> for manslaughter?
>>
> Disgusted? yes, but what puzzles me is that there are about three of
> you obssessed with targetting the misdemeaners of cyclists, when other
> vehicles drivers do equally heinous crimes.
> Hit and run drivers are regularly in the papers, as are many drunk
> drivers. What about a bit of balance!

This is a cycling group, bollock brains.
You post driving comments to a driving group, bollock brains.

[Nick]

On 16/08/2017 18:20, Bod wrote:

> I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in all
> of my years of driving and cycling. The odd twat and inconsiderate
> driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from low
> life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.

Not really. I mainly work close to old street where this crash happened.
I have never had any bad experiences with cyclists.

I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a dangerous
bike. However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted a motorist or
bus driver even if they were behaving far more dangerously.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

I was not complaining, I was asking about paint seeping through into the
neighbours side of the fence. I suggest that you read the thread again.
As for the cats, wrong neighbour.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

But allegedly I single handedly "destroyed" that group.

--
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

What was he doing that was dangerous? The story doesn't say much, but I assume the stupid pedestrian crossed without looking, in which case it's ENTIRELY her fault.

--
I never would have married you if I knew how stupid you were!" shouted the woman to her husband.
The husband replied, "You should've known how stupid I was the minute I asked you to marry me!"

[Bod]

Which just goes to show that the three or four main cyclist haters in
this group are saddos who scan newspapers daily, cherrypicking badly
behaving cyclists with glee. They are sad people.
Never do they write about the countless good cyclists which well overide
the bad contingent.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

"Good cyclists"? Do they cycle around looking for old ladies to help cross the road?

--
Money can't buy you true love.
It does however put you in a good bargaining position.

[Bod]

No, but most would help someone in distress. I would and have done.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

And you would also have done if you were driving a car. Cyclists are not more good than anyone else.

--
101 Dalmatians and Peter Pan are the only two Disney animated features in which both the parents are present and don't die throughout the movie.

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:28:24 +0100
Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 16/08/2017 18:20, Bod wrote:
>
> > I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in
> > all of my years of driving and cycling. The odd twat and
> > inconsiderate driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil
> > cyclists derive from low life areas and large towns, which I rarely
> > travel in.
>
> Not really. I mainly work close to old street where this crash
> happened. I have never had any bad experiences with cyclists.
>
> I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a
> dangerous bike.

Indeed - people who purposely impair the safety performance of their
bikes for hipness value are total saddos who should be stamped on. The
other category of two-wheeled menace that is increasingly evident is
those who ride illegal overpowered "electrically assisted pedal cycles"
which legally constitute unregistered untaxed uninsured motorcycles. I'm
not aware of any serious accidents involving these bikes, but it's only
a matter of time.

> However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted
> a motorist or bus driver even if they were behaving far more
> dangerously.

Even if they had time to sound their horn several times, and had
purposely disconnected their front brakes? I think the accident
investigator would just look for the skid marks, and finding none
would check the vehicle for defects.

[Bod]

Agreed.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:29:09 +0100, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:28:24 +0100
> Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 16/08/2017 18:20, Bod wrote:
>>
>> > I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in
>> > all of my years of driving and cycling. The odd twat and
>> > inconsiderate driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil
>> > cyclists derive from low life areas and large towns, which I rarely
>> > travel in.
>>
>> Not really. I mainly work close to old street where this crash
>> happened. I have never had any bad experiences with cyclists.
>>
>> I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a
>> dangerous bike.
>
> Indeed - people who purposely impair the safety performance of their
> bikes for hipness value are total saddos who should be stamped on. The
> other category of two-wheeled menace that is increasingly evident is
> those who ride illegal overpowered "electrically assisted pedal cycles"
> which legally constitute unregistered untaxed uninsured motorcycles. I'm
> not aware of any serious accidents involving these bikes, but it's only
> a matter of time.

State the speed of these things. State the speed of a normal bicycle. State the speed of a motorbike. Rethink your fucked up argument.

>> However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted
>> a motorist or bus driver even if they were behaving far more
>> dangerously.
>
> Even if they had time to sound their horn several times, and had
> purposely disconnected their front brakes? I think the accident
> investigator would just look for the skid marks, and finding none
> would check the vehicle for defects.

Why should a driver or cyclist have to skid if the pedestrian didn't bother using the green cross code? Ever heard of "Darwin Awards"?

BTW, ABS equipped vehicles (almost every one nowadays) don't skid.

--
In the UK, 90% of things are prohibited. The other 10% are compulsory.

[MrCheerful]

On 16/08/2017 19:29, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:28:24 +0100
> Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 16/08/2017 18:20, Bod wrote:
>>
>>> I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in
>>> all of my years of driving and cycling. The odd twat and
>>> inconsiderate driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil
>>> cyclists derive from low life areas and large towns, which I rarely
>>> travel in.
>>
>> Not really. I mainly work close to old street where this crash
>> happened. I have never had any bad experiences with cyclists.
>>
>> I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a
>> dangerous bike.
>
> Indeed - people who purposely impair the safety performance of their
> bikes for hipness value are total saddos who should be stamped on. The
> other category of two-wheeled menace that is increasingly evident is
> those who ride illegal overpowered "electrically assisted pedal cycles"
> which legally constitute unregistered untaxed uninsured motorcycles. I'm
> not aware of any serious accidents involving these bikes, but it's only
> a matter of time.
>

I saw a bicycle making a lot of noise the other day, it had a small
engine added in, that is definitely an illegal unregistered motorcycle.
But where was a Policeman when you need him?

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:23:19 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


>
> To be honest

To be honest you are a filthy attention starved idiot and troll, Hucker!

--
JoeyDee to Birdbrain
"I apologize for thinking you were a jerk. You're just someone with an IQ
lower than your age, and I accept that as a reason for your comments."
MID: <0001HW.1EE2D20300...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:30:54 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>>> Disgusted? yes, but what puzzles me is that there are about three of
>>> you obssessed with targetting the misdemeaners of cyclists, when other
>>> vehicles drivers do equally heinous crimes.
>>> Hit and run drivers are regularly in the papers, as are many drunk
>>> drivers. What about a bit of balance!
>>
>> This is a cycling group, bollock brains.
>> You post driving comments to a driving group, bollock brains.
>
> But allegedly I single handedly "destroyed" that group.

It has never fully recovered after your love affair with the filthiest
trolls, you fucked up idiotic attention whore!

--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic
"life":
"When I were a lad, I was a vegetarian and my friend wasn't. But I broke
the necks of the rabbits we caught and he couldn't bring himself to. Yet he
would eat the result and I wouldn't. Very odd."
MID: <op.y3834...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:37:46 +0100, Bod wrote:

>> Not really. I mainly work close to old street where this crash happened.
>> I have never had any bad experiences with cyclists.
>>
>> I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a dangerous
>> bike. However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted a motorist or
>> bus driver even if they were behaving far more dangerously.
> >
> Which just goes to show that the three or four main cyclist haters in
> this group are saddos who scan newspapers daily, cherrypicking badly
> behaving cyclists with glee. They are sad people.
> Never do they write about the countless good cyclists which well overide
> the bad contingent.

Well, you are doing exactly the same thing in alt.repair trying to find any
idiotic articles against the Americans there.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:33:42 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>>> I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in all
>>> of my years of driving and cycling. The odd twat and inconsiderate
>>> driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from low
>>> life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.
>>
>> Not really. I mainly work close to old street where this crash happened.
>> I have never had any bad experiences with cyclists.
>>
>> I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a dangerous
>> bike. However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted a motorist or
>> bus driver even if they were behaving far more dangerously.
>
> What was he doing that was dangerous?

Driving WITHOUT a front brake is ILLEGAL, retard! How often do you still
need to be told?

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
"thinking":
"I class one human (not an immigrunt, a proper human) as worth the same as
any other. Of course relatives rate higher, but any two strangers are the
same, no matter what age. Unless they're under about 2 years old, then I
don't care at all. I'd put abortion right up to 2 years after birth."
MID: <op.y1zxe...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:54:39 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> Which just goes to show that the three or four main cyclist haters in
>> this group are saddos who scan newspapers daily, cherrypicking badly
>> behaving cyclists with glee. They are sad people.
>> Never do they write about the countless good cyclists which well overide
>> the bad contingent.
>
> "Good cyclists"? Do they cycle around looking for old ladies to help cross the road?

Idiot!

--
Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") about himself:
"My IQ is superiour to that of most people".
"I am inferior in some ways but superior in other ways".
"I admit I should not have been born".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:18:24 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> No, but most would help someone in distress. I would and have done.
>
> And you would also have done if you were driving a car. Cyclists are
> not more good than anyone else.

FINALLY Birdbrain has an occasion to revel in his well-known idiotic DRIVEL!
<BG>

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange world:
"Around here they like to run in front of cars for a laugh. For some reason
they're surprised when I accelerate."
MID: <op.yae83...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:18:57 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> I was amused to see him complaining that his neighbour has turned a
>> little cantankerous to him lately. I did want to ask if that was before
>> or after threatening to kill the guy's cat, but it was in ulm so I
>> behaved myself and didn't.
>

> I think.

There's the snag again, poor retard!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "wisdom":
"Look at a donkey with a 2 foot penis. Does it require underwear? No."
MID: <op.yq5fr...@red.lan>

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Why don't you get a life? Who cares if he speeded it up a bit?

--
The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlamp of the oncoming train.

[JNugent]

On 16/08/2017 18:20, Bod wrote:
>

>>>> Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
>>>> during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London
>>>> for manslaughter?
>>> >
>>> The point being, that Mr Pounder is a miserable sod who hates nearly
>>> everything. The list includes, but not comprehensive:
>>> Australians
>>> Council tenants
>>> Cyclists
>>> Southerners
>>> Several of his neighbours
>>> Cats
>>> He is also a rabid racist
>>>
>>> By complete contrast, I do not hate anything or anyone.
>>> Hate affects the person who hates.
>>
>> Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
>> during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London for
>> manslaughter?
>>
> Disgusted? yes, but what puzzles me is that there are about three of you
> obssessed with targetting the misdemeaners of cyclists, when other
> vehicles drivers do equally heinous crimes.
> Hit and run drivers are regularly in the papers, as are many drunk drivers.
> What about a bit of balance!

What has that to do with anything at all?

If there were a report of a murder conviction in the media, would we all
(including you) be prevented from criticising the perp on the basis that
Harold Shipman's victims are numbered in three figures?

> I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in all
> of my years of driving and cycling.

But the unfortunate victim in Old Street *did*.

> The odd twat and inconsiderate
> driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from low
> life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.

You're more or less on the same page as I am, apart from the fact that I
do regularly (if not exactly frequently these days) visit London and a
few other UK cities.

Not,though, that you have to be in a city to see bad behaviour by
cyclists. There are cyclists who travel - at speed - along the footway
running past the end of my driveway. That footway (the pavement if you
prefer) is about a metre wide (and is not a shared path or any other
such nonsense). We are entitled, whether emerging from the property on
foot or in a vehicle, not to be borne down on by someone doing 20mph+
along that pavement. IOW, only pedestrians are supposed to travel on the
footway.

[JNugent]

On 16/08/2017 18:28, Nick wrote:

Are you really asserting that the police would not prosecute a driver
who ran down and killed a pedestrian in Old Street? And behaved like
that cyclists immediately before the collision and as he did after it?
And then posted on the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault?

Seriously?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Mr Cheerful is quite correct. He is a very clever successful man, whereas
you are not and never will be. You will always be a signing on the dole
delivery boy ......... sniggers.
Oh hang on, here are some of bollock brains Hucker's "brain" waves.

> "I don't give a shit about the law".
> "Fuck the law".
> "It's only illegal is you get caught".
> "Something being illegal does not matter".
> "The law is irrelevant".
"I like driving fast and scaring people".
"Careful drivers tend to get in my way".
"If the guy behind me has his lights on too bright. I let him past
> then tailgate him with my full beam on until he switches his off".
>

I've saved the best until last:
"I can only predict two minutes into the future".

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:34:16 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH the inevitable sociopathic DRIVEL>

--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
world:
"I get told by my dentist to floss. I don't. I can't understand how to do
it. You can't get your hand inside your mouth to pull on the other end. I
also always manage to make the floss jump down and cut my gum to bits."
MID: <op.y1y0s...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 20:16:42 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> I saw a bicycle making a lot of noise the other day, it had a small
>> engine added in, that is definitely an illegal unregistered motorcycle.
>> But where was a Policeman when you need him?
>
> Why don't you get a life? Who cares if he speeded it up a bit?

Why don't you just shut your stupid gob, you filthy attention whore? Don't
you have ANYONE to talk to in real life?

--
Pelican to Birdbrain Macaw:
"Ok. I'm persuaded . You are an idiot."
MID: <obru31$nao$3...@dont-email.me>

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Whoosh!

>> I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in all
>> of my years of driving and cycling.
>
> But the unfortunate victim in Old Street *did*.

One.

>> The odd twat and inconsiderate
>> driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from low
>> life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.
>
> You're more or less on the same page as I am, apart from the fact that I
> do regularly (if not exactly frequently these days) visit London and a
> few other UK cities.
>
> Not,though, that you have to be in a city to see bad behaviour by
> cyclists. There are cyclists who travel - at speed - along the footway
> running past the end of my driveway. That footway (the pavement if you
> prefer) is about a metre wide (and is not a shared path or any other
> such nonsense). We are entitled, whether emerging from the property on
> foot or in a vehicle, not to be borne down on by someone doing 20mph+
> along that pavement. IOW, only pedestrians are supposed to travel on the
> footway.

Don't be such a fool. Cyclists on roads are too slow and hold up cars. We don't want them on there. They should be on the pavement. Now, when exiting your driveway, try looking both ways. You have a neck don't you?

--
Corduroy pillows are making headlines!

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Prick.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Then state why.

> He is a very clever successful man, whereas
> you are not and never will be. You will always be a signing on the dole
> delivery boy ......... sniggers.
> Oh hang on, here are some of bollock brains Hucker's "brain" waves.
>
>> "I don't give a shit about the law".
>> "Fuck the law".
>> "It's only illegal is you get caught".
>> "Something being illegal does not matter".
>> "The law is irrelevant".

Only dimwits like you need to live by rules. Are you German perhaps?

> "I like driving fast and scaring people".
> "Careful drivers tend to get in my way".
> "If the guy behind me has his lights on too bright. I let him past
>> then tailgate him with my full beam on until he switches his off".
>
> I've saved the best until last:
> "I can only predict two minutes into the future".

Just saying what I've noticed. So many times I've thought of something then it happens shortly afterwards. You have a closed mind. It's quite possible for the time dimension to bend or leak slightly.

--
Caller: "I'd like the RSPCA please".
Operator: "Where are you calling from?"
Caller: "The living room".

[James Wilkinson Sword]

If the pedestrian crossed without looking, I would hope so.

--
Isn't Disney World a people trap operated by a mouse?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Did you learn the green cross code at any point in your life?

--
Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 21:48:51 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH the poor driveling idiot's endless idiotic DRIVEL>

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) life as a wanker:
"When I was 14, there were places in forests where people would leave
magazines for anyone to use."
MID: <op.y3mmy...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 21:49:22 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>>> I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a dangerous
>>> bike. However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted a motorist or
>>> bus driver even if they were behaving far more dangerously.
>>
>> Are you really asserting that the police would not prosecute a driver
>> who ran down and killed a pedestrian in Old Street? And behaved like
>> that cyclists immediately before the collision and as he did after it?
>> And then posted on the internet that it was all the pedestrian's fault?
>>
>> Seriously?
>
> If the pedestrian crossed without looking, I would hope so.

Idiot!

--

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 21:45:55 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH sociopath's drivel>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 21:50:19 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


>>

>> Prick.
>
> Did you learn the green cross code at any point in your life?

Prick!

[TMS320]

On 16/08/17 16:08, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/08/2017 14:08, TMS320 wrote:

>> Your amnesia is getting the better of you again:
>>
>> On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:
>>> You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
>>> assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than
>>> what it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that
>>> cyclists can't dismount (and obey the law) because they are
>>> disabled in some way.
>
> That was only because you had claimed that there is no practical
> difference between riding a bicycle where that is not allowed
> (illegal) and pushing it on foot (legal, as long as pedestrians are
> allowed to use the route in question).
>
> I asked you why a cyclist would choose the illegal and anti-social
> option when the lawful one is of the same utility to him.

I did not say they have the same utility to the cyclist.

You asked about the difference between *walking and cycling*. This
is about the steady state condition of moving from one place to another.

In order to walk the bike, two state changes are required: when neither
walking or cycling are taking place; getting off the bike and later
getting back on. This is often pointless or inconvenient and for some,
as I told you, literally painful.

> Assuming that you are right about there being no difference, it would
> seem that the only feasible answer is that cyclists are childishly
> rebellious and determined not to respect the rights of others.

When I said "no difference" (to the steady state condition), there is no
difference. If it impacted on others there would be a difference. Do
stop frothing.

>>> Will a law forbidding the riding of bicycles (or the use of any
>>> other carriage) in certain places and in certain circumstances,
>>> suffice?
>>
>> It might.
>
> Good.
>
> So see Mr Cheerful's response to that question, some days ago.

You raised it, you supply the information. Mr Cheerful's reply was not
applicable.

>> I found another good quote:
>>
>> Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should
>> relax and get used to the idea.
>
> Here's another (from someone called Rod Liddle):
>
> "Cyclists are a menace to society — and self-righteous to boot. You
> are just pedalling, you plastic-hatted ninnies, not saving the bloody
> planet."
>
> I bet the Spectator insisted on "ninnies" rather than the word in the
> draft.

Who are the ones claiming that cyclists are saving the planet? Oddly
enough, it is usually by people that want to use it as an insult.

[TMS320]

On 16/08/17 18:20, Bod wrote:

> I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in all

> of my years of driving and cycling. The odd twat and inconsiderate

> driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from low
> life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.

I do a fair amount of town and city walking. For instance, in my last
London visit I walked about 12 miles; Barcelona 70 miles over 4 days;
visiting my local town could be 3 to 6 miles - plus the 6 miles between
home and town on the bike.

I would love to know how this compares to the mutterers. And how come
they regularly encounter so much that I don't?

[TMS320]

On 16/08/17 18:28, Nick wrote:

> Not really. I mainly work close to old street where this crash happened.
> I have never had any bad experiences with cyclists.
>

> I'm quite happy for the police to prosecute him for having a dangerous
> bike. However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted a motorist or
> bus driver even if they were behaving far more dangerously.

Remember the 3 bald tyres?

[TMS320]

On 16/08/17 20:45, JNugent wrote:

> We are entitled, whether emerging from the property on
> foot or in a vehicle, not to be borne down on by someone doing 20mph+

How steep is your hill? Or is this like your one inch rope?

[TMS320]

On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

> And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and
> as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all
> the pedestrian's fault?

The noise before the crash is similar to the noise often made by drivers
in an attempt to try to sweep others out of their way.

But how does the vocal and written noise made by the accused after the
event alter the mechanics of the crash?

[JNugent]

On 17/08/2017 08:48, TMS320 wrote:
> On 16/08/17 16:08, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/08/2017 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>> Your amnesia is getting the better of you again:
>>>
>>> On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:
>>>> You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
>>>> assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than
>>>> what it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that
>>>> cyclists can't dismount (and obey the law) because they are
>>>> disabled in some way.
>>
>> That was only because you had claimed that there is no practical
>> difference between riding a bicycle where that is not allowed
>> (illegal) and pushing it on foot (legal, as long as pedestrians are
>> allowed to use the route in question).
>>
>> I asked you why a cyclist would choose the illegal and anti-social
>> option when the lawful one is of the same utility to him.
>
> I did not say they have the same utility to the cyclist.

You said there was no difference.

> You asked about the difference between *walking and cycling*. This
> is about the steady state condition of moving from one place to another.

You said there was no difference.

> In order to walk the bike, two state changes are required: when neither
> walking or cycling are taking place; getting off the bike and later
> getting back on. This is often pointless or inconvenient and for some,
> as I told you, literally painful.

You said there was no difference, apart from the cases of those cyclists
who (as you claim) are too disabled to get off their bikes.

>> Assuming that you are right about there being no difference, it would
>> seem that the only feasible answer is that cyclists are childishly
>> rebellious and determined not to respect the rights of others.

> When I said "no difference" (to the steady state condition), there is no
> difference. If it impacted on others there would be a difference. Do
> stop frothing.

So there IS a difference?

And apparently, in the same time and space, no difference?

You are being as clear as you usually are.

>>>> Will a law forbidding the riding of bicycles (or the use of any
>>>> other carriage) in certain places and in certain circumstances,
>>>> suffice?

>>> It might.

>> Good.

>> So see Mr Cheerful's response to that question, some days ago.
>
> You raised it, you supply the information. Mr Cheerful's reply was not
> applicable.

I am trying to recall whether it was Mr Cheerful or another poster.
Either way, your question was answered.

>>> I found another good quote:

>>> Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should
>>> relax and get used to the idea.

>> Here's another (from someone called Rod Liddle):

>> "Cyclists are a menace to society — and self-righteous to boot. You
>> are just pedalling, you plastic-hatted ninnies, not saving the bloody
>> planet."

>> I bet the Spectator insisted on "ninnies" rather than the word in the
>> draft.

> Who are the ones claiming that cyclists are saving the planet? Oddly
> enough, it is usually by people that want to use it as an insult.

Ask Liddle?

But at least you don't disagree with the main part of what he wrote:

"Cyclists are a menace to society — and self-righteous to boot...".

[JNugent]

What hill? The house is elevated from the road (slightly), but the
street is fairly flat.

[JNugent]

It speaks to the issue of his intentions and motivation.

Remember the case (similar in some ways) where another cyclist screamed
at a group of teenagers that they should get out of his effin' way
because he was not going to stop?

[Nick]

On 16/08/2017 19:29, Rob Morley wrote:
>

>> However I very much doubt they would have prosecuted
>> a motorist or bus driver even if they were behaving far more
>> dangerously.
>

> Even if they had time to sound their horn several times, and had
> purposely disconnected their front brakes? I think the accident
> investigator would just look for the skid marks, and finding none
> would check the vehicle for defects.
>

You are making an unfair comparison. This week, whilst cycling, I have
shouted at a jogger who had run into the road with out looking. I do
this because my bike is silent and I want them to be aware I am there.
If I had been in a car they would have heard me. In this instance I
shouted "coming by" and the runner responded by shouting "thank you", he
didn't look around.

An incident I observed, whilst driving, was a pedestrian who had walked
into the middle of the road, crossing. He looked disorientated so I
stopped to allow him to complete the crossing. The car going in the
opposite direction didn't stop and when the pedestrian started to move
back across the road, the way he had come, there was a collision, no
time to brake.

I stopped and called an ambulance, whilst doing so I heard a car driver
following the driver involved in the collision console him with the
phrase "There was nothing you could have done". I though it a strange
remark given I had actually stopped as a precaution.

I was not called to give evidence I presume the police didn't take it to
trial.

Apparently when a pedestrian walks in front of a car it is their fault
when they walk in front of a bike it is the bikes fault. There is a
double standard.

[MrCheerful]

yelling 'get out of the way ' doesn't appear in the Highway Code, nor
does it give you any more 'right of way' than anyone else. stopping,
slowing, altering course as/if needed is the correct thing to do.

[JNugent]

On 17/08/2017 15:42, MrCheerful wrote:

> On 17/08/2017 14:35, Nick wrote:

[ ... ]

>> Apparently when a pedestrian walks in front of a car it is their fault
>> when they walk in front of a bike it is the bikes fault. There is a
>> double standard.

> yelling 'get out of the way ' doesn't appear in the Highway Code, nor
> does it give you any more 'right of way' than anyone else. stopping,
> slowing, altering course as/if needed is the correct thing to do.

<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/17/charlie-alliston-london-cyclist-front-brake-collision-kim-briggs-old-bailey>

EDITED HIGHLIGHTS:

(a) A former bicycle courier accused of killing a woman by knocking her
down in east London has denied being a thrill-seeker [ ... ] During
cross-examination, Duncan Penny QC, prosecuting, questioned Alliston
over a tweet he sent in February 2015 that compared cycling without a
front brake to being in a “Lucas Brunelle movie”.

Brunelle makes “alleycat” videos, in which he rides around cities
including London “doing dangerous stuff” such as weaving in and out of
traffic, narrowly avoiding pedestrians and going into bus lanes, the Old
Bailey heard.

Alliston denied copying the film-maker and enjoying taking risks. “I
wouldn’t say I drove recklessly or at any time dangerously,” he said.
“At all times I would know what I’m doing and be completely responsible
for my actions. I did not get a kick or enjoyment out of not being safe.”

(b) Alliston had taken the bike out on 12 February last year to buy food
... “I was cycling at a safe and reasonable speed personal to myself,”
Alliston told the court. “I was capable at the time of controlling it.”

Alliston said he shouted twice after spotting Briggs. Asked why he did
so, the defendant replied: “To make the pedestrian aware of my presence,
so they were aware if they were to then cross the road.”

(c) He said he directed a second shout towards Briggs and slowed down as
he approached her, while manoeuvring his bike to avoid her. “After the
collision I just jumped straight back up to my feet, turned around, saw
what happened and then went blank,” Alliston said. [ ... ] Alliston told
the court that if he had had a brake, “I wouldn’t have had enough time
to pull it. It was a few split seconds prior to the impact, which caused
the impact, so a brake at the time wouldn’t have made a difference”.

[TMS320]

In other words, your estimate of 20mph is about as far off the mark as
your one inch rope.

[TMS320]

On 17/08/17 12:27, JNugent wrote:

>> When I said "no difference" (to the steady state condition), there is no
>> difference. If it impacted on others there would be a difference. Do
>> stop frothing.
>
> So there IS a difference?

If you cleaned the froth off your screen more often it might help you
read more easily.

Yes, I have said there is no difference between cycling at walking speed
and walking.

(Assuming that cycling and walking are acts of moving across the ground.
If you know any other definition, I am willing to be corrected.)

[TMS320]

On 17/08/17 12:30, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/08/2017 10:11, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> And behaved like that cyclists immediately before the collision and
>>> as he did after it? And then posted on the internet that it was all
>>> the pedestrian's fault?
>>
>> The noise before the crash is similar to the noise often made by
>> drivers in an attempt to try to sweep others out of their way.
>>
>> But how does the vocal and written noise made by the accused after the
>> event alter the mechanics of the crash?
>
> It speaks to the issue of his intentions and motivation.

I asked about the mechanics of the crash. Would the woman be less dead?

[JNugent]

I wish you were right about one of those things.

You are right about neither of them.

As usual.