Its one of those pavement killers again!
Doug
safe from these killer drivers? No pavement cyclist could possibly
equal this.
"Woman killed in hit-and-run crash on North Circular
A woman was killed and two other people were critically injured in a
hit-and-run crash in north London in the early hours of New Year's
Day.
The 20-year-old woman and four others, also in their 20s, were hit by
a Honda car that mounted the pavement on the North Circular Road in
Palmers Green.
The woman died at the scene, a man and a woman are critically ill in
hospital and another man suffered a broken leg.
Five men in their 30s were arrested at an address in Ilford over the
crash..."
More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8437425.stm
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Norman Wells
> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? Is nowhere
> safe from these killer drivers? No pavement cyclist could possibly
> equal this.
>
> "Woman killed in hit-and-run crash on North Circular
>
> A woman was killed and two other people were critically injured in a
> hit-and-run crash in north London in the early hours of New Year's
> Day.
You're right, Doug. There ought to be a law against it.
> Five men in their 30s were arrested at an address in Ilford over the
> crash..."
Oh, it seems there is.
Tony Dragon
I think that we all should get together & lobby our MP's & parliament.
it's about time that we had a law that would prevent this sort of thing.
At that time of day they were probably pissed as well, there should be a
law against that as well.
But we know that such laws will never be made because of the dominant
motorist cabal that exists.
I'm sure that nobody on theses NG's will even condemn the motorists
involved in this ramming.
--
Tony Dragon
johannes
Doug wrote:
>
> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? Is nowhere
> safe from these killer drivers? No pavement cyclist could possibly
> equal this.
Let me hear what is your suggestion Doug?
The Medway Handyman
Oh, I wonder how they found them? It must have been the number plates.
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
JNugent
QUOTE:
Five men in their 30s were arrested at an address in Ilford over the crash..."
ENDQUOTE
At this stage, what more do you want?
JNugent
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? Is nowhere
>>> safe from these killer drivers? No pavement cyclist could possibly
>>> equal this.
>>>
>>> "Woman killed in hit-and-run crash on North Circular
>>>
>>> A woman was killed and two other people were critically injured in a
>>> hit-and-run crash in north London in the early hours of New Year's
>>> Day.
>> You're right, Doug. There ought to be a law against it.
>>
>>> Five men in their 30s were arrested at an address in Ilford over the
>>> crash..."
>> Oh, it seems there is.
>
> Oh, I wonder how they found them? It must have been the number plates.
It couldn't have been.
Apparently, they're of no use whatsoever.
Mrcheerful
he wants it to never happen again by banning all cars.
Tony Dragon
TBH as the car was abandoned the VIN would have done the job.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
He wants the driver hung from a gibbet on the nearest lamppost.
He wants the car crushed (probably with the passengers still inside)
And he wants his new law brought into force, you know the one where
everybody is profiled at birth to see if they should be allowed to drive.
Now I know that you pedants out there know such profiling could not take
place at present, but Doug will be able to tell us how it is done.
--
Tony Dragon
johannes
Remove all pavements; problem solved!
harikeo
yeah! And that'll get rid of the selfish gits who cycle on them.
johannes
They could make 'sky-walks' as they do in so American cities.
Tony Dragon
It will cut down the amount of cyclists near me, many can only cycle on
the pavement.
--
Tony Dragon
Adrian
saying:
> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? Is nowhere
> safe from these killer drivers? No pavement cyclist could possibly equal
> this.
>
> "Woman killed in hit-and-run crash on North Circular
>
> A woman was killed and two other people were critically injured in a
> hit-and-run crash in north London in the early hours of New Year's Day.
Hit & Run. Early hours of NY day.
Prace bets as to blood alcohol...?
Nightjar
> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? ...
Traffic separation schemes are the complete answer. Even pedestrian
barriers along the pavement edge would reduce the probability of any car
mounting the pavement. However, you don't like those either.
Colin Bignell
Tony Dragon
I was as sober as a judge on NY day :-)
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
punishments, would provide a partial improvement, which does not
involve the vulnerable sacrificing their rights of access to public
roads to their speedy killers.
Of course, a pavement is suppose to provide separation but it is
rendered next to useless by allowing cars on them and to cross them.
Another problem is that very little can stand in the way of a car
crashing at speed, as I often point out when they knock down house
walls. It seems incredible that these lethal weapons are allowed in
the hands of a majority of the adult population who have only to pass
one miserable test then to continue until they are 70 to put the lives
of other at risk.
Adrian
saying:
> Of course, a pavement is suppose to provide separation but it is
> rendered next to useless by allowing cars on them and to cross them.
Cars aren't "allowed" onto them, and I strongly suspect you'll find that
the fuckwit behind this particular incident wasn't "crossing" one to
enter a driveway, but was in the middle of crashing before the car
crossed the pavement.
Tony Dragon
> On 2 Jan, 16:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? ...
>> Traffic separation schemes are the complete answer. Even pedestrian
>> barriers along the pavement edge would reduce the probability of any car
>> mounting the pavement. However, you don't like those either.
>>
> I happen to think that speed reduction, coupled with harsher
> punishments, would provide a partial improvement,
Which would do no good in this case.
> which does not
> involve the vulnerable sacrificing their rights of access to public
> roads to their speedy killers.
>
> Of course, a pavement is suppose to provide separation but it is
> rendered next to useless by allowing cars on them and to cross them.
Why should you not allow cars to cross them?
> Another problem is that very little can stand in the way of a car
> crashing at speed,
Good you understand at least some physics.
> as I often point out when they knock down house
> walls.
Often?
> It seems incredible that these lethal weapons are allowed in
> the hands of a majority of the adult population who have only to pass
> one miserable test then to continue until they are 70 to put the lives
> of other at risk.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
--
Tony Dragon
R. Mark Clayton
prosecuted. Well in this case the driver almost certainly will be
prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving (or even manslaughter if
they were driving on the pavement intentionally). It is not as if pavement
cyclists haven't killed and injured pedestrians, so let's just compare
motorists and cyclists for a moment: -
Cyclists
Frequently ride on the pavement even when there are on road AND off road
cycle paths.
Their vehicles are unregistered.
Their vehicles are often poorly maintained with inadequate lights etc.
Are unlicensed.
Are usually untrained (I am, but don't now cycle).
Are usually uninsured.
Frequently ignore red lights, no entry, stop and give way signs etc.
Motorists
Rarely drive on pavements other than to park.
Their vehicles are registered.
Their vehicles generally comply with construction and use regulations and
are tested.
Are licensed.
Are trained (and must pass proficiency test (since 1935)).
Are usually insured.
Usually obey traffic regulations with the notable exception of speed limits.
Given there are about ten times as many motorists as cyclists and they
probably cover more than ten times the mileage it isn't statistically that
difficult to work out who is the greater danger. Perhaps this is why the
cyclists want the law changed so that it is always the motorist's fault when
they ride into a car...
In a classic [subjective] example, just before Xmas a cyclist decided to
undertake me while I was waiting to turn left at some lights - daft in
itself - but the cyclist then misjudged it in the snow and either skidded
and / or hit the kerb tumbling onto the pavement narrowly missing a woman
with a pram. Fortunately the cyclist was unhurt and IMO the accident was
not caused by collision with nor by the presence of my vehicle on the road -
so no formalities.
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> recycled the news in message
news:f725c7a7-36af-434e...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Riding a bicycle requires no thought whatsoever...
johannes
Something for you to look at Doug:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4266676.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7569632.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6727469.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7662899.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7460594.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4675630.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4547926.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7465127.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7459237.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7532463.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3647594.stm
SW
wrote:
>
> Given there are about ten times as many motorists as cyclists and they
> probably cover more than ten times the mileage it isn't statistically that
> difficult to work out who is the greater danger.
It's very easy to work out who is the greater danger - 3000 deaths/
year caused by motorists, how many by cyclists ?
SW
SW
A sense of proportion from people who complain about pavement
cyclists ?
SW
SW
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> >> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? Is nowhere
> >> safe from these killer drivers? No pavement cyclist could possibly
> >> equal this.
>
> >> "Woman killed in hit-and-run crash on North Circular
>
> >> A woman was killed and two other people were critically injured in a
> >> hit-and-run crash in north London in the early hours of New Year's
> >> Day.
>
> > You're right, Doug. There ought to be a law against it.
>
> >> Five men in their 30s were arrested at an address in Ilford over the
> >> crash..."
>
> > Oh, it seems there is.
>
> Oh, I wonder how they found them? It must have been the number plates.
>
This case proves the absolute necessity of registration plates for
cars. No such justification exists for registration plates for
bicycles.
SW
Simon Dean
> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements?
Yes, it's called better policing and punishment. We don't bring everyone
down to the lowest common denominator and deny peoples freedoms because
a minority of people abuse the privilege.
It's people like you that have made all men paedophiles.
Simon Dean
He doesn't want anybody to drive, because, all it takes is one slip even
for a perfect driver, or a freak malfunction and crash.
Of course there are many other things which can cause damage injury and
death, but for somereason, doug concentrates on cars - perhaps the
incidence of issues meets his own set of criteria or whether something
should be a problem or not.
Matt B
Not so fast... Where did you get the 3000 from? In 2008 there were
2,538 road deaths in total, including those where no motorist was
involved, or where the motorist carried no blame.
--
Matt B
harikeo
So people who jump red lights, knock over people on pavements and
generally flout the law shouldn't be traceable? imo anyone doing those
things should be traceable whether they're on a bike or in a car
Simon Dean
> On 2 Jan, 16:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? ...
>> Traffic separation schemes are the complete answer. Even pedestrian
>> barriers along the pavement edge would reduce the probability of any car
>> mounting the pavement. However, you don't like those either.
>>
> I happen to think that speed reduction,
To what speed? What speed would you consider optimum to promote
effective transit while maintaining safety?
Course, I don't see why Doug is limiting himself merely to cars and not
buses, planes or trains either which can also have problems due to the
operator or other malfunction.
Simon Dean
pluck figures out of the air.... how many cars compared to cyclists? how
many more miles are travelled by car as opposed to cycle?
JNugent
Benny Hill sketch, c.1983?
"Harrow, Henly...".
JNugent
But how sober *are* judges on New Year's Day?
JNugent
Why, what's the connection between the issues?
Tony Dragon
Perhaps it stems from the time he was knocked over by a car when he ran
into the road to save a dead bird.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
No idea milord.
--
Tony Dragon
webreader
If I give him the wool, will he make one for me?
WSR
The Medway Handyman
Pavement cyclists regularly terrorise & abuse innocent people.
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
The Medway Handyman
> On 2 Jan, 16:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? ...
>>
>> Traffic separation schemes are the complete answer. Even pedestrian
>> barriers along the pavement edge would reduce the probability of any
>> car mounting the pavement. However, you don't like those either.
>>
> I happen to think
Thats the problem, you don't.
The Medway Handyman
Compared to the number of motorists & the number of miles driven?
Mas...@bp.com
Nobody was killed by a pavement cyclist in 2009, so they would have to
have ridden an infinite number of miles before they killed anyone.
But you've been told that already.
--
Simon Mason
Doug
> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> considered Sat, 02 Jan
> 2010 16:45:47 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
> >Doug wrote:
> >> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? ...
>
> >Traffic separation schemes are the complete answer.
>
> except on motorways.
> It seems to be the only practical way to restrain them.> Even pedestrian
> >barriers along the pavement edge would reduce the probability of any car
> >mounting the pavement. However, you don't like those either.
>
> right to use it.
>
Also they don't prevent speeding cars from crashing onto pavements and
killing people.Their main purpose of the barriers is clearly to
prevent pedestrians accessing dangerous public roads and the
justification for this loss of their rights is their own safety.
Meanwhile killer drivers are allowed to continue to zoom by unimpeded.
Mas...@bp.com
>
> Something for you to look at Doug:
I'll look at them as well.
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4266676.stm 2005! PED KILLED IN THE ROAD
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/7569632.stm PED BROKEN LEG
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6727469.stm 2007 BROKEN HIP
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7662899.stm PED SLIGHTLY HURT IN THE ROAD
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7460594.stm GIRL INJURED BY BMX BOY AGE 15
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4675630.stm 2006 PED BROKEN WRIST
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4547926.stm 2005 PED FRACTURED HIP + LEG
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7465127.stm *SAME* INCIDENT AS NUMBER 5 ABOVE (STRUGGING NOW?)
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7459237.stm 5 YEAR OLD GIRL INJURED
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7532463.stm PED KNOCKED OVER - NO INJURY
> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3647594.stm- Hide quoted text - PED "HURT AND SHAKEN".
1 death in last 5 years and a few injuries? Is that the best you can
do?
Far more deaths and injuries just in this current cold snap!
--
Simon Mason
Doug
I wondered how many screens would be filled by their killer motorists
equivalent.
Johannes Andersen
OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.
Tony Dragon
Once again Doug proves that he does not care about safety because it's
their rights.
--
Tony Dragon
Mas...@bp.com
> Doug wrote:
>
> OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
> a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.- Hide quoted text -
One person knocked down, but two people killed here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8055178.stm
--
Simon Mason
johannes
But one incident.
Mas...@bp.com
Does the fact that say 20 people being mown down at a bus stop in a
"single incident" make it less of a tragedy than two pedestrians being
killed by two different cars?
--
Simon Mason
johannes
"Mas...@BP.com" wrote:
>
> On 3 Jan, 09:52, johannes <j...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote:
> > "Mas...@BP.com" wrote:
> >
> > > On 3 Jan, 09:24, Johannes Andersen <j...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > > OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
> > > > a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > One person knocked down, but two people killed here.
> >
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8055178.stm
> >
> > But one incident.
>
> Does the fact that say 20 people being mown down at a bus stop in a
> "single incident" make it less of a tragedy than two pedestrians being
> killed by two different cars?
No, all RTA are terrible tragedies. People should understand that their
one-upmanship games on the road are not worth it.
Car drivers are well educated by passing a driving test, but this is not
required for cyclists. Hence car drivers have generally a better
understanding of traffic. And I don't include the criminal elements with
no insurance and licence, they will do whatever. Many cyclists, like
myself, are also motorists.
Matt B
There is a subtle, and moral, difference though. In incidents involving
cycling on the footway they tend to be there by deliberately and
regardless of the law. For incidents involving motoring on the footway
they tend to be there involuntarily, following some other incident or
catastrophe.
Do we have any examples of pavement casualties resulting from motor
vehicles being _deliberately_ driven on the pavement?
Official figures show that for 2008, 9 fatal accidents had "vehicle
travelling along pavement" as a contributory factor. It doesn't say
what types of vehicle they were though.
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
> "Mas...@BP.com" wrote:
>
> > On 3 Jan, 09:52, johannes <j...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote:
> > > "Mas...@BP.com" wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Jan, 09:24, Johannes Andersen <j...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
> > > > > Doug wrote:
>
> > > > > OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
> > > > > a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > One person knocked down, but two people killed here.
>
> > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8055178.stm
>
> > > But one incident.
>
> > Does the fact that say 20 people being mown down at a bus stop in a
> > "single incident" make it less of a tragedy than two pedestrians being
> > killed by two different cars?
>
> No, all RTA are terrible tragedies. People should understand that their
> one-upmanship games on the road are not worth it.
>
> Car drivers are well educated by passing a driving test, but this is not
> required for cyclists. Hence car drivers have generally a better
> understanding of traffic.
Not always the case. I pointed out in another thread in urc that I
obtained a full motorcycle licence with no lessons whatsoever and
obtained a full car licence by having no driving school lessons
either. In contrast, I underwent 3 cycling proficiency tests
(including HC tests) by trained personnel, so if anything I had far
more intensive training for riding a bicycle on the roads than for
either a m/c or car.
By the way, I had 50, 000 miles of motorcycle road experience before I
even got behind the wheel of car. I can assure you, my "understanding
of traffic" far exceeded some 17 year old herbert with a few lessons
under his belt who passes his test first time.
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
> On 03/01/2010 09:36, Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>
> > On 3 Jan, 09:24, Johannes Andersen<j...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
>
> >> OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
> >> a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > One person knocked down, but two people killed here.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8055178.stm
>
> There is a subtle, and moral, difference though. In incidents involving
> cycling on the footway they tend to be there by deliberately and
> regardless of the law. For incidents involving motoring on the footway
> they tend to be there involuntarily, following some other incident or
> catastrophe.
>
> Do we have any examples of pavement casualties resulting from motor
> vehicles being _deliberately_ driven on the pavement?
Does that include drivers who were going too fast or were drunk?
Or does their being on a pavement count as being there
"involuntarily"?
In fact, name me some examples of how a driver can mount a pavement
that is either a) not deliberate or b) not due to driver error such as
going too fast for the conditions or being drunk?
--
Simon Mason
--
Simon Mason
Mrcheerful
what about when the driver swerves to avoid a cyclist that has just gone
straight through a red light?
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sure had such an incident ever occured, it would have been milked
for all it's worth in all sorts of places, notably on the front page
of the Daily Express, followed by a £1 a minute poll titled "is it now
time to clamp down on all cyclists?" It would then be cited for years
to come.
--
Simon Mason
JNugent
One death and a few injuries to pedestrians (among the limted selection
squoted above)...
...nothing to worry about at all, is it?
After all, what do pedestrian scum mean to a footway cyclist? They asked for
it buy getting in the way, didn't they?
> Far more deaths and injuries just in this current cold snap!
And of course, that makes anything cyclists do to pedestrians (on footways,
especially) completely legitimate, doesn't it?
As long as it isn't done to anyone you know, at least.
JNugent
Why?
And why does it matter?
Or perhaps whould we not bother enforcing the law forbidding murder because
worse things happened during WW2?
JNugent
> On 3 Jan, 09:52, johannes <j...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote:
>> "Mas...@BP.com" wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Jan, 09:24, Johannes Andersen <j...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
>>>> a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.- Hide quoted text -
>>> One person knocked down, but two people killed here.
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8055178.stm
>> But one incident.
>
> Does the fact that say 20 people being mown down at a bus stop in a
> "single incident" make it less of a tragedy than two pedestrians being
> killed by two different cars?
No, of course not.
The only people whose deaths or wellbeing really don't matter (it seems) are
pedestrians killed or injured by cycliusts.
JNugent
> I pointed out in another thread in urc that I
> obtained a full motorcycle licence with no lessons whatsoever and
> obtained a full car licence by having no driving school lessons
> either.
That was incorrect.
One cannot learn to drive (including proper control of the vehicle as well as
the Highway Code, road-lore and road-law) by instinct.
The most you can mean is that you didn't pay for your lessons.
> In contrast, I underwent 3 cycling proficiency tests
> (including HC tests) by trained personnel, so if anything I had far
> more intensive training for riding a bicycle on the roads than for
> either a m/c or car.
Hmmm...
I wonder whether you had to pay for that.
Perhaps there's a pattern visible there.
DavidR
> what about when the driver swerves to avoid a cyclist that has just gone
> straight through a red light?
... or what about a driver forced to swerve by a re-materialising Tardis?
The Medway Handyman
But according to you, any death is grounds for banning the culprit - you
have openly said so. So are we going to ban cyclists?
The Medway Handyman
How do cyclists manage to get those helmets on over their halo's?
Mas...@bp.com
> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
> > I pointed out in another thread in urc that I
> > obtained a full motorcycle licence with no lessons whatsoever and
> > obtained a full car licence by having no driving school lessons
> > either.
>
> That was incorrect.
It is 100% correct.
> One cannot learn to drive (including proper control of the vehicle as well as
> the Highway Code, road-lore and road-law) by instinct.
I think my father took the stabilisers off my bike at age 4 and had no
input in me handling that road going vehicle - that was instinct, by
and large.
Handling a motorbike at 16 was the same - no lessons at all. Passing
the m/c test was easier than passing the cycling proficiency test in
the 1970's.
No driving school lessons either for a car - I have no need to lie,
many of my friends did the same.
I remember one lad who lived on a farm and from the age of 10 or 11
drove his dad's car around his farm while his dad turned a blind eye.
This lad had just picked up how to drive a car in the same way as 11
year old twoccers do (they have had no lessons either). The farm lad
read the HC himself and passed his motorbike test (again no lessons)
and then passed his car test after no lessons.
You could not do this in this day and age, I agree 100% on that.
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
<davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> How do cyclists manage to get those helmets on over their halo's?
Helmet? What helmet?
Horrible things.
--
Simon Mason
harikeo
How many cyclists have undergone the training you have before heading out?
Mrcheerful
it was you that asked for an example of how a car driver might be forced
onto the payement involuntarily. I know I have had to take avoiding action
when a cyclist has wobbled out straight in front of me from a side road
without looking in any way. One of them I stopped and explained his fortune
, I also got to use the immortal line: He said "I have been riding for
forty years and never had an accident" My reply: "Maybe, but I'll bet you
have caused a few"
Mrcheerful
that is much less likely and is not a much repeated daily occurrence (unlike
cyclists going straight through red lights and pulling out of junctions
without looking.)
Mas...@bp.com
>
> it was you that asked for an example of how a car driver might be forced
> onto the payement involuntarily. I know I have had to take avoiding action
> when a cyclist has wobbled out straight in front of me from a side road
> without looking in any way. One of them I stopped and explained his fortune
> , I also got to use the immortal line: He said "I have been riding for
> forty years and never had an accident" My reply: "Maybe, but I'll bet you
> have caused a few"-
Sorry, I thought the thread was about "pavement killers" so I expected
it was taken as read that the incident would have been a pedestrian on
a pavement killed by a driver swerving to avoid a red light jumping
cyclist. Such a thing would be gold dust to certain newspaper readers.
--
Simon Mason
Nightjar
> On 2 Jan, 16:45, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? ...
>> barriers along the pavement edge would reduce the probability of any car
>> mounting the pavement. However, you don't like those either.
>>
> punishments, would provide a partial improvement,
Have you not realised that the majority of these cases involve people
who are already breaking the law in some way - being under the influence
of drink and / or drugs and / or driving a stolen vehicle? People who
ignore one law are not very likely to take notice of another.
...
> Another problem is that very little can stand in the way of a car
> crashing at speed, as I often point out when they knock down house
> walls.
Brick walls are not particularly strong when subjected to a horizontal
impact load. They are designed to take vertical static loads. Steel
pedestrian barriers are far more resiliant, especially if the impact is
the sort of glancing blow that a car mounting the pavement while
travelling along the road is likely to impart.
Colin Bignell
Nightjar
> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> considered Sat, 02 Jan
> 2010 16:45:47 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? ...
>> Traffic separation schemes are the complete answer.
>
> except on motorways.
> It seems to be the only practical way to restrain them.
I've been accompanied by a non-motorised vehicle, even on motorways. it
is called a trailer.
Colin Bignell
Nightjar
...
> Also they don't prevent speeding cars from crashing onto pavements and
I have seen very few pedestrian barriers that have been breached by a
vehicle impact and those have invariably been the end barriers on a
central traffic island. Even those will have greatly reduced the speed
of the vehicle.
Colin Bignell
Matt B
> On 3 Jan, 10:18, Matt B<matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2010 09:36, Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Jan, 09:24, Johannes Andersen<j...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>
>>>> OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
>>>> a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> One person knocked down, but two people killed here.
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8055178.stm
>>
>> There is a subtle, and moral, difference though. In incidents involving
>> cycling on the footway they tend to be there by deliberately and
>> regardless of the law. For incidents involving motoring on the footway
>> they tend to be there involuntarily, following some other incident or
>> catastrophe.
>>
>> Do we have any examples of pavement casualties resulting from motor
>> vehicles being _deliberately_ driven on the pavement?
>
> Does that include drivers who were going too fast or were drunk?
No, only those who were on the pavement deliberately.
> Or does their being on a pavement count as being there
> "involuntarily"?
If they weren't there by design, they were there involuntarily, yes.
> In fact, name me some examples of how a driver can mount a pavement
> that is either a) not deliberate or b) not due to driver error such as
> going too fast for the conditions or being drunk?
If it wasn't deliberate then it doesn't count as deliberate. That isn't
to say that the driver didn't arrive there due to some other error or
misjudgement, just to say that he wasn't there for the sole purpose of
using it for travelling along.
Suffice it to say that there is a HUGE moral difference between
deliberate and involuntary presence on the footway.
--
Matt B
Mike Sales
"Mrcheerful" wrote
>>> what about when the driver swerves to avoid a cyclist that has just
>>> gone straight through a red light?
>>
>> ... or what about a driver forced to swerve by a re-materialising
>> Tardis?
>
> that is much less likely and is not a much repeated daily occurrence
> (unlike cyclists going straight through red lights and pulling out of
> junctions without looking.)
>
Extracts from Guardian item on DfT report on " Collisions involving pedal
cyclists on Britain's roads: establishing the causes."
"With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about
60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
"A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders
jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility
clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.
"The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2%
of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road
users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was
a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a
potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was
mentioned 2% of the time.
Full report at
http://www.trl.co.uk/library/reports_publications/latest_publications/
A benign god must protect RLJ cyclists. A pity s/he is off duty when
motorists make lethal mistakes with cyclists.
Mike Sales
DavidR
That's true. But please go on to tell us how many drivers have ever swerved
onto the pavement as a result (whether or not a pedestrian has been caught
up).
Mas...@bp.com
>
> > Does that include drivers who were going too fast or were drunk?
>
> No, only those who were on the pavement deliberately.
> If they weren't there by design, they were there involuntarily, yes.
Interesting. So a driver who, through drink, is not capable of
controlling his car and ends up killing a pedestrian on a pavement has
enough control to end up there involuntarily? Seems like a
contradiction in terms to me. He is not capable of driving *anywhere*
deliberately.
--
Simon Mason
Mrcheerful
I don't think that is relevant, the details would be unlikely to be recorded
if no accident occurred.
I was answering the question:
"In fact, name me some examples of how a driver can mount a pavement that is
either a) not deliberate or b) not due to driver error such as going too
fast for the conditions or being drunk?" posed by masons@ BP.com at 10.40am
My example was just one simple, common and relevant one.
Happi Monday
> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>
>> I pointed out in another thread in urc that I
>> obtained a full motorcycle licence with no lessons whatsoever and
>> obtained a full car licence by having no driving school lessons
>> either.
>
> That was incorrect.
>
> One cannot learn to drive (including proper control of the vehicle as
> well as the Highway Code, road-lore and road-law) by instinct.
Hmmmm, I learned to ride my motorbike without any lessons, save the guy
who sold me the bike telling me how the gears worked and where the rear
brake was - that took him all of one minute.
Happi
Mas...@bp.com
That's classed as a "lesson" apparently!
My Dad did even less when I was I was a provisional driver as I
already knew how the brakes, clutch and gears worked as I had ridden
my motorbike for 50,000 miles previously.
Matt B
> On 3 Jan, 12:49, Matt B<matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
My snipped question restored:
"Do we have any examples of pavement casualties resulting
from motor vehicles being _deliberately_ driven on the
pavement?"
>>> Does that include drivers who were going too fast or were drunk?
>>
>> No, only those who were on the pavement deliberately.
>> If they weren't there by design, they were there involuntarily, yes.
>
> Interesting.
Seems fairly obvious too.
> So a driver who, through drink, is not capable of
> controlling his car and ends up killing a pedestrian on a pavement has
> enough control to end up there involuntarily?
Eh? Do you mean: doesn't have enough control to avoid ending up there,
so ends up there involuntarily?
> Seems like a
> contradiction in terms to me.
Just out of interest, and for the sake of clarity, what definition are
you using for "involuntarily"?
> He is not capable of driving *anywhere*
> deliberately.
That's as maybe, which seems to strengthen my contention that he is
there involuntarily - so not deliberately.
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
> > He is not capable of driving *anywhere*
> > deliberately.
>
> That's as maybe, which seems to strengthen my contention that he is
> there involuntarily - so not deliberately.
I didn't deliberately kill that pedestrian m'lud, I was drunk, but
didn't *mean to* mount the pavement, honestly.
OK, I believe you, case dismissed.
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
Would you then have recorded "driving on the pavement" as the main
contributory factor in that case?
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
Since the pedestrian would not have been killed had the car not left
the road and mounted the pavement, it would be *a* contributory factor
in the case, yes.
In this case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm
The driver was exonerated (save for a small fine for 3 defective
tyres), since the court felt that the driver doing 50mph, on a road
where black ice could reasonably have been predicted, had not
*intentionally* killed the 4 people. The fact that he should have
moderated his speed under such adverse conditions was not mentioned at
all. These sort of cases are typical of many other cases where the
blame is shifted from the driver as though they are "acts of god" and
not entirely preventable deaths if more thought and care had been
taken by the driver.
--
Simon Mason
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>> I pointed out in another thread in urc that I
>>> obtained a full motorcycle licence with no lessons whatsoever and
>>> obtained a full car licence by having no driving school lessons
>>> either.
>> That was incorrect.
> It is 100% correct.
Not exactly (which is another way of saying "not at all", as you go to adnit
below).
[ ... ]
> Handling a motorbike at 16 was the same - no lessons at all. Passing
> the m/c test was easier than passing the cycling proficiency test in
> the 1970's.
> No driving school lessons either for a car - I have no need to lie,
> many of my friends did the same.
No driving school lessons.
Not "no driving lessons".
JNugent
> On 3 Jan, 14:00, Matt B <matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2010 13:54, Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Jan, 13:48, Matt B<matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>> He is not capable of driving *anywhere*
>>>>> deliberately.
>>>> That's as maybe, which seems to strengthen my contention that he is
>>>> there involuntarily - so not deliberately.
>>> I didn't deliberately kill that pedestrian m'lud, I was drunk, but
>>> didn't *mean to* mount the pavement, honestly.
>>> OK, I believe you, case dismissed.
>> Would you then have recorded "driving on the pavement" as the main
>> contributory factor in that case?
>>
>> --
>> Matt B
>
> Since the pedestrian would not have been killed had the car not left
> the road and mounted the pavement, it would be *a* contributory factor
> in the case, yes.
<boggle>
Surely even you can see that that is nonsense.
The minimum adjustment needed to what you wrote (in order for it to make
sense) would be:
"Since the pedestrian would not have been killed had the car not left the
road and mounted the pavement, it would be *a* contributory factor in the
case [prather than the main factor], xxxyesxxx so no."
Matt B
> On 3 Jan, 14:00, Matt B<matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2010 13:54, Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Jan, 13:48, Matt B<matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> He is not capable of driving *anywhere*
>>>>> deliberately.
>>
>>>> That's as maybe, which seems to strengthen my contention that he is
>>>> there involuntarily - so not deliberately.
>>
>>> I didn't deliberately kill that pedestrian m'lud, I was drunk, but
>>> didn't *mean to* mount the pavement, honestly.
>>
>>> OK, I believe you, case dismissed.
>>
>> Would you then have recorded "driving on the pavement" as the main
>> contributory factor in that case?
>
> the road and mounted the pavement, it would be *a* contributory factor
> in the case, yes.
Would you consider the "pavement" factor to be as significant as the
"pavement" factor in a collision involving a vehicle being deliberately
used on the pavement?
--
Matt B
Matt B
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm
>
> The driver was exonerated (save for a small fine for 3 defective
> tyres), since the court felt that the driver doing 50mph, on a road
> where black ice could reasonably have been predicted, had not
> *intentionally* killed the 4 people.
Is that the correct link? There's no mention of "court" or "defective
tyres" there. It just appears to be a report about a very nasty accident.
--
Matt B
JNugent
> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
From memory, it is the correct incident.
The driver was eventually convicted of having defective tyres on his car, but
not of any active part in causing the collision.
There was a lot of discussion in this NG of the incident and of the
consequent legal proceedings. It seems that some people want verdicts of
deliberate killing even when it is as plain as their faces that there was
nothing deliberate about it.
Judith Smith
<Mas...@BP.com> wrote:
>On 3 Jan, 10:11, johannes <j...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote:
>> "Mas...@BP.com" wrote:
>>
>> > On 3 Jan, 09:52, johannes <j...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote:
>> > > "Mas...@BP.com" wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 3 Jan, 09:24, Johannes Andersen <j...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
>> > > > > Doug wrote:
>>
>> > > > > OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
>> > > > > a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > One person knocked down, but two people killed here.
>>
>> > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8055178.stm
>>
>> > > But one incident.
>>
>> > Does the fact that say 20 people being mown down at a bus stop in a
>> > "single incident" make it less of a tragedy than two pedestrians being
>> > killed by two different cars?
>>
>> No, all RTA are terrible tragedies. People should understand that their
>> one-upmanship games on the road are not worth it.
>>
>> Car drivers are well educated by passing a driving test, but this is not
>> required for cyclists. Hence car drivers have generally a better
>> understanding of traffic.
>
>Not always the case. I pointed out in another thread in urc that I
>obtained a full motorcycle licence with no lessons whatsoever
No you didn't
Please pay attention to detail.
Fredxx
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:f725c7a7-36af-434e...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? Is nowhere
> safe from these killer drivers?
Yes, other countries have invested in roads such as motorways and bypasses
to remove cars from built up areas. Perhaps you should support such in
investment.
Mas...@bp.com
It is the correct link, yes.
The case got a lot of publicity at the time and in the subsequent
court case, the driver was only fined for having 3 defective tyres.
What was staggering is that it was *entirely avoidable* if the driver
had allowed for the icy conditions and had not been driving at 50mph
as if it was a dry, sunny day.
Sadly, the fact that you and others simply call these deaths
"accidents" means drivers will not pay for their negligence and
carelessness while such attitudes still prevail.
--
Simon Mason
Matt B
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>
>>> In this case.
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm
>>> The driver was exonerated (save for a small fine for 3 defective
>>> tyres), since the court felt that the driver doing 50mph, on a road
>>> where black ice could reasonably have been predicted, had not
>>> *intentionally* killed the 4 people.
>
>> Is that the correct link? There's no mention of "court" or "defective
>> tyres" there. It just appears to be a report about a very nasty accident.
>
> From memory, it is the correct incident.
Yes, I remember the incident, but the article doesn't mention the things
that Simon was discussing.
> The driver was eventually convicted of having defective tyres on his
> car, but not of any active part in causing the collision.
Was he found "not guilty" of more serious offences, or hadn't he
committed any?
> There was a lot of discussion in this NG of the incident and of the
> consequent legal proceedings. It seems that some people want verdicts of
> deliberate killing even when it is as plain as their faces that there
> was nothing deliberate about it.
Ah.
--
Matt B
Matt B
> On 3 Jan, 15:03, Matt B<matt.bou...@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2010 14:15, Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>
>>> In this case.
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm
>>
>>> The driver was exonerated (save for a small fine for 3 defective
>>> tyres), since the court felt that the driver doing 50mph, on a road
>>> where black ice could reasonably have been predicted, had not
>>> *intentionally* killed the 4 people.
>>
>> Is that the correct link? There's no mention of "court" or "defective
>> tyres" there. It just appears to be a report about a very nasty accident.
>
Only there's no mention of the points you were raising.
> The case got a lot of publicity at the time and in the subsequent
> court case, the driver was only fined for having 3 defective tyres.
What else was he charged with?
> What was staggering is that it was *entirely avoidable* if the driver
> had allowed for the icy conditions and had not been driving at 50mph
> as if it was a dry, sunny day.
Was it shown that he hadn't? Perhaps he didn't appreciate how cold it
was. Was he familiar with that road? Was that road prone to black ice?
Perhaps it's another example of being lulled into a senses of false
security - expecting the authorities to have treated any ice.
> Sadly, the fact that you and others simply call these deaths
> "accidents" means drivers will not pay for their negligence and
> carelessness while such attitudes still prevail.
Reading the link you posted I thought it /was/ an accident. Do you know
something that others don't - if it wasn't an accident it must have been
intentional - is that what you are suggesting?
--
Matt B
Mas...@bp.com
>
> >>> On 3 Jan, 09:52, johannes <j...@size229747257254fitter.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 3 Jan, 09:24, Johannes Andersen <j...@sizefitter.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>> OK Dough go ahead, I challenge you to find more links on news.bbc.co.uk where
> >>>>>> a pedestrian walking on pavement is killed by a car.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> One person knocked down, but two people killed here.
> >>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8055178.stm
> >>>> But one incident.
> >>> Does the fact that say 20 people being mown down at a bus stop in a
> >>> "single incident" make it less of a tragedy than two pedestrians being
> >>> killed by two different cars?
> >> No, all RTA are terrible tragedies. People should understand that their
> >> one-upmanship games on the road are not worth it.
>
> >> Car drivers are well educated by passing a driving test, but this is not
> >> required for cyclists. Hence car drivers have generally a better
> >> understanding of traffic.
>
> > Not always the case. I pointed out in another thread in urc that I
> > obtained a full car licence by having no driving school lessons
> > (including HC tests) by trained personnel, so if anything I had far
> > more intensive training for riding a bicycle on the roads than for
> > either a m/c or car.
>
> > By the way, I had 50, 000 miles of motorcycle road experience before I
> > even got behind the wheel of car. I can assure you, my "understanding
> > of traffic" far exceeded some 17 year old herbert with a few lessons
> > under his belt who passes his test first time.
>
> How many cyclists have undergone the training you have before heading out?
Quite a lot. I am not unique.
I don't know how old you are but 40 years ago or so, it was very
common to cycle to school and back on public roads for 11 years or so
in all weathers. In my case that would have included 3 paper rounds a
day on top of this when I was old enough.
So by time you were 16 you had an awful lot of road experience just
from cycling. Then you got a moped which in those days you could just
buy off your mate after getting a licence and away you went. Nobody
took any lessons or CBT that are compulsory now. After a few months,
you put in for your bike test which was just basically riding around
the block near the test centre and a few easy HC questions. Then you
could buy a 1000 cc motorcycle and roar away from the test centre.
Only the fairly well off could afford proper driving lessons in a
school car, so I and others just drove around in their Dad's car then
passed our driving tests. I only brought this up as someone had
claimed that most drivers will have had a minimum of 30 driving school
lessons plus a written exam before being allowed on the roads, which
as you can see in my case, is simply not true.
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
> On 03/01/2010 16:17, Mas...@BP.com wrote:
> Reading the link you posted I thought it /was/ an accident. Do you know
> something that others don't - if it wasn't an accident it must have been
> intentional - is that what you are suggesting?
No, it is what you call "an accident" (sadly).
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
But an road collision expert would say you are wrong.
THE driver of a car who killed four members of Rhyl Cycling Club when
he lost control on ice "could have avoided them" – an expert claimed
yesterday.
A collision investigator told the inquest into the deaths of the
cyclists on the A547 near Abergele that Robert Harris should have had
full control of his car after the initial skid.
PC George Skinner also blamed Mr Harris, of Abergele, for failing to
drive at an appropriate speed for the road conditions and said that
had he done so, the accident could have been avoided.
PC Skinner arrived on the scene within half an hour of the tragedy and
confirmed some ice on the road.
But he said yesterday that the ice was on the road only in patches,
and that there were enough dry patches on the road for Mr Harris to
regain control of his vehicle.
He said Mr Harris should have paid attention to freezing conditions
that morning, and not driven at 55mph, his estimated speed before the
crash.
"It would have to be accepted that he failed to observe the ambient
temperature display in his vehicle," the officer said.
"He set off on his journey having scraped ice off the window of his
car, and subsequently drove through countryside where visible frost
lay.
"He drove in an inappropriate manner for the prevailing conditions."
But he added: "In my opinion, there was sufficient grip available to
the driver to control the vehicle.
"Had he driven according to the prevailing road conditions, as had the
vast majority of motorists before this collision, then I am of the
opinion this collision could have been avoided."
Mr Harris had told the hearing last week that his car slipped on ice
and he was powerless to stop the vehicle veering into the cyclists’
path on the A547.
He had been driving from his Abergele home to work as a security guard
at B&Q in Rhyl when the collision happened last January. He told
police in the days after the crash: "I just lost control – I tried to
counter the skid.
"All I could think of was not to hit them."
Last August, Mr Harris was fined and handed points for having three
defective tyres, although PC Skinner said they played no part in the
handling of the car on the day of the tragedy.
The inquest also heard that the force of the collision projected Wayne
Wilkes 37 metres into an adjoining field, and Dave Horrocks 31 metres.
The three-week inquest is expected to conclude today, with summing-up
to start this morning.
Matt B
Why do you say "sadly"? Did you want it _not_ to be an accident; to be
_intentional_?
--
Matt B
DavidR
> DavidR wrote:
>> "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>> "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> what about when the driver swerves to avoid a cyclist that has just
>>>>> gone straight through a red light?
>>>>
>>>> ... or what about a driver forced to swerve by a re-materialising
>>>> Tardis?
>>>
>>> that is much less likely and is not a much repeated daily occurrence
>>> (unlike cyclists going straight through red lights and pulling out of
>>> junctions without looking.)
>>
>> That's true. But please go on to tell us how many drivers have ever
>> swerved onto the pavement as a result (whether or not a pedestrian
>> has been caught up).
>
> I don't think that is relevant, the details would be unlikely to be
> recorded if no accident occurred.
Not even an insurance claim from a driver for suspension damage from hitting
the kerb violently?
> I was answering the question:
> "In fact, name me some examples of how a driver can mount a pavement that
> is either a) not deliberate or b) not due to driver error such as going
> too fast for the conditions or being drunk?" posed by masons@ BP.com at
> 10.40am
>
> My example was just one simple, common and relevant one.
Only relevant in so far that cyclists are sometimes seen going through red
traffic lights. Yet for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on
about law breaking cyclists nobody seems able to find any consequences of
it.
Fredxx
"Matt B" <matt....@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:7qc0mo...@mid.individual.net...
I think he's suggesting it was unintentional and therefore an accident, and
that he was saddened by the loss of life and injury.
alan.holmes
"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vvR%m.21362$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> SW wrote:
>> On 2 Jan, 12:20, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> Can nothing be done about this slaughter on our pavements? Is
>>>> possibly equal this.
>>>> "Woman killed in hit-and-run crash on North Circular
>>>> A woman was killed and two other people were critically injured in a
>>>> hit-and-run crash in north London in the early hours of New Year's
>>>> Day.
>>>> The 20-year-old woman and four others, also in their 20s, were hit
>>>> by a Honda car that mounted the pavement on the North Circular Road
>>>> in Palmers Green.
>>>> The woman died at the scene, a man and a woman are critically ill in
>>>> hospital and another man suffered a broken leg.
>>>> Five men in their 30s were arrested at an address in Ilford over the
>>>> crash..."
>>>> More:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8437425.stm
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>> Five men in their 30s were arrested at an address in Ilford over the
>>> crash..." ENDQUOTE
>>>
>>> At this stage, what more do you want?
>>
>> A sense of proportion from people who complain about pavement
>> cyclists ?
>
>
> Pavement cyclists regularly terrorise & abuse innocent people.
I have never been either terrorised or abused by a cyclist on the pavement!