Cyclist with young kids on board - safely

[CJB]

Wondering what folks here think are about cycling safely with young
kids on board. I've seen all kinds of methods from trailers (with
fkags on poles), to kiddie seats behind the parent (usually the
father) where a saddle bag might go.

But today I saw the most stupid arrangement in which a young kid was
sitting in a kind of seat attached to the FRONT of the handlebars.
This was not a home-made lash up but appeared to be a purposely made
manufactured seating fitment. It effectively clipped onto the handle
bars above the front wheel and was where a front basket on a utility
bike might have been. But if the bike had run into the back of a
suddenly stopping car (like they do), or if the bike had run into
something then the bike and parent and kid would have been catapulted
straight onto the kid's head. Incidentally the kid - a boy of about 3
- was NOT wearing a helmet, neither was his father,

CJB.

[nik.morgan]

This is common elsewhere and I can't see it as any more dangerous than
having a child behind you where you can't see what it's getting up to.
Helmets makes no difference, we are repeatedly told that.
--
ennemm

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:12:55 -0700 (PDT), CJB <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But if the bike had run into the back of a suddenly stopping car
> (like they do),

Do they? I don't think I've ever seen or experienced a bike running
into the back of a car. Cars seems to run into the back of cars
quite regularly (I'm frequently hearing of multiple pile-ups, and
indeed have been in the middle of one myself), but it's not a crash
scenario that bicycles seem prone to.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Mrcheerful]

plenty on you tube, even Cavendish ran into the back of one:
http://news.sky.com/story/1013512/mark-cavendish-collides-with-car-in-training

[Mentalguy2k8]

"CJB" <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37f925f5-326d-4cbc...@e9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

> Wondering what folks here think are about cycling safely with young
> kids on board. I've seen all kinds of methods from trailers (with
> fkags on poles), to kiddie seats behind the parent (usually the
> father) where a saddle bag might go.

But isn't it striking that you *very* rarely hear of anyone ever being
knocked off their bike when they're carrying a child?

Parents carrying a kid (in my experience) tend to be far less reckless and
more likely to obey the "rules of the road" than the "usual" cyclist. God
forbid there might be a correlation between riding responsibly and safely,
and lower accident statistics?

Very odd, since we're led to believe that oblivious, aggressive and unaware
drivers are the cause of 100% of cyling accidents, and therefore wouldn't
see or make allowances for a child.

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:45:14 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:12:55 -0700 (PDT), CJB <chris...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But if the bike had run into the back of a suddenly stopping car
> >> (like they do),
> >
> > Do they? I don't think I've ever seen or experienced a bike
> > running into the back of a car. Cars seems to run into the back
> > of cars quite regularly (I'm frequently hearing of multiple
> > pile-ups, and indeed have been in the middle of one myself), but
> > it's not a crash scenario that bicycles seem prone to.
>

> plenty on you tube, even Cavendish ran into the back of one:
> http://news.sky.com/story/1013512/mark-cavendish-collides-with-car-in-training

Do you think it likely that a person with a child on a seat on the
front of their bike will ride like a professional racer on a training
ride?

Since I was not present on Cavendish's training ride, my statement
above remains absolutely true, however, I can amend my statement if you
like:

Do they? I don't think I've ever seen, experienced or even heard of a
bike being used as A to B transport running into the back of a car.

Cars seems to run into the back of cars quite regularly (I'm
frequently hearing of multiple pile-ups, and indeed have been in the
middle of one myself), but it's not a crash scenario that bicycles
seem prone to.

regards, Ian SMith

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Ian Smith" <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnkphi6...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:45:14 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:12:55 -0700 (PDT), CJB <chris...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> But if the bike had run into the back of a suddenly stopping car
>> >> (like they do),
>> >
>> > Do they? I don't think I've ever seen or experienced a bike
>> > running into the back of a car. Cars seems to run into the back
>> > of cars quite regularly (I'm frequently hearing of multiple
>> > pile-ups, and indeed have been in the middle of one myself), but
>> > it's not a crash scenario that bicycles seem prone to.
>>
>> plenty on you tube, even Cavendish ran into the back of one:
>>
>> http://news.sky.com/story/1013512/mark-cavendish-collides-with-car-in-training
>
> Do you think it likely that a person with a child on a seat on the
> front of their bike will ride like a professional racer on a training
> ride?

No, which supports the point that people with a child on their bike are more
likely to ride within the laws and their own capabilities and be less likely
to be involved in an accident. Which in turn supports the wider point that
the vast majority of cycling accidents are caused by the cyclists
themselves.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"nik.morgan" <ig....@me.com> wrote in message
news:992862826390651331....@news-europe.giganews.com...

Agree - I would prefer this arrangement if I was carrying a youngster on a
bicycle.

[Nick]

On 19/05/2013 12:31, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:12:55 -0700 (PDT), CJB <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But if the bike had run into the back of a suddenly stopping car
>> (like they do),
>
> Do they? I don't think I've ever seen or experienced a bike running
> into the back of a car. Cars seems to run into the back of cars
> quite regularly (I'm frequently hearing of multiple pile-ups, and
> indeed have been in the middle of one myself), but it's not a crash
> scenario that bicycles seem prone to.
>

I've done it a few times, yes I know it says something about my riding
style. Generally it isn't that serious for the rider although it is a
good way to kill a bike frame.

Needless to say I wasn't carrying a kid on the handlebars when it happened.

[Nick]

On 19/05/2013 13:52, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>

> No, which supports the point that people with a child on their bike are
> more likely to ride within the laws and their own capabilities and be
> less likely to be involved in an accident.

Actually I suspect they are more likely to break the law by riding on
the pavement. You appear to be confusing obeying the law with riding safely.

> Which in turn supports the
> wider point that the vast majority of cycling accidents are caused by
> the cyclists themselves.

Gosh I think you have got something there! Bicycle accidents are caused
by people riding bicycles. I wonder if your stunning insight also
applies to motorists?

[Partac]

"Nick" wrote in message
news:5198ded8$0$32549$c3e8da3$fb48...@news.astraweb.com...

I'm sure it does, too. However, it obviously doesn't apply to psycholists,
who stand firm on the belief that it's never the cyclists fault - it's
always someone else. Usually the nearest (or soonest to appear) motorist.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Nick" <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5198ded8$0$32549$c3e8da3$fb48...@news.astraweb.com...

I wouldn't have said *all* cycling accidents (eg collisions with cars, vans,
lorries, pedestrians etc) were caused by cyclists, but you've convinced me
now.

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:38:43 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
<i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

>
>Do they? I don't think I've ever seen, experienced or even heard of a
>bike being used as A to B transport running into the back of a car.

Given that at any speed the braking performance of any bicycle is
inferior to that of any relatively modern car I wouldn't expect it to
be rare, I've certainly experienced it in slow traffic where I stopped
(not particularly sharply) at a pedestrian crossing and a cyclist
behind failed to notice and despite braking hard rode into the back of
my car. No real damage or injury occurred, a buckled wheel was all.

There certainly seem to be plenty of reports of such incidents in
various cycling forums. However, that aside I'd be far more concerned
about the compromised steering and stability resulting from having a
possibly wriggling 5-20kg of child attached to and forward of the
handlebars (I have never seen such an arrangement either, might the
seat have been attached to the stem rather than the handlebars?).
Given the somewhat potholed state of many roads even a small hole at
modest speed could easily destabilise such a combination.

[toomtab...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 May 2013 15:16:56 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
> On 19/05/2013 13:52, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> >
> > No, which supports the point that people with a child on their bike ar

> > more likely to ride within the laws and their own capabilities and be
> > less likely to be involved in an accident.
>
> Actually I suspect they are more likely to break the law by riding on
> the pavement. You appear to be confusing obeying the law with riding safely.
>

And they get all sanctimonious when challenged because YOU are suggesting they
put THEIR child at risk (so sod everyone else on the pavement). At least
I've yet to see one with a 'little princess on board' sign hanging on the back.

Back

[Tony Dragon]

On 19/05/2013 12:31, Ian Smith wrote:

Well the cyclist didn't run into the back of my car, but he ran into the
back of my van.

He didn't notice when he joined my road from a side road (he was coming
downhill) that I had stopped at a zebra crossing.

[Judith]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:12:55 -0700 (PDT), CJB <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:

One word : Darwin.

--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

[Judith]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:12:55 -0700 (PDT), CJB <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:

I suspect if the kid was injured in an accident and brain damaged because it
had no helmet on it would be able to claim off its father's fridge freezer
insurance.

[Judith]

ffs - is this a first from a psycholist?

Surely it is always someone elses fault? There is no chance of compo unless
someone else caused it you know.

[Judith]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:55:00 +0100, Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com>
wrote:

I understand that the eyes of a psycholist are genetically unable to register
a zebra crossing, anyone who is on one, and anyone who has stopped at one.

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:55:00 +0100, Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 19/05/2013 12:31, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:12:55 -0700 (PDT), CJB <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But if the bike had run into the back of a suddenly stopping car
> >> (like they do),
> >
> > Do they? I don't think I've ever seen or experienced a bike running
> > into the back of a car. Cars seems to run into the back of cars
> > quite regularly (I'm frequently hearing of multiple pile-ups, and
> > indeed have been in the middle of one myself), but it's not a crash
> > scenario that bicycles seem prone to.
>

> Well the cyclist didn't run into the back of my car, but he ran into the
> back of my van.

All these isolated anecdotes rather prove my point, don't they - if
people try hard some can come up with an odd such event. Shall we
have a straw poll to see how many car-runs-into-back-of-another
incidents we can come up with? I see the aftermath of a few a year on
my commute, and that's only 12 miles a day.

'Cars seem to run into the back of cars quite regularly, but it's not
a crash scenario that bicycles are prone to' seems to have been proved
as a true statement.

[Nick]

On 19/05/2013 16:29, toomtab...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 May 2013 15:16:56 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
>> On 19/05/2013 13:52, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No, which supports the point that people with a child on their bike ar
>>> more likely to ride within the laws and their own capabilities and be
>>> less likely to be involved in an accident.
>>
>> Actually I suspect they are more likely to break the law by riding on
>> the pavement. You appear to be confusing obeying the law with riding safely.
>>
> And they get all sanctimonious when challenged because YOU are suggesting they
> put THEIR child at risk (so sod everyone else on the pavement).

Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.

[Mrcheerful]

Not in law.

[JNugent]

Cycling along a footway is a textbook definition of cycling irresponsibly.

[Judith]

Oh really - and what makes you think that?

It is most odd that parliament did not actually make that proviso part of the
law - I wonder why they didn't?

[Nick]

On 20/05/2013 16:57, Judith wrote:

>> Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
>> was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.
>
>
> Oh really - and what makes you think that?
>

The following letter is widely quoted on the internet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed
penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a
footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new
legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used
where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the
time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
�The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people,
are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police
discretion is required.�
Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with
regards the use of fixed penalty notices by �Community Support Officers�
and wardens.
�CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as
police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the
chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat
officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The
Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to
enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly
on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the
pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who
sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic,
and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief
officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a
considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone
under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home
Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

> It is most odd that parliament did not actually make that proviso part of the
> law - I wonder why they didn't?
>

I wonder too. My suspicion is that it was felt that it would be easier
to enforce an absolute offence and hope that the police would use
discretion than it would be to have cyclists argue the toss about
whether they were behaving responsibly/considerately.

Personally I'm torn between a dislike for giving the police the role of
a judge but on the other hand see that for minor offences such as this
it might be a good pragmatic solution to tackle inconsiderate cyclists.

Do you have a view on why they would do such a thing?

[pensive hamster]

On May 20, 6:11 pm, Nick <Nick.s...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 16:57, Judith wrote:
>
> >> Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
> >> was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.
>
> > Oh really - and what makes you think that?
>
> The following letter is widely quoted on the internet.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed
> penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a
> footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new
> legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used
> where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the
> time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

> The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
> cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
> traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
> so.

[...]

Maybe some cyclists have a reasonable and well-founded fear of
motorists like this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22596605
20 May 2013

Norwich woman's 'hit cyclist' tweet investigated by police

A woman who claimed on Twitter she had knocked a cyclist off his bike
is being investigated by Norfolk Police.

The Norwich woman's tweet on Sunday morning read: "Definitely knocked
a cyclist off his bike earlier.

"I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."

Users forwarded the tweet to police, who confirmed they had spoken to
both parties. The woman, who described herself as a trainee
accountant, has removed her Twitter account.

Police said their investigations were continuing.

[Judith]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 18:11:16 +0100, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/05/2013 16:57, Judith wrote:
>
>>> Why did you challenge them? As I understood it the pavement cycling law
>>> was intended to be used only against those cycling irresponsibly.
>>
>>
>> Oh really - and what makes you think that?
>>
>
>The following letter is widely quoted on the internet.
>

<snip>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The letter from Boateng was a specific response to Ben Bradshaw MP, a cyclist
who had written to Boateng asking some questions. It was never guidance
formally issued by the Home Office to the police or anyone else - it had
precisely no standing in law at the time it was issued and has no standing
whatsoever now.

The letter from Crozier purely repeats what Boateng said - and has the same
legal power. (None whatsoever)

>Do you have a view on why they would do such a thing?

Not really. I know that there are far too many cyclists using the pavements to
the detriment of pedestrians and they shouldn't be getting away with it.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"pensive hamster" <pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e232e4b-6e82-49b8...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> Maybe some cyclists have a reasonable and well-founded fear of
> motorists like this one:
>

> The Norwich woman's tweet on Sunday morning read: "Definitely knocked
> a cyclist off his bike earlier.
>
> "I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."

Everyone has reasonable and well-founded fear of someone as fuckwitted as
she appears to be. It would be poetically just if she was banned from
driving and had to resort to a bicycle.

[Gefreiter Krueger]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:12:55 +0100, CJB <chris...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wondering what folks here think are about cycling safely with young
> kids on board. I've seen all kinds of methods from trailers (with
> fkags on poles), to kiddie seats behind the parent (usually the
> father) where a saddle bag might go.
>
> But today I saw the most stupid arrangement in which a young kid was
> sitting in a kind of seat attached to the FRONT of the handlebars.
> This was not a home-made lash up but appeared to be a purposely made
> manufactured seating fitment. It effectively clipped onto the handle
> bars above the front wheel and was where a front basket on a utility
> bike might have been. But if the bike had run into the back of a
> suddenly stopping car (like they do), or if the bike had run into
> something then the bike and parent and kid would have been catapulted
> straight onto the kid's head. Incidentally the kid - a boy of about 3
> - was NOT wearing a helmet, neither was his father,

Oh don't be such a pansy, go look at Vietnam.

--
A devout Muslim entered a black cab in London. He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.
The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door.
The Arab asked him, "What are you doing?"
The cabbie answered, "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so fuck off and wait for a camel!!"

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

Nothing fuckwitted about that at all, the lady is 100% correct.

Also, it turns out he was racing;

"Toby Hockley was on the 100-mile Boudicca Sportive ride in Norfolk on
Sunday when he was struck by a car and flung into a hedge, he said.
Mr Hockley, 29, of Norwich, was riding with Iceni Velo cycling club on a
narrow country lane, about five miles away from the end of the route at
Snetterton".

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Less than �10 billion of this is spent on roads.
Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?
A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use
roads and the benefit given to those who don�t.

[pensive hamster]

On May 21, 8:21 am, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 20/05/2013 20:57, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
>
>

> > "pensive hamster" <pensive_hams...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

> >news:1e232e4b-6e82-49b8...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Maybe some cyclists have a reasonable and well-founded fear of
> >> motorists like this one:
>
> >> The Norwich woman's tweet on Sunday morning read: "Definitely knocked
> >> a cyclist off his bike earlier.
>
> >> "I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."
>
> > Everyone has reasonable and well-founded fear of someone as fuckwitted
> > as she appears to be.  It would be poetically just if she was banned
> > from driving and had to resort to a bicycle.
>
> Nothing fuckwitted about that at all, the lady is 100% correct.
>

100% correct about what? That she has right of way?

> Also, it turns out he was racing;
>
> "Toby Hockley was on the 100-mile Boudicca Sportive ride in Norfolk on
> Sunday when he was struck by a car and flung into a hedge, he said.
> Mr Hockley, 29, of Norwich, was riding with Iceni Velo cycling club on a
> narrow country lane, about five miles away from the end of the route at
> Snetterton".
>

http://road.cc/content/news/84212-norwich-police-seek-driver-who-tweeted-about-collision-cyclist
[...]
"I was riding on a country B-road with a friend, and descending a hill
on a blind right hand corner", Toby told us. "I was sticking to the
left as the corner was blind. A car came round in the opposite
direction going much too quickly to make the corner safely. It missed
the rider in front of me but hit me, my right leg caught the front
right wing. I was thrown up onto the bonnet, I hit the side of
windsrceen and the wing mirror. I bounced back off the car and went
through a hedge for about 20 metres. I managed to keep control of the
bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road
and stop in the middle of it"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22602141
Twitter 'knocked off bike' cyclist 'lucky to be alive'

Mr Hockley, 29, of Norwich, was riding with Iceni Velo cycling club on
a narrow country lane, about five miles away from the end of the route
at Snetterton.

"A car came tearing round the blind corner and narrowly missed a
cyclist in front of me," he said.

"She came on to my side of the road, I took the wing mirror off and I
went flying off my bike into a hedge.

"She hit me hard, really hard. I am lucky to be alive.

"But I managed to get out of the hedge and stand up.

"The car was nowhere to be seen. She hit me, and she was gone.

"All I know is that it was a blonde girl driving."
[...]
The woman's Twitter account has been removed.

Norfolk Police said it was investigating and had spoken to both
parties.


> Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
> can use the roads.

Cyclists pay the same as other zero-emission vehicles.

[Mrcheerful]

So, does that mean that zero emission cars can be raced on the road and not
display number plates or registration and can be driven without insurance or
licence?
After all, you wouldn't want differing rules for different road users, would
you, it would be unfair.

As to the racing cyclists, they were probably all over the road, not caring
about the rules of the road in their self absorbed, adrenaline fuelled race
to the finish line. I have seen this situation first hand, happily the
cyclists all managed to miss my car, which was really lucky for all
concerned, and only a few fell off.

[AlanG]

Sounds as if he was riding recklessly

[Mrcheerful]

story seems to vary a lot too.

[nik.morgan]

What's he complaining about, he didn't even get knocked off, he, in his own
words, "managed to keep control of the bike"?
--
ennemm

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 21/05/2013 10:02, pensive hamster wrote:
> On May 21, 8:21 am, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 20/05/2013 20:57, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "pensive hamster" <pensive_hams...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1e232e4b-6e82-49b8...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> Maybe some cyclists have a reasonable and well-founded fear of
>>>> motorists like this one:
>>
>>>> The Norwich woman's tweet on Sunday morning read: "Definitely knocked
>>>> a cyclist off his bike earlier.
>>
>>>> "I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists."
>>
>>> Everyone has reasonable and well-founded fear of someone as fuckwitted
>>> as she appears to be. It would be poetically just if she was banned
>>> from driving and had to resort to a bicycle.
>>
>> Nothing fuckwitted about that at all, the lady is 100% correct.
>>
>
> 100% correct about what? That she has right of way?

Absolutely. Cyclist scum should not be racing on public roads.

>> Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they

>> can use the roads.
>
> Cyclists pay the same as other zero-emission vehicles.
>

No they don't.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.

[pensive hamster]

On May 21, 6:45 pm, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
[...]
> >> Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they

> >> can use the roads.
>
> > Cyclists pay the same as other zero-emission vehicles.
>
> No they don't.
>

I think you will find that they do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty#Cars

'Charges as applicable from 1 April 2011. For cars registered before 1
March 2001 the excise duty is based on engine size (£130 for vehicles
with a capacity of less than 1549cc, £220 for vehicles with larger
engines). For vehicles registered on or after 1 March 2001 charges are
based on theoretical CO2 emission rates per kilometre. The 'first year
rate' only applies in the year the vehicle was first registered and is
said by the government to be designed to send "a stronger signal to
the buyer about the environmental implications of their car purchase".
[7] Charges as applicable from 1 April 2011 are:

'Car emission band Cost (£) Cost for first year (£)
Band A (up to 100 g/km) 0 0
Band B (101-110 g/km) 20 0
[...]'

http://ipayroadtax.com/bloody-tax-dodgers/bloody-tax-dodgers-theres-millions-of-em/
'According to the latest registration stats from the Department for
Transport, there are 57,000 cars in VED band A.'

How do you feel about the estimated 57,000 cars in VED band A, who pay
no VED. Do you think they have no right to use the road?

[Tosspot]

On 22/05/13 15:48, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:30:55 -0700, pensive hamster wrote:
>
>> How do you feel about the estimated 57,000 cars in VED band A, who pay
>> no VED. Do you think they have no right to use the road?
>

> They pay fuel duty ...

So does my lawnmower.

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:48:29 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:30:55 -0700, pensive hamster wrote:
>
> > How do you feel about the estimated 57,000 cars in VED band A, who pay
> > no VED. Do you think they have no right to use the road?
>
> They pay fuel duty ...

.. at the same rate as I pay it for all the fuel my bicycle burns.

[pensive hamster]

On May 22, 4:00 pm, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:48:29 GMT, Jethro_uk <jethro...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> >  On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:30:55 -0700, pensive hamster wrote:
>
> > > How do you feel about the estimated 57,000 cars in VED band A, who pay
> > > no VED. Do you think they have no right to use the road?
>
> >  They pay fuel duty ...
>
> .. at the same rate as I pay it for all the fuel my bicycle burns.
>

Not only that, but cyclists actually subsidise car drivers:

======= start quote =======
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu
25 December 2012

Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year'

Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are
subsidised by other taxpayers

The perennial complaint from drivers that they are excessively taxed
has been challenged by a study which concludes that road accidents,
pollution and noise connected to cars costs every EU citizen more than
£600 a year.

The report by transport academics at the Dresden Technical University
in Germany calculated that even with drivers' insurance contributions
discounted these factors amounted to an annual total of €373bn
(£303bn) across the 27 EU member states, or around 3% of the bloc's
entire yearly GDP. This breaks down as €750 per man, woman and
child. ...
======= end quote =======

and:

======= start quote =======
http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=601
April 2, 2013

According to a recent article in the Times, People in the UK spent
£1.56 billion on bicycles in 2012. That seems a staggering figure, but
it is a figure released by the Office for National Statistics, so I
expect it must be fairly reliable.

It is not clear form the Times article whether this is a gross figure
or net of VAT, but if we take the most conservative of those two
possibilities, that it is a gross figure, then this means that, at a
20% rate for VAT, the government has received £260 million from the
sale of bicycles. (If the figure is net, then the VAT received would
be £312 million.)

It just seems very ironic to me that it is against this backdrop that
the government (DfT and Norman Baker) crows about headlines like:
“Government to announce £62m boost for cycling infrastructure”

It’s true that virtually no taxes are hypothecated in the UK (least of
all Vehicle Excise Duty), but it still provides a backdrop that
reveals how pathetic the UK Government’s funding for cycling related
developments really is. They are happy to stand up and claim that they
are all in favour of increasing active travel, including cycling, and
they are certainly happy to take the money, but when it really comes
down to putting their (our) money where their mouth is, it is rather a
different story.
======= end quote =======

[Mrcheerful]

the majority of bicycle fuel, ie: food, carries no extra specific taxation,
unlike vehicle fuels (though quite what they intend to do about plug in
cars' energy use is a valid question if they ever become mainstream.)

[Mrcheerful]

cars put in 46 billion to the economy.

[AlanG]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:45:06 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:26:31 -0700, pensive hamster wrote:
>
>> Not only that, but cyclists actually subsidise car drivers:
>

>There is nothing more galling than being in a long line of cars, grinding
>up a hill in 2nd gear (with the associated emissions) following a lone
>cyclist who has that "I'm saving the world" look on his fizzog.

Its even worse when you get a convoy of club cyclists riding 3 abreast
in a column 20 bikes long along a B road with a 4 mile tailback of
cars and lorries.

> I wonder
>how much CO2 could be saved if cyclists were off the roads ?

I give consideration to those cyclists who obey traffic laws and ride
with consideration for other users of the highway. The other kind of
cyclist I hope gets both arms broken when he falls off his bike so he
has to beg for someone to wipe his bottom

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 22/05/2013 16:26, pensive hamster wrote:
> On May 22, 4:00 pm, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:48:29 GMT, Jethro_uk <jethro...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:30:55 -0700, pensive hamster wrote:
>>
>>>> How do you feel about the estimated 57,000 cars in VED band A, who pay
>>>> no VED. Do you think they have no right to use the road?
>>
>>> They pay fuel duty ...
>>
>> .. at the same rate as I pay it for all the fuel my bicycle burns.
>>
>
> Not only that, but cyclists actually subsidise car drivers:
>
> ======= start quote =======
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu
> 25 December 2012
>
> Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year'

Utter bollox. Show me the invoices.

According to my research push bikes cost the motorist £65,000 a week.

Simple indisputable fact;

"Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.

Less than £10 billion of this is spent on roads".

Cyclists are sponging freeloaders.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT

Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.

Less than £10 billion of this is spent on roads.

Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?
A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use

roads and the benefit given to those who don’t.

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 22/05/2013 18:10, AlanG wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:45:06 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:26:31 -0700, pensive hamster wrote:
>>
>>> Not only that, but cyclists actually subsidise car drivers:
>>
>> There is nothing more galling than being in a long line of cars, grinding
>> up a hill in 2nd gear (with the associated emissions) following a lone
>> cyclist who has that "I'm saving the world" look on his fizzog.
>
> Its even worse when you get a convoy of club cyclists riding 3 abreast
> in a column 20 bikes long along a B road with a 4 mile tailback of
> cars and lorries.
>
>> I wonder
>> how much CO2 could be saved if cyclists were off the roads ?

Millions of litres at a guess. Cyclists are very bad for the environment.

>
> I give consideration to those cyclists who obey traffic laws and ride
> with consideration for other users of the highway. The other kind of
> cyclist I hope gets both arms broken when he falls off his bike so he
> has to beg for someone to wipe his bottom
>

Moderate!

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Less than �10 billion of this is spent on roads.

Q: Do you and your party support a new London-style bike plan for
Cambridgeshire?
A: No. This proposal amounts to theft from the people who pay to use

roads and the benefit given to those who don�t.

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 22/05/2013 17:54, Mrcheerful wrote:
> pensive hamster wrote:
>> On May 22, 4:00 pm, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:48:29 GMT, Jethro_uk
>>> <jethro...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 06:30:55 -0700, pensive hamster wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How do you feel about the estimated 57,000 cars in VED band A, who
>>>>> pay no VED. Do you think they have no right to use the road?
>>>
>>>> They pay fuel duty ...
>>>
>>> .. at the same rate as I pay it for all the fuel my bicycle burns.
>>>
>>
>> Not only that, but cyclists actually subsidise car drivers:
>>
>> ======= start quote =======
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu
>> 25 December 2012
>>

>> Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen �600 a year'

>>
>> Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are
>> subsidised by other taxpayers
>>
>> The perennial complaint from drivers that they are excessively taxed
>> has been challenged by a study which concludes that road accidents,
>> pollution and noise connected to cars costs every EU citizen more than

>> �600 a year.

>>
>> The report by transport academics at the Dresden Technical University
>> in Germany calculated that even with drivers' insurance contributions

>> discounted these factors amounted to an annual total of �373bn
>> (�303bn) across the 27 EU member states, or around 3% of the bloc's
>> entire yearly GDP. This breaks down as �750 per man, woman and

>> child. ...
>> ======= end quote =======
>>
>> and:
>>
>> ======= start quote =======
>> http://www.happycyclist.org/?p=601
>> April 2, 2013
>>
>> According to a recent article in the Times, People in the UK spent

>> �1.56 billion on bicycles in 2012. That seems a staggering figure, but

>> it is a figure released by the Office for National Statistics, so I
>> expect it must be fairly reliable.
>>
>> It is not clear form the Times article whether this is a gross figure
>> or net of VAT, but if we take the most conservative of those two
>> possibilities, that it is a gross figure, then this means that, at a

>> 20% rate for VAT, the government has received �260 million from the

>> sale of bicycles. (If the figure is net, then the VAT received would

>> be �312 million.)

>>
>> It just seems very ironic to me that it is against this backdrop that
>> the government (DfT and Norman Baker) crows about headlines like:

>> �Government to announce �62m boost for cycling infrastructure�
>>
>> It�s true that virtually no taxes are hypothecated in the UK (least of

>> all Vehicle Excise Duty), but it still provides a backdrop that

>> reveals how pathetic the UK Government�s funding for cycling related

>> developments really is. They are happy to stand up and claim that they
>> are all in favour of increasing active travel, including cycling, and
>> they are certainly happy to take the money, but when it really comes
>> down to putting their (our) money where their mouth is, it is rather a
>> different story.
>> ======= end quote =======
>
> cars put in 46 billion to the economy.
>
>

And that's just the tax. If you 'factor in' the 757,500 jobs in the
motor trade & the taxes they pay it must be double that.

[Dave- Cyclists VORP]

On 21/05/2013 23:50, Phil W Lee wrote:
> AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> considered Tue, 21 May 2013 13:28:26

> Not in the least.
>
> She, on the other hand, is clearly an oxygen thief.

He was the one racing on a public road.
>
> Dangerous driving, not stopping after a collision (hardly an accident
> - by her account it was at best reckless, and possibly deliberate).

She should have stopped & taken his details - so he could pay for the
wing mirror he damaged.
>
> Possibly a case could be made for attempted murder.
> She had no way of knowing if he was seriously injured, yet she
> deliberately drove off and didn't summon medical aid.

Double espresso please.
>
> She certainly should not be driving for the foreseeable future.
>
> With the level of maturity she has shown I'd hesitate to allow her
> access to sharp objects.
>


--
Dave - Cyclists VORP
"It is time for us to say to cyclists 'You want to join our gang, get
trained and pay up'. John Griffin, Addison Lee.

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 22/05/2013 14:30, pensive hamster wrote:
> On May 21, 6:45 pm, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> [...]

>>>> Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they

>>>> can use the roads.
>>
>>> Cyclists pay the same as other zero-emission vehicles.
>>
>> No they don't.
>>
>
> I think you will find that they do:

"estimated 57,000" Less than 0:2% of the cars on the road.



--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.

[AlanG]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 03:11:11 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> considered Wed, 22 May 2013 18:10:36

>+0100 the perfect time to write:
>

>>On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:45:06 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:26:31 -0700, pensive hamster wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not only that, but cyclists actually subsidise car drivers:
>>>
>>>There is nothing more galling than being in a long line of cars, grinding
>>>up a hill in 2nd gear (with the associated emissions) following a lone
>>>cyclist who has that "I'm saving the world" look on his fizzog.
>>
>>Its even worse when you get a convoy of club cyclists riding 3 abreast
>>in a column 20 bikes long along a B road with a 4 mile tailback of
>>cars and lorries.
>>

>It would be, if it ever happened.

It has happened to me twice.

[Nick]

On 23/05/2013 08:13, AlanG wrote:

>>> Its even worse when you get a convoy of club cyclists riding 3 abreast
>>> in a column 20 bikes long along a B road with a 4 mile tailback of
>>> cars and lorries.
>>>
>> It would be, if it ever happened.
>
> It has happened to me twice.
>
>

I was once out in my car and there were like all these cars in front of
me and they sat there not moving for like minutes at a time. It took me
like 20 minutes to go like a few hundred meters. It was really annoying.

[Steve Firth]

ITYM "It was like really annoying?"

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Ophelia]

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:19608146391009623.301725%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...

It could be like yeahh.
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[JNugent]

He was, like, "It was like really annoying".

[Ophelia]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:b06pvp...@mid.individual.net...

Yeahhh that was like what I thought!

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Norman Wells]

Keep it up. I'm rivetted.

[pensive hamster]

On May 22, 6:10 pm, AlanG <inva...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Its even worse when you get a convoy of club cyclists riding 3 abreast
> in a column 20 bikes long along a B road with a 4 mile tailback of
> cars and lorries.

May have been the Swiss army on manoeuvres. They keep perfect
formation.

http://www.velovision.com/storyimages/swiss.jpg

[Dave- Cyclists VORP]

You are allowed to overtake parked cars.

Innit?

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:31:49 +0000 (UTC)
Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 02:12:55 -0700 (PDT), CJB <chris...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > But if the bike had run into the back of a suddenly stopping car
> > (like they do),
>
> Do they? I don't think I've ever seen or experienced a bike running
> into the back of a car. Cars seems to run into the back of cars
> quite regularly (I'm frequently hearing of multiple pile-ups, and
> indeed have been in the middle of one myself), but it's not a crash
> scenario that bicycles seem prone to.

I only recall experiencing it once - young lad on a club run was riding
head-down up a long steep hill and slowly rode into (I think it was) a
parked van. He was wearing a helmet - had he not been then he might
have seen the thing, although I suspect he learned the wisdom of
looking up every so often, if you're ever going to ride head-down.

[AlanG]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:05:12 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
<pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On May 22, 6:10�pm, AlanG <inva...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Its even worse when you get a convoy of club cyclists riding 3 abreast
>> in a column 20 bikes long along a B road with a 4 mile tailback of
>> cars and lorries.
>
>May have been the Swiss army on manoeuvres. They keep perfect
>formation.

Nah. Its one of the local cycle clubs and only one. The rest are a bit
more considerate and keep spread out on their rides.
>
>

[AlanG]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:45:33 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> considered Fri, 24 May 2013 08:15:27

>+0100 the perfect time to write:
>

>Meaning it takes far longer to pass them, of course.

The point is the motorist can get past them.
>
>You do start sounding silly when you try to justify your dreams by
>pretending they have any basis in reality.

Are you just pretending to be stupid or did you get a certificate for
it?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

When it comes to stupidity, he is over qualified.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

[JNugent]

On 25/05/2013 08:26, AlanG wrote:

Judging from PWL's past performance(s), the answer to both questions
must be "No".

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

To be fair, he does make a lovely latte.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Less than �10 billion of this is spent on roads.
Q: Do cyclists pay any specific, extra taxes in order to use their
vehicles on the road?
A: No. They are sponging freeloaders.

[pensive hamster]

On May 25, 1:03 pm, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
[...]

> Dave-Cyclists VORT
> Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
> can use the roads.
> Less than £10 billion of this is spent on roads.
> Q: Do cyclists pay any specific, extra taxes in order to use their
> vehicles on the road?
> A: No. They are sponging freeloaders.

What about motorists who also own cycles? Are they sponging
freeloaders too, or only when they are on their bikes?

And who is Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Dave-Cyclists, and why are they VORT? Is it
a recognised qualification?

[Dave-Cyclists VORT]

On 25/05/2013 17:01, pensive hamster wrote:
> On May 25, 1:03 pm, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> [...]
>> Dave-Cyclists VORT
>> Motorists pay �46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
>> can use the roads.
>> Less than �10 billion of this is spent on roads.
>> Q: Do cyclists pay any specific, extra taxes in order to use their
>> vehicles on the road?
>> A: No. They are sponging freeloaders.
>
> What about motorists who also own cycles? Are they sponging
> freeloaders too, or only when they are on their bikes?

You are beginning to understand. They are sponging freeloaders when
they are on their bikes.

>
> And who is Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Dave-Cyclists, and why are they VORT? Is it
> a recognised qualification?
>

Dave - Cyclists Voice of Reason. I'm on a mission to cure the
unfortunate of their cycling disability. The suffix is to remind me
which sig is appropriate. T for Tax.

--

[pensive hamster]

On May 25, 5:52 pm, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 25/05/2013 17:01, pensive hamster wrote:

[...]

> > And who is Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Dave-Cyclists, and why are they VORT? Is it
> > a recognised qualification?
>
> Dave - Cyclists Voice of Reason.

Oh I see. If you write it as above, with spaces either side of the
dash, that makes better sense. Otherwise it is a hyphen, suggesting
'Dave-Cyclists' is a double-barrelled surname.

Also, Cyclists should have a possessive apostrophe, thus: Cyclists'
http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophe_rules.htm

Your ideas on transport policy and tax reform may gain more traction,
once you have mastered grammar and punctuation.

> I'm on a mission to cure the
> unfortunate of their cycling disability.

Have you gathered many disciples for your mission, or are you a lone
voice in the wilderness?

> The suffix is to remind me
> which sig is appropriate.  T for Tax.
>

Not many people would be able to guess the meaning of VORT. For
clarity, I would recommend something like this: "Dave - The Cyclists'
Voice of Reason on Tax"

[Dave - Cyclists VORK]

On 25/05/2013 18:43, pensive hamster wrote:
> On May 25, 5:52 pm, Dave-Cyclists VORT <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 25/05/2013 17:01, pensive hamster wrote:
> [...]
>>> And who is Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss Dave-Cyclists, and why are they VORT? Is it
>>> a recognised qualification?
>>
>> Dave - Cyclists Voice of Reason.
>
> Oh I see. If you write it as above, with spaces either side of the
> dash, that makes better sense. Otherwise it is a hyphen, suggesting
> 'Dave-Cyclists' is a double-barrelled surname.

Not to anyone with half a brain.

>
> Also, Cyclists should have a possessive apostrophe, thus: Cyclists'
> http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophe_rules.htm

Only if you are an anally retentive idiot.

>
> Your ideas on transport policy and tax reform may gain more traction,
> once you have mastered grammar and punctuation.

The message is clearly understood by normal people e.g. non cyclists.

>
>
>> I'm on a mission to cure the
>> unfortunate of their cycling disability.
>
> Have you gathered many disciples for your mission, or are you a lone
> voice in the wilderness?

I'm gathering followers by the day.

>
>
>> The suffix is to remind me
>> which sig is appropriate. T for Tax.
>>
>
> Not many people would be able to guess the meaning of VORT. For
> clarity, I would recommend something like this: "Dave - The Cyclists'
> Voice of Reason on Tax"

You appear to be confusing me with someone who gives a shit.

>
>
>> Dave-Cyclists VORT
>> Motorists pay 46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
>> can use the roads.
>> Less than 10 billion of this is spent on roads.
>> Q: Do cyclists pay any specific, extra taxes in order to use their
>> vehicles on the road?
>> A: No. They are sponging freeloaders.
>

--
Dave-Cyclists VORK
Motorists account for 1 single fatality per 208,311,415 miles driven. A
simply incredible safety record.

[Judith]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:49:42 +0100, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

<snip>

>I only recall experiencing it once - young lad on a club run was riding
>head-down up a long steep hill and slowly rode into (I think it was) a
>parked van. He was wearing a helmet - had he not been then he might
>have seen the thing

Of course - only a fuckwitted cyclist would wear a helmet over his eyes.

--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.