On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:32:45 +0100, "Tarcap" wrote:



"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
.. .

"Tarcap" considered Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:21:09
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

Not too surprising that he is dead, really.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...pton-1-6359774


The sad thing is that they expect others (i.e. motorists, lorry drivers,
councils, etc.) to jump through hoops "in the interests of safety", but
they
are too bloody mean to spend a few quid to provide even the most basic
safety equipment.

Darwin at work yet again.

Presumably you would also be defending the van driver if he'd run down
a pedestrian crossing the road into which he was turning, despite the
pedestrian having the right-of-way and no obligation to use any lights
at all, or even wear anything other than ordinary clothing.

I'm struggling to get any useful meaning out of your post.
Did you not realise that it's compulsory for cyclists to have lights, which
is not the case for pedestrians?
Why have you introduced pedestrian crossings into the scenario, when there
was no mention of such in the article?
Other than in a futile attempt to divert blame away from the cyclist, of
course.
Methinks you are up to your usual trick of employing Bovine Scatology to
further the psycholist cause.


Now look here. M'Lud the barista is an expert on legal matters - and if he
says what could happen with a pedestrian is relevant, then it is a statement of
legal fact.