On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 01:51:21 GMT, JNugent wrote:

On 06/12/2018 00:20, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/12/2018 15:25, JNugent wrote:
On 05/12/2018 08:29, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 6:32:10 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

****ed cyclist on an unlit footpath at midnight, no helmet.
Family try
to blame the council for their ****wit's death from head
injuries.

Good luck trying to find a sign encouraging cyclists to negotiate
a flight of concrete stairs, up or down.

I don't need to find a sign encouraging cyclists to use it, the
fact there is no sign prohibiting cyclists from using it is enough.

"There's no sign prohibiting me from cycling down this concrete
staircase so I'm going to do it and it's the council's fault ifIÂ*
am fatally injured".

I expect the way an inquest works is that contributory and mitigating
factors have to mentioned. It doesn't mean that any one tries to
"blame" the council as Cheerless suggested above.

One would expect that anybody attempting to get compensation would be
talked out of it before reaching court. But if it's a poorly designed
cycle facility...

OK. But don't take anyone innocent with you while you're doing it.

That is one very important difference between a drunk cyclist and a
drunk driver.

All they need to be doing is walking up those steps with an armful of
shopping or infant child.


Will no-one think of the children?

Let's look again at the (UK) Death-toll; ah, we can't; they're mere Road
Traffic "Accidents", no blame apportioned.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.