Van causes cyclist to injur himself

Ian wrote:
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...
Mr. Benn wrote:
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809
Can I refer the learned gentleman from Catford about another video
on that site http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a8_1191428970

A cyclist riding on a railway platform.


No road rage here (same site - ta!!!)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd5e03a3e9



Did that incident happen on the last Friday of a month?

--

Tony Dragon

"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809

Reminds me of those classic Manchester bollard attacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro



--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On 3 Oct, 13:59, Paul Luton wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809

No but perhaps the fault of the designer. If the cyclist was
legitimately passing the barrier and would have no need to stop (no
parking charge ?) then a shorter barrier would have avoided the problem.

Probably, as usual, the designer was so preoccupied with drivers he
forgot that cyclists exist.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

Doug wrote:
On 3 Oct, 13:59, Paul Luton wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809
No but perhaps the fault of the designer. If the cyclist was
legitimately passing the barrier and would have no need to stop (no
parking charge ?) then a shorter barrier would have avoided the problem.

Probably, as usual, the designer was so preoccupied with drivers he
forgot that cyclists exist.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.


Or perhaps the barrier was intended to stop people (including cyclists)
until it was raised.

--

Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 3 Oct, 13:59, Paul Luton wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809
No but perhaps the fault of the designer. If the cyclist was
legitimately passing the barrier and would have no need to stop (no
parking charge ?) then a shorter barrier would have avoided the problem.

Probably, as usual, the designer was so preoccupied with drivers he
forgot that cyclists exist.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.


Or perhaps the barrier was intended to stop people (including cyclists)
until it was raised.

Hardly, it's easy enough to go round.
Just another pillock who though they could beat the barrier.
Could have slowed down a bit and waited to go with the next car or just
sauntered round the side.

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Keitht twisted the electrons to say:
Could have slowed down a bit and waited to go with the next car or just
sauntered round the side.

Or bought a recumbent trike and gone under it? :-)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 3 Oct, 13:59, Paul Luton wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809
No but perhaps the fault of the designer. If the cyclist was
legitimately passing the barrier and would have no need to stop (no
parking charge ?) then a shorter barrier would have avoided the problem.

Probably, as usual, the designer was so preoccupied with drivers he
forgot that cyclists exist.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.


Or perhaps the barrier was intended to stop people (including cyclists)
until it was raised.

For what purpose including cyclists ?



--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

Paul Luton wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 3 Oct, 13:59, Paul Luton wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809
No but perhaps the fault of the designer. If the cyclist was
legitimately passing the barrier and would have no need to stop (no
parking charge ?) then a shorter barrier would have avoided the
problem.

Probably, as usual, the designer was so preoccupied with drivers he
forgot that cyclists exist.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.


Or perhaps the barrier was intended to stop people (including
cyclists) until it was raised.

For what purpose including cyclists ?

The barrier is there to control entry to a workplace site, isn't it?

Paul Luton wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 3 Oct, 13:59, Paul Luton wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809
No but perhaps the fault of the designer. If the cyclist was
legitimately passing the barrier and would have no need to stop (no
parking charge ?) then a shorter barrier would have avoided the
problem.

Probably, as usual, the designer was so preoccupied with drivers he
forgot that cyclists exist.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.


Or perhaps the barrier was intended to stop people (including
cyclists) until it was raised.

For what purpose including cyclists ?




You know you might be surprised how many times I see barriers that are
intended to stop people until they are allowed access, have you never
seen such barriers, or don't you get out much.

--

Tony Dragon

On 4 Oct, 11:20, Keitht KeithT wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 3 Oct, 13:59, Paul Luton wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Clearly the fault of the van driver travelling ahead of the cyclist
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf7_1254415809
No but perhaps the fault of the designer. If the cyclist was
legitimately passing the barrier and would have no need to stop (no
parking charge ?) then a shorter barrier would have avoided the problem.

Probably, as usual, the designer was so preoccupied with drivers he
forgot that cyclists exist.


Or perhaps the barrier was intended to stop people (including cyclists)
until it was raised.

Hardly, it's easy enough to go round.
Just another pillock who though they could beat the barrier.
Could have slowed down a bit and waited to go with the next car or just
sauntered round the side.

Have you not seen the video? The barrier is for the purpose of making
drivers either pay or record their presence, from which cyclists are
presumably excluded. A slightly shorter barrier arm would allow the
free passage of cyclists but not drivers.


--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.