A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycling code of conduct



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old April 26th 15, 04:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,733
Default Cycling code of conduct

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:02:25 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:46, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:39:12 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
Tarcap wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html


The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the 'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a
lead
or just dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many
unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing
it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to
control
the dog before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly
did not.

Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?
I'll give you a clue.
a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait
until a car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's
no way it could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog
walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.

Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law
abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business,
looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no
warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for dangerous
driving?

No.

You won't be able to do anything at all.


Very funny. Now could a nearby cop do you for dangerous driving?


What? Sitting at this computer in the spare bedroom?

What are you on?


You have to use your imagination and picture yourself driving in the above situation.

--
If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers.
Ads
  #52  
Old April 26th 15, 04:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Cycling code of conduct

On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html





The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.


Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law
abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business,
looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no
warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for dangerous
driving?

Irrelevant. That's not what happened in this case. Nice diversionary
tactic.

The cyclists should have been aware that dogs sometimes do silly things
and made allowances.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #53  
Old April 26th 15, 04:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Cycling code of conduct

On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html





The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.


When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to
be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that
was it.

Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #54  
Old April 26th 15, 04:30 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Cycling code of conduct

On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html





The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.


Doesn't matter, the dog was the stupid one and the dog was at fault.
People should not have to correct others' ****ups.

Typical cyclist, blame everybody else.

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

Mr Goldsmith, 49, told the Mail: ‘The dogs were a few feet away from her
when a cyclist, wearing headphones, just came out of nowhere. He was
going far too fast and didn’t slow down.
‘Suddenly he went over Cheech with both wheels. Cheech yelped and did a
parachute roll before lying down on his side. He looked dead.’
Although both his wife and a witness challenged the man, he merely
abused them before riding off.
--------------------------------------------

The dogs were a few feet away. The cyclist was wearing headphones. He
was going too fast & didn't slow down. The cyclist abused them & rode off.





--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #55  
Old April 26th 15, 04:44 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,733
Default Cycling code of conduct

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:27:20 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html





The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.


When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to
be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that
was it.

Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front?


I take it you had some new age namby pamby driving test?

--
"I can't find a cause for your illness," the doctor said. "Frankly, I think it's due to drinking."
"In that case," replied his blonde patient, "I'll come back when you're sober."
  #56  
Old April 26th 15, 04:44 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,733
Default Cycling code of conduct

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:26:32 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html





The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.


Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law
abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business,
looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no
warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for dangerous
driving?

Irrelevant. That's not what happened in this case. Nice diversionary
tactic.

The cyclists should have been aware that dogs sometimes do silly things
and made allowances.


No the owner of the dog should have made allowance and had it on a lead.

--
Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner.
  #57  
Old April 26th 15, 04:44 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,733
Default Cycling code of conduct

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:26:32 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:35, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html





The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.


Tell you what. Drive along in a built up area at the correct law
abiding speed, and I'll stand on the pavement minding my own business,
looking at some flowers in a garden, then run in front of you with no
warning, about 2 feet in front of you. Can I get you done for dangerous
driving?

Irrelevant. That's not what happened in this case. Nice diversionary
tactic.

The cyclists should have been aware that dogs sometimes do silly things
and made allowances.


No the owner of the dog should have made allowance and had it on a lead.

--
Bad command or file name! Go stand in the corner.
  #58  
Old April 26th 15, 04:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tough Guy no. 1265
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,733
Default Cycling code of conduct

On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:30:40 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html





The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing it.. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.


Doesn't matter, the dog was the stupid one and the dog was at fault.
People should not have to correct others' ****ups.

Typical cyclist, blame everybody else.

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

Mr Goldsmith, 49, told the Mail: ‘The dogs were a few feet away from her
when a cyclist, wearing headphones, just came out of nowhere. He was
going far too fast and didn’t slow down.
‘Suddenly he went over Cheech with both wheels. Cheech yelped and did a
parachute roll before lying down on his side. He looked dead.’
Although both his wife and a witness challenged the man, he merely
abused them before riding off.
--------------------------------------------

The dogs were a few feet away. The cyclist was wearing headphones. He
was going too fast & didn't slow down. The cyclist abused them & rode off.


The dog was in front of a bicycle. The dog was too thick to recognise a thing moving faster than itself on wheels presented a danger. The dog had it coming.

--
Mr Churchill is reputed to have once said
"It will be long, it will be hard, and there'll be no withdrawal"
  #59  
Old April 26th 15, 04:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Cycling code of conduct

On 26/04/2015 16:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:27:20 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html






The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a
lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing
it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait
until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no
way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog
walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.

When I took my test in 1997 there was no hazard awareness. You had to
be able to stop if a clipboard collided with your dashboard, but that
was it.

Did you have a bloke with a red flag walking in front?


I take it you had some new age namby pamby driving test?

If you mean an advanced drivers course, then yes.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
  #60  
Old April 26th 15, 04:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
The Medway Handyman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,359
Default Cycling code of conduct

On 26/04/2015 16:45, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:30:40 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 15:36, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 15:13:56 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 14:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:24:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 26/04/2015 12:01, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 11:11:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 25/04/2015 18:44, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:05:51 +0100, Tarcap
wrote:

Fairly normal behaviour for cyclist, perhaps?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...chihuahua.html






The first comment on the page says it all: "Did the bike run over
the
'dog' or the 'dog' run under the bike? Was the animal on a
lead or
just
dashing around like a headless chicken? Too many unknowns."

I severely doubt a cyclist crashed into a dog without seeing
it. I
would suggest the dog ran under the bike. A lot of dogs do that
when
I'm cycling, but the owners usually say sorry and try to control
the dog
before it gets too close. The above dog owner clearly did not.


Typical cyclist response.

Which one was the vehicle?

I'll give you a clue.

a) the one with the wheels.
b) the one with the paws.

Irrelevant. If a dog or person runs in front of your car and dies,
it's
not automatically your fault. Someone could very easily wait
until a
car was 2 feet from them and leap in front of it and there's no
way it
could stop.

Except that the idiot cyclist had 395 acres of open space and still
managed to run over a small dog.

He could have simply been cycling along the path, and the dog
walker on
the other side of it, then the dog stupidly ran in front of the bike.

Then someone in control of a vehicle should have used observation and
anticipation skills.

It's called hazard awareness and is part of the driving test. Shame
cyclists don't have to pass a test.

Doesn't matter, the dog was the stupid one and the dog was at fault.
People should not have to correct others' ****ups.

Typical cyclist, blame everybody else.

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

Mr Goldsmith, 49, told the Mail: ‘The dogs were a few feet away from her
when a cyclist, wearing headphones, just came out of nowhere. He was
going far too fast and didn’t slow down.
‘Suddenly he went over Cheech with both wheels. Cheech yelped and did a
parachute roll before lying down on his side. He looked dead.’
Although both his wife and a witness challenged the man, he merely
abused them before riding off.
--------------------------------------------

The dogs were a few feet away. The cyclist was wearing headphones. He
was going too fast & didn't slow down. The cyclist abused them & rode
off.


The dog was in front of a bicycle. The dog was too thick to recognise a
thing moving faster than itself on wheels presented a danger. The dog
had it coming.

You appear to be saying that the dog was more intelligent than the
cyclist. In which case I agree.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Petition New Highway Code shows contempt for cycling and safety Alan Braggins UK 41 June 11th 07 07:15 PM
Petition [was New Highway Code shows contempt for cycling and safety] Nick Maclaren UK 16 April 17th 07 04:44 PM
Cycling-specific coupon code and deal site [email protected] Marketplace 0 October 6th 05 06:01 PM
BV's "Self regulated code of conduct" Jorgen Australia 2 October 7th 03 04:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.