Cyclist sent flying into wall by dangerous van driver

On 01/06/2020 16:33, Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 10:42:25 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:

Uninsured as well as no licence.
QUOTE:

Judge says:
"You accepted responsibility for what happened at the scene and expressed remorse."

Get out of jail free card played. PATHETIC.

A cyclist accepting responsibilty and expressing remorse?

A true man-bites-dog story.

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 10:42:25 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:

He had a previous conviction for driving without insurance in 2015 and did not reapply for his licence, said the prosecutor. Miss Evans said the cyclist, "who did not appear to be wearing a helmet",

To be fair to the judge, he did not make a case for the cyclist being partly culpable for his head injuries due to lack of a plastic hat. The van driver was 100% to blame, which was some comfort.

On 01/06/2020 17:46, Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 10:42:25 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:

He had a previous conviction for driving without insurance in 2015 and did not reapply for his licence, said the prosecutor. Miss Evans said the cyclist, "who did not appear to be wearing a helmet",

To be fair to the judge, he did not make a case for the cyclist being partly culpable for his head injuries due to lack of a plastic hat. The van driver was 100% to blame, which was some comfort.

You call him a "van driver", but you ealier reported him as having no
driving licence and (obviously) no valid insurance.

That means that he was a cyclist. It's all his qualifications allowed
him to be.

On 01/06/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2020 11:31, Bod wrote:

Day believes cyclists tend to be more aware of their surroundings than
motorists.

But they have particular difficulty in noticing upcoming traffic lights
and pedestrian crossings,

On the contrary. Not noticing them would be dangerous.

whilst signs saying "No Cyclling" are thought
to be totally invisible to the average cyclist.

Some "No Cycling" signs have no legal force.

On 01/06/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/06/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2020 11:31, Bod wrote:

Day believes cyclists tend to be more aware of their surroundings
than motorists.

But they have particular difficulty in noticing upcoming traffic
lights and pedestrian crossings,

On the contrary. Not noticing them would be dangerous.

It IS dangerous.

But still cyclists don't see them. Or at least, take no notice of them.

whilst signs saying "No Cyclling" are thought to be totally invisible
to the average cyclist.

Some "No Cycling" signs have no legal force.

You always know better than the local authorities and the forces of law
and order, don't you?

On 01/06/2020 23:47, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/06/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:


whilst signs saying "No Cyclling" are thought to be totally invisible
to the average cyclist.

Some "No Cycling" signs have no legal force.

You always know better than the local authorities and the forces of law
and order, don't you?

If some something has no legal force, where do the forces of law
and order come in?

On Monday, June 1, 2020 at 11:12:51 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

Some "No Cycling" signs have no legal force.

As do ALL "Cyclist Dismount" signs.

On 11:14 1 Jun 2020, JNugent said:
On 01/06/2020 10:42, Simon Mason wrote:


Uninsured as well as no licence...

...and therefore only qualified as a cyclist.

An interesting observation. It seems to have got lost in the remainder of
this thread.

When one considers the terrible behaviour of so many cyclists on the
roads (and especially on footways, etc), is it any wonder they're even
worse behind the wheel?

On 02/06/2020 00:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/06/2020 23:47, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/06/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:


whilst signs saying "No Cyclling" are thought to be totally
invisible to the average cyclist.

Some "No Cycling" signs have no legal force.

You always know better than the local authorities and the forces of
law and order, don't you?

If some something has no legal force, where do the forces of law
and order come in?

You're in denial still, I see.

On 02/06/2020 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 02/06/2020 00:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/06/2020 23:47, JNugent wrote:
On 01/06/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/06/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:


whilst signs saying "No Cyclling" are thought to be totally
invisible to the average cyclist.

Some "No Cycling" signs have no legal force.

You always know better than the local authorities and the forces of
law and order, don't you?

If some something has no legal force, where do the forces of law
and order come in?

You're in denial still, I see.

Could you list any other non-existent laws that cyclists should adhere to?