Cyclists do't kill pedestrians

Tony Dragon wrote:
On 23/09/2010 07:55, David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:24:25 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Marie
wrote this:-

Or do they?

Cyclists don't kill pedestrians very often. A troll would turn that
into claims that they never kill pedestrians, in order to attack the
straw man. Nice try, but your post was boringly predictable.

Anyway, the article doesn't say that the cyclist killed the
pedestrian. It may well be that the pedestrian died in hospital two
days later from injuries caused in the crash, but that is not the
only possibility. Hospitals are dangerous places. Neither does the
story tell us how the pedestrian came to be on the road where he was
struck. If someone "steps out unexpectedly" in front of a motorist
then the trolls here are sympathetic towards the motorist, but in
the same circumstances express no sympathy towards a cyclist. It is
an example of their attitudes. TRL549.

Meanwhile another pavement motorist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314227/Drink-driving-nurse-sentenced-years-killing-grandmother-seriously-injuring-grandchildren.html





If he had not been in collision with the cyclist, then he would not be
in hospital.

perhaps it was the pedestrian trying to assert his rights to use the
pavement, and therefore his own fault.

Marie wrote:
Or do they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11388170

Maybe a very rare example but what we do know is motorists kill around
40 pedestrians a year on the pavement, another 60-80 or so on pedestrian
crossings and about 600 a year in total. That's between one and two a day.

Your point was?

Tony

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:34:58 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Marie wrote:
Or do they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11388170

Maybe a very rare example but what we do know is motorists kill around
40 pedestrians a year on the pavement, another 60-80 or so on pedestrian
crossings and about 600 a year in total. That's between one and two a day.

According to local reports the pedestrian was believed to be crossing
the road at the time and the cyclist was also injured. I can't find
any indication of fault at this point, which is probably why plod are
asking for witnesses.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:00:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:-

According to local reports the pedestrian was believed to be crossing
the road at the time and the cyclist was also injured. I can't find
any indication of fault at this point,

No matter what facts emerge the usual suspects will continue to
claim it was all the cyclist's fault, just as they continue to do in
other cases. My mother told me not to mock the afflicted, but I
can't help smiling at their desperate attempts to be taken
seriously.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On 23/09/2010 08:34, Tony Raven wrote:
Marie wrote:
Or do they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11388170

Maybe a very rare example but what we do know is motorists kill around
40 pedestrians a year on the pavement,

Yet the latest DfT data for factors that contributed to road casualties
give "vehicle travelling along pavement" as a factor in just 7
fatalities - and they don't say how many of those involved cars or bicycles.

Perhaps you are confusing that with the data for the number of
fatalities that occurred on the footway _or_ verge (no distinction is
made, so footway-only numbers cannot be verified), which is 45 in the
latest data, and for which the vehicle was there, not intentionally (as
for the 7 cases mentioned above), but was travelling along or across the
pavement or verge as a result of having lost control on the main
carriageway.

There is an important distinction which I am very sure you are well
aware of.

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
On 23/09/2010 08:34, Tony Raven wrote:
Marie wrote:
Or do they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11388170

Maybe a very rare example but what we do know is motorists kill around
40 pedestrians a year on the pavement,

Yet the latest DfT data for factors that contributed to road casualties
give "vehicle travelling along pavement" as a factor in just 7
fatalities - and they don't say how many of those involved cars or
bicycles.

Probably zero. There is only one death every four years or so on the
pavement or verge involving a bicycle.


Perhaps you are confusing that with the data for the number of
fatalities that occurred on the footway _or_ verge (no distinction is
made, so footway-only numbers cannot be verified), which is 45 in the
latest data, and for which the vehicle was there, not intentionally (as
for the 7 cases mentioned above), but was travelling along or across the
pavement or verge as a result of having lost control on the main
carriageway.

There is an important distinction which I am very sure you are well
aware of.


I am sure the pedestrians involved will appreciate the distinction.

Tony

On 23/09/2010 07:55, David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:24:25 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Marie
wrote this:-

Or do they?

Cyclists don't kill pedestrians very often. A troll would turn that
into claims that they never kill pedestrians, in order to attack the
straw man. Nice try, but your post was boringly predictable.

Anyway, the article doesn't say that the cyclist killed the
pedestrian. It may well be that the pedestrian died in hospital two
days later from injuries caused in the crash, but that is not the
only possibility. Hospitals are dangerous places. Neither does the
story tell us how the pedestrian came to be on the road where he was
struck. If someone "steps out unexpectedly" in front of a motorist
then the trolls here are sympathetic towards the motorist, but in
the same circumstances express no sympathy towards a cyclist. It is
an example of their attitudes. TRL549.

Meanwhile another pavement motorist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314227/Drink-driving-nurse-sentenced-years-killing-grandmother-seriously-injuring-grandchildren.html

Hansen's latest mantra:

If a pedestrian dies after being run down by a motor vehicle, it's the
driver's fault.

If a pedestrian dies after being run down by a cyclist on the footway, it's
the hospital's fault.

On 23/09/2010 09:33, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:00:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you wrote this:-

According to local reports the pedestrian was believed to be crossing
the road at the time and the cyclist was also injured. I can't find
any indication of fault at this point,

No matter what facts emerge the usual suspects will continue to
claim it was all the cyclist's fault, just as they continue to do in
other cases. My mother told me not to mock the afflicted, but I
can't help smiling at their desperate attempts to be taken
seriously...

....says the poster who blamed (imaginary) infection in hospital for the death
of a pedestrian hit by a cyclist.

David Hansen wrote:

--
WRIGGLE ALERT

Anyway, the article doesn't say that the cyclist killed the
pedestrian.

"Police are appealing for witnesses after a pedestrian who was in collision
with a cyclist died."

It may well be that the pedestrian died in hospital two
days later from injuries caused in the crash, but that is not the
only possibility.

It isn't?

Hospitals are dangerous places.

Why? Are they full of cyclists riding illegally around the corridors?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

On 23/09/2010 18:11, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2010 09:33, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:00:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you wrote this:-

According to local reports the pedestrian was believed to be crossing
the road at the time and the cyclist was also injured. I can't find
any indication of fault at this point,

No matter what facts emerge the usual suspects will continue to
claim it was all the cyclist's fault, just as they continue to do in
other cases. My mother told me not to mock the afflicted, but I
can't help smiling at their desperate attempts to be taken
seriously...

...says the poster who blamed (imaginary) infection in hospital for the
death of a pedestrian hit by a cyclist.

No he said it was one possibility, not that he thought it actually happened.