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

Cyclist in accident drives off



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old August 17th 08, 08:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
nully[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:26:02 +0100 someone who may be nully
wrote this:-

My dog is a fully paid-up
member of my family. Someone injures it, and attempts to leg it from the
scene, that person gonna have to go *through* me first. I challenge the
nutters here to find *any* 'decent' dog owner with a different mindset.


A decent dog owner recognises that, no matter how endearing they may
be, a dog is a dog. They are not substitute humans. It is important
that a dog is trained to know that its station in life is below that
of a human. Get this wrong and the result is a dog attacking humans.

That does not mean that a dog should be badly treated, but it does
mean that the dog will always be the first to be sacrificed in the
sort of extreme situation most people hope they never encounter.

I will not feed you any more.

Thats okay, thanks. I'm not hungry. Thanks for your miserable insights
on ownership though, and please pass on my pity for any animals
unfortunate enough to live with you
Ads
  #72  
Old August 17th 08, 08:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Robin Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

nully wrote:
With a couple of notable exceptions (and thank God for them,
otherwise I'd believe this place to be nothing but a nut-hatch) some
cyclists seem to be looking for ways to excuse this ******* just riding
away.


I wasn't, but you gave a pretty good one when you suggested that you'd
have been violent towards him.
  #73  
Old August 17th 08, 08:30 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
nully[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

Robin Johnson wrote:
nully wrote:
With a couple of notable exceptions (and thank God for them, otherwise
I'd believe this place to be nothing but a nut-hatch) some cyclists
seem to be looking for ways to excuse this ******* just riding away.


I wasn't, but you gave a pretty good one when you suggested that you'd
have been violent towards him.


Cart goes before the horse. We were talking about someone *leaving the
scene*, not being involved in an accident.
  #74  
Old August 17th 08, 09:07 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
nully[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

Phil W Lee wrote:
nully considered Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:26:02 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

judith wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:13:11 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"nully" wrote in message
...

Do me a favour, Marc. Please cycle into *my* dog and ride off. Or rather,
attempt to.
Nice - that's more than once you've threatened violence against members of
this NG.

That is completely unacceptable.


And your views on Marc's post:

"With even more luck the turd dispenser got lost forever, died and
the owner got put off buying another one."

You're wasting your time. As someone (you?) previously said "there's
none so blind as those that will not see". My dog is a fully paid-up
member of my family. Someone injures it, and attempts to leg it from the
scene, that person gonna have to go *through* me first. I challenge the
nutters here to find *any* 'decent' dog owner with a different mindset.


I look forward to the news reports from lincoln - after all, you've
already admitted to it having a liking for human flesh, which is more
than enough for it to be destroyed under the dangerous dogs act.


I have a car which will top 140 mph. Going to have that seized too? LOL
do get a grip old chap.
  #75  
Old August 17th 08, 09:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Paul Luton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 123
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

Peter Grange wrote:


I did say the cyclist should have stopped, and so did another poster.
hardly defending they (sic) selfishness at every hands turn. Also we
do not know the details of the particular incident. In my experience,
as I have said already, dogs are often not "Under Control".

No-one's commented on my comments about the picture in the article.
Does that look like someone who is showing consideration for other
users of the path?


Because the answer is clearly "no" ,which is sadly typical of dog
walkers, but better than loose to charge under ones wheels.
(incidentally having ridden to work for many years along a shared path
children do NOT charge under ones wheels and are much easier to avoid )
Any yes the cyclist should have stopped; alas a halo does not come free
with every bike.

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames
  #76  
Old August 17th 08, 09:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
nully[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

Phil W Lee wrote:
nully considered Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:05:34 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

Marc wrote:
nully wrote:
Marc wrote:
nully wrote:
Marc wrote:
nully wrote:
Marc wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:52:07 +0100, nully wrote:

Marc wrote:
HarryHill wrote:
‘There may be serious consequences if a cyclist hits a child’

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...1466-21415408/



CALLS have been made for the widening of a pedestrian and
cycle path after a dog was hit by a bicycle.

Anne-Marie Wilkins, 37, from Llandaff North, is starting a
petition calling for the Taff Trail to be widened through
Hailey Park after her dog Bonny was run over by a cyclist,
who then immediately rode off.

My money is on the little turd dispenser either being on a
35ft extendable lead or not being on one at all.
Which gives the cyclist the right to simply ride off and ignore
the incident then? Cycles should be required to carry reg
plates to avoid cowardly behaviour such as this. Be nice to see
some posters condemn the cyclist leaving the scene
*irrespective of fault*, but I guess I'm asking for too much
there - after all, cyclists are beyond fault, right?
Out of common courtesy the cyclist should have stopped, IMO. Please
don't extend the act of one person to "all cyclists are beyond
fault,
right?".
Stopped to be bitten?
Stopped to be attacked by the "aggrieved" owner?

Loose turd dispenser,
Loose turd dispenser is scared but unhurt by cyclist
Loose turd dispenser learns lesson
Turd dispenser's owner doesn't learn lesson and starts a petition
to spend £100,000s rather than her buying a lead

What possible help would it have been for the cyclist to have
stopped?
Do me a favour, Marc. Please cycle into *my* dog and ride off. Or
rather, attempt to.
I find it much funnier to use the airzound.

Hmmmm, deliberate and intentional attempt to frighten and harrass
legitimate path user?
No, an attempt to stop the little turd rat running between my wheel
and bottom bracket, hurting both of us.
No answer?
Fine, have a go. I'm reasonably confident my dog
will 'intimidate' you rather more than you intimidate it )
Whilst it's on a lead? How could it do so?
Well I'm afraid I might have accidentally let go of it.
I'm sure you will support the police then in their attempts to shoot
this out of control dangerous animal?

Oh no, it wont be "out of control" at all! As soon as I tell it to stop
eating you, it will. It just might take me a moment or too before I
remember the command, is all...

When that happened
The turd dispenser:-
Levitated 18 inches
Rotated 90 degrees anticlockwise , whilst still in the air.
Started running at exactly the same speed I was cycling, in the
direction I was cycling.
Leaving behind it's owner calling "Doggikins" in a forlorn manner.
Looked over it's shoulder every 20 seconds to see me still there.
2 miles later it dashed for the bushes.

With a bit of luck the owner might have learnt that when it was
taking its dog out for a walk ( Dog owner speak for " taking the
dog to **** somewhere that isn't my patch") It might be a good idea
to put it on a lead.
With even more luck the turd dispenser got lost forever, died and
the owner got put off buying another one.
What a delightful piece of vermin you are. C'mon, cycle round here.
The dog needs feeding anyway.
You really don't understand your place in things do you?


You are here to have the **** extracted out of you and to see whether
it's possible to see spittle via text, it's your only function(s).
Oh I get it. Now you're attempting to backtrack your foul comments on
the basis that you were just trying to wind someone up?
No not at all. I'm just explaining why I bother replying to you.

Have you ever wondered which end of the line has the hook on it?

LOL, nice try.
Like I said, you're welcome to ride round Lincoln and see if you come
across 48 kilos of GSD coming the other way...
There are only so many cabbages I can take in a day.

Nah, Cocoa doesn't *like* cabbage. She *loves* calf muscle, though!


So you admit to keeping a dangerous dog?

That exchange could sign it's death warrant, if there's anyone who
knows you, dislikes the mutt, and can use google.


There *isn't* anyone who dislikes him. And while I've read *lots* of
reports of dogs being seized under the DDA, I've yet to come across a
single one where a dog was taken without there being any evidence of it
having bitten someone, unless you'd like to show otherwise? No? Right,
well feel free to talk about something you know about instead then.
  #77  
Old August 17th 08, 09:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
nully[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

Phil W Lee wrote:
Marc considered Sun, 17 Aug 2008
19:35:11 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Peter Grange wrote:
In my experience,
as I have said already, dogs are often not "Under Control".

No-one's commented on my comments about the picture in the article.
Does that look like someone who is showing consideration for other
users of the path?

I looks like a dog walker, ipso facto someone not "showing
consideration" for other members of society.


I wouldn't say that all dog walkers fall into this category, but in
the picture, the dog is one side of the path, the pushchair is the
other, and if there is a lead, it's blocking the path between them.
There is clearly no room for anyone else to use the path.
The dog should be either at close heel, or on the grass side, leaving
enough room for people to pass.

I see nothing in the article saying that the dog was on the lead at
the time of the incident, which I believe would have been mentioned if
it was the case.


Hmmmm, okay then. You're suggesting that the dog owner isn't using the
path with due consideration for other users? Actually, you might have a
valid point there! Oh hang on, though. Didn't all the cyclists in the
thread about using the road rather than the cyclepath say something like
"tough ****, we have a right to be there, and if you're inconvenienced
by that then I couldn't care less"? Hmmmmm, seems like what goes around,
comes around, huh? Looks like you cyclists will have to wait until the
walker clears the way then!
  #78  
Old August 17th 08, 09:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Marc[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,589
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

Phil W Lee wrote:
nully considered Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:26:02 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

judith wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:13:11 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"nully" wrote in message
...

Do me a favour, Marc. Please cycle into *my* dog and ride off. Or rather,
attempt to.
Nice - that's more than once you've threatened violence against members of
this NG.

That is completely unacceptable.


And your views on Marc's post:

"With even more luck the turd dispenser got lost forever, died and
the owner got put off buying another one."

You're wasting your time. As someone (you?) previously said "there's
none so blind as those that will not see". My dog is a fully paid-up
member of my family. Someone injures it, and attempts to leg it from the
scene, that person gonna have to go *through* me first. I challenge the
nutters here to find *any* 'decent' dog owner with a different mindset.


I look forward to the news reports from lincoln - after all, you've
already admitted to it having a liking for human flesh, which is more
than enough for it to be destroyed under the dangerous dogs act.

Errr not quite right.

A dog needs to be one of a number of limited defined "breeds" to be a
"dangerous dog" What does worry me is a same person thinking that an
animal is part of the family. I was brought up with working dogs, they
slept in the shed , were transported in the boot of the car, were
trained, used as a tool. I can't understand the concept of a dog as a
pet, ****ting on other peoples (or communal) land , fed off a plate ,
cuddled, thought of as a surrogate child etc...

A dog is a tool , much like a knife, there is a use for a knife in the
woods, not much on a urban street, there is a use for a dog in the
fields/woods, none whatsoever in an urban area.

This started with some dog owner complaining that her little
doogiewoogie was scared by a cyclist in a "field" in Llandaff. What she
failed to mention was that this "field" was a recreation area, full of
football and rugby fields.
Now can anyone tell me why there should be a reason for a doggiewoggie
to be in an area where people will be grubbing around in the grass at
dog**** level?

No doubt some doggiewoggie lover will come along and say that they
"always" pick up after their animal, but how much do they pick up, is it
enough so that there is no trace whatsoever, so that when the next
doggiewoggie comes along, not on a lead, not controlled, with an owner
who doesn't give a **** there isn't the slightest trace to convince that
dog ( the more common one) that it hasn't found a midden?
I doubt it, but I'm sure that some doggiewoggie owner will try to
convince themselves that it is so, there is no arguing with people who
think that animals are "family"
  #79  
Old August 17th 08, 09:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
nully[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

Paul Luton wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:


I did say the cyclist should have stopped, and so did another poster.
hardly defending they (sic) selfishness at every hands turn. Also we
do not know the details of the particular incident. In my experience,
as I have said already, dogs are often not "Under Control".
No-one's commented on my comments about the picture in the article.
Does that look like someone who is showing consideration for other
users of the path?


Because the answer is clearly "no" ,which is sadly typical of dog
walkers, but better than loose to charge under ones wheels.
(incidentally having ridden to work for many years along a shared path
children do NOT charge under ones wheels and are much easier to avoid )
Any yes the cyclist should have stopped; alas a halo does not come free
with every bike.

So Paul, are you saying that a dog walker on the path has a 'duty of
care' to watch for cyclists moving faster than him, and to 'make way'
(for want of a better phrase) if one comes along? I'm only asking for
clarification here - if thats *not* your point then I do apologise and
would love your correction
  #80  
Old August 17th 08, 09:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Marc[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,589
Default Cyclist in accident drives off

Phil W Lee wrote:
Marc considered Sun, 17 Aug 2008
19:35:11 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Peter Grange wrote:
In my experience,
as I have said already, dogs are often not "Under Control".

No-one's commented on my comments about the picture in the article.
Does that look like someone who is showing consideration for other
users of the path?

I looks like a dog walker, ipso facto someone not "showing
consideration" for other members of society.


I wouldn't say that all dog walkers fall into this category,


No people who use dogs as tools don't, but they aren't "dog walkers"
Dog walkers are people who need to take their dog out for "a walk" , "a
walk" is a euphanism for "taking the dog for **** somewhere else" dogs
that are owned for a use don't need walking for excercise, dogs owned as
an emotional crutch( or as fashion accesorry) are something else.

but in
the picture, the dog is one side of the path, the pushchair is the
other, and if there is a lead, it's blocking the path between them.
There is clearly no room for anyone else to use the path.
The dog should be either at close heel, or on the grass side, leaving
enough room for people to pass.


You really think that the dog is trained to, heel?

I see nothing in the article saying that the dog was on the lead at
the time of the incident, which I believe would have been mentioned if
it was the case.

Of course it would, if it had been injured it would have been mentioned,
the devil is in the detail and is in what's not mentioned.
 




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
Who needs hub drives? [email protected] Techniques 1 February 3rd 08 05:05 AM
Saw-tooth drives [email protected] Techniques 2 January 30th 08 07:37 PM
Cyclist accident insurance sss Australia 15 July 15th 05 08:16 AM
Cyclist in accident this morning Claude Australia 12 June 16th 05 01:18 PM
Cyclist killed in freak accident.... Adrian Boliston UK 24 August 21st 03 11:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.