The answer is clear, ban road racing

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:23:08 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any death
in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been carrying
sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or a replacement
vehicle?

Of course, why would they not?
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/mem...ty-Insurance-0
Gosh, is this really how much it takes to cover a whiplash claim these days?

"Whiplash" = made up **** by a naughty doctor to get you money you don't deserve.

--
Microsoft: This company has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 00:44:17 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:

On 18/04/2014 23:59, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2014 14:23, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death
in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been carrying
sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or a
replacement
vehicle?

Of course, why would they not?
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/mem...ty-Insurance-0

Gosh, is this really how much it takes to cover a whiplash claim these
days?

If you're sure that the race organisers will be insured (and that the
policy will be paying proper compensation to the entirely innocent
driver and owner of the vehicle), I am glad to hear it.

One nevertheless wonders what "organisation" they were carrying out. It
strikes me - and perhaps you - that it would be a good idea for the race
organisers to disqualify any competitor who breaks the law during the race.

Cyclists break the law for safety reasons, as can be clearly shown on
this occasion, oh, wait a minute........no, It was clearly the driver's
fault for not anticipating that a cyclist in a hurry was coming, the
driver should have swerved off the road to avoid delaying such an
important person.

Since the race organisers knew that the cyclists were likely to ride
anywhere they pleased, the race organisers are the real culprits here.

Cars crash into each other on the roads every day. Why are you picking on this particular incident where the thing that hit the car did a million times less damage than another car would have done?

--
The female gangbang world record is held by Lisa Sparks who had sex with 919 men on October 16, 2004 in Warsaw, Poland as part of the Third Annual World Gangbang Championship and Eroticon 2004

On 18/04/2014 13:04, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2014 22:41, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why should the general public suffer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27073375

There must have been sever damage to the motor vehicle with which the
cyclist collided head-on on the wrong side of the road, even if that
vehicle was only travelling at 15mph.

I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been
carrying sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or a
replacement vehicle?

Does it depend on how many fridge freezers they own?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

"JNugent" wrote
On 18/04/2014 14:23, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death
in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been carrying
sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or a
replacement
vehicle?

Of course, why would they not?
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/mem...ty-Insurance-0
Gosh, is this really how much it takes to cover a whiplash claim these
days?

If you're sure that the race organisers will be insured (and that the
policy will be paying proper compensation to the entirely innocent driver
and owner of the vehicle), I am glad to hear it.

Well, normal cycle club membership does not cover this type of racing - even
BC's basic membership. I think they make it fairly clear that if you want to
enter at this level you take their racing insurance. (I am not a member of
BC so I can't give chapter and verse.)

I can assure you that when a third party's claim is put in against a
cyclist, it ends up in a large faceless organisation exactly as it does when
the claim is made against a driver.

One nevertheless wonders what "organisation" they were carrying out. It
strikes me - and perhaps you - that it would be a good idea for the race
organisers to disqualify any competitor who breaks the law during the
race.

Serious question. What laws can be broken on country roads?

I grant that race fever probably interferes with proper conduct and the mass
causes intimidation. However, it seems that insurers are still willing to
cover it.

On 19/04/2014 00:50, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:04:40 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 17/04/2014 22:41, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why should the general public suffer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27073375

There must have been sever damage to the motor vehicle with which the
cyclist collided head-on on the wrong side of the road, even if that
vehicle was only travelling at 15mph.

I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been
carrying sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or a
replacement vehicle?

Utter bull****.

What are you talking about (assuming you know)?

I asked a question.

Cyclist dies,

As reported, not through the fault of anyone except himself (except
maybe the race organisers).

someone gets a little dent in their car.

Through the fault of the cyclist (and maybe the race organisers) and not
the fault of the driver or owner of the vehicle.

The damage done to a car or van travelling at the reported 15mph being
hit head-on by a bicycle and rider at an estimated speed of 40mph is
likely to have been *very* extensive. Enough damage to mean write off to
many vehicles. The cost of repairs if it were my eight-year-old car
would certainly be sufficient to ensure a write-off.

Big ****ing deal.

Well it would be if it were your car. Since you cannot feel the pain of
the owner of that vehicle, you assume that there is no loss to him. You
are, as so often in the past, totally wrong.

On 19/04/2014 11:43, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 18/04/2014 14:23, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been
carrying sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or
a replacement vehicle?

Of course, why would they not?
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/mem...ty-Insurance-0
Gosh, is this really how much it takes to cover a whiplash claim these
days?

If you're sure that the race organisers will be insured (and that the
policy will be paying proper compensation to the entirely innocent driver
and owner of the vehicle), I am glad to hear it.

Well, normal cycle club membership does not cover this type of racing - even
BC's basic membership. I think they make it fairly clear that if you want to
enter at this level you take their racing insurance. (I am not a member of
BC so I can't give chapter and verse.)
I can assure you that when a third party's claim is put in against a
cyclist, it ends up in a large faceless organisation exactly as it does when
the claim is made against a driver.

But there may well be no point in putting in a claim against the
deceased cyclist. He might have had no personal cover at all. The
obvious claim is against the "organisers" of the race.

One nevertheless wonders what "organisation" they were carrying out. It
strikes me - and perhaps you - that it would be a good idea for the race
organisers to disqualify any competitor who breaks the law during the
race.

Serious question. What laws can be broken on country roads?

There are offences which can be committed by cyclists. Cycling on the
wrong side of the carriageway such as to collide with traffic
legitimately coming the other way cannot be considered lawful.

I grant that race fever probably interferes with proper conduct and the mass
causes intimidation. However, it seems that insurers are still willing to
cover it.

I should think so too.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:25:36 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 19/04/2014 00:50, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:04:40 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 17/04/2014 22:41, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why should the general public suffer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27073375

There must have been sever damage to the motor vehicle with which the
cyclist collided head-on on the wrong side of the road, even if that
vehicle was only travelling at 15mph.

I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been
carrying sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or a
replacement vehicle?

Utter bull****.

What are you talking about (assuming you know)?

I asked a question.

I'm talking about the repairs to the vehicle. Which will be negligible.

Cyclist dies,

As reported, not through the fault of anyone except himself (except
maybe the race organisers).

No, himself. He can't blame anyone else for crashing into a car which was driving correctly.

someone gets a little dent in their car.

Through the fault of the cyclist (and maybe the race organisers) and not
the fault of the driver or owner of the vehicle.

The damage done to a car or van travelling at the reported 15mph being
hit head-on by a bicycle and rider at an estimated speed of 40mph is
likely to have been *very* extensive. Enough damage to mean write off to
many vehicles. The cost of repairs if it were my eight-year-old car
would certainly be sufficient to ensure a write-off.

Absolute ****ing utter tripe! Are you driving a car made of plasticine? Cars are designed to crumple when you hit concrete, metal, etc, not soft cyclists.

Big ****ing deal.

Well it would be if it were your car. Since you cannot feel the pain of
the owner of that vehicle, you assume that there is no loss to him. You
are, as so often in the past, totally wrong.

If someone died and damaged my vehicle, I would hardly consider the damage to the vehicle as very important. Get your priorities straight.

--
Recent medical journals are now advising doctors that, should they discover a patient has an AOL account, they should refrain from telling the patient they have sugar in their urine.
Studies show these people go home and **** on their cornflakes.

On 19/04/2014 20:52, Uncle Peter wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2014 00:50, Uncle Peter wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2014 22:41, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why should the general public suffer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27073375

There must have been sever damage to the motor vehicle with which the
cyclist collided head-on on the wrong side of the road, even if that
vehicle was only travelling at 15mph.
I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been
carrying sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or a
replacement vehicle?

Utter bull****.

What are you talking about (assuming you know)?
I asked a question.

I'm talking about the repairs to the vehicle. Which will be negligible.

It is certainly possible to neglect them if you aren't the one who has
to pay for the repairs. The cost is going to be in four figures. You
must be very rich if you "think" that to be negligible.

Cyclist dies,

As reported, not through the fault of anyone except himself (except
maybe the race organisers).

No, himself. He can't blame anyone else for crashing into a car which
was driving correctly.

someone gets a little dent in their car.

Through the fault of the cyclist (and maybe the race organisers) and not
the fault of the driver or owner of the vehicle.

The damage done to a car or van travelling at the reported 15mph being
hit head-on by a bicycle and rider at an estimated speed of 40mph is
likely to have been *very* extensive. Enough damage to mean write off to
many vehicles. The cost of repairs if it were my eight-year-old car
would certainly be sufficient to ensure a write-off.

Absolute ****ing utter tripe! Are you driving a car made of
plasticine? Cars are designed to crumple when you hit concrete, metal,
etc, not soft cyclists.

Misguided rather than stupid, surely?

The motor vehicle will have been badly damaged,

Big ****ing deal.

Well it would be if it were your car. Since you cannot feel the pain of
the owner of that vehicle, you assume that there is no loss to him. You
are, as so often in the past, totally wrong.

If someone died and damaged my vehicle, I would hardly consider the
damage to the vehicle as very important. Get your priorities straight.

You wouldn't worry about the loss of (say) £2.000 in repair costs, plus
consequent losses through loss of use?

You must either be very rich or unconcerned about losses suffered by others.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 02:24:10 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 19/04/2014 20:52, Uncle Peter wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2014 00:50, Uncle Peter wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2014 22:41, Mrcheerful wrote:



There must have been sever damage to the motor vehicle with which the
cyclist collided head-on on the wrong side of the road, even if that
vehicle was only travelling at 15mph.
I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been
carrying sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use and/or a
replacement vehicle?

Utter bull****.

What are you talking about (assuming you know)?
I asked a question.

I'm talking about the repairs to the vehicle. Which will be negligible.

It is certainly possible to neglect them if you aren't the one who has
to pay for the repairs. The cost is going to be in four figures. You
must be very rich if you "think" that to be negligible.

When I knocked the front axle off a tractor it cost £2000. And that was with my 750kg car doing 75 mph. Now change that to a 75kg cyclist doing 40mph, with 0.0284 times the kinetic energy.

Big ****ing deal.

Well it would be if it were your car. Since you cannot feel the pain of
the owner of that vehicle, you assume that there is no loss to him. You
are, as so often in the past, totally wrong.

If someone died and damaged my vehicle, I would hardly consider the
damage to the vehicle as very important. Get your priorities straight.

On 20/04/2014 20:08, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 02:24:10 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/04/2014 20:52, Uncle Peter wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2014 00:50, Uncle Peter wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2014 22:41, Mrcheerful wrote:



There must have been sever damage to the motor vehicle with which the
cyclist collided head-on on the wrong side of the road, even if that
vehicle was only travelling at 15mph.
I am as sorry to hear of the cyclist's death as I am to hear of any
death in a traffic accident, but will the race organisers* have been
carrying sufficient insurance to pay for repairs, loss of use
and/or a
replacement vehicle?

Utter bull****.

What are you talking about (assuming you know)?
I asked a question.

I'm talking about the repairs to the vehicle. Which will be negligible.

It is certainly possible to neglect them if you aren't the one who has
to pay for the repairs. The cost is going to be in four figures. You
must be very rich if you "think" that to be negligible.

When I knocked the front axle off a tractor it cost £2000. And that was
with my 750kg car doing 75 mph. Now change that to a 75kg cyclist doing
40mph, with 0.0284 times the kinetic energy.

Are you alright in the head?

The question is rhetorical.

Big ****ing deal.

Well it would be if it were your car. Since you cannot feel the pain of
the owner of that vehicle, you assume that there is no loss to him. You
are, as so often in the past, totally wrong.

If someone died and damaged my vehicle, I would hardly consider the
damage to the vehicle as very important. Get your priorities straight.

You wouldn't worry about the loss of (say) £2.000 in repair costs, plus
consequent losses through loss of use?
You must either be very rich or unconcerned about losses suffered by
others.

If someone had died and cost me £2000, I'd be ****ing selfish to be
worried about the £2000.

So you'd just let your household stand the loss of thousands of pounds
plus consequent losses of earnings - and grin?

I doubt it.