Yob brigade out in force

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:45:47 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:33:47 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/08/2017 15:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Jester wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:09:09 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
This is the response of Cycling UK

http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-relea...-alliston-case

"Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front brake
is illegal, stupid, and endangers other road users especially
pedestrians. Charlie Alliston's actions had tragic consequences
for Kim Briggs' family, and it was entirely right that this led
to his prosecution."

And if the cyclist had died the first question asked would be 'Was
he wearing a helmet?' A low energy impact like this is just the
sort of thing cycle helmets can protect against so why doesn't Mad
Angela campaign for mandatory pedestrian helmets?


Because the would make her "Sensible Angie" and that's never going
to happen.


It is quite feasible that the woman would have survived the impact if
the cyclist HAD been wearing a helmet, so why was the cyclist NOT
wearing a helmet.

How did you reach this conclusion?

It was not a conclusion, it was a suggested feasibility.

Based on what data?

childish insult snipped

Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:45:47 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:33:47 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/08/2017 15:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Jester wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:09:09 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
This is the response of Cycling UK

http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-relea...-alliston-case

"Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front
brake is illegal, stupid, and endangers other road users
especially pedestrians. Charlie Alliston's actions had tragic
consequences for Kim Briggs' family, and it was entirely right
that this led to his prosecution."

And if the cyclist had died the first question asked would be
'Was he wearing a helmet?' A low energy impact like this is just
the sort of thing cycle helmets can protect against so why
doesn't Mad Angela campaign for mandatory pedestrian helmets?


Because the would make her "Sensible Angie" and that's never going
to happen.


It is quite feasible that the woman would have survived the impact
if the cyclist HAD been wearing a helmet, so why was the cyclist
NOT wearing a helmet.

How did you reach this conclusion?

It was not a conclusion, it was a suggested feasibility.

Based on what data?

Common sense.

childish insult snipped


Observation put back.
My word, you are a stupid person. Typical cyclist.

Are you gay?
I've nothing against gay people, but you do come across as being gay.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:59:53 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:45:47 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:33:47 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 26/08/2017 15:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Jester wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:09:09 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
This is the response of Cycling UK

http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-relea...-alliston-case

"Riding a fixed wheel bicycle on busy roads without a front
brake is illegal, stupid, and endangers other road users
especially pedestrians. Charlie Alliston's actions had tragic
consequences for Kim Briggs' family, and it was entirely right
that this led to his prosecution."

And if the cyclist had died the first question asked would be
'Was he wearing a helmet?' A low energy impact like this is just
the sort of thing cycle helmets can protect against so why
doesn't Mad Angela campaign for mandatory pedestrian helmets?


Because the would make her "Sensible Angie" and that's never going
to happen.


It is quite feasible that the woman would have survived the impact
if the cyclist HAD been wearing a helmet, so why was the cyclist
NOT wearing a helmet.

How did you reach this conclusion?

It was not a conclusion, it was a suggested feasibility.

Based on what data?

Common sense.

So no data


childish insult snipped


Observation put back.
My word, you are a stupid person. Typical cyclist.

Are you gay?
I've nothing against gay people, but you do come across as being gay.

Based on what data?

On 26/08/17 14:48, Simon Jester wrote:

And if the cyclist had died the first question asked would be 'Was he
wearing a helmet?' A low energy impact like this is just the sort of
thing cycle helmets can protect against so why doesn't Mad Angela
campaign for mandatory pedestrian helmets?

Similarly, given a person on foot wandering into the road and having a
harder head than the person on the bike, no charge would ever be brought
to stick on the person on foot.