|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |