Yet another cycling prick rides into a parked car

Obviously the fault of the car owner.
My thoughts are with the car, not with the pillock who rode into it.
I wonder if the pillock was insured for any damage he may have caused? We
all know the answer to that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-41789888

On 29.10.2017 11:22, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Obviously the fault of the car owner.
My thoughts are with the car, not with the pillock who rode into it.
I wonder if the pillock was insured for any damage he may have caused? We
all know the answer to that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-41789888


Hagfish, the class Myxini (also known as Hyperotreti), are eel-shaped,
slime-producing marine fish (occasionally called slime eels).

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 11:23:26 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Obviously the fault of the car owner.

If you chose to store your personal possessions on a public carriageway you must take some responsibility.

My thoughts are with the car, not with the pillock who rode into it.

You don't care that a human being is dead?

I wonder if the pillock was insured for any damage he may have caused? We
all know the answer to that.

True, a cyclist is more likely to have liability insurance than a motorist, so what is your point?
,

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 11:23:26 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Obviously the fault of the car owner.

If you chose to store your personal possessions on a public carriageway you must take some responsibility.

My thoughts are with the car, not with the pillock who rode into it.

You don't care that a human being is dead?

I wonder if the pillock was insured for any damage he may have caused? We
all know the answer to that.

True, a cyclist is more likely to have liability insurance than a motorist, so what is your point?

Somewhat improbable as every motorist, whether they pay or not,
effectively has liability insurance through the Motor Insurers'
Bureau . Many cyclists have no insurance as many have no home
contents insurance or CTC cover.

In any event the first problem with any accident involving a push bike
rider is getting them to identify themselves. Indeed luminaries of
the cycling world such as Road.CC advise cyclists not merely to refuse
to identify themselves but to run, not walk, away from any accident
they may cause leaving the victim in the road:-

" Get away from the situation as fast as you can. Say nothing to
anyone. Give nobody your details. Don’t hang around long enough for
anyone to get their phone out. Split. Bugger off. Go home the long way
- down as many alleys and across as many parks as possible to avoid
CCTV.

Say nothing about the crash to anyone. Don’t discuss it in forums.
Don’t tweet or post on Facebook about it. Don’t search on Google for
news of the crash or its aftermath. Don’t get your bike repaired.
Carry on with your life as if nothing happened.
....[it is] an offence to refuse to give your name and address to “any
person having reasonable ground” to require it. But they have to ask
for it first. Leave before anyone can ask your name, and you’re in the
clear. "
John Stevenson

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-i...odest-proposal

John Stevenson you may recall was the individual who said “Can someone
please just have Andrew Critchlow taken out and shot? Thx.” and made
reference to Mr Critchlow's profile on the cycling fitness app Strava
showing the location and frequency of his regular local bike rides
because Critchlow had the temerity to criticise cycling vigilantes.

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 4:51:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 11:23:26 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Obviously the fault of the car owner.

If you chose to store your personal possessions on a public carriageway you must take some responsibility.

My thoughts are with the car, not with the pillock who rode into it.

You don't care that a human being is dead?

I wonder if the pillock was insured for any damage he may have caused? We
all know the answer to that.

True, a cyclist is more likely to have liability insurance than a motorist, so what is your point?

Somewhat improbable as every motorist, whether they pay or not,
effectively has liability insurance through the Motor Insurers'
Bureau .

MIB only exists because of the large number of uninsured moronists.

Many cyclists have no insurance as many have no home
contents insurance or CTC cover.

A cyclist is more likely to be a home owner than a non-cyclist.
Even Autoholics Anonymous agree with that.


In any event the first problem with any accident involving a push bike
rider is getting them to identify themselves. Indeed luminaries of
the cycling world such as Road.CC advise cyclists not merely to refuse
to identify themselves but to run, not walk, away from any accident
they may cause leaving the victim in the road:-

So you agree pedestrians should be fitted with number plates.

Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 4:51:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 11:23:26 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:
Obviously the fault of the car owner.

If you chose to store your personal possessions on a public
carriageway you must take some responsibility.

My thoughts are with the car, not with the pillock who rode into
it.

You don't care that a human being is dead?

I wonder if the pillock was insured for any damage he may have
caused? We all know the answer to that.

True, a cyclist is more likely to have liability insurance than a
motorist, so what is your point?

Somewhat improbable as every motorist, whether they pay or not,
effectively has liability insurance through the Motor Insurers'
Bureau .

MIB only exists because of the large number of uninsured moronists.

Many cyclists have no insurance as many have no home
contents insurance or CTC cover.

A cyclist is more likely to be a home owner than a non-cyclist.
Even Autoholics Anonymous agree with that.


In any event the first problem with any accident involving a push
bike rider is getting them to identify themselves. Indeed
luminaries of the cycling world such as Road.CC advise cyclists not
merely to refuse to identify themselves but to run, not walk, away
from any accident they may cause leaving the victim in the road:-

So you agree pedestrians should be fitted with number plates.

As always you have been left red faced, blustering and attempting to grasp
at what few straws you have got left.
Give it up and just admit what we all know, that cyclists are mainly
******s.

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 8:26:13 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 4:51:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 11:23:26 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:
Obviously the fault of the car owner.

If you chose to store your personal possessions on a public
carriageway you must take some responsibility.

My thoughts are with the car, not with the pillock who rode into
it.

You don't care that a human being is dead?

I wonder if the pillock was insured for any damage he may have
caused? We all know the answer to that.

True, a cyclist is more likely to have liability insurance than a
motorist, so what is your point?

Somewhat improbable as every motorist, whether they pay or not,
effectively has liability insurance through the Motor Insurers'
Bureau .

MIB only exists because of the large number of uninsured moronists.

Many cyclists have no insurance as many have no home
contents insurance or CTC cover.

A cyclist is more likely to be a home owner than a non-cyclist.
Even Autoholics Anonymous agree with that.


In any event the first problem with any accident involving a push
bike rider is getting them to identify themselves. Indeed
luminaries of the cycling world such as Road.CC advise cyclists not
merely to refuse to identify themselves but to run, not walk, away
from any accident they may cause leaving the victim in the road:-

So you agree pedestrians should be fitted with number plates.

As always you have been left red faced, blustering and attempting to grasp
at what few straws you have got left.

So you are unable to answer any of the points I have raised and have resorted to your usual childish insults.

Give it up and just admit what we all know, that cyclists are mainly
******s.

Masturbation is a healthy activity for sexually active adults.
Only virgins like you think it is dirty.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 4:51:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester

True, a cyclist is more likely to have liability insurance than a motorist, so what is your point?

Somewhat improbable as every motorist, whether they pay or not,
effectively has liability insurance through the Motor Insurers'
Bureau .

MIB only exists because of the large number of uninsured moronists.

Many cyclists have no insurance as many have no home
contents insurance or CTC cover.

A cyclist is more likely to be a home owner than a non-cyclist.
Even Autoholics Anonymous agree with that.

"More likely" (even if true which is unlikely as many home owners are
elderly and few are cyclists) does not support your assertion that a
cyclist is more likely to have liability cover than a motorist -
plainly that is nonsense.

So you agree pedestrians should be fitted with number plates.

Possibly it is time for cyclists to be so identified if a significant
number believe, as Road.cc seem to, that they should run away from
accidents they have caused. If you follow the hierarchy of
responsibility so beloved of pushbike riders then in any accident
between a cyclist and a pedestrian there should be an automatic
presumption of guilt against the cyclist.The pushbike rider should
surely not seek to avoid their responsibility or opportunity to rebut
the assumption of guilt by running away as a matter of policy?

On 29/10/2017 20:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 8:26:13 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 4:51:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 11:23:26 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:
Obviously the fault of the car owner.

If you chose to store your personal possessions on a public
carriageway you must take some responsibility.

My thoughts are with the car, not with the pillock who rode into
it.

You don't care that a human being is dead?

I wonder if the pillock was insured for any damage he may have
caused? We all know the answer to that.

True, a cyclist is more likely to have liability insurance than a
motorist, so what is your point?

Somewhat improbable as every motorist, whether they pay or not,
effectively has liability insurance through the Motor Insurers'
Bureau .

MIB only exists because of the large number of uninsured moronists.

Many cyclists have no insurance as many have no home
contents insurance or CTC cover.

A cyclist is more likely to be a home owner than a non-cyclist.
Even Autoholics Anonymous agree with that.


In any event the first problem with any accident involving a push
bike rider is getting them to identify themselves. Indeed
luminaries of the cycling world such as Road.CC advise cyclists not
merely to refuse to identify themselves but to run, not walk, away
from any accident they may cause leaving the victim in the road:-

So you agree pedestrians should be fitted with number plates.

As always you have been left red faced, blustering and attempting to grasp
at what few straws you have got left.

So you are unable to answer any of the points I have raised and have resorted to your usual childish insults.

Give it up and just admit what we all know, that cyclists are mainly
******s.

Masturbation is a healthy activity for sexually active adults.
Only virgins like you think it is dirty.

So you agree and admit that you are a ******.

On 29/10/2017 22:34, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 4:51:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 07:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester

True, a cyclist is more likely to have liability insurance than a motorist, so what is your point?

Somewhat improbable as every motorist, whether they pay or not,
effectively has liability insurance through the Motor Insurers'
Bureau .

MIB only exists because of the large number of uninsured moronists.

Many cyclists have no insurance as many have no home
contents insurance or CTC cover.

A cyclist is more likely to be a home owner than a non-cyclist.
Even Autoholics Anonymous agree with that.

"More likely" (even if true which is unlikely as many home owners are
elderly and few are cyclists) does not support your assertion that a
cyclist is more likely to have liability cover than a motorist -
plainly that is nonsense.

But that is his style.

So you agree pedestrians should be fitted with number plates.

And so is that little gem.

Possibly it is time for cyclists to be so identified if a significant
number believe, as Road.cc seem to, that they should run away from
accidents they have caused. If you follow the hierarchy of
responsibility so beloved of pushbike riders then in any accident
between a cyclist and a pedestrian there should be an automatic
presumption of guilt against the cyclist.The pushbike rider should
surely not seek to avoid their responsibility or opportunity to rebut
the assumption of guilt by running away as a matter of policy?