Cyclist who killed pedestrian in high speed crash said people had 'zero respect' for those on bikes, court hears

On 24/08/17 02:40, JNugent wrote:
On 23/08/2017 23:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists
immediately before the collision and as
he did after it? And then posted on the
internet that it was all the pedestrian's
fault?

You referred to mouth noises he made so I asked you what it had to do
with the mechanics of the crash.

And I told you the answer: nothing to do with the mechanics of the
crash. Your question was a red herring in any case.

OK, so your comment was a throw away line with nothing to do with
anything at all. Why didn't you say so earlier?

It's strikingly similar to another well-reported case a few years ago
where another cyclist ran into a group of teenagers after screaming at
them (something like): "Get out of my way. I'm not stopping".

It would be interesting to know what drivers shout at their victims from
inside their soundproof box. The fact that it isn't heard means it can't
count towards assessing the driver's state of mind.

The basic drift is that it is better not to alert someone wandering in
the way. Though no doubt, if that one comes up the villification would
be about a lack of alert - "the cyclist just silently ran into the
person. Bloody cyclists".

But at
least he was riding a bike which (AFAIK) had th required braking system.

No argument with that. But the charge was not for breaking a technical
rule. eg, 3 bald tyres.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:20:34 +0100, Bod wrote:


Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London
for manslaughter?

The point being, that Mr Pounder is a miserable sod who hates nearly
everything. The list includes, but not comprehensive:
Australians
Council tenants
Cyclists
Southerners
Several of his neighbours
Cats
He is also a rabid racist

By complete contrast, I do not hate anything or anyone.
Hate affects the person who hates.

Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London for
manslaughter?

Disgusted? yes, but what puzzles me is that there are about three of you
obssessed with targetting the misdemeaners of cyclists, when other
vehicles drivers do equally heinous crimes.
Hit and run drivers are regularly in the papers, as are many drunk drivers.
What about a bit of balance!

I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in all
of my years of driving and cycling. The odd **** and inconsiderate
driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from low
life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.


Sensible discourse isn't welcome here; nit-picking, insulting and swearing at other posters is what it's all about.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

On 24/08/2017 09:26, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/08/17 02:40, JNugent wrote:
On 23/08/2017 23:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 20:47, JNugent wrote:

And behaved like that cyclists
immediately before the collision and as
he did after it? And then posted on the
internet that it was all the pedestrian's
fault?

You referred to mouth noises he made so I asked you what it had to do
with the mechanics of the crash.

And I told you the answer: nothing to do with the mechanics of the
crash. Your question was a red herring in any case.

OK, so your comment was a throw away line with nothing to do with
anything at all. Why didn't you say so earlier?

It was nothing of the sort. It was a 100% relevant, accurate and correct
answer to your (as it happens, irrelevant) question.

If you are now worried about your question having had no relevance to
the subject under the discussion, you are right to be so.

It's strikingly similar to another well-reported case a few years ago
where another cyclist ran into a group of teenagers after screaming at
them (something like): "Get out of my way. I'm not stopping".

It would be interesting to know what drivers shout at their victims from
inside their soundproof box. The fact that it isn't heard means it can't
count towards assessing the driver's state of mind.

Any evidence

The basic drift is that it is better not to alert someone wandering in
the way.

No. Although you will either never see or admit it (possibly both), the
"basic drift" is that it's better to just STOP (or at least do one's
honest and level best to stop) rather than try to preserve momentum and
hit a pedestrian.

Standing on the brakes is what a driver or motorcyclist does in such
circumstances. It's an automatic reaction and is actually a tested
ability which has to be demonstrated in order to get a licence. I've
stopped dead without hitting a few errant pedestrians in my time.

Of course, you can only brake to a halt if the vehicle is fitted with
brakes.

Let's hear your support for cyclists on cycles which have no brakes.

Though no doubt, if that one comes up the villification would
be about a lack of alert - "the cyclist just silently ran into the
person. Bloody cyclists".

But at least he was riding a bike which (AFAIK) had th required
braking system.

No argument with that. But the charge was not for breaking a technical
rule. eg, 3 bald tyres.

What charge? Who? When? Where?

On 24/08/17 02:43, JNugent wrote:
On 24/08/2017 00:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/08/17 18:47, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Cyclists remove the bells from their kids toys.
It's better to scream "get the f*** outta my way".

I have a bell but if you really want me to ring my bell instead of
braking just be careful what you wish for.

No, he only asked you substitute the bell for the screamed obscenities.

Oh look, the famous Nugent telepathy circuit has switched back on. Why
can't you let him answer for himself?

The requirement for the use of brakes plus a change of direction are
self-explanatory. Making noises is in no way a substitute for stopping
(and being able to stop).

What I wrote does not suggest otherwise. And nobody else has ever
suggested otherwise. Though it is remarkable how drivers sometimes have
so much difficulty putting it into practice.

On 24/08/2017 12:00, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:20:34 +0100, Bod wrote:

Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London
for manslaughter?

The point being, that Mr Pounder is a miserable sod who hates nearly
everything. The list includes, but not comprehensive:
Australians
Council tenants
Cyclists
Southerners
Several of his neighbours
Cats
He is also a rabid racist
By complete contrast, I do not hate anything or anyone.
Hate affects the person who hates.

Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London for
manslaughter?

Disgusted? yes, but what puzzles me is that there are about three of you
obssessed with targetting the misdemeaners of cyclists, when other
vehicles drivers do equally heinous crimes.
Hit and run drivers are regularly in the papers, as are many drunk
drivers.
What about a bit of balance!

uk.rec.driving or uk.transport are the places for that.

I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in all
of my years of driving and cycling. The odd **** and inconsiderate
driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from low
life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.

Sensible discourse isn't welcome here; nit-picking, insulting and
swearing at other posters is what it's all about.

The swearing is a genuine enough reflection of the demeanour of the UK's
urban cyclists these days (some of 'em), though it seems to suit some to
deny it.

On 24/08/17 12:51, JNugent wrote:
On 24/08/2017 09:26, TMS320 wrote:

It would be interesting to know what drivers shout at their victims
from inside their soundproof box. The fact that it isn't heard
means it can't count towards assessing the driver's state of mind.

Any evidence

.... of that kind does not produce a level playing field between riders
and drivers.

The basic drift is that it is better not to alert someone wandering
in the way.

No. Although you will either never see or admit it (possibly both),
the "basic drift" is that it's better to just STOP (or at least do
one's honest and level best to stop) rather than try to preserve
momentum and hit a pedestrian.

Your whole thrust is your bother over noises made by "cyclists".
My responses to you have only been directed at that and I do not need to
make half a dozen disclaimers about things not written.

Standing on the brakes is what a driver or motorcyclist does in such
circumstances. It's an automatic reaction and is actually a tested
ability which has to be demonstrated in order to get a licence.

Well blow me down... And you're talking ********.

I've stopped dead without hitting a few errant pedestrians in my
time.

So have I. Mostly on the bicycle - people have much less tendency to
wander about in front of motor vehicles. But unlike you, as an
experienced driver, I don't claim to speak for 20 million other drivers.
In fact, I know for certain that I can't speak for 20 million other drivers.

Of course, you can only brake to a halt if the vehicle is fitted with
brakes.

Let's hear your support for cyclists on cycles which have no brakes.

Why don't you read a whole post before writing a reply?

Though no doubt, if that one comes up the villification would be
about a lack of alert - "the cyclist just silently ran into the
person. Bloody cyclists".

But at least he was riding a bike which (AFAIK) had th required
braking system.

No argument with that. But the charge was not for breaking a
technical rule. eg, 3 bald tyres.

What charge? Who? When? Where?

On 24/08/17 12:53, JNugent wrote:

The swearing is a genuine enough reflection of the demeanour of the UK's
urban cyclists these days (some of 'em), though it seems to suit some to
deny it.

The action you claim is no more aggressive than a driver sounding the
horn; and from the way the sound carries, a horn is vastly more anti-social.

The offer is still open to go for a walk for you to prove your
allegations first hand. If you're unwilling to put your money where your
mouth is then keep your mouth firmly closed.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:17:04 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:



You'd swear all the time if you wore those tight shorts. Why the **** do
they like their tackle compressed?

Wearing no underwear at all (and boasting about it) doesn't seem to help you
much with YOUR swearing, you sociopathic misfit!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) deep "thinking":
"I don't wear underwear, but boxers are more comfortable than briefs. Why
would you want it clamped in?"
MID:

Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:20:34 +0100, Bod wrote:


Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London
for manslaughter?

The point being, that Mr Pounder is a miserable sod who hates
nearly everything. The list includes, but not comprehensive:
Australians
Council tenants
Cyclists
Southerners
Several of his neighbours
Cats
He is also a rabid racist

By complete contrast, I do not hate anything or anyone.
Hate affects the person who hates.

Is he wrong to be disgusted by the (undisputed) behaviour, before,
during and after the "incident", of the cyclist on trial in London
for manslaughter?

Disgusted? yes, but what puzzles me is that there are about three of
you obssessed with targetting the misdemeaners of cyclists, when
other vehicles drivers do equally heinous crimes.
Hit and run drivers are regularly in the papers, as are many drunk
drivers. What about a bit of balance!

I honestly have never encountered any of these despicable events in
all of my years of driving and cycling. The odd **** and inconsiderate
driver, yes. I can only assume that these devil cyclists derive from
low life areas and large towns, which I rarely travel in.


Sensible discourse isn't welcome here; nit-picking, insulting and
swearing at other posters is what it's all about.

Poor little snowflake, awwwwww he sounds very upset again.
Look bollock brains, there is a moderated pussy group for silly cyclists. If
you don't like it in this group go and post there.
And take the spineless, drug addict, wooden caravan dweller Bod with you.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:07:49 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:



Alcohol is a drug.

Obviously baiting for attention like you keep doing, is a drug too,
attention whore!

--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic
childhood:

"Because it's fun. I set loads of stuff on fire when I was a kid."
Message-ID:

"Yip, as a kid my bedroom was full of stuff from skips. If it was ****ed,
we smashed it, if it sort of looked ok, I took it home and repaired it, or
made something else from it. Not just skips, we did break into the village
hall and church and so forth too :-) Gotta love fire exits...."
Message-ID:

"When I was 14, there were places in forests where people would leave
magazines for anyone to use."
MID: