Cyclist jumps red light for safety, but what about the child? (on theback)

Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 9:30:10 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 2:46:00 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful
wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510

Far too many motorists think Green Means GO.
In reality a green light means you are permitted to enter the
junction if it is safe to do so.
In this case not only did the moronist illegally move on a
read+amber light but the junction was not clear. No evidence the
primary road user rode through a red light.

Prick.

I appreciate that your intra-cranial neuronal deficiency is a chronic
condition, but can you at least point out which part of my analysis
you disagree with.

What part of you being a prick do you disagree with?
Please tell us.

On 23/09/2017 20:31, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:18, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 14:45, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510


So the BMW accelerates at the cyclist, although the cyclist crossing
is clearly visible from the start.

If the cyclist had stopped or gone back on him self his the BMW would
have hit him.

So a bit like Alliston's offence. Maybe a bit worse because the car
driver accelerates.

Nothing like, one crashed into a pedestrian, causing her death, while
screaming obscenities and riding an illegal bicycle.

You mean trying to alert the pedestrian of his presence.

The other did not collide with or verbally assault a cyclist that
clearly has no thought for himself or others.Â* He could have done so,
but did not.
AIUI Alliston only collided with the pedestrian because she moved
unexpectedly. If the cyclist had moved unexpectedly there would have
been a collision.

I see the BMW jumped the light too, he didn't wait for green. That seems
to me to be as significant as Alliston's lack of a front brake.


The green light for the car is clearly visible. Therefore the cyclist
went over a red light.

On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 10:47:49 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 9:30:10 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 2:46:00 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful
wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510

Far too many motorists think Green Means GO.
In reality a green light means you are permitted to enter the
junction if it is safe to do so.
In this case not only did the moronist illegally move on a
read+amber light but the junction was not clear. No evidence the
primary road user rode through a red light.

Prick.

I appreciate that your intra-cranial neuronal deficiency is a chronic
condition, but can you at least point out which part of my analysis
you disagree with.

What part of you being a prick do you disagree with?
Please tell us.

W5

On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 11:26:29 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 20:31, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:18, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 14:45, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510


So the BMW accelerates at the cyclist, although the cyclist crossing
is clearly visible from the start.

If the cyclist had stopped or gone back on him self his the BMW would
have hit him.

So a bit like Alliston's offence. Maybe a bit worse because the car
driver accelerates.

Nothing like, one crashed into a pedestrian, causing her death, while
screaming obscenities and riding an illegal bicycle.

You mean trying to alert the pedestrian of his presence.

The other did not collide with or verbally assault a cyclist that
clearly has no thought for himself or others.Â* He could have done so,
but did not.
AIUI Alliston only collided with the pedestrian because she moved
unexpectedly. If the cyclist had moved unexpectedly there would have
been a collision.

I see the BMW jumped the light too, he didn't wait for green. That seems
to me to be as significant as Alliston's lack of a front brake.


The green light for the car is clearly visible.

After the subsidised road user entered the junction and after the paying road user was already in the junction.

Therefore the cyclist went over a red light.

Where in the video can we see this?
Don't wriggle, just tell us at which point we can where 'the cyclist went over a red light'.
Or grow up and admit you are wrong.

On 23/09/17 18:23, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 2:46:00 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful
wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510


Far too many motorists think Green Means GO. In reality a green light
means you are permitted to enter the junction if it is safe to do
so. In this case not only did the moronist illegally move on a
read+amber light but the junction was not clear.

Most drivers stop short of the stop line (as this one appeared to do) so
it is often reasonable to start rolling before green. (If the way is
clear to do so.)

No evidence the
primary road user rode through a red light.

On balance the rider probably did go through the light. People on foot
do it all the time and it is accepted. The fuss is only because a
"cyclist" did it even though the nature of an obstacle in adriver's way
makes no practical difference. The question is whether the driver would
have been hauled in front of a court had he/she caused a collision. The
betting is not.

On 23/09/2017 23:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 20:31, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:18, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 14:45, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510


So the BMW accelerates at the cyclist, although the cyclist crossing
is clearly visible from the start.

If the cyclist had stopped or gone back on him self his the BMW
would have hit him.

So a bit like Alliston's offence. Maybe a bit worse because the car
driver accelerates.

Nothing like, one crashed into a pedestrian, causing her death, while
screaming obscenities and riding an illegal bicycle.

You mean trying to alert the pedestrian of his presence.

The other did not collide with or verbally assault a cyclist that
clearly has no thought for himself or others.Â* He could have done so,
but did not.
AIUI Alliston only collided with the pedestrian because she moved
unexpectedly. If the cyclist had moved unexpectedly there would have
been a collision.

I see the BMW jumped the light too, he didn't wait for green. That
seems to me to be as significant as Alliston's lack of a front brake.


The green light for the car is clearly visible.Â* Therefore the cyclist
went over a red light.

We are talking about it from the perspective of the BMW.

He jumped the light, Alliston didn't. He accelerated at the person in
the road, Alliston decelerated.

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

On 24/09/2017 08:59, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 23:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 20:31, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:18, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 14:45, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510


So the BMW accelerates at the cyclist, although the cyclist
crossing is clearly visible from the start.

If the cyclist had stopped or gone back on him self his the BMW
would have hit him.

So a bit like Alliston's offence. Maybe a bit worse because the car
driver accelerates.

Nothing like, one crashed into a pedestrian, causing her death,
while screaming obscenities and riding an illegal bicycle.

You mean trying to alert the pedestrian of his presence.

The other did not collide with or verbally assault a cyclist that
clearly has no thought for himself or others.Â* He could have done
so, but did not.
AIUI Alliston only collided with the pedestrian because she moved
unexpectedly. If the cyclist had moved unexpectedly there would have
been a collision.

I see the BMW jumped the light too, he didn't wait for green. That
seems to me to be as significant as Alliston's lack of a front brake.


The green light for the car is clearly visible.Â* Therefore the cyclist
went over a red light.

We are talking about it from the perspective of the BMW.

He jumped the light, Alliston didn't. He accelerated at the person in
the road, Alliston decelerated.

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

The car did not collide with the bicycle, which HAD gone over a stop
line/red light.

The cyclist not only endangered himself but also a child, that shows
incredible stupidity/selfishness.

On 24/09/2017 08:59, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 23:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 20:31, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 23/09/2017 19:18, Nick wrote:
On 23/09/2017 14:45, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510


So the BMW accelerates at the cyclist, although the cyclist
crossing is clearly visible from the start.

If the cyclist had stopped or gone back on him self his the BMW
would have hit him.

So a bit like Alliston's offence. Maybe a bit worse because the car
driver accelerates.

Nothing like, one crashed into a pedestrian, causing her death,
while screaming obscenities and riding an illegal bicycle.

You mean trying to alert the pedestrian of his presence.

The other did not collide with or verbally assault a cyclist that
clearly has no thought for himself or others.Â* He could have done
so, but did not.
AIUI Alliston only collided with the pedestrian because she moved
unexpectedly. If the cyclist had moved unexpectedly there would have
been a collision.

I see the BMW jumped the light too, he didn't wait for green. That
seems to me to be as significant as Alliston's lack of a front brake.


The green light for the car is clearly visible.Â* Therefore the cyclist
went over a red light.

We are talking about it from the perspective of the BMW.

He jumped the light, Alliston didn't. He accelerated at the person in
the road, Alliston decelerated.

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

How did you find out that the BMW had no brakes? And please enlighten us
as to what the driver had posted on social media and other websites
about his intentions towards other road-users.

On 24.09.2017 10:47, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 9:30:10 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 2:46:00 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful
wrote:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news...clist-13643510

Far too many motorists think Green Means GO.
In reality a green light means you are permitted to enter the
junction if it is safe to do so.
In this case not only did the moronist illegally move on a
read+amber light but the junction was not clear. No evidence the
primary road user rode through a red light.

Prick.

I appreciate that your intra-cranial neuronal deficiency is a chronic
condition, but can you at least point out which part of my analysis
you disagree with.

What part of you being a prick do you disagree with?
Please tell us.



I love being called a prick by the likes of you.

After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport, and we all know that YOU think bicyclists are
the ****witted pits of humanity.
I really feel complimented by that, because YOU said it.

On 24/09/2017 10:00, MrCheerful wrote:

The BMW can claim he had right of way, just like Alliston did, but we
know that wouldn't be true.

The car did not collide with the bicycle,

Yes I already discussed that. If the bike had moved erratically it could
have caused a collision which the BMW would have been unable to avoid.
This is similar to the Alliston case.

Some people on these groups present the argument that people should be
punished based upon their level of culpability rather than the outcome.
Without considering the outcome the BMW driver appears to be at least as
culpable as Alliston.

If you would prefer not to consider culpability but just the outcome, I
agree it would be a good deterrent to see all vehicle drivers who kill a
pedestrian jailed.