Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:06:52 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:11:50 -0000, "pk" said
in :

A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the
thread is to defend cyclists.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

What actually happened was that a mission poster trolled the group,
causing some people (for perfectly good reasons) to become
defensive.


Ah - you mean that someone (must be a troll) posted a link which would
provide a starting point to a discussion on cycling on pavements and
the likely hood of being injured by a bike or a vehicle on a pavement
- then yes you are quite right.


eg

It has given you the opportunity to misrepresent facts and state that
you are at vastly greater risk from vehicles than push-bikes whilst
on a pavement. Which is of course a misrepresentation of the reality
- see below.


The fact that you are at vastly greater risk from motor vehicles on
the footway than from cyclists *even though* it is asserted that
pavement cycling is a plague of epidemic proportions, is a perfect
indication that these few cases are essentially ignorable at the
public policy level.

And this of course depends on what this "greater risk" is.

If you mean that there is a greater risk of being killed by a motorist
than a cyclist then you are right.

If, however you are talking about a greater risk of being hit by a
bike than a vehicle whilst on a pavement - then you are totally wrong.

But - you of course know that - but you cannot bring yourself to
admit it.

The chance of anyone from this group being hit as a pedestrian on a
footpath by a motor vehicle is as good as negligible.

I do not know what the chance of being hit by someone on a bike whilst
on a footpath is - but it is orders of magnitude lower than that for
being hit by a car; and in some areas is almost a certainty.

snip

and that is
reflected in the prosecution guidelines


which is something you have clearly made up - unless you can
substantiate it? Or do we just add it to the list of Chapman lies. I
am not holding my breath.

snip

Anyone who comes to this group and
expects us to condemn pavement cycling, red light jumping or any of
the other transgressions of the cyclist, with absolutely no strings
attached, is basically trolling and should simply be ignored.

Surely you mean - anyone who comes in to this group and hopes to have
a sensible discussion on such things - and their views go against
those of the clique - is surely trolling and must be ignored.


Looking forward to your comments.

wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:06:52 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:11:50 -0000, "pk" said
in :

A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the
thread is to defend cyclists.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.

What actually happened was that a mission poster trolled the group,
causing some people (for perfectly good reasons) to become
defensive.


Ah - you mean that someone (must be a troll) posted a link which would
provide a starting point to a discussion on cycling on pavements and
the likely hood of being injured by a bike or a vehicle on a pavement
- then yes you are quite right.


eg

It has given you the opportunity to misrepresent facts and state that
you are at vastly greater risk from vehicles than push-bikes whilst
on a pavement. Which is of course a misrepresentation of the reality
- see below.


The fact that you are at vastly greater risk from motor vehicles on
the footway than from cyclists *even though* it is asserted that
pavement cycling is a plague of epidemic proportions, is a perfect
indication that these few cases are essentially ignorable at the
public policy level.

And this of course depends on what this "greater risk" is.

If you mean that there is a greater risk of being killed by a motorist
than a cyclist then you are right.

If, however you are talking about a greater risk of being hit by a
bike than a vehicle whilst on a pavement - then you are totally wrong.

But - you of course know that - but you cannot bring yourself to
admit it.

The chance of anyone from this group being hit as a pedestrian on a
footpath by a motor vehicle is as good as negligible.

I do not know what the chance of being hit by someone on a bike whilst
on a footpath is - but it is orders of magnitude lower than that for
being hit by a car; and in some areas is almost a certainty.

snip

and that is
reflected in the prosecution guidelines


which is something you have clearly made up - unless you can
substantiate it? Or do we just add it to the list of Chapman lies. I
am not holding my breath.

snip

Anyone who comes to this group and
expects us to condemn pavement cycling, red light jumping or any of
the other transgressions of the cyclist, with absolutely no strings
attached, is basically trolling and should simply be ignored.

Surely you mean - anyone who comes in to this group and hopes to have
a sensible discussion on such things - and their views go against
those of the clique - is surely trolling and must be ignored.


Looking forward to your comments.



I noticed he has not replied to me either, so I must draw my own
conclusions.

--
Tony the Dragon

"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

I noticed he has not replied to me either, so I must draw my own
conclusions.

You can draw your own conclusions, but they may well be wrong. I'm probably
not alone in feeling that the actual reason is there's no point in him
replying to you - you're only here to cause trouble.

Clive George wrote:
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

I noticed he has not replied to me either, so I must draw my own
conclusions.

You can draw your own conclusions, but they may well be wrong. I'm probably
not alone in feeling that the actual reason is there's no point in him
replying to you - you're only here to cause trouble.


What a well considered answer.
If you had to drive to A&E to collect your daughter after she had been
hit by a pavement cyclist (who did not bother to stop), tell me what
would your opinion be about cycling on the footway?

--
Tony the Dragon

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:15:59 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

I noticed he has not replied to me either, so I must draw my own
conclusions.

You can draw your own conclusions, but they may well be wrong. I'm probably
not alone in feeling that the actual reason is there's no point in him
replying to you - you're only here to cause trouble.



Interesting - you disagree with someone and you're "only here to cause
trouble"

As I have pointed out before this is one of the most insular groups I
have come across on usenet.

Your attitude and Chapman's sums it up nicely.

People are just not welcome (by the clique) to have any discussion
which "goes against the grain" - of cyclists can do no ill - and in
fact: do no ill

Not only can you not argue a case - you are not willing to allow
others to do so.

Example 5 of action of psycholists

5) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion

Tony Dragon wrote:
Clive George wrote:
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

I noticed he has not replied to me either, so I must draw my own
conclusions.

You can draw your own conclusions, but they may well be wrong. I'm
probably not alone in feeling that the actual reason is there's no
point in him replying to you - you're only here to cause trouble.

What a well considered answer.
If you had to drive to A&E to collect your daughter after she had been
hit by a pavement cyclist (who did not bother to stop), tell me what
would your opinion be about cycling on the footway?



Well I know what my action wouldn't be. I wouldn't bother sitting down
and typing a rant to a cycling newsgroup ,who's population has again and
again point out that they have no wish to cycle on pavements.

I exactly the same way I wouldn't bother sitting down and and typing a
rant to a transport newsgroup if I know someone that was hurt by a drunk
driver, or a walking newsgroup if somone was stabbed by a pedestrian.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:03:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

It is difficult not to obsessed by something when you are driving to the
hospital to pick up your daughter from A & E.

Sorry to hear it. Lucky it wasn't a car, really, or it would be
much /much/ worse. Last time I had to take one of my kids to A&E it
was a hammer-related injury. Hammer licensing anyone?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:57:54 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

I noticed he has not replied to me either, so I must draw my own
conclusions.

As long as your conclusions are that (a) judith lives in my killfile
and I have promised to keep it there however often it nym-shifts,
and (b) that I was busy playing trains, then your conclusions will
be spot on.

If these were not your conclusions then you were this: wrong.

And now I am off to hear my son playing in a concert at Douai Abbey.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:03:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

It is difficult not to obsessed by something when you are driving to the
hospital to pick up your daughter from A & E.

Sorry to hear it. Lucky it wasn't a car, really, or it would be
much /much/ worse. Last time I had to take one of my kids to A&E it
was a hammer-related injury. Hammer licensing anyone?

I'm sure its unintentional Guy, but do you really *have* to keep on with
trivialising injuries caused by cyclists by saying that a car would have
been worse? Its incredibly irritating, and not a little stupid -
should we tell the relatives of those killed in Belgium yesterday by
saying that it would have been much worse if the guy had had a machinegun?

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:17:26 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

snip

And now I am off to hear my son playing in a concert at Douai Abbey.

Guy

Who do you think is interested in that?

What a tosser and pretentious git

From his web-pages:

"I've met a few famous people. Here are some of them: ..........."


"People tell me I'm unusual" - Guy Chapman

judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.