He should have mown the unlit cyclist down.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...clist_1_130248

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
news:Xe1Rn.51688$oi7.1251@hurricane...
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...clist_1_130248

Reading the article it seems that that driver who died had overtaken a line
of cars without noticing the (unlit) child cyclist ahead. Upon seeing him he
swerved into on oncoming car. The child cyclist had reflectors and was
visible to other drivers.

I know this road. It is single carriageway and not very wide. One of the
problems facing cyclists on this type of road is where the driver behind
cannot/does not overtake (for safety reasons), but another driver further
behind cannot see that there is a cyclist ahead. They overtake the cars, but
then either suddenly see the cyclist and need to take evasive action to
avoid a collision, or they do not see the cyclist in time and wipe them out
completely.

I cannot say that agree that the driver who died should have murdered the
cyclist for having no lights, and it is unfortunate that the driver who made
the poor overtaking manoeuvre lost his life, but if there is anything to
learn from this is that just because the vehicle ahead is travelling slowly,
it does not mean that it is a good idea to overtake them.

RIP...

On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo...

No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo...

No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

why do you think that ?

On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo...

No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

why do you think that ?

60-15 = 45

Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo...

No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

why do you think that ?

60-15 = 45

I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene pool before
they breed.

On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo...

No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

why do you think that ?

60-15 = 45

I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene pool before
they breed.

I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that
he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does
nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made
60).

Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo...

No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

why do you think that ?

60-15 = 45

I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene
pool before they breed.

I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that
he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does
nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made
60).

exactly why he should have mown down the thick youngster before he could
breed more morons.

On 13 June, 17:38, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 17:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 13:18, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo...

No, he made the correct decision, statistically.

why do you think that ?

60-15 = 45

I went by the Darwin principle: get the thickies out of the gene
pool before they breed.

I expect that by 60 the motorist will have done all the breeding that
he was likely to do. Unless he was very lucky (and obviously he does
nor seem to have been that lucky a person). (Still he at least made
60).

exactly why he should have mown down the thick youngster before he could
breed more morons.

I see. So the dangerous (and probably tired) overtaker who got himself
killed was not a moron, but the teenager who cycled without a
rearlight and survived was a moron?

On 13 June, 10:09, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...ver_killed_avo...

He should have mown the unfit cyclist down? That could be Darwinism.