Pavements are not much protection

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...l/article.html

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Squashme wrote:


http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...l/article.html

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

There's a mandatory cycle lane on both sides on that bridge too -
so much for magic white paint. :-(

On 12 Aug, 23:25, Squashme wrote:
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...-cyclist-face-...

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

I suppose there was no obvious excuse to blame the vulnerable victim
to excuse the driver with this one. Be interesting to see how much
shorter the prison sentence will be for killing someone compared to
the 11 years for animal rights blackmail.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 13 Aug, 07:55, Doug wrote:
On 12 Aug, 23:25, Squashme wrote:http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...-cyclist-face-...

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

I suppose there was no obvious excuse to blame the vulnerable victim
to excuse the driver with this one.

Don't be more of an idiot than you have to, Doug. Yes, obviously the
woman should not have been driving so fast she couldn't stop in the
distance she could see to be clear. Yes, if he'd been a drunk walking
home from the pub he wouldn't have had lights. I'm not arguing she's
not guilty. But that's beside the point. If we expect others to behave
well on the roads, we need to behave well on the roads ourselves -
it's the old 'do as you would be done by' principle. It isn't excusing
her to point out that his lack of lights was a contributory factor.

Doug wrote:
On 12 Aug, 23:25, Squashme wrote:
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...-cyclist-face-...

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

I suppose there was no obvious excuse to blame the vulnerable victim
to excuse the driver with this one. Be interesting to see how much
shorter the prison sentence will be for killing someone compared to
the 11 years for animal rights blackmail.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Their appears to be no *reason* to blame the victim, because his lack of
lights & riding on the pavement did not appear to have any affect on the
incident.

Are you saying the driver deliberately killed him or are you saying the
ART's accidentally blackmailed people?

--

Tony Dragon

On Aug 13, 4:41*pm, Simon Brooke wrote:
On 13 Aug, 07:55, Doug wrote:

On 12 Aug, 23:25, Squashme wrote:http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...-cyclist-face-...

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

I suppose there was no obvious excuse to blame the vulnerable victim
to excuse the driver with this one.

Don't be more of an idiot than you have to, Doug. Yes, obviously the
woman should not have been driving so fast she couldn't stop in the
distance she could see to be clear. Yes, if he'd been a drunk walking
home from the pub he wouldn't have had lights. I'm not arguing she's
not guilty. But that's beside the point. If we expect others to behave
well on the roads, we need to behave well on the roads ourselves -
it's the old 'do as you would be done by' principle. It isn't excusing
her to point out that his lack of lights was a contributory factor.

I don't see in what way you can claim that this cyclist contributed
anything by not having lights. For one thing, the driver saw the
cyclist, and for another, she had to drive up onto the pavement to get
him.

Would you say that a pedestrian who was not carrying lights in the
same situation had contributed to their own fate?

James

On 13 Aug, 09:16, James wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:41*pm, Simon Brooke wrote:



On 13 Aug, 07:55, Doug wrote:

On 12 Aug, 23:25, Squashme wrote:http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...-cyclist-face-...

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

I suppose there was no obvious excuse to blame the vulnerable victim
to excuse the driver with this one.

Don't be more of an idiot than you have to, Doug. Yes, obviously the
woman should not have been driving so fast she couldn't stop in the
distance she could see to be clear. Yes, if he'd been a drunk walking
home from the pub he wouldn't have had lights. I'm not arguing she's
not guilty. But that's beside the point. If we expect others to behave
well on the roads, we need to behave well on the roads ourselves -
it's the old 'do as you would be done by' principle. It isn't excusing
her to point out that his lack of lights was a contributory factor.

I don't see in what way you can claim that this cyclist contributed
anything by not having lights. For one thing, the driver saw the
cyclist, and for another, she had to drive up onto the pavement to get
him.

Would you say that a pedestrian who was not carrying lights in the
same situation had contributed to their own fate?

On this occasion i withdraw; I hadn't appreciated that the collision
took place on the pavement, and that does of course change things...

Which is not to say that I condone cycling on the pavement (or without
lights at night)

On 13 Aug, 09:16, James wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:41*pm, Simon Brooke wrote:



On 13 Aug, 07:55, Doug wrote:

On 12 Aug, 23:25, Squashme wrote:http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...-cyclist-face-...

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

I suppose there was no obvious excuse to blame the vulnerable victim
to excuse the driver with this one.

Don't be more of an idiot than you have to, Doug. Yes, obviously the
woman should not have been driving so fast she couldn't stop in the
distance she could see to be clear. Yes, if he'd been a drunk walking
home from the pub he wouldn't have had lights. I'm not arguing she's
not guilty. But that's beside the point. If we expect others to behave
well on the roads, we need to behave well on the roads ourselves -
it's the old 'do as you would be done by' principle. It isn't excusing
her to point out that his lack of lights was a contributory factor.

I don't see in what way you can claim that this cyclist contributed
anything by not having lights. For one thing, the driver saw the
cyclist, and for another, she had to drive up onto the pavement to get
him.

Would you say that a pedestrian who was not carrying lights in the
same situation had contributed to their own fate?

James

********, she lost control of the car resulting in hitting him, she
didn't drive up there to get him.
Had he displayed lights correctly and been riding in the right
direction on the correct side then he would have been where he was
expected to be. Appearing, from the motorists point of view, from
where he shouldn't have been may well have contributed to her
disorientation.

On Aug 13, 2:25*pm, NM wrote:
On 13 Aug, 09:16, James wrote:



On Aug 13, 4:41*pm, Simon Brooke wrote:

On 13 Aug, 07:55, Doug wrote:

On 12 Aug, 23:25, Squashme wrote:http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk...-cyclist-face-...

Mind you, he should have been safe, with no lights. Nothing for her to
aim at.

I suppose there was no obvious excuse to blame the vulnerable victim
to excuse the driver with this one.

Don't be more of an idiot than you have to, Doug. Yes, obviously the
woman should not have been driving so fast she couldn't stop in the
distance she could see to be clear. Yes, if he'd been a drunk walking
home from the pub he wouldn't have had lights. I'm not arguing she's
not guilty. But that's beside the point. If we expect others to behave
well on the roads, we need to behave well on the roads ourselves -
it's the old 'do as you would be done by' principle. It isn't excusing
her to point out that his lack of lights was a contributory factor.

I don't see in what way you can claim that this cyclist contributed
anything by not having lights. For one thing, the driver saw the
cyclist, and for another, she had to drive up onto the pavement to get
him.

Would you say that a pedestrian who was not carrying lights in the
same situation had contributed to their own fate?

James

********, she lost control of the car resulting in hitting him, she
didn't drive up there to get him.
Had he displayed lights correctly and been riding in the right
direction on the correct side then he would have been where he was
expected to be. Appearing, from the motorists point of view, from
where he shouldn't have been may well have contributed to her
disorientation.

It's true, I often veer wildly across the road and onto the pavement
if I see a cyclist riding on the footpath.

Idiot.

It could have been a mother and child, prams don't have lights, I
guess you'd argue the mother was partly culpable for distracting the
driver.

Quoting Simon Brooke :
not guilty. But that's beside the point. If we expect others to behave
well on the roads, we need to behave well on the roads ourselves -

Eh? Maybe we could expect people operating lethally dangerous machinery
in public to behave well regardless of what other people do when they are
_not_ operating lethally dangerous machinery in public?
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Yesterday was Gouday, July.
Today is Chedday, July.
Tomorrow will be Stilday, July - a weekend.