A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cyclists cocks up inside overtake



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 14th 17, 01:16 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,047
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage
and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to
give the driver enough points to keep him away from
other road users for a while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a
stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between skin
damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference.

My point main point that the structural damage (implying there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash, whatever speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries only, that is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars. Effectively the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block is in
safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at 39mph, the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle pictures, except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph. Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the bonnet much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle (compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist riding into the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away with light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding into the
back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is misplaced
concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest for the
occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of the
damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross irresponsibility and
hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on that point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something perceived to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a sense of
perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to anyone other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In contrast to the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.


Keeping things on topic is not.


Driving of the standard this person displayed is of considerable
interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any manner they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and you
believe it can be played down?


The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle concerned was
injured (from what was reported)

The damage from the crash will undoubtedly be paid by the vehicle
insurers, the same cannot be said for most cycle crashes, even when the
cyclist is identifiable.

Regular stupid driving or riding is likely to result in someone or
something being unnecessarily hurt or damaged.

Many car related infractions are discovered and punished via camera
enforcement, it is time that all vehicle users were subject to the same,
this can be best accomplished by having all vehicles registered and
traceable via number plates.

All vehicles should also be covered by compulsory insurance against
third party losses.

Ads
  #22  
Old May 14th 17, 10:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,985
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01
















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage
and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to
give the driver enough points to keep him away from
other road users for a while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a
stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between skin
damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference.

My point main point that the structural damage (implying
there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope
with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash, whatever speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries only, that is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars. Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block is in
safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at 39mph, the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle pictures, except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph. Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the bonnet much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle (compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist riding into the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away with light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding into the
back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is misplaced
concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest for the
occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of the
damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross irresponsibility and
hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on that point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something perceived
to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a sense of
perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to anyone other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In contrast to the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.


Driving of the standard this person displayed is of considerable
interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any manner they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and you
believe it can be played down?


The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle concerned was
injured (from what was reported)


It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to stop
telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?


  #23  
Old May 15th 17, 08:18 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,047
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01

















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into
the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage
and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to
give the driver enough points to keep him away from
other road users for a while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a
stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between skin
damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life
someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference.

My point main point that the structural damage (implying
there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope
with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash, whatever speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries only, that
is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars. Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block is in
safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at 39mph,
the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle pictures, except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph. Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the bonnet much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle (compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist riding into
the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away with light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding into the
back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is misplaced
concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest for the
occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of the
damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross irresponsibility and
hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on that point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something perceived
to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a sense of
perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to anyone other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In contrast to the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.

Driving of the standard this person displayed is of considerable
interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any manner they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and you
believe it can be played down?


The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle concerned was
injured (from what was reported)


It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to stop
telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?



When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense.
  #24  
Old May 15th 17, 07:54 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,985
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 15/05/17 08:18, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01


















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into
the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage
and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to
give the driver enough points to keep him away from
other road users for a while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a
stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between skin
damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent
severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life
someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference.

My point main point that the structural damage (implying
there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope
with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash, whatever speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries only, that
is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars. Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block is in
safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at 39mph,
the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle pictures, except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph. Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the bonnet much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle (compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist riding into
the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in
comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away with light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding into the
back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is misplaced
concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest for the
occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of the
damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross irresponsibility and
hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on that point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something perceived
to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a sense of
perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to anyone other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In contrast to
the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.

Driving of the standard this person displayed is of considerable
interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any manner
they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and you
believe it can be played down?


The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle concerned was
injured (from what was reported)


It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to stop
telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?


When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense.


Yet really don't get it.
  #25  
Old May 15th 17, 08:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,889
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 15/05/2017 19:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 08:18, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01



















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into
the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage
and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to
give the driver enough points to keep him away from
other road users for a while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a
stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban
environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between skin
damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows
how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent
severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life
someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference.

My point main point that the structural damage (implying
there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope
with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash, whatever
speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries only, that
is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars. Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block is in
safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at 39mph,
the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle pictures,
except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph. Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the bonnet
much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle
(compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist riding into
the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in
comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away with
light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding into the
back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is misplaced
concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest for the
occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of the
damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross irresponsibility and
hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on that
point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the
occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something perceived
to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a sense of
perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to anyone other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In contrast to
the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.

Driving of the standard this person displayed is of considerable
interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any manner
they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and you
believe it can be played down?

The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle concerned was
injured (from what was reported)

It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to stop
telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?


When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense.


Yet really don't get it.


Sounds like a reasonable amendment:

Q: When are you going to stop telling bicycle riders what they should
and shouldn't do?

A: When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense yet
really don't get it.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #26  
Old May 15th 17, 08:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,985
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 15/05/17 20:10, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 19:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 08:18, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01




















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into
the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage
and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to
give the driver enough points to keep him away from
other road users for a while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a
stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban
environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between skin
damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for
absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle
occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows
how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent
severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life
someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive
times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the
difference.

My point main point that the structural damage (implying
there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope
with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash, whatever
speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries only, that
is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars.
Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block is in
safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at 39mph,
the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle pictures,
except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph. Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the bonnet
much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle
(compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the
frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist riding into
the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in
comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as
frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away with
light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding into the
back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is misplaced
concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest for the
occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of the
damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross irresponsibility and
hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on that
point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the
occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something perceived
to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a sense of
perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to anyone
other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In contrast to
the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.

Driving of the standard this person displayed is of considerable
interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you
will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any manner
they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and you
believe it can be played down?

The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the
fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle concerned was
injured (from what was reported)

It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to stop
telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?

When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense.


Yet really don't get it.


Hmmm. The first word was meant to be 'You'.

Sounds like a reasonable amendment:

Q: When are you going to stop telling bicycle riders what they should
and shouldn't do?

A: When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense yet
really don't get it.




  #27  
Old May 15th 17, 08:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,889
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 15/05/2017 20:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 20:10, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 19:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 08:18, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01





















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash
into
the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage
and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to
give the driver enough points to keep him away from
other road users for a while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a
stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban
environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles
can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between skin
damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for
absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle
occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows
how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent
severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life
someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive
times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the
difference.

My point main point that the structural damage (implying
there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope
with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash, whatever
speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries only, that
is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars.
Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block is in
safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at
39mph,
the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle pictures,
except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph. Or
the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out of
the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not
required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the bonnet
much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle
(compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the
frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important
when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist riding
into
the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in
comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as
frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away with
light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding into the
back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is misplaced
concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest for the
occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of the
damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross irresponsibility and
hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on that
point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the
occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something perceived
to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was
clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a sense of
perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to anyone
other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In contrast to
the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.

Driving of the standard this person displayed is of considerable
interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when
nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you
will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any manner
they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and you
believe it can be played down?

The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the
fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his mistake.
Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle concerned was
injured (from what was reported)

It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to stop
telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?

When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense.

Yet really don't get it.


Hmmm. The first word was meant to be 'You'.

Sounds like a reasonable amendment:

Q: When are you going to stop telling bicycle riders what they should
and shouldn't do?

A: When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense yet
really don't get it.


It made perfect sense.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #28  
Old May 15th 17, 09:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,715
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 20:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 20:10, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 19:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 08:18, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01





















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR
crash into
the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury,
damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient
evidence to give the driver enough points to
keep him away from other road users for a
while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven
into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an
urban environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles
can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between
skin damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for
absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle
occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that
shows how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent
severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life
someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive
times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the
difference.

My point main point that the structural damage
(implying there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could
cope with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you
wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash,
whatever speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries
only, that is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars.
Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block
is in safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at
39mph,
the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle
pictures, except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph.
Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out
of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not
required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the
bonnet much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle
(compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the
frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important
when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist
riding into
the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in
comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as
frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away
with light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding
into the back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is
misplaced concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest
for the occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of
the damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross
irresponsibility and hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on
that point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the
occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something
perceived to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was
clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a
sense of perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to
anyone other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In
contrast to the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.

Driving of the standard this person displayed is of
considerable interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when
nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you
will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any
manner they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and
you believe it can be played down?

The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the
fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his
mistake. Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle
concerned was injured (from what was reported)

It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to
stop telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?

When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense.

Yet really don't get it.


Hmmm. The first word was meant to be 'You'.

Sounds like a reasonable amendment:

Q: When are you going to stop telling bicycle riders what they
should and shouldn't do?

A: When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense
yet really don't get it.


It made perfect sense.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


You are replying to a lamp post, you may as well talk to a cyclist for all
the sense you will get.
Please get that AVG sig out of your replies.
AVG do not make it straightforward on how to do it. I've forgotten how I did
it, just mess around .......


  #29  
Old May 16th 17, 10:33 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,617
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 16.05.2017 08:10, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 20:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 20:10, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 19:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 08:18, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01





















It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR
crash into
the
bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury,
damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient
evidence to give the driver enough points to
keep him away from other road users for a
while.

I wouldn't be so sure.

It's not often that a vehicle will be driven
into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an
urban environment,
and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles
can be
very deceptive.

It's not difficult to see the difference between
skin damage and structural damage.

As you know, rumpling panels are designed for
absorbing
shock and directing energy away from vehicle
occupants.

Indeed. This one clearly didn't.

The driver only had minor injuries, I think that
shows how
incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent
severity
of the crash would have killed or maimed for life
someone in
a car from just 20 or so years ago.

The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive
times.
There is no straightforward way of knowing the
difference.

My point main point that the structural damage
(implying there
was far more energy than the crumple zones could
cope with) is
not from a collision of less than 40mph.

No, that is not the implication of that which you
wrote.

I suggest you read the paragraph at the top.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash,
whatever speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries
only, that is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars.
Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block
is in safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at
39mph,
the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle
pictures, except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph.
Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out
of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not
required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the
bonnet much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle
(compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the
frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important
when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist
riding into
the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in
comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as
frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away
with light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding
into the back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is
misplaced concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest
for the occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of
the damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross
irresponsibility and hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on
that point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the
occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something
perceived to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was
clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a
sense of perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to
anyone other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In
contrast to the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.

Driving of the standard this person displayed is of
considerable interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when
nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you
will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any
manner they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and
you believe it can be played down?

The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the
fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his
mistake. Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle
concerned was injured (from what was reported)

It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to
stop telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?

When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense.

Yet really don't get it.

Hmmm. The first word was meant to be 'You'.

Sounds like a reasonable amendment:

Q: When are you going to stop telling bicycle riders what they
should and shouldn't do?

A: When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense
yet really don't get it.


It made perfect sense.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


You are replying to a lamp post, you may as well talk to a cyclist for all
the sense you will get.
Please get that AVG sig out of your replies.
AVG do not make it straightforward on how to do it. I've forgotten how I did
it, just mess around .......


What is AVG?
I use Linux, so I doubt if AVG would work anyway.
  #30  
Old May 17th 17, 08:55 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr Mudd-John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On Mon, 15 May 2017 21:10:15 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 20:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 20:10, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 19:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 08:18, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote:


[Huge snip]

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

You are replying to a lamp post, you may as well talk to a cyclist for
all
the sense you will get.
Please get that AVG sig out of your replies.
AVG do not make it straightforward on how to do it. I've forgotten how I
did
it, just mess around .......


If you're looking to impose some netiquette (in this group - good luck!),
look to the beam in your own eye.



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to overtake a pair of cyclists Alycidon UK 10 January 22nd 16 10:07 AM
Good Idea: Penalties for Motorists Trying To Overtake Cyclists Bret Cahill[_4_] UK 3 May 12th 14 07:21 PM
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left? John Benn UK 58 August 22nd 12 01:35 AM
Idea to warn cyclists against trying to pass on the inside. of lorries Mr. Benn[_9_] UK 21 April 30th 12 01:13 AM
up the inside of a lorry at a junction, when will cyclists learn? Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 59 February 18th 11 05:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.