Nuxx:9m gl.19148$875.11299@newsfe21.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!209.197.12.242!nx01.iad.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.ision.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!ision!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.xsnews.nl!border-2.ams.xsnews.nl!69.16.177.242.MISMATCH!cyclone02.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe21.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID: <9m_gl.19148$875.11299@newsfe21.ams2> From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Dangerous driving complaint and response. Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:44:59 +0000 References: <3a30696f-4bca-46fb-87d4-a4c5dac7867a@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com> 	<6uis19Ff35gnU1@mid.individual.net> <34a4c060-bad6-478e-9a7f-c719f323eb33@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com> 	 	<6uj19lFfnvl5U1@mid.individual.net> <088cd0f2-72ef-4679-8955-4d8cee962cb8@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com> 	 <3416dc25-8a50-4077-b233-f110b6f20de9@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com> 	 <96afac66-fff0-4f4f-9207-d2a6193e0626@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com> 	  	 <6a69e95d-6a07-4ea8-937e-7bf6b3d6efbb@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Lines: 63 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6a69e95d-6a07-4ea8-937e-7bf6b3d6efbb@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe21.ams2 1233416709 82.21.204.127 (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:45:09 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:45:09 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 4309 X-Original-Bytes: 4266 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684408

spindrift wrote: > At the very least, the council ought to re-consider the licence > granted to an employer who lies about what happened on film! > Sorry, did you read any of the post you responded to? Who do you think is more at risk from the law should this tape be provided them - the cabbie or the cyclist?

> There was no swearing.

"What the fuck was that" isn't swearing?

> Magna's hand was open, as it says clearly in > the text and in the images.

The text was written by the cyclist, so is hardly likely to be objectively honest. I've watched the video several times and its inconclusive about open handed or closed. The issue is moot anyway - he still assaulted the vehicle.

> The driver stops in the middle of the road > after being warned by an oncoming driver that his actions are > dangerous.

Is that a fact? It looks to me that he stopped because some lout thumped his car?

> This wasn't filtering, it was passing at speed dangerously > close and then lying about it. > Where's the "lie"? He said he felt safe to pass. How is that a lie?

> Taxi drivers can be considerate, many are stupidly dangerous, a > Scottish cabbie was recently convicted for driving onto the pavement > to attack a cyclist: > > http://triathlonscotland.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9742&sid=ed0fc2a3021c98e6a129f85a405b946d > How about I post the URL of a cyclist who deliberately hit a pedestrian? Would that be any more or less relevant than your link? Its not this case, so I'm struggling to work out why you posted it.

> A London cabbie went to prison for killing a cyclist deliberately: > > > > http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/comment/robert-hanks-the-cycling-column-468874.html > As above. > > You can see clearly the cyclist didn't move off his line. The cabbie > lied, and the licencing authority lied too- their version bears no > relation to what you see in the video. They had a chance, they blew > it, the cabbie needs to be taken off the roads, he won't get insurance > or another cabbie job with a conviction. > Great, so you want *at best* an error on the part of the driver to cost his livelihood, but the cyclist who is *clearly* seen breaking the law should get off scot free? Again, quite bizarre... > > > >