Nuxx:42910501-2186-4de5-a4a5-e27ef216f1cb@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <42910501-2186-4de5-a4a5-e27ef216f1cb@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Cyclist doing nothing wrong killed in broad daylight. CPS do nothing. Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:05:01 -0700 (PDT) References:  <35c6c766-7bf2-437f-89f4-097c6d7f0250@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <211fa87d-b362-4a11-b201-3c49a181dcb6@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <_cadnbSG7PPCY83XnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@bt.com> <9803f186-19b8-443f-9382-79c803aae7b6@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>    <04c7e3b7-89d9-40cd-b4aa-55cebfc58b3d@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>  <21806a28-0b1f-4892-aa67-0cd89091b839@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 66 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.163.209.43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1247166301 17838 127.0.0.1 (9 Jul 2009 19:05:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:05:01 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.163.209.43; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5506 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:716158

On Jul 7, 9:44=A0am, JNugent  wrote: > Simon Brooke wrote: > > On 7 July, 01:09, Ian  wrote: > >> On 6 July, 21:52, Simon Brooke  wrote: > >>> On 6 July, 17:50, JNugent  wrote: > >>>> *What* killed him is not the same thing as *who* killed him (if, ind= eed, > >>>> anyone killed him). > >>> Well, /if/ the van killed him, then the person who was in control of > >>> the van is responsible for his death; either through negligence in > >>> failing to control his vehicle, or through negligence in failing to > >>> drive safely. > >> That's simply not true. > >>> If you are in control of a vehicle and that vehicle causes the death > >>> of another road user, there really isn't any excuse or any get out > >>> clause, be that vehicle a pedal cycle or a transit van. > >> That's simply not true either. Or at least, it depends on a rather > >> dubious bit of semantics. > >> Supposing Car A is driving along the road from - to take an example at > >> random - Dalbeattie to Auchencairn. The driver progresses at a > >> reasonable speed and keeps a good lookout. Car B drives out of the > >> Palnackie road at speed and without looking, immediately into the path > >> of Car A. The driver of Car B is killed. > >> Who was to blame? Clearly the driver of Car B. With the best will in > >> the world nobody - car driver, bus driver, HGV driver, cyclist - can > >> be expected to avoid someone who pulls out in front of them, or who > >> sails through red traffic lights at speed. > > If you are driving at such a speed that you cannot avoid another > > vehicle which pulls suddenly and unexpectedly out of a side road - as, > > we all know, happens - then you are by definition driving dangerously. > > What "definition" would that be? > > > Yes, Car B should not have pulled out of the side road and bears some > > share of the blame. But if Car A was going so fast that its driver was > > unable to stop in time, then Car A's driver is clearly not a fit and > > proper person to hold a driving license. > > > > Where is the authority for that (other than in the Big Bumper Book Of Thi= ngs > I'd Like To Be In The Law)?

Yes, it's clearly a load of car-hating bollocks. Either Simon Brooke really thinks that, in which case his driving skills obviously aren't anywhere near up to scratch, or he's just saying it because he hates (other) motorists and wants to make out that "speeding" is worse than it is. It's so clearly a load of rubbish that it's hardly even worth explaining why; anyone who doesn't know why it's rubbish is not worth trying to reason with (and isn't fit to be driving or riding anything).

You can't possibly always go at a speed at which you can stop if someone suddenly decides to pull or run out into your path, and nor should you be expected to. Only a lunatic would genuinely think otherwise. If Brooke was correct then good driving practice would be to come to almost a complete stop whenever you passed a pedestrian or a car waiting to pull out (even on an NSL rural road). His is quite possibly the most inane assertion I've ever seen on URC, and there are a *lot* of contenders for that crown. But will he ever admit to being wrong, no matter how obvious that becomes? I'm not holding my breath.

Ye gods. I've seen it all now. Next people will be saying that all you need to do to reduce accidents is to lower speed limits and put up cameras. Oh wait.