Nuxx:4e2ef3fc$0$2931$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.stack.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e2ef3fc$0$2931$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Bexley driver "'severely embarrassed' after attack. Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:06:02 +0100 References:  <1QvXp.69124$J65.39913@newsfe14.ams2> <4e2ee12b$0$2497$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> <3ba543ae-c0a2-422f-8f96-6f79ee78382d@df3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> Lines: 51 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3ba543ae-c0a2-422f-8f96-6f79ee78382d@df3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: a9129147.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=;X1d7U52NcFgN9e0JNPkjOYjZGX^207PK` On Jul 26, 4:45 pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: >> It might be better to get reformed nutter cyclists to speak about not >> provoking drivers or riding dangerously. But that doesn't quite fit >> your agenda of "minimise restrictions on cyclists while maximising >> restriction on drivers for ideological reasons, and safety can go hang", >> does it?- > > Would you like a go at my latest survey, Nuxx? > > Here it is. > > A driver is reversing his car in a supermarket car park and does not > see a pedestrian behind him. He ends up running over the pedestrian's > foot, who then taps on the driver's window to let him know that he is > trapping his foot. > > Should the driver: > > > a) Take note of the tapping, move off the man's foot, then get out of > his car, apologise for being so careless and check for any injuries? > > > or > > > b) Get out of his car, shout obscenities at the victim and then punch > him twice in the face before driving off? > > > Background - the "previous" to this incident was that the pedestrian > was "in the driver's way".

It certainly appears to be "a", although of course it would have been preferable if the driver had seen the pedestrian and not run over his foot at all.

I do hope this isn't some silly trap. Hopefully it's just a way of weeding out those (if they exist) who will always condemn the cyclist/pedestrian in any incident between a cyclist/pedestrian and a driver, no matter whose fault it was, in the same way that my "Whose Fault?" thread was designed to weed out those who always say that the driver's at fault in cyclist/driver collisions, even when it's plainly the cyclist's.

And it did indeed show that Doug and Phil Lee do exactly that: the driver is always to blame, no matter what actually happened, because they're "irresponsible" enough to be in a ton of metal in the first place. Chapman does that as well of course, but predictably, he was too much of a chicken to answer the question (sound familiar?)