# Cyclist Killed



## domd1979 (28 May 2008)

This happened last night:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7423537.stm

Absolutely horrific what happened; I've been told the detail from someone who was working nearby.


----------



## spindrift (28 May 2008)

Oh no.


----------



## dodgy (28 May 2008)

My heart sinks when I hear news like this.

Dave.


----------



## domtyler (28 May 2008)

Don't say she was texting?


----------



## MERV (28 May 2008)

18 years old is to young to drive IMHO.


----------



## domtyler (28 May 2008)

MERV said:


> 18 years old is to young to drive IMHO.



You can vote at eighteen. Don't forget it is the lack of experience that is the real danger so you always have to have inexperienced drivers on the roads, otherwise they would never get any.


----------



## MERV (28 May 2008)

Agreed but i'd say experienced and naive.

As you get older sometimes you realise it's not always a good idea to drive fast.

I don't know anything about the accident but I do see enough boy racers.


----------



## magnatom (28 May 2008)

We don't know if age was a contributer in this incident. In fact we know almost nothing. Best to wait for further details than to speculate.

For the cyclist, all I can say is RIP.


----------



## Animal (28 May 2008)

F-ucking hell!

It's a town centre. The speed limit would have been 30. That should be a manslaughter charge.

Google Map: http://tinyurl.com/4etrjr


----------



## domtyler (28 May 2008)

MERV said:


> Agreed but i'd say experienced and naive.
> 
> As you get older sometimes you realise it's not always a good idea to drive fast.
> 
> I don't know anything about the accident but I do see enough boy racers.



Are those the same ones who not only like to test their skills by driving extremely fast, but also to prove their mettle by hurtling past cyclists as close as possible without actually making contact? Or in this case, finding out that there is a large gulf between perceived and actual skills!!


----------



## Animal (28 May 2008)

Yes, them.

"S3TH" did that this morning in his BMW.

Easily remembered numberplate....


----------



## wafflycat (28 May 2008)

domd1979 said:


> This happened last night:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7423537.stm
> 
> Absolutely horrific what happened; I've been told the detail from someone who was working nearby.



So what happened?


----------



## domtyler (28 May 2008)

wafflycat said:


> So what happened?



He's keeping it a secret by the looks of it.


----------



## numbnuts (28 May 2008)

Very sad 
...and we hover like flies waiting for the windshield on the freeway


----------



## MERV (28 May 2008)

A motorist at work calls me "bonnet fodder".Very nice the fat git.


----------



## Milo (28 May 2008)

Remove his bonnet one day.


----------



## HLaB (28 May 2008)

Tragic news  RIP


----------



## Eat MY Dust (28 May 2008)

MERV said:


> A motorist at work calls me "bonnet fodder".Very nice the fat git.




Should have responded with "fat focker"


----------



## BentMikey (28 May 2008)

MERV said:


> A motorist at work calls me "bonnet fodder".Very nice the fat git.




Whereas he's far more likely to be a heart attack victim than you are, and far more likely to die from one than you are from a traffic collision. Cyclists tend to live 2 years longer than the average citizen.


----------



## Jaded (28 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Whereas he's far more likely to be a heart attack victim than you are, and far more likely to die from one than you are from a traffic collision. Cyclists tend to live 2 years longer than the average citizen.



That bloke doesn't sound like a 'citizen'.


----------



## domd1979 (28 May 2008)

Not quite the right location - it was here, in the northbound direction:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...52.79765,-2.101264&spn=0.012014,0.028839&z=15

Its a 30mph limit, there is a reasonable width mandatory cycle lane, the road climbs up to bridge the railway, then back down. I cycle along here most days.

Whilst speculating is probably inappropriate - its difficult to ignore the damage done to a very substantial crash barrier which gives an idea of how horrendous an impact it must have been. The cyclist's body was thrown a considerable distance was recovered from more than one place.

The whole thing is immensely tragic, and very difficult to think anything other than it could have been avoided.




Animal said:


> F-ucking hell!
> 
> It's a town centre. The speed limit would have been 30. That should be a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Google Map: http://tinyurl.com/4etrjr


----------



## MERV (28 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Whereas he's far more likely to be a heart attack victim than you are, and far more likely to die from one than you are from a traffic collision. Cyclists tend to live 2 years longer than the average citizen.




Depends if he drives his car into me.

Actually he is quite badly overweight but he doesn't care.*

* Or perhaps he cant help himself.


----------



## BentMikey (28 May 2008)

I dare you to make some sort of cheeky heart attack comment to him next time he comes up with the bonnet fodder though!


----------



## MERV (28 May 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I dare you to make some sort of cheeky heart attack comment to him next time he comes up with the bonnet fodder though!




I didn't like it when he first started saying it...just in case that sort of thing did happen.

Dont think i'd say such a personal thing about his weight though.Well only on the message board.

Quite a nice bloke really so it's sad to see him that way.

The old joke is he buys about 12 donuts and 6 cans of diet coke.Bit late for that.


----------



## Mr Pig (28 May 2008)

domtyler said:


> Don't forget it is the lack of experience that is the real danger so you always have to have inexperienced drivers on the roads, otherwise they would never get any.



I agree, but more can still be done. I passed my IAM advanced driving test about ten years ago and at the time I was told that there were two things that significantly reduced the chances of a driver being in an accident. One was doing advanced training, like the IAM or RSPA tests, and the other was years of experience. You can't speed up the ageing process but you can train people better.

The IAM test covers motorway driving, hazard/risk assessment and lots of other important aspects of driving that are either not covered at all in the standard test or are not covered in anything like as much depth. If we trained drivers to a higher standard they'd crash less. It's not complicated.


----------



## HJ (28 May 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Not quite the right location - it was here, in the northbound direction:
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...52.79765,-2.101264&spn=0.012014,0.028839&z=15
> 
> Its a 30mph limit, there is a reasonable width mandatory cycle lane, the road climbs up to bridge the railway, then back down. I cycle along here most days.



Is there such a thing as a "mandatory cycle lane"??


----------



## HJ (28 May 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I agree, but more can still be done. I passed my IAM advanced driving test about ten years ago and at the time I was told that there were two things that significantly reduced the chances of a driver being in an accident. One was doing advanced training, like the IAM or RSPA tests, and the other was years of experience. You can't speed up the ageing process but you can train people better.
> 
> The IAM test covers motorway driving, hazard/risk assessment and lots of other important aspects of driving that are either not covered at all in the standard test or are not covered in anything like as much depth. If we trained drivers to a higher standard they'd crash less. It's not complicated.



Agreed driving standards in this country are far too low, there should a far higher stander of driver training and testing. Ideally statutory retest for all drivers every 5 years in order to keep their licence. Most drivers think that once they have passed their test they can forget about the HC and all that stuff. They don't seem to understand they were made to learn it for a reason.


----------



## domd1979 (28 May 2008)

As in solid white line, mandatory for vehicles not to enter it.



Hairy Jock said:


> Is there such a thing as a "mandatory cycle lane"??


----------



## Animal (29 May 2008)

It's totally outrageous how anyone can be killed at such a location. The only way is through total recklessness and utter disregard for other people. a 30 limit, a bike lane, a wide carriageway, an almost straight road.

The charge should be manslaughter and the driver should go to prison.

I'd put money on a fine and points, and the judge saying "nothing can make up for the loss of a loved one, so let's all just forget about it eh? Don't want to upset the motor lobby do we? Oh no, more than our job's worth"


----------



## Jaded (29 May 2008)

Animal, you forgot "Well, these things happen, don't they."


----------



## domd1979 (29 May 2008)

Well this is in today's paper: 

http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/05/29/landlords-road-plea-after-cyclist-tragedy/

Police describe it as a "motoring offence". !




Animal said:


> It's totally outrageous how anyone can be killed at such a location. The only way is through total recklessness and utter disregard for other people. a 30 limit, a bike lane, a wide carriageway, an almost straight road.
> 
> The charge should be manslaughter and the driver should go to prison.
> 
> I'd put money on a fine and points, and the judge saying "nothing can make up for the loss of a loved one, so let's all just forget about it eh? Don't want to upset the motor lobby do we? Oh no, more than our job's worth"


----------



## spindrift (29 May 2008)

**** me.


----------



## MERV (29 May 2008)

Christ that's terrible.


----------



## domtyler (29 May 2008)

Looks like the little bitch will be getting a £30 fine and three points then! 

Wouldn't surprise me if she subsequently launches a legal case against the guys family for compensation for the damage done to her Fiesta when he selfishly collided with her bonnet with his head.


----------



## ScaredCyclist (2 Jun 2008)

Tragic, just tragic.
The poor man and his poor family. 
My other half works with the victims dad, its just SO SO sad.
Hes lost his 1st born son, how could you ever get over it?

Just proves that inexperienced drivers really are a problem.

This is the 3rd cyclist accident i have heard about recently, another is a man that is still in a coma 2 weeks on.
He was crossing the road on a crossing when a car ploughed into him.

The other was a girl in my Triathlon club, luckily she only suffered bruises and 2 weeks off training.
But it was a car that just pulled out without looking.

I am scared now of doing something i enjoy, my lovely bike sits lonely in the garage as i am too scared to go out.

The last time i went out i was on a main A road (A511 Ashby Road to Ashby). I was making my way to quieter A roads where i feel less nervous, but i have to use this main road first.
I had a 40FT Artic lorry up my bum for a few minutes, i could feel his heat from the engine!!
I was peddling my little legs as fast as i could to try and get away from him!!
When he eventually over took me, he was that close to me the hairs on my right arm tingled!! 

I signalled to him as if to say, move over!! 
Dont think he saw that, but i was petrified.
Why oh why cant we have cycle lanes?
I wish i could go on the pavement!!! Boo Hoo.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jun 2008)

Cycle lanes aren't going to help you, since they will reduce the fear, but increase the actual danger to you. And why would you be afraid of doing something that's actually quite a safe activity, comparable to walking?


----------



## ScaredCyclist (2 Jun 2008)

Why do cyclist lanes increase the danger?

Im scared because i keep hearing of more cyclist getting knocked off their bikes by motorists.
I know that i should just keep at it, which is why i hope to get out there after work 2nite and not be such a wimp!


----------



## yello (2 Jun 2008)

domtyler said:


> Looks like the little bitch will be getting a £30 fine and three points then!



Well there's nothing to indicate _exactly_ what she's being charged with so let's wait and see shall we... and hope that you're wrong.


----------



## domtyler (2 Jun 2008)

yello said:


> Well there's nothing to indicate _exactly_ what she's being charged with so let's wait and see shall we... and hope that you're wrong.



I hope I am wrong too, but as the police have already said she is being charged with a "motoring related offence" it does not look like a good day for the safety of vulnerable road users.


----------



## andyfromotley (2 Jun 2008)

Does anyone actually know what caused the accident?

So for all i know it could have been a drunk blindfolded cyclist riding the wrongway down this road collided with a car and died.

Why are people shouting about manslaughter charges?


Cheers andy


----------



## domtyler (2 Jun 2008)

andyfromotley said:


> Does anyone actually know what caused the accident?
> 
> So for all i know it could have been a drunk blindfolded cyclist riding the wrongway down this road collided with a car and died.
> 
> ...



It seems highly unlikely that this is the case as the cyclists body had to collected from multiple places after the collision that took place in a 30mph area. I have never heard of a person having his body ripped apart like this by a small vehicle travelling at or below 30mph.


----------



## yello (2 Jun 2008)

> The cyclist was killed when he was catapulted down a 30ft embankment after colliding with a car on Queensville Bridge late on Tuesday night.





> Someone heard the bang and shouted to ring for an ambulance. Drivers coming over the bridge were doing 45 or 50mph and had to slam-on.



A bit confusing? A 30mph area but cars doing 45-50?? The cyclist was thrown over the bridge and down the embankment to where? Does the bridge cross another road? Perhaps a more major road?

Edit: just seen it was a bridge over a railway line.


----------



## domd1979 (2 Jun 2008)

Whilst none of us know the precise circumstances, it is extremely difficult to believe that the motorist was driving at or below the speed limit. At 30 mph, I do not believe for one second that you could catapult someone off their bicycle such a distance, before then mounting the footway and extensively damaging a crash barrier. 




andyfromotley said:


> Does anyone actually know what caused the accident?
> 
> So for all i know it could have been a drunk blindfolded cyclist riding the wrongway down this road collided with a car and died.
> 
> ...


----------



## domd1979 (2 Jun 2008)

Cars do undoubtedly go over the speed limit on that section of road. 




yello said:


> A bit confusing? A 30mph area but cars doing 45-50??


----------



## andyfromotley (2 Jun 2008)

domd1979 said:


> Cars do undoubtedly go over the speed limit on that section of road.



You missed the word SOME off the beginning of that sentence. 

So unless you can correct me none of you can tell me that this driver did anything wrong. Based on little or no expertise in accident investigation you have decided that the driver should be charged with manslaughter. 

Hmmmmmm sorry but you're not making a great deal of sense to me.... what exactly are you saying that the driver did wrong???

i would suggest that we simply dont know yet. Let the police do their job and put the braying mob back in the box. None of this makes it any less tragic that somebody died.

andy


----------



## Animal (2 Jun 2008)

"none of you can tell me that this driver did anything wrong."

What, apart from smash a human body to bits you mean?


----------



## andyfromotley (2 Jun 2008)

Ok, so if i throw myself in front of your car with no warning, giving you no time to react, causing you to smash my body to peices.........you would be in the wrong and deserve a manslaughter charge???

Interesting views on recklessness and intent you have there animal.

its simple...you have no idea what caused this accident,

you THINK it might be excees speed by the car, or inexperience of the driver, or reclessness of thedriver, or carelessness of the driver........... but really, at this stage YOU HAVENT GOT A CLUE.

ever wondered how lynch mobs get started?

Andy


----------



## domd1979 (2 Jun 2008)

Did I?



andyfromotley said:


> You missed the word SOME off the beginning of that sentence.


----------



## skwerl (2 Jun 2008)

ScaredCyclist said:


> Why do cyclist lanes increase the danger?
> 
> Im scared because i keep hearing of more cyclist getting knocked off their bikes by motorists.
> I know that i should just keep at it, which is why i hope to get out there after work 2nite and not be such a wimp!



This is really irrational. It's equivalent to these people who now fear the abduction of their child after what happened to 'poor Maddy'.
You've heard of three cyclists being involved in accidents recently and have decided cycling isn't safe any more. How many cyclists are there on the roads every day that aren't involved in accidents?
Ignore the idiot tabloids and think carefully about how dangerous cycling really is. Safer than walking for one.
This country's is being ruled/ruined by the media


----------



## domtyler (2 Jun 2008)

andyfromotley said:


> Ok, so if i throw myself in front of your car with no warning, giving you no time to react, causing you to smash my body to peices.........you would be in the wrong and deserve a manslaughter charge???
> 
> Interesting views on recklessness and intent you have there animal.
> 
> ...



Come on, this is an internet forum for people with nothing else to do than chat on cycling boards all day! 

If I were William Hill I would give you approximately 33/1 on the cyclist being solely to blame for this incident and 9/5 on the car driver. Care to place your bets?


----------



## Jaded (2 Jun 2008)

"Cars do undoubtedly go over the speed limit on that section of road."

"Some cars do undoubtedly go over the speed limit on that section of road."

Completely interchangeable. 

No need for the some. Don't see what you are trying to get at anyfromotley.


----------



## andyfromotley (2 Jun 2008)

Jaded - no i think a 'some' would have added clarity to that statement.

Dom - are you kidding. I'd rip your hands off at those odds on the probability that the driver was responsible. But thats a different matter. Probability and fact arent the same things.

Again i want to say that none of this means that the whole thing is any less tragic for the cyclist, just think we should wait and see as to what happened, as dom has said odds are it will turn out to be driver error, but i hate it when people are pre judged and before we know it were calling people little bitches and demanding they be charged with manslaughter.... it just doesnt seem fair to me.

andy


----------



## Animal (3 Jun 2008)

andyfromotley said:


> Ok, so if i throw myself in front of your car with no warning, giving you no time to react, causing you to smash my body to peices.........you would be in the wrong and deserve a manslaughter charge???
> 
> Interesting views on recklessness and intent you have there animal.
> 
> ...



OH.

My.

GOD.

Typical petrolhead strawman argument.

People do *not* "throw themselves under cars".

You rant about clues, but have no facts in your head at all.

Have you read any statistics about contributory factors to "crashes"?

4 out of 6 of the main causes are down to the driver.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/contributoryfactorstoroadacc.pdf

You are a troll. You post meaningless soundbites. You are a petrolhead. and you hate cyclists.

Do NOT talk to me about "lynchmobs". It is cyclists who are the vulnerable "out group", who are the target for a general consensus which says it is OK to attack and hurt us. The messages from the media, the courts, and the establishment is that cyclists are pests, ridiculous, tree-huggers, lycra nazis etc etc etc etc ad nauseam. Yuo think this has no effect at all?

THAT is how "lynch mobs" get started.

What I am talking about is the psychology of driving. The changes that happen to people when they are in sole charge of an absolutely awesome amount of power, and fantastic amounts of protection.

Motor traffic is the mob, we are the victims. You know nothing about research into group behaviour and attitudes to out groups do you? Or how persecution of out groups develops within ordinary people do you?

How do you thing Pol Pot got people do do his work? Or Hitler or Stalin? If you think "oh, but they were monsters", you are making the mistake that you (wrongly) accused me of. We *all* have the potential to be monsters. It's latent in all of us, it can be brought out by certain situations. How do you think the pogroms against Jews got started. And if you research in history, they were more common that you'd like to consider. Jews were slaughtered in the UK and Europe in the middle ages. Catholics were slaughtered by mobs in Europe. Human psychology can be ugly.

Read some of Philip Zimbardo. He's a physchologist at Stanford University in California.

http://zimbardo.com/zimbardo.html

The mildest mannered people can show a monstrous side.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Jun 2008)

Steady on Animal. Read AfO's posts a bit more carefully and you'll see he's not trying to blame the cyclists for this, merely saying that we're all using slightly strong language for a load of people on an internet forum who have no idea of the facts of this case. Like Andy, I'll lay odds that the car driver was responsible, but until I _know_ what happened, I'll keep my mouth shut.


----------



## yello (3 Jun 2008)

Animal, calm down. 

I don't think andyfromotley is a troll at all. He is not making judgements on all cyclists, all drivers or all accidents. He is just asking, as I read him, why the assumptions and conclusions are being made in this _particular_ case from the information as presented. And, from what I have read, I have to say I agree. 

Others here might have more information, or heard or been told more detail, but what has been linked to from this thread does not provide the basis for some of the statements made... in my humble opinion if course.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

_Ok, so if i throw myself in front of your car with no warning, giving you no time to react, causing you to smash my body to peices.........you would be in the wrong and deserve a manslaughter charge???_

What a very silly and unpleasant argument. Animal's right, this is a scenario beloved of pro-speeding lobby groups, they make the utterly disgusting claim that children killed on the roads may very well have been suicidal. We've seen it here before.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Jun 2008)

No, read his post properly before jumping to conclusions. That's not what he's saying at all.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

I copied his words verbatim.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Jun 2008)

Means nothing without the context. You know that, you're just trying to stir up another argument.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

_So for all i know it could have been a drunk blindfolded cyclist riding the wrongway down this road collided with a car and died._

Sleazebag. Whines about victimising drivers and "lynch mobs" and then posts this crap. Hypocrite.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Jun 2008)

Well, it's true enough. I nearly flattened a cyclist with no lights one January evening on the A5. Sometimes cyclists do stupid things. Both me and AndyfromOtley are saying that the probability is that this is the motorist's fault, but the only fact we know is that we don't know enough facts to make such a judgement. There's nothing pro speeding or anti cyclist about that.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

_So for all i know it could have been a drunk blindfolded cyclist riding the wrongway down this road collided with a car and died._


The driver was arrested, no blame has been imparted to the cyclist, Andy has barged into a thread about a person killed and made snide insinuations that they were drunk. Like I said, beneath contempt.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Jun 2008)

That's not a snide insinuation, just a sentence about a hypothetical cyclist. Had he said "I think this cyclist was drunk and it was all his own fault" you'd have a point. But I think you're reading more into this than is actually there.


----------



## yello (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> Andy has barged into a thread about a person killed and made snide insinuations that they were drunk.



No he has not! Nothing of the sort. You're twisting his words again.

But I am pleased that you edited your first reply. It wasn't helpful.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

I've edited nothing. Andy barged in to a thread about a dead cyclist and started throwing hysterical allegations around.


----------



## domtyler (3 Jun 2008)

Animal said:


> OH.
> 
> My.
> 
> ...



Steady on there Animal, there is nothing to be gained by becoming hysterical.


----------



## yello (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> I've edited nothing.



You did. Your original response ended "hypocrite" as I recall. Anyway, I'm pleased to see you thought better of it.

I support the calls being made for the suspension of accusations. There are insufficient facts presented here to come to the conclusions of manslaughter. What we do have, beyond the press reports, is the post of a forumer (not that I doubt it in any way) about the location of the accident; it being a 30mph, cycle lane, etc. 

Personally, I find it all a little confusing as to what exactly happened so I think it impossible to form an opinion.


----------



## domtyler (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> _So for all i know it could have been a drunk blindfolded cyclist riding the wrongway down this road collided with a car and died._
> 
> 
> The driver was arrested, no blame has been imparted to the cyclist, Andy has barged into a thread about a person killed and made snide insinuations that they were drunk. Like I said, beneath contempt.



I say old boy, you're coming on a bit strong aren't you?


----------



## magnatom (3 Jun 2008)

Animal said:


> OH.
> 
> My.
> 
> ...



Have a look at this Animal. 
View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PZnsw3bIzu0


This little girl almost stepped right under my wheels. I had no time to react. She stepped out from behind a people carrier so I did not see her until the last minute. Would you agree that had she been walking a little faster and not stopped that there would have been nothing that I could do, i.e. she 'threw herself under my bike?'


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

_You did. Your original response ended "hypocrite" as I recall._


_*Still does.*_


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

This little girl almost stepped right under my wheels.

No, she doesn't, you stopped in time and you're on a bike, not driving.

What we know of the facts in this case are wildly at variance with andy's guesses and allegations.


----------



## yello (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> Still does



Oh that's a shame! You've now gone and destroyed the illusion I had that you were capable of reflection and self-moderation.



> No, she doesn't, you stopped in time and you're on a bike, not driving.



Are you being serious with that argument? If the girl stepped out then she stepped out - the type of vehicle does not change that. Fortunately for her, it was a bike. 



> What we know of the facts in this case are wildly at variance with andy's guesses and allegations.



Andy has made no allegations - that is your interpretation. More to the point, what we know does not support (yet) a conclusion of manslaughter.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

_the type of vehicle does not change that._

Sigh.

Cars make a noise, bikes don't make much noise at all, I believe had the girl heard a car coming circumspection would have come into play.

Andy's a hypocrite cos he whines and snivels about us being unfair to the driver without knowing the facts then suggests the cyclist was drunk. Rank hypocrisy.

I dunno who mentioned manslaughter, wasn't me.


----------



## yello (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> I believe had the girl heard a car coming circumspection would have come into play.



You don't know that though. There are any number of possible factors that could prevent it. 



> then suggests the cyclist was drunk. Rank hypocrisy.



In my opinion, no such suggestion was made and therefore there is no hypocrisy.



> I dunno who mentioned manslaughter, wasn't me.



So you agree that conclusions shouldn't be being made either way then?


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

I know that cars are noisier than bikes, I know there's no evidence the cyclist was at fault, I agree calls for manslaughter charges are premature. Let's wait and see.


----------



## yello (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> Let's wait and see.



Agreed.


----------



## spindrift (3 Jun 2008)

Thank you.


I love you.


----------



## magnatom (3 Jun 2008)

spindrift said:


> This little girl almost stepped right under my wheels.
> 
> No, she doesn't, you stopped in time and you're on a bike, not driving.
> 
> What we know of the facts in this case are wildly at variance with andy's guesses and allegations.



I didn't stop and had she walked a little faster and not stopped herself, I would have hit her. Had that happened, would I have been at fault?

Sprindrift, Andy s being reasonable here. He is just saying lets wait and find out what has really happened. Trust me, from my experience of the media, you cannot always believe what has been reported!


----------



## hackbike 6 (3 Jun 2008)

> This little girl almost stepped right under my wheels. I had no time to react. She stepped out from behind a people carrier so I did not see her until the last minute. Would you agree that had she been walking a little faster and not stopped that there would have been nothing that I could do, i.e. she 'threw herself under my bike?'



I was going to make a different joking comment to your video but I changed my mind.

I really do find the remarks you are getting on U Tube unreasonable.Glad I dont bother now.What was that?"You didn't even try to swerve to avoid her"?

Christ what cyclist wants to run anyone over?


----------



## magnatom (3 Jun 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> I was going to make a different joking comment to your video but I changed my mind.
> 
> I really do find the remarks you are getting on U Tube unreasonable.Glad I dont bother now.What was that?"You didn't even try to swerve to avoid her"?
> 
> Christ what cyclist wants to run anyone over?



Aye I do get some crazy comments. I just try to show them up for the idiots that they are. Haven't bothered with that swerving comment. Not worth my time!

Having the comments on my videos is worthwhile though, because despite the dross I do get some good comments that, although they may criticise me, they are reasoned and balanced. I have changed my cycling because of comments I have had on youtube from reasonable posters.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Jun 2008)

magnatom said:


> I have changed my cycling because of comments I have had on *youtube *from *reasonable posters*.


Now there's 3 words you don't see every day in the same sentence!!


----------



## hackbike 6 (3 Jun 2008)

Sorry I laughed at the cycling crash video.It wasn't actually the crash but it was the reaction afterwards.Hope you were ok.


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F47UnXydDaY&NR=1


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Jun 2008)

With regard to the 'discussion' in this thread I completely agree with AFO. He hasn't said the cyclist was drunk, he hasn't said the cyclist was to blame... all he has said is that it's premature for all the calls for manslaughter charges given that there is precious little information/data to support such a claim.

A cyclist has been killed. It's a fact (and a sad one). Some vague description has been given about them being thrown from their bike over a bridge/embankment. The car driver has been charged with some driving offence.

She may have been speeding, she may have been texting, she may have been charged with driving without due care, she may have been charged with having defective tyres... who can say at this point??

All we can say is RIP for the cyclist and condolences to his family, and hope that justice is done.


----------



## magnatom (3 Jun 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Sorry I laughed at the cycling crash video.It wasn't actually the crash but it was the reaction afterwards.Hope you were ok.
> 
> 
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F47UnXydDaY&NR=1




Yes I was fine, just a few grazes and scratches and a couple of bent bits on the bike. Nothing major. Tarmac, it would seem isn't very soft...


----------



## magnatom (3 Jun 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Now there's 3 words you don't see every day in the same sentence!!



They do exist. I've posted on the odd video in my time....


----------



## skwerl (3 Jun 2008)

Animal said:


> ...lycra nazis... ...Hitler...



It took 6 pages. I'm sure Mike Godwin will be happy


----------



## andyfromotley (5 Jun 2008)

wow........... been away for a few days so missed the kerfuffle.

Animal.... i commute to work by bike 5 days a week. i pick my kids on the bike, i am seriously considering selling my car as it gets so little use. But yes that would leave us with one family car as my wife chooses not to cycle. Guess that makes me a petrolhead... you are a genius.

There are so many points i could argue with that i really dont have the time. Take a deep breath and calm down. You simply cant accept that i think you were being hysterical WITHOUT knowing the facts. If you know the FACTS that led to this cyclists death please post them. The fact that drivers caise most accidents is neither here nor there. Who caused this accident? YOU HAVE NO IDEA. Therefore you and others judged the driver by calling for a manslaughter charge, then someone called her a little bitch. I think this is unfair. I think this is how lynchmobs start. I think that this behaviour is pretty unpleasant. 

Spin - sleazeball............. ?? oh dear what a low intellect you must have to so badly misread my posts. On the otherhand you may just be an argumentative person. Who knows. Still if you cant (or choose not to) grasp the meaning of my posts, or understand the launguage that i use then you really do have a problem. Its pretty straightforward.

Glad to be back 

Andy


----------



## yenrod (5 Jun 2008)

domd1979 said:


> This happened last night:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7423537.stm
> 
> Absolutely horrific what happened; I've been told the detail from someone who was working nearby.



Sure there was anohter woman who was supposedly texting and a cyclist...not so long back - woman can be hesitant on the road...whereas men are there before you know it !

Like Ive said for so long...

TAKE THE WINDSCREEN OUT OF A CAR THEN YOU'LL GET ATTENTIVE DRIVERS

What the use of moving at such a speed when your shielded! false sense of comfort if you ask me.


----------



## domd1979 (5 Jun 2008)

Having reflected on this one, I think we are going to have to wait and see what comes out of the inquiry. 



andyfromotley said:


> You simply cant accept that i think you were being hysterical WITHOUT knowing the facts. If you know the FACTS that led to this cyclists death please post them. The fact that drivers caise most accidents is neither here nor there. Who caused this accident? YOU HAVE NO IDEA.


----------



## andyfromotley (5 Jun 2008)

amen to that dom.


----------

