Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement 
etc.
Wonder why he didn't post this one?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifying-moment-daughter-knocked-injured-cyclist.html

Partac wrote:
> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child,
> pavement etc.
> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
Having read it, and a couple of the comments, one does indeed have to wonder 
why Doug (who may or may not be Bollen) chose not to post it since it 
highlights only too well the vulnerability of the victim when struck by a 
vehicle moving at speed.

On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> etc.
> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...

I believe that Specsavers now produce a set of filter glasses, you are
able to configure them to blank out various objects & words.

Francis

On 17 Jun, 12:22, francis  wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>
> > Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> > etc.
> > Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
>
> I believe that Specsavers now produce a set of filter glasses, you are
> able to configure them to blank out various objects & words.
>
> Francis

Perhaps Doug noticed that it didn't add up, when compared to what
Gloucestershire Constabulary say on their site. The Daily Mail has
already rewritten the article to remove the hit and run accusation,
which leaves most of their correspondents high and dry, looking like,
well, Daily Mail readers. May well not be pavement cycling, either.
See photo with the article. More discussion on uk.rec.cycling, if you
want. See, I didn't crosspost.

On 17 Jun, 12:32, Squashme  wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 12:22, francis  wrote:
>
> > On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>
> > > Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> > > etc.
> > > Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
>
> > I believe that Specsavers now produce a set of filter glasses, you are
> > able to configure them to blank out various objects & words.
>
> > Francis
>
> Perhaps Doug noticed that it didn't add up, when compared to what
> Gloucestershire Constabulary say on their site. The Daily Mail has
> already rewritten the article to remove the hit and run accusation,
> which leaves most of their correspondents high and dry, looking like,
> well, Daily Mail readers. May well not be pavement cycling, either.
> See photo with the article. More discussion on uk.rec.cycling, if you
> want. See, I didn't crosspost.

Where & when should not matter to Doug.
A pedestrian can not be at fault.
A cyclist can not be at fault
Therefore this incident was nobodys fault
Any accident must be somebodys fault
A pedestrian can not be at fault.
A cyclist can not be at fault
Therefore this incident was nobodys fault

Can somebody help me here, perhaps the cyclist was dazzeled by a car
windscreen?

Francis

francis wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 12:32, Squashme  wrote:
>> On 17 Jun, 12:22, francis  wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>>
>>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child,
>>>> pavement etc.
>>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
>>
>>> I believe that Specsavers now produce a set of filter glasses, you
>>> are able to configure them to blank out various objects & words.
>>
>>> Francis
>>
>> Perhaps Doug noticed that it didn't add up, when compared to what
>> Gloucestershire Constabulary say on their site. The Daily Mail has
>> already rewritten the article to remove the hit and run accusation,
>> which leaves most of their correspondents high and dry, looking like,
>> well, Daily Mail readers. May well not be pavement cycling, either.
>> See photo with the article. More discussion on uk.rec.cycling, if you
>> want. See, I didn't crosspost.
>
> Where & when should not matter to Doug.
> A pedestrian can not be at fault.
> A cyclist can not be at fault
> Therefore this incident was nobodys fault
> Any accident must be somebodys fault
> A pedestrian can not be at fault.
> A cyclist can not be at fault
> Therefore this incident was nobodys fault
>
> Can somebody help me here, perhaps the cyclist was dazzeled by a car
> windscreen?
>
I think you've missed the salient point. Since neither cyclist nor 
pedestrian can be at fault there fore nothing happened. Which can only mean 
that the newspaper report is a total fiction and that there was no collision 
and that poor little girl is not lying a hospital bed with metal plates in 
her head.

On 17 Jun, 12:43, francis  wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 12:32, Squashme  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 17 Jun, 12:22, francis  wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>
> > > > Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> > > > etc.
> > > > Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
>
> > > I believe that Specsavers now produce a set of filter glasses, you are
> > > able to configure them to blank out various objects & words.
>
> > > Francis
>
> > Perhaps Doug noticed that it didn't add up, when compared to what
> > Gloucestershire Constabulary say on their site. The Daily Mail has
> > already rewritten the article to remove the hit and run accusation,
> > which leaves most of their correspondents high and dry, looking like,
> > well, Daily Mail readers. May well not be pavement cycling, either.
> > See photo with the article. More discussion on uk.rec.cycling, if you
> > want. See, I didn't crosspost.
>
> Where & when should not matter to Doug.
> A pedestrian can not be at fault.
> A cyclist can not be at fault
> Therefore this incident was nobodys fault
> Any accident must be somebodys fault
> A pedestrian can not be at fault.
> A cyclist can not be at fault
> Therefore this incident was nobodys fault
>
> Can somebody help me here, perhaps the cyclist was dazzeled by a car
> windscreen?
>
> Francis

No-one can help you. You suck the teat of the Daily Mail. Just pray.

On 17 Jun, 13:07, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> francis wrote:
> > On 17 Jun, 12:32, Squashme  wrote:
> >> On 17 Jun, 12:22, francis  wrote:
>
> >>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>
> >>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child,
> >>>> pavement etc.
> >>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
>
> >>> I believe that Specsavers now produce a set of filter glasses, you
> >>> are able to configure them to blank out various objects & words.
>
> >>> Francis
>
> >> Perhaps Doug noticed that it didn't add up, when compared to what
> >> Gloucestershire Constabulary say on their site. The Daily Mail has
> >> already rewritten the article to remove the hit and run accusation,
> >> which leaves most of their correspondents high and dry, looking like,
> >> well, Daily Mail readers. May well not be pavement cycling, either.
> >> See photo with the article. More discussion on uk.rec.cycling, if you
> >> want. See, I didn't crosspost.
>
> > Where & when should not matter to Doug.
> > A pedestrian can not be at fault.
> > A cyclist can not be at fault
> > Therefore this incident was nobodys fault
> > Any accident must be somebodys fault
> > A pedestrian can not be at fault.
> > A cyclist can not be at fault
> > Therefore this incident was nobodys fault
>
> > Can somebody help me here, perhaps the cyclist was dazzeled by a car
> > windscreen?
>
> I think you've missed the salient point. Since neither cyclist nor
> pedestrian can be at fault there fore nothing happened. Which can only mean
> that the newspaper report is a total fiction and that there was no collision
> and that poor little girl is not lying a hospital bed with metal plates in
> her head.

You are closer to the truth, even in jest. The evanescent Daily Mail
report is partly fiction. Out of the mouths of fools ...

Partac  wrote:

> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> etc.
> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifying-mo
> ment-daughter-knocked-injured-cyclist.html

Perhaps Duhg is of the same mindset as "Steve, Telford" who comments on
the Daily Mail article "Just because someone rides a bicycle doesn't
make them a cyclist."

<shakes head> I really wonder about some of the silly buggers who ride
bicycles.

On 17 Jun, 13:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Partac  wrote:
> > Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> > etc.
> > Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
> > ment-daughter-knocked-injured-cyclist.html
>
> Perhaps Duhg is of the same mindset as "Steve, Telford" who comments on
> the Daily Mail article "Just because someone rides a bicycle doesn't
> make them a cyclist."
>
> <shakes head> I really wonder about some of the silly buggers who ride
> bicycles.

No you don't. You don't wonder at all. Stop pretending to think. Just
quack your usual "Four wheels good, two wheels bad". And then go
grrrrr! and swear.

Squashme  wrote:

> 
> Perhaps Doug noticed that it didn't add up, when compared to what
> Gloucestershire Constabulary say on their site.

Gloucestershire Constabulary say very little in their appeal for
witnesses.

Are you indicating that an absence of information is conveying some
meaning other than the desire of plod to play this one softly-softly?

Interesting approach by the police compared to other incidents listed on
their site that involve cars. Car drivers involved in injury accidents
seem to get arrested first then evidence is considered afterwards. This
cyclist has not yet been arrested.

> May well not be pavement cycling, either.
> See photo with the article.

The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean? Go on,
explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
on the pavement. Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> May well not be pavement cycling, either. See photo with the article.

> The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
> of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean? Go on,
> explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
> the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
> on the pavement. Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
> bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
> could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.

Ummm, surely the very fact that there are bollards blocking traffic from 
proceeding down the road is a fairly good indication that the cyclist 
shouldn't have been going down there...?

Squashme  wrote:

> On 17 Jun, 13:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Partac  wrote:
> > > Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> > > etc.
> > > Wonder why he didn't post this one?
> >
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
> > > ment-daughter-knocked-injured-cyclist.html
> >
> > Perhaps Duhg is of the same mindset as "Steve, Telford" who comments on
> > the Daily Mail article "Just because someone rides a bicycle doesn't
> > make them a cyclist."
> >
> > <shakes head> I really wonder about some of the silly buggers who ride
> > bicycles.
> 
> No you don't. You don't wonder at all. Stop pretending to think. Just
> quack your usual "Four wheels good, two wheels bad". And then go
> grrrrr! and swear.

Try making your comments sound less like the rant of someone who has
just thrown a teddy from their pram. Then you won't make yourself and
your fellow cyclists look like lunatics.

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> May well not be pavement cycling, either. See photo with the article.
> 
> > The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
> > of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean? Go on,
> > explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
> > the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
> > on the pavement. Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
> > bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
> > could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.
> 
> Ummm, surely the very fact that there are bollards blocking traffic from
> proceeding down the road is a fairly good indication that the cyclist
> shouldn't have been going down there...?

The bollards are parallel to the pavement. Their purpose seems to be to
prevent vehicles mounting the pavement at that location. The gap between
the bollards and the front door in question seems very narrow.

If the cyclist was on the pavement and travelling fast enough to cause a
depressed fracture of the skull, then it seems that "reckless" is hardly
adequate as a description of the cyclist's behaviour.

But GutterCyclist says that we mustn't blame them, because they were on
a bicycle and hence sanctified.

On 17 Jun, 13:27, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme  wrote:
>
> > Perhaps Doug noticed that it didn't add up, when compared to what
> > Gloucestershire Constabulary say on their site.
>
> Gloucestershire Constabulary say very little in their appeal for
> witnesses.
>
> Are you indicating that an absence of information is conveying some
> meaning other than the desire of plod to play this one softly-softly?
>
> Interesting approach by the police compared to other incidents listed on
> their site that involve cars. Car drivers involved in injury accidents
> seem to get arrested first then evidence is considered afterwards. This
> cyclist has not yet been arrested.

Think about it then. Why on earth would police be soft on a cyclist,
rather than on a motorist? You don't think that there is an all-
powerful cyclists' lobby? Perhaps it is not the open and shut case
that the Daily Mail originally suggested, before they withdrew the hit
and run bits. Police say:- "The cyclist involved has been interviewed
by CID after remaining at the scene and contacting the police." Do you
really imagine that the police were forced to phrase it that way
because they were scared of cyclists?

>
> > May well not be pavement cycling, either.
> > See photo with the article.
>
> The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
> of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean?

Your technical analysis of the subject of the officer's photo is
speculative. Flash does rather scatter. He could be taking an oblique
shot of where the child hit the bollard. And the bollard is in the
road.

Go on,
> explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
> the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
> on the pavement.
Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
> bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
> could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.

As a cyclist, I don't think that a cyclist could have sped along the
narrow pavement there, especially avoiding hitting the electrican (and
the mother?). Since we are all guessing, I'd guess that the bollards
made the road pedestrian-friendly, and that the child may have stepped
back from the pavement into the road, which was usually safe. And the
area with the bollards seems to be the same level as the pavement, and
so could confuse a child (or me). That being said, I'd still say that
the cyclist may have been going too fast for the conditions (a corner
or bend, followed by bollards, and a narrow, masked street.)

On 17 Jun, 13:30, Adrian  wrote:
> %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> >> May well not be pavement cycling, either. See photo with the article.
> > The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
> > of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean? Go on,
> > explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
> > the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
> > on the pavement. Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
> > bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
> > could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.
>
> Ummm, surely the very fact that there are bollards blocking traffic from
> proceeding down the road is a fairly good indication that the cyclist
> shouldn't have been going down there...?

Chapter and verse?

On 17 Jun, 13:56, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Adrian  wrote:
> > %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > they were saying:
>
> > >> May well not be pavement cycling, either. See photo with the article.
>
> > > The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
> > > of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean? Go on,
> > > explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
> > > the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
> > > on the pavement. Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
> > > bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
> > > could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.
>
> > Ummm, surely the very fact that there are bollards blocking traffic from
> > proceeding down the road is a fairly good indication that the cyclist
> > shouldn't have been going down there...?
>
> The bollards are parallel to the pavement. Their purpose seems to be to
> prevent vehicles mounting the pavement at that location. The gap between
> the bollards and the front door in question seems very narrow.

Parallel to the pavement? Either your eyes are bent or mine are. If
the gap between the bollards and the front door is that narrow, how
come no decked electrician?

>
> If the cyclist was on the pavement and travelling fast enough to cause a
> depressed fracture of the skull, then it seems that "reckless" is hardly
> adequate as a description of the cyclist's behaviour.
>
> But GutterCyclist says that we mustn't blame them, because they were on
> a bicycle and hence sanctified.

No, GutterCyclist says fuck 'em if they were on the pavement and
belting along. But also I feel that if they were managing that, they
should consider a circus career. Just because I oppose you, it does
not mean that I believe that the sun shines out of every cyclist's
freckle.

On 17 Jun, 13:35, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme  wrote:
> > On 17 Jun, 13:04, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > Partac  wrote:
> > > > Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> > > > etc.
> > > > Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
> > > > ment-daughter-knocked-injured-cyclist.html
>
> > > Perhaps Duhg is of the same mindset as "Steve, Telford" who comments on
> > > the Daily Mail article "Just because someone rides a bicycle doesn't
> > > make them a cyclist."
>
> > > <shakes head> I really wonder about some of the silly buggers who ride
> > > bicycles.
>
> > No you don't. You don't wonder at all. Stop pretending to think. Just
> > quack your usual "Four wheels good, two wheels bad". And then go
> > grrrrr! and swear.
>
> Try making your comments sound less like the rant of someone who has
> just thrown a teddy from their pram. Then you won't make yourself and
> your fellow cyclists look like lunatics.

buzz, buzz

Squashme  wrote:

> On 17 Jun, 13:56, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Adrian  wrote:
> > > %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > > they were saying:
> >
> > > >> May well not be pavement cycling, either. See photo with the article.
> >
> > > > The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
> > > > of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean? Go on,
> > > > explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
> > > > the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
> > > > on the pavement. Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
> > > > bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
> > > > could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.
> >
> > > Ummm, surely the very fact that there are bollards blocking traffic from
> > > proceeding down the road is a fairly good indication that the cyclist
> > > shouldn't have been going down there...?
> >
> > The bollards are parallel to the pavement. Their purpose seems to be to
> > prevent vehicles mounting the pavement at that location. The gap between
> > the bollards and the front door in question seems very narrow.
> 
> Parallel to the pavement? Either your eyes are bent or mine are. If
> the gap between the bollards and the front door is that narrow, how
> come no decked electrician?


Ah yes, my apology I didn't look at the left hand edge of the frame.
You're right, the cyclist shouldn't have been belting down there at all.

Why hasn't she been arrested?

> >
> > If the cyclist was on the pavement and travelling fast enough to cause a
> > depressed fracture of the skull, then it seems that "reckless" is hardly
> > adequate as a description of the cyclist's behaviour.
> >
> > But GutterCyclist says that we mustn't blame them, because they were on
> > a bicycle and hence sanctified.
> 
> No, GutterCyclist says fuck 'em if they were on the pavement and
> belting along. But also I feel that if they were managing that, they
> should consider a circus career. Just because I oppose you, it does
> not mean that I believe that the sun shines out of every cyclist's
> freckle.

So the cyclist couldn't possibly have inflicted the injuries, eh?

Squashme  wrote:

> > Try making your comments sound less like the rant of someone who has
> > just thrown a teddy from their pram. Then you won't make yourself and
> > your fellow cyclists look like lunatics.
> 
> buzz, buzz

You do yourself nothing but harm when you act like this. You certainly
make it clear that the last thing you want is rational conversation,
just to spew propaganda and then to have a tantrum if your view is
questioned.

On 17 Jun, 14:57, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 17 Jun, 13:56, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > Adrian  wrote:
> > > > %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> > > > they were saying:
>
> > > > >> May well not be pavement cycling, either. See photo with the article.
>
> > > > > The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
> > > > > of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean? Go on,
> > > > > explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
> > > > > the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
> > > > > on the pavement. Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
> > > > > bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
> > > > > could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.
>
> > > > Ummm, surely the very fact that there are bollards blocking traffic from
> > > > proceeding down the road is a fairly good indication that the cyclist
> > > > shouldn't have been going down there...?
>
> > > The bollards are parallel to the pavement. Their purpose seems to be to
> > > prevent vehicles mounting the pavement at that location. The gap between
> > > the bollards and the front door in question seems very narrow.
>
> > Parallel to the pavement? Either your eyes are bent or mine are. If
> > the gap between the bollards and the front door is that narrow, how
> > come no decked electrician?
>
> Ah yes, my apology I didn't look at the left hand edge of the frame.
> You're right, the cyclist shouldn't have been belting down there at all.
>
> Why hasn't she been arrested?

Ask a policeman. (He'll tell you the time, too)
>
>
>
> > > If the cyclist was on the pavement and travelling fast enough to cause a
> > > depressed fracture of the skull, then it seems that "reckless" is hardly
> > > adequate as a description of the cyclist's behaviour.
>
> > > But GutterCyclist says that we mustn't blame them, because they were on
> > > a bicycle and hence sanctified.
>
> > No, GutterCyclist says fuck 'em if they were on the pavement and
> > belting along. But also I feel that if they were managing that, they
> > should consider a circus career. Just because I oppose you, it does
> > not mean that I believe that the sun shines out of every cyclist's
> > freckle.
>
> So the cyclist couldn't possibly have inflicted the injuries, eh?

Where do you get that from? The cyclist was in collision with a child.
The injuries result from that event. The various arguments are to do
with whether it was hit and run (It now seems that it was not, as the
cyclist stayed), whether the cyclist could have been on that pavement
(I am willing to believe it, but it does look difficult to do at any
speed), or whether the child had stepped inadvertently into the road,
and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain). Also, of course, whether
the cyclist was cycling at a safe speed, and with due care and
attention.

Squashme  wrote:

> > > > But GutterCyclist says that we mustn't blame them, because they were on
> > > > a bicycle and hence sanctified.
> >
> > > No, GutterCyclist says fuck 'em if they were on the pavement and
> > > belting along. But also I feel that if they were managing that, they
> > > should consider a circus career. Just because I oppose you, it does
> > > not mean that I believe that the sun shines out of every cyclist's
> > > freckle.
> >
> > So the cyclist couldn't possibly have inflicted the injuries, eh?
> 
> Where do you get that from? 

From your apparent statement that they could not have been on the
pavement and belting along.

> The cyclist was in collision with a child. injuries result from that
> The event.

Excellent, let's hang them froma  tree then, just like the treatment
that we are supposed to hand out to motorists.

> The various arguments are to do with whether it was hit and run

I haven't argued that it was hit and run, and before you raised the
issue I can't recall anyone here accusing the cyclist of hit and run.
Indeed I can't see any argument about the "hit and run" nature of the
incident.

> (It now seems that it was not, as the cyclist stayed)

It seemed as if it wasn't from the outset.

>, whether the cyclist could have been on that pavement
> (I am willing to believe it, but it does look difficult to do at any
> speed), or whether the child had stepped inadvertently into the road,
> and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain). Also, of course, whether
> the cyclist was cycling at a safe speed, and with due care and
> attention.

You're still ignoring the evidence of the location in the photograph
(despite you claiming that the photo exonerated the cyclist from
accusations of pavement cycling) or you have a belief in a camera that
takes a photo of the opposite side of the object that it is pointed at.

Squashme wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 14:57, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 17 Jun, 13:56, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>> Adrian  wrote:
>>>>> %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>>>> they were saying:
>>>>>>> May well not be pavement cycling, either. See photo with the article.
>>>>>> The photo that shows a SOCO photographing evidence on the pavement side
>>>>>> of a bollard separating the pavement from the road you mean? Go on,
>>>>>> explain how the incident could have taken place on the pavement side of
>>>>>> the bollards (2 of them visible in the photo) unless the psycholist was
>>>>>> on the pavement. Given the fact that the doorway is protected by two
>>>>>> bollards from traffic on the road, explain how a cyclist on the road
>>>>>> could have hit anyone on the pavement at that location.
>>>>> Ummm, surely the very fact that there are bollards blocking traffic from
>>>>> proceeding down the road is a fairly good indication that the cyclist
>>>>> shouldn't have been going down there...?
>>>> The bollards are parallel to the pavement. Their purpose seems to be to
>>>> prevent vehicles mounting the pavement at that location. The gap between
>>>> the bollards and the front door in question seems very narrow.
>>> Parallel to the pavement? Either your eyes are bent or mine are. If
>>> the gap between the bollards and the front door is that narrow, how
>>> come no decked electrician?
>> Ah yes, my apology I didn't look at the left hand edge of the frame.
>> You're right, the cyclist shouldn't have been belting down there at all.
>>
>> Why hasn't she been arrested?
> 
> Ask a policeman. (He'll tell you the time, too)
>>
>>
>>>> If the cyclist was on the pavement and travelling fast enough to cause a
>>>> depressed fracture of the skull, then it seems that "reckless" is hardly
>>>> adequate as a description of the cyclist's behaviour.
>>>> But GutterCyclist says that we mustn't blame them, because they were on
>>>> a bicycle and hence sanctified.
>>> No, GutterCyclist says fuck 'em if they were on the pavement and
>>> belting along. But also I feel that if they were managing that, they
>>> should consider a circus career. Just because I oppose you, it does
>>> not mean that I believe that the sun shines out of every cyclist's
>>> freckle.
>> So the cyclist couldn't possibly have inflicted the injuries, eh?
> 
> Where do you get that from? The cyclist was in collision with a child.
> The injuries result from that event. The various arguments are to do
> with whether it was hit and run (It now seems that it was not, as the
> cyclist stayed), whether the cyclist could have been on that pavement
> (I am willing to believe it, but it does look difficult to do at any
> speed), or whether the child had stepped inadvertently into the road,
> and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain). Also, of course, whether
> the cyclist was cycling at a safe speed, and with due care and
> attention.
> 

I am sorry but this thread can not continue on this group as nobody so 
far has defended the motorist terrorist.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 17 Jun, 16:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

> > > So the cyclist couldn't possibly have inflicted the injuries, eh?
>
> > Where do you get that from?
>
> From your apparent statement that they could not have been on the
> pavement and belting along.

No, all that suggests is that I doubt that the child was on the
pavement, when hit by the cyclist, for the reasons already mentioned.
I shall probably be embarassed when I am proved wrong. This could
never happen to you.

>
> > The cyclist was in collision with a child. injuries result from that
> > The event.
>
> Excellent, let's hang them froma  tree then, just like the treatment
> that we are supposed to hand out to motorists.

As you wish. If it excites you. There are some motorists that even I
should like to see executed, but certainly not all.

>
> > The various arguments are to do with whether it was hit and run
>
> I haven't argued that it was hit and run, and before you raised the
> issue I can't recall anyone here accusing the cyclist of hit and run.
> Indeed I can't see any argument about the "hit and run" nature of the
> incident.
>
> > (It now seems that it was not, as the cyclist stayed)
>
> It seemed as if it wasn't from the outset.

You just can't be bothered to try, can you? you have come rather late
to this party. I told you guys to check the debate on uk.rec.cycling.
If you prefer to remain in ignorance, it's your lookout. Look, it's
easy, you just search News on Google:-

"A YOUNG mum has spoken about the horror of watching her daughter get
mown down by a cyclist and left for dead.
Five-year-old Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement
in St Paul's Street South after the hit-and-run collision."
(thisisgloucestershire.co.uk)

or

Cyclist hit & run leaves little girl fighting for her life
Sunday Mirror, UK - 15 Jun 2008
A girl of five was last night fighting for her life after being
knocked down by a woman cyclist. The youngster was with her 19-year-
old sister in Cheltenham ...

And thanks to Spindrift (from urc, don'tyerknow):-

Google cache still has the previous version:

Quote:
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:26 PM on 16th June 2008

"Millie Harrop, 5, was left for dead after being hit by a cyclist
A mother has told of her horror after watching her five-year-old
daughter being knocked down by a cyclist and left for dead.
Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement on St Paul's
St South after the hit and run accident."


But you couldn't find it.

>
> >, whether the cyclist could have been on that pavement
> > (I am willing to believe it, but it does look difficult to do at any
> > speed), or whether the child had stepped inadvertently into the road,
> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> > road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain). Also, of course, whether
> > the cyclist was cycling at a safe speed, and with due care and
> > attention.
>
> You're still ignoring the evidence of the location in the photograph

What particular evidence? You couldn't even read the photo right, and
came up with a load of bollards.

> (despite you claiming that the photo exonerated the cyclist from
> accusations of pavement cycling)

No, it does not exonerate the cyclist, but it does look very difficult
to ride on that particular pavement.

or you have a belief in a camera that
> takes a photo of the opposite side of the object that it is pointed at.

You do not know at what the camera is pointed. You are guessing, based
on your own prejudices, as I am. It is perfectly possible that the
cyclist hit the child in the road, catapulting the child into the
bollard, which was also in the road.

francis wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 12:32, Squashme  wrote:
>> On 17 Jun, 12:22, francis  wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
>>>> etc.
>>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
>>> I believe that Specsavers now produce a set of filter glasses, you are
>>> able to configure them to blank out various objects & words.
>>> Francis
>> Perhaps Doug noticed that it didn't add up, when compared to what
>> Gloucestershire Constabulary say on their site. The Daily Mail has
>> already rewritten the article to remove the hit and run accusation,
>> which leaves most of their correspondents high and dry, looking like,
>> well, Daily Mail readers. May well not be pavement cycling, either.
>> See photo with the article. More discussion on uk.rec.cycling, if you
>> want. See, I didn't crosspost.
> 
> Where & when should not matter to Doug.
> A pedestrian can not be at fault.
> A cyclist can not be at fault
> Therefore this incident was nobodys fault
> Any accident must be somebodys fault
> A pedestrian can not be at fault.
> A cyclist can not be at fault
> Therefore this incident was nobodys fault

You mean: "Therefore this incident must have been a motorist's fault".

> Can somebody help me here, perhaps the cyclist was dazzeled by a car
> windscreen?

You've got it.

On 17 Jun, 14:57, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme  wrote:
> > > Try making your comments sound less like the rant of someone who has
> > > just thrown a teddy from their pram. Then you won't make yourself and
> > > your fellow cyclists look like lunatics.
>
> > buzz, buzz
>
> You do yourself nothing but harm when you act like this. You certainly
> make it clear that the last thing you want is rational conversation,
> just to spew propaganda and then to have a tantrum if your view is
> questioned.

POT

Steve Firth
View profile
	 More options 14 May, 17:12
Newsgroups: uk.transport, uk.rec.cycling
From: %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:12:12 +0100
Local: Wed 14 May 2008 17:12
Subject: Re: Red lights jumping - interesting survey
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Squashme  wrote:
> I'd say that

I'd say that you're a brainless cunt. And that's the begining and end
of
it. How many times have you fallen off your pushbike and onto your
head?


Rational conversation or tantrum from Mr Firth?

Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
>> > road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).

Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more 
vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.

Squashme  wrote:

> On 17 Jun, 16:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> 
> > > > So the cyclist couldn't possibly have inflicted the injuries, eh?
> >
> > > Where do you get that from?
> >
> > From your apparent statement that they could not have been on the
> > pavement and belting along.
> 
> No, all that suggests is that I doubt that the child was on the
> pavement, when hit by the cyclist, for the reasons already mentioned.
> I shall probably be embarassed when I am proved wrong. This could
> never happen to you.

Oh dear, the toy has left the pram, nothing to see here.

> > > The cyclist was in collision with a child. injuries result from that
> > > The event.
> >
> > Excellent, let's hang them froma  tree then, just like the treatment
> > that we are supposed to hand out to motorists.
> 
> As you wish. If it excites you. There are some motorists that even I
> should like to see executed, but certainly not all.

Does it "excite" when you're on one of your anti-car rants?

> > > The various arguments are to do with whether it was hit and run
> >
> > I haven't argued that it was hit and run, and before you raised the
> > issue I can't recall anyone here accusing the cyclist of hit and run.
> > Indeed I can't see any argument about the "hit and run" nature of the
> > incident.
> >
> > > (It now seems that it was not, as the cyclist stayed)
> >
> > It seemed as if it wasn't from the outset.
> 
> You just can't be bothered to try, can you? you have come rather late
> to this party. I told you guys to check the debate on uk.rec.cycling.
> If you prefer to remain in ignorance, it's your lookout. Look, it's
> easy, you just search News on Google:-

So you want me (and others) to check on Google for a past copy of an
article that has been corrected in order to start a pointless argument
about what the article said before it was corrected?

Have I got the drift of what you are on about?

So you're not actually interested in the issues at stake, you just want
to get involved in a good old barney about what they Daily Mail said.

Is it by any chance news to you that Daily Mail reports are inaccurate
and that anyone who leans on them for support is probably the sort of
person who thinks a chocolate walking stick is a good idea?

> "A YOUNG mum has spoken about the horror of watching her daughter get
> mown down by a cyclist and left for dead.
> Five-year-old Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement
> in St Paul's Street South after the hit-and-run collision."
> (thisisgloucestershire.co.uk)
> 
> or
> 
> Cyclist hit & run leaves little girl fighting for her life
> Sunday Mirror, UK - 15 Jun 2008
> A girl of five was last night fighting for her life after being
> knocked down by a woman cyclist. The youngster was with her 19-year-
> old sister in Cheltenham ...
> 
> And thanks to Spindrift (from urc, don'tyerknow):-
> 
> Google cache still has the previous version:
> 
> Quote:
> By Daily Mail Reporter
> Last updated at 1:26 PM on 16th June 2008
> 
> "Millie Harrop, 5, was left for dead after being hit by a cyclist
> A mother has told of her horror after watching her five-year-old
> daughter being knocked down by a cyclist and left for dead.
> Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement on St Paul's
> St South after the hit and run accident."
> 
> 
> But you couldn't find it.

No you plank, I didn't go looking for it. Why should I look for an
inaccurate newspaper article when there are other, factual, sources
available?


> >
> > >, whether the cyclist could have been on that pavement
> > > (I am willing to believe it, but it does look difficult to do at any
> > > speed), or whether the child had stepped inadvertently into the road,
> > > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> > > road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain). Also, of course, whether
> > > the cyclist was cycling at a safe speed, and with due care and
> > > attention.
> >
> > You're still ignoring the evidence of the location in the photograph
> 
> What particular evidence? You couldn't even read the photo right, and
> came up with a load of bollards.

Oh FFS, you really do exist just to sling faeces through the bars of
your cage.

> > (despite you claiming that the photo exonerated the cyclist from
> > accusations of pavement cycling)
> 
> No, it does not exonerate the cyclist, but it does look very difficult
> to ride on that particular pavement.

Indeed, makes you wonder why a cyclist would do it at speed, eh?
 
> > or you have a belief in a camera that
> > takes a photo of the opposite side of the object that it is pointed at.
> 
> You do not know at what the camera is pointed. You are guessing, based
> on your own prejudices, as I am. It is perfectly possible that the
> cyclist hit the child in the road, catapulting the child into the
> bollard, which was also in the road.

Utter bollocks.

Squashme  wrote:

> I'd say that you're a brainless cunt. And that's the begining and end of
> it. How many times have you fallen off your pushbike and onto your head?
> 
> 
> Rational conversation or tantrum from Mr Firth?

Accurate description. How long do people have to put up with your
constant attempts to stir up trouble and fling abuse around whenever
your fragile view of the world is challenged?

You're Terry Fuckwit, the problems is that like all fuckwits you think
that when the fact is pointed out to you that it can't possibly apply to
you.

On 17 Jun, 20:02, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > I'd say that you're a brainless cunt. And that's the begining and end of
> > it. How many times have you fallen off your pushbike and onto your head?
>
> > Rational conversation or tantrum from Mr Firth?
>
> Accurate description. How long do people have to put up with your
> constant attempts to stir up trouble and fling abuse around whenever
> your fragile view of the world is challenged?

You got me. I just don't know. How long do you think?

>
> You're Terry Fuckwit, the problems is that like all fuckwits you think
> that when the fact is pointed out to you that it can't possibly apply to
> you.

It doesn't. I am not Terry of that ilk. Though I can be a Fuckwit.

On 17 Jun, 19:57, Adrian  wrote:
> Squashme gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> >> > road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).
>
> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.

So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in
Google? Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?

Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
>> >> > road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).

>> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
>> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.

> So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in Google?
> Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?

<points to "usually">
I can't be arsed to Google Earth it.

Squashme wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 19:57, Adrian  wrote:
>> Squashme gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>>>> and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
>>>>> road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).
>>
>> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
>> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.
>
> So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in
> Google? Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?

Pictures on Google Earth/Maps are liable to be several years old. The one 
that shows my street was taken eight plus years ago.

On 17 Jun, 20:02, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:

>
> > > > The various arguments are to do with whether it was hit and run
>
> > > I haven't argued that it was hit and run, and before you raised the
> > > issue I can't recall anyone here accusing the cyclist of hit and run.
> > > Indeed I can't see any argument about the "hit and run" nature of the
> > > incident.
>
> > > > (It now seems that it was not, as the cyclist stayed)
>
> > > It seemed as if it wasn't from the outset.
>
> > You just can't be bothered to try, can you? you have come rather late
> > to this party. I told you guys to check the debate on uk.rec.cycling.
> > If you prefer to remain in ignorance, it's your lookout. Look, it's
> > easy, you just search News on Google:-
>
> So you want me (and others) to check on Google for a past copy of an
> article that has been corrected in order to start a pointless argument
> about what the article said before it was corrected?
>
> Have I got the drift of what you are on about?
>
> So you're not actually interested in the issues at stake, you just want
> to get involved in a good old barney about what they Daily Mail said.
>
> Is it by any chance news to you that Daily Mail reports are inaccurate
> and that anyone who leans on them for support is probably the sort of
> person who thinks a chocolate walking stick is a good idea?

So you are damning your fellow uk.transport scribblers?

>
>
>
> > "A YOUNG mum has spoken about the horror of watching her daughter get
> > mown down by a cyclist and left for dead.
> > Five-year-old Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement
> > in St Paul's Street South after the hit-and-run collision."
> > (thisisgloucestershire.co.uk)
>
> > or
>
> > Cyclist hit & run leaves little girl fighting for her life
> > Sunday Mirror, UK - 15 Jun 2008
> > A girl of five was last night fighting for her life after being
> > knocked down by a woman cyclist. The youngster was with her 19-year-
> > old sister in Cheltenham ...
>
> > And thanks to Spindrift (from urc, don'tyerknow):-
>
> > Google cache still has the previous version:
>
> > Quote:
> > By Daily Mail Reporter
> > Last updated at 1:26 PM on 16th June 2008
>
> > "Millie Harrop, 5, was left for dead after being hit by a cyclist
> > A mother has told of her horror after watching her five-year-old
> > daughter being knocked down by a cyclist and left for dead.
> > Millie Harrop lay fighting for her life on the pavement on St Paul's
> > St South after the hit and run accident."
>
> > But you couldn't find it.
>
> No you plank, I didn't go looking for it. Why should I look for an
> inaccurate newspaper article when there are other, factual, sources
> available?

And these factual sources are? Please quote them, or name them. You
show no evidence of having read any at all.

>
>
> > > >, whether the cyclist could have been on that pavement
> > > > (I am willing to believe it, but it does look difficult to do at any
> > > > speed), or whether the child had stepped inadvertently into the road,
> > > > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> > > > road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain). Also, of course, whether
> > > > the cyclist was cycling at a safe speed, and with due care and
> > > > attention.
>
> > > You're still ignoring the evidence of the location in the photograph
>
> > What particular evidence? You couldn't even read the photo right, and
> > came up with a load of bollards.
>
> Oh FFS, you really do exist just to sling faeces through the bars of
> your cage.

Of your cage, actually. Beware incoming.

>
> > > (despite you claiming that the photo exonerated the cyclist from
> > > accusations of pavement cycling)
>
> > No, it does not exonerate the cyclist, but it does look very difficult
> > to ride on that particular pavement.
>
> Indeed, makes you wonder why a cyclist would do it at speed, eh?

Exactly. Now you are getting there. Not only why, but how, is the
question. I know that you are not a cyclist (with your balance
problems), but take it from me, I wouldn't want to try to ride on that
pavement. If there was no through traffic, even less reason for her to
be on the pavement. And that being so, I wondered whether the Daily
Mail, Mirror etc, had got that wrong as well, and that the cyclist was
not after all a dreaded pavement cyclist. After all, if she was a
pavement cyclist, wouldn't the police have charged her by now? Or are
the police in league with cyclists, conspiring against motorists and
pedestrians?

>
> > > or you have a belief in a camera that
> > > takes a photo of the opposite side of the object that it is pointed at.
>
> > You do not know at what the camera is pointed. You are guessing, based
> > on your own prejudices, as I am. It is perfectly possible that the
> > cyclist hit the child in the road, catapulting the child into the
> > bollard, which was also in the road.
>
> Utter bollocks.

Possibly, but "utter bollocks" is not a counter-argument in the real
world.

On 17 Jun, 21:09, Adrian  wrote:
> Squashme gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> >> >> > road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).
> >> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
> >> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.
> > So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in Google?
> > Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?
>
> <points to "usually">
> I can't be arsed to Google Earth it.

Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?

On 17 Jun, 21:09, Adrian  wrote:
> Squashme gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> >> >> > road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).
> >> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
> >> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.
> > So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in Google?
> > Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?
>
> <points to "usually">
> I can't be arsed to Google Earth it.

Heaven has heard your prayer, my lord sheriff:-

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cheltenham&ie=UTF8&ll=51.903547,-2.079592&spn=0.000766,0.001585&t=h&z=19

Hope it works

On 17 Jun, 21:19, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 17 Jun, 19:57, Adrian  wrote:
> >> Squashme gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> >> were saying:
>
> >>>>> and whether the cyclist should have been going along the bollarded
> >>>>> road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).
>
> >> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
> >> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.
>
> > So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in
> > Google? Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?
>
> Pictures on Google Earth/Maps are liable to be several years old. The one
> that shows my street was taken eight plus years ago.

There seem to be road markings:-
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cheltenham&ie=UTF8&ll=51.903547,-2.079592&spn=0.000766,0.001585&t=h&z=19

Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> >> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the
>> >> >> > bollarded road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).

>> >> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
>> >> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.

>> > So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in
>> > Google? Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?

>> <points to "usually">
>> I can't be arsed to Google Earth it.

> Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?

<points to "usually". AGAIN.>

On 17 Jun, 21:45, Adrian  wrote:
> Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> >> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the
> >> >> >> > bollarded road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).
> >> >> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
> >> >> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.
> >> > So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in
> >> > Google? Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?
> >> <points to "usually">
> >> I can't be arsed to Google Earth it.
> > Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?
>
> <points to "usually". AGAIN.>

So usually there could be a barrier for cars and not for bicycles.

Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> >> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the
>> >> >> > bollarded road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).

>> >> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no more
>> >> vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.

>> > So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in
>> > Google? Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?

>> <points to "usually">
>> I can't be arsed to Google Earth it.

> Heaven has heard your prayer, my lord sheriff:-
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?
f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cheltenham&ie=UTF8&ll=51.903547,-2.079592&spn=0.000766,0.001585&t=h&z=19
> 
> Hope it works

Not particularly clear.

However, since you've piqued my interest - I'm presuming it's the 
junction of St Paul's St South and High St that we're looking at?

You may like to look at the Bird's Eye view on local.live.com, facing 
South. Looks _very_ much like a pedestrianised dead-end to me.

Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> >> >> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the
>> >> >> >> > bollarded road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).

>> >> >> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no
>> >> >> more vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.

>> >> > So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in
>> >> > Google? Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for
>> >> > bicycles?

>> >> <points to "usually">
>> >> I can't be arsed to Google Earth it.

>> > Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?

>> <points to "usually". AGAIN.>

> So usually there could be a barrier for cars and not for bicycles.

<sigh>
No, usually it applies to all vehicular traffic. Which includes bicycles.

On 17 Jun, 21:56, Adrian  wrote:
> Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> >> >> >> > and whether the cyclist should have been going along the
> >> >> >> >> > bollarded road (Adrian says not, but doesn't explain).
> >> >> >> Simple. Bollards blocking roads tend to be because there's no
> >> >> >> more vehicular right-of-way. Which means a pavement, usually.
> >> >> > So, if it's a pavement, why are cars there in the aerial view in
> >> >> > Google? Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for
> >> >> > bicycles?
> >> >> <points to "usually">
> >> >> I can't be arsed to Google Earth it.
> >> > Could there not be a barrier for cars, but not for bicycles?
> >> <points to "usually". AGAIN.>
> > So usually there could be a barrier for cars and not for bicycles.
>
> <sigh>
> No, usually it applies to all vehicular traffic. Which includes bicycles.

Thanks for the aerial map view. So, in theory, the cyclist could have
been breaking the law, but in a pedestrianised dead-end, not on the
pavement?

Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> > So usually there could be a barrier for cars and not for bicycles.

>> <sigh>
>> No, usually it applies to all vehicular traffic. Which includes
>> bicycles.
 
> Thanks for the aerial map view. So, in theory, the cyclist could have
> been breaking the law, but in a pedestrianised dead-end, not on the
> pavement?

<awaits explanation of major relevant differences between pedestrianised 
area and "pavement" when it comes to their use by vehicular traffic>

On 17 Jun, 22:19, Adrian  wrote:
> Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> > So usually there could be a barrier for cars and not for bicycles.
> >> <sigh>
> >> No, usually it applies to all vehicular traffic. Which includes
> >> bicycles.
> > Thanks for the aerial map view. So, in theory, the cyclist could have
> > been breaking the law, but in a pedestrianised dead-end, not on the
> > pavement?
>
> <awaits explanation of major relevant differences between pedestrianised
> area and "pavement" when it comes to their use by vehicular traffic>

Well, I know what you are trying to say. For me, pavement means the
traditional footpath bit with paving stones, whereas pedestrianised
area (God help us) seems to be bit of road halfheartedly stolen from
the roadway itself, and somehow transfigured. I was going to say that
a pedestrianised area can still be negotiated by vehicles, certainly
in the aerial views, so it's a bit of a con-job. Vehicles can park on
the pedestrianised area in those aerial views, but then they can park
on the traditional pavement too, usually, it seems. The bollards might
be a clue, but they are so omni-present that they are almost
meaningless. How am I doing?

Squashme  wrote:

> 
> So you are damning your fellow uk.transport scribblers?

No, I'm refusing to have further attemmts at rational conversation with
a fucking lunatic. Bye.

On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> etc.
> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...

Its quite simple, this newsgroup is not dominated and infested by
cyclists so there is nothing to complain about on that score. Also,
compared to killer motorists, killer cyclists are very rare.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
>> etc.
>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>
Partac?

who makes up these new names, same old computer.

Do you think lots of new names will get Doug thinking like you?

Doug wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child,
>> pavement etc.
>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
>
> Its quite simple, this newsgroup is not dominated and infested by
> cyclists so there is nothing to complain about on that score. Also,
> compared to killer motorists, killer cyclists are very rare.

If you really cared about road safety the vehicle in use wouldn't make any 
difference. It's quite obvious from that comment that you're quite happy for 
people to be killed and injured unless there's a car involved, regardless of 
who is at fault - if any one.

There is actually a cyclist who dominates and infests this newsgroup and 
that cyclist is you.

Doug wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
>> etc.
>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
> 
> Its quite simple, this newsgroup is not dominated and infested by
> cyclists so there is nothing to complain about on that score. Also,
> compared to killer motorists, killer cyclists are very rare.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 

And the goalposts went whooooosh.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
>> etc.
>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
> 
> Its quite simple, this newsgroup is not dominated and infested by
> cyclists so there is nothing to complain about on that score. Also,
> compared to killer motorists, killer cyclists are very rare.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 

But when they do crop up no-one needs a whitewash job.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Squashme wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 22:19, Adrian  wrote:
>> Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>>>> So usually there could be a barrier for cars and not for bicycles.
>>>> <sigh>
>>>> No, usually it applies to all vehicular traffic. Which includes
>>>> bicycles.
>>> Thanks for the aerial map view. So, in theory, the cyclist could have
>>> been breaking the law, but in a pedestrianised dead-end, not on the
>>> pavement?
>> <awaits explanation of major relevant differences between pedestrianised
>> area and "pavement" when it comes to their use by vehicular traffic>
> 
> Well, I know what you are trying to say. For me, pavement means the
> traditional footpath bit with paving stones, whereas pedestrianised
> area (God help us) seems to be bit of road halfheartedly stolen from
> the roadway itself, and somehow transfigured. I was going to say that
> a pedestrianised area can still be negotiated by vehicles, certainly
> in the aerial views, so it's a bit of a con-job. Vehicles can park on
> the pedestrianised area in those aerial views, but then they can park
> on the traditional pavement too, usually, it seems. The bollards might
> be a clue, but they are so omni-present that they are almost
> meaningless. How am I doing?

Well, it seems that you'll adapt the usage situation to your own
particular needs and prejudices whilst ignoring the intention of the
planners, and possibly the legal aspect, and all the while arguing that
black is white?

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

"Tooommy"  wrote in message 
news:B226k.35434$M63.23053@newsfe13.ams2...
>
>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, 
>>> pavement
>>> etc.
>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>>
> Partac?
>
> who makes up these new names, same old computer.
>
It's one I have been using for about 5 years now - have you just come out of 
prison or something?

On 18 Jun, 00:08, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
>
> > So you are damning your fellow uk.transport scribblers?
>
> No, I'm refusing to have further attemmts at rational conversation with
> a fucking lunatic. Bye.

Don't see why you should scuttle off, I have managed to attempt
rational conversation with you, reasonably successfully in places.

"And these factual sources are? Please quote them, or name them. You
show no evidence of having read any at all." That so hard, huh?

Partac wrote:
> "Tooommy"  wrote in message
> news:B226k.35434$M63.23053@newsfe13.ams2...
>>
>>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child,
>>>> pavement
>>>> etc.
>>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>>>
>> Partac?
>>
>> who makes up these new names, same old computer.
>>
> It's one I have been using for about 5 years now - have you just come
> out of prison or something?

Not prison, but there are questions about a different type of institution 
where people are confined.

On 18 Jun, 07:55, ®i©ardo  wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 17 Jun, 22:19, Adrian  wrote:
> >> Squashme  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> >> were saying:
>
> >>>>> So usually there could be a barrier for cars and not for bicycles.
> >>>> <sigh>
> >>>> No, usually it applies to all vehicular traffic. Which includes
> >>>> bicycles.
> >>> Thanks for the aerial map view. So, in theory, the cyclist could have
> >>> been breaking the law, but in a pedestrianised dead-end, not on the
> >>> pavement?
> >> <awaits explanation of major relevant differences between pedestrianised
> >> area and "pavement" when it comes to their use by vehicular traffic>
>
> > Well, I know what you are trying to say. For me, pavement means the
> > traditional footpath bit with paving stones, whereas pedestrianised
> > area (God help us) seems to be bit of road halfheartedly stolen from
> > the roadway itself, and somehow transfigured. I was going to say that
> > a pedestrianised area can still be negotiated by vehicles, certainly
> > in the aerial views, so it's a bit of a con-job. Vehicles can park on
> > the pedestrianised area in those aerial views, but then they can park
> > on the traditional pavement too, usually, it seems. The bollards might
> > be a clue, but they are so omni-present that they are almost
> > meaningless. How am I doing?
>
> Well, it seems that you'll adapt the usage situation to your own
> particular needs and prejudices whilst ignoring the intention of the
> planners, and possibly the legal aspect, and all the while arguing that
> black is white?
>

All very generalised. To be helpful you could try being specific. I
don't think that we have any of these strange pedestrianised areas,
which are shared with cars, around here.  I do try not to ignore the
intention of the planners, but  it is sometimes not very clear (and
sometimes dangerous to me). I try not to break the law. If I do break
it, I am potentially far less lethal than any totally law-abiding
motorist.

Imagine if a motorist had hit the girl. They do you know.

As I put it on urc:-

No motorists were involved, so:-

1. It can't be just a tragic accident
2. The mother will not be blamed for her negligence
3. Speed may be a factor

On 18 Jun, 08:00, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Partac wrote:
> > "Tooommy"  wrote in message
> >news:B226k.35434$M63.23053@newsfe13.ams2...
>
> >>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
> >>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child,
> >>>> pavement
> >>>> etc.
> >>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> >> Partac?
>
> >> who makes up these new names, same old computer.
>
> > It's one I have been using for about 5 years now - have you just come
> > out of prison or something?
>
> Not prison, but there are questions about a different type of institution
> where people are confined.

Well, uk.transport is a kind of institution with virtual rubber walls,
where we can rant harmlessly and pointlessly. And some can be big
frogs in a small pond, others can be scapegoats or village idiots, and
some can pretend to a magisterial wisdom.

Squashme wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 08:00, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Partac wrote:
>>> "Tooommy"  wrote in message
>>> news:B226k.35434$M63.23053@newsfe13.ams2...
>>
>>>>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child,
>>>>>> pavement
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>
>>>> Partac?
>>
>>>> who makes up these new names, same old computer.
>>
>>> It's one I have been using for about 5 years now - have you just
>>> come out of prison or something?
>>
>> Not prison, but there are questions about a different type of
>> institution where people are confined.
>
> Well, uk.transport is a kind of institution with virtual rubber walls,

There's nothing to stop anyone leaving. In fact, there are some who would 
prefer it if other did depart.

> where we can rant harmlessly and pointlessly.

AIUI that's its sole purpose.

> And some can be big
> frogs in a small pond, others can be scapegoats or village idiots, and
> some can pretend to a magisterial wisdom.

None of which are mutually exclusive and which most do to varying degrees of 
success.

On 18 Jun, 08:55, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 18 Jun, 08:00, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Partac wrote:
> >>> "Tooommy"  wrote in message
> >>>news:B226k.35434$M63.23053@newsfe13.ams2...
>
> >>>>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac" 
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child,
> >>>>>> pavement
> >>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> >>>> Partac?
>
> >>>> who makes up these new names, same old computer.
>
> >>> It's one I have been using for about 5 years now - have you just
> >>> come out of prison or something?
>
> >> Not prison, but there are questions about a different type of
> >> institution where people are confined.
>
> > Well, uk.transport is a kind of institution with virtual rubber walls,
>
> There's nothing to stop anyone leaving. In fact, there are some who would
> prefer it if other did depart.
>

Strangely, you underestimate the power of obsession. And who is this
"other" who should depart? Is he real? Or a figment? Let's talk about
your childhood.

Squashme wrote:
> On 18 Jun, 08:55, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 18 Jun, 08:00, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> Partac wrote:
>>>>> "Tooommy"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:B226k.35434$M63.23053@newsfe13.ams2...
>>
>>>>>>> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac" 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured
>>>>>>>> child, pavement
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>> Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>>
>>>>>> Partac?
>>
>>>>>> who makes up these new names, same old computer.
>>
>>>>> It's one I have been using for about 5 years now - have you just
>>>>> come out of prison or something?
>>
>>>> Not prison, but there are questions about a different type of
>>>> institution where people are confined.
>>
>>> Well, uk.transport is a kind of institution with virtual rubber
>>> walls,
>>
>> There's nothing to stop anyone leaving. In fact, there are some who
>> would prefer it if other did depart.
>>
>
> Strangely, you underestimate the power of obsession.

Not at all, for that's what is must be.

> And who is this
> "other" who should depart? Is he real? Or a figment?

There are conflicting opinions.

> Let's talk about
> your childhood.

Much more useful to talk about this "other" childhood I suggest.

On Jun 18, 5:58 am, Doug  wrote:
> On 17 Jun, 11:01, "Partac"  wrote:
>
> > Here's a story that has all the Doug ingredients- injured child, pavement
> > etc.
> > Wonder why he didn't post this one?
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026806/Mother-tells-terrifyi...
>
> Its quite simple, this newsgroup is not dominated and infested by
> cyclists so there is nothing to complain about on that score. Also,
> compared to killer motorists, killer cyclists are very rare.

The main thread starter on this newsgroup is a cyclist.  He also
hijacks most of the threads other start.

I'd say you could easily make a case about this newsgroup being
dominated by cyclists just based on his behavior.