This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.

"A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
streets in the past week.

The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
Row.

Paramedics rushed to the scene but were unable to save the woman, who
died in the road.

Witnesses told how they heard 'a terrible scream' at the moment of the
crash and said the lorry driver had apparently not noticed what had
happened..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061569/Woman-cyclist-crushed-death-lorry-horrific-accident.html

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
> been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.

Had she been in a car, it wouldn't have bloody happened, because it's 
rather difficult to get a car and an articulated wagon next to each other 
at traffic lights bounded by barriers on the pavement side and a traffic 
island in the middle...

> The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
> year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
> Row.

AS THE LORRY TURNED LEFT.

So - did the wagon overtake the cyclist sat at the lights - or did the 
cyclist cycle down the inside of the wagon waiting at the lights?

Prace bets.

Sorry, Duhg, but attempted suicide by a fuckwitted cyclist who has 
completely ignored basic common sense does not mean it's OK to put 
pedestrians at risk.

Doug wrote:
> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them?

Victims and families of those injured or killed by pavement cyclists?

-- 
Abo

On 26 Sep, 07:13, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
> > been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
>
> Had she been in a car, it wouldn't have bloody happened, because it's
> rather difficult to get a car and an articulated wagon next to each other
> at traffic lights bounded by barriers on the pavement side and a traffic
> island in the middle...
>
> > The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
> > year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
> > Row.
>
> AS THE LORRY TURNED LEFT.
>
> So - did the wagon overtake the cyclist sat at the lights - or did the
> cyclist cycle down the inside of the wagon waiting at the lights?
>
> Prace bets.
>
> Sorry, Duhg, but attempted suicide by a fuckwitted cyclist who has
> completely ignored basic common sense does not mean it's OK to put
> pedestrians at risk.

That's right, Drain, blame the dead vulnerable victim as usual,
without knowing the facts.

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

Doug wrote:
> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
> been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
> 
> "A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
> in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
> streets in the past week.
> 
> The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
> year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
> Row.

Cyclists need to learn that trailers swing in when lorries turn. And 
when they turn left they often have to position themselves over to the 
right first, making the left side look pretty inviting to some people 
who come unstuck when the lorry turns. Even as a car driver I'm aware of 
this, how come the 'superior' cyclists don't know any better?

-- 
Abo

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
>> > been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.

>> Had she been in a car, it wouldn't have bloody happened, because it's
>> rather difficult to get a car and an articulated wagon next to each
>> other at traffic lights bounded by barriers on the pavement side and a
>> traffic island in the middle...

>> > The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The
>> > 31- year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into
>> > Southampton Row.

>> AS THE LORRY TURNED LEFT.
>>
>> So - did the wagon overtake the cyclist sat at the lights - or did the
>> cyclist cycle down the inside of the wagon waiting at the lights?
>>
>> Prace bets.
>>
>> Sorry, Duhg, but attempted suicide by a fuckwitted cyclist who has
>> completely ignored basic common sense does not mean it's OK to put
>> pedestrians at risk.

> That's right, Drain, blame the dead vulnerable victim as usual, without
> knowing the facts.

Oh, c'mon...
How many times have you heard of an articulated wagon overtaking a 
cyclist sat waiting at a red light, in the full knowledge he's about to 
turn left?
How many times have you heard of a cyclist going down the inside of a 
stationary artic, which would have been sat very wide at the lights in 
order to physically get round the corner?

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

On 26 Sep, 07:24, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
> > been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
>
> > "A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
> > in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
> > streets in the past week.
>
> > The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
> > year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
> > Row.
>
> Cyclists need to learn that trailers swing in when lorries turn. And
> when they turn left they often have to position themselves over to the
> right first, making the left side look pretty inviting to some people
> who come unstuck when the lorry turns. Even as a car driver I'm aware of
> this, how come the 'superior' cyclists don't know any better?
>
As a cyclist I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left. This
can be particularly dangerous if the pavement has those awful railings
which are there to prevent pedestrians accessing public roads and
against which cyclists can be crushed. As for those killed by
cyclists, they are very few in number compared to those killed by
motorists. Oh yes, and motorists also kill people and babies on
pavements.

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

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:9aaed926-7b38-44d1-b648-2348060dc8ca@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Sep, 07:24, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
>> > been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
>>
>> > "A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
>> > in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
>> > streets in the past week.
>>
>> > The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
>> > year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
>> > Row.
>>
>> Cyclists need to learn that trailers swing in when lorries turn. And
>> when they turn left they often have to position themselves over to the
>> right first, making the left side look pretty inviting to some people
>> who come unstuck when the lorry turns. Even as a car driver I'm aware of
>> this, how come the 'superior' cyclists don't know any better?
>>
> As a cyclist I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left.

Get out the fucking way then you stupid old bastard. Christ, at your age you 
should have worked out what path a lorry needs to take when it goes left.

> This can be particularly dangerous if the pavement has those awful 
> railings

Don't put yourself in such a stupid position in the traffic then you daft 
old twat. Sorry Duhg, but I find it very difficult to believe that a lorry 
will drive 1/2 way past you then turn.... sounds to me like you're being an 
impatient old turd.

> which are there to prevent pedestrians accessing public roads and

running out into traffic

> against which cyclists can be crushed.

Only if they put themselves in a fucking stupid position in the first place

>As for those killed by cyclists, they are very few in number compared to 
>those killed by
> motorists. Oh yes, and motorists also kill people and babies on pavements.

Does that excuse cyclists then you silly old cunt?


Mike P

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
>been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
>
>"A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
>in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
>streets in the past week.
>
>The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
>year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
>Row.
>
>Paramedics rushed to the scene but were unable to save the woman, who
>died in the road.
>
>Witnesses told how they heard 'a terrible scream' at the moment of the
>crash and said the lorry driver had apparently not noticed what had
>happened..."
>
>More:
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061569/Woman-cyclist-crushed-death-lorry-horrific-accident.html

I think the Daily Mail headline sums it up nicley - it was am accident
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

"Mike P"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>>> Cyclists need to learn that trailers swing in when lorries turn. And
>>> when they turn left they often have to position themselves over to the
>>> right first, making the left side look pretty inviting to some people
>>> who come unstuck when the lorry turns. Even as a car driver I'm aware
>>> of this, how come the 'superior' cyclists don't know any better?

>> As a cyclist I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left.

> Get out the fucking way then you stupid old bastard. Christ, at your age
> you should have worked out what path a lorry needs to take when it goes
> left.

>> This can be particularly dangerous if the pavement has those awful
>> railings

> Don't put yourself in such a stupid position in the traffic then you
> daft old twat. Sorry Duhg, but I find it very difficult to believe that
> a lorry will drive 1/2 way past you then turn.... sounds to me like
> you're being an impatient old turd.

*ding*

Even if the wagon DOES squeeze past at the lights, it'd take some 
incredible stupidity to not wait before moving off and make sure it 
wasn't going to turn left.

Oh, wait. Duhg's already told us that he doesn't need to practice 
defensive cycling.

Doug wrote:
> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
> been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
> 
> "A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
> in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
> streets in the past week.
> 
> The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
> year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
> Row.
> 
> Paramedics rushed to the scene but were unable to save the woman, who
> died in the road.
> 
> Witnesses told how they heard 'a terrible scream' at the moment of the
> crash and said the lorry driver had apparently not noticed what had
> happened..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061569/Woman-cyclist-crushed-death-lorry-horrific-accident.html
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Had she been in a car she would not have been in the position she was 
when the accident happened.
I note that you have not blamed anybody yet, does this mean you are at 
last seeing sense?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 07:24, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
>>> been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
>>> "A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
>>> in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
>>> streets in the past week.
>>> The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
>>> year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
>>> Row.
>> Cyclists need to learn that trailers swing in when lorries turn. And
>> when they turn left they often have to position themselves over to the
>> right first, making the left side look pretty inviting to some people
>> who come unstuck when the lorry turns. Even as a car driver I'm aware of
>> this, how come the 'superior' cyclists don't know any better?
>>
> As a cyclist I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left. This
> can be particularly dangerous if the pavement has those awful railings
> which are there to prevent pedestrians accessing public roads and
> against which cyclists can be crushed. As for those killed by
> cyclists, they are very few in number compared to those killed by
> motorists. Oh yes, and motorists also kill people and babies on
> pavements.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 
> 
> 

A very predictable twist

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 26 Sep, 07:29, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>
>
> >> > This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
> >> > been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
> >> Had she been in a car, it wouldn't have bloody happened, because it's
> >> rather difficult to get a car and an articulated wagon next to each
> >> other at traffic lights bounded by barriers on the pavement side and a
> >> traffic island in the middle...
> >> > The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The
> >> > 31- year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into
> >> > Southampton Row.
> >> AS THE LORRY TURNED LEFT.
>
> >> So - did the wagon overtake the cyclist sat at the lights - or did the
> >> cyclist cycle down the inside of the wagon waiting at the lights?
>
> >> Prace bets.
>
> >> Sorry, Duhg, but attempted suicide by a fuckwitted cyclist who has
> >> completely ignored basic common sense does not mean it's OK to put
> >> pedestrians at risk.
> > That's right, Drain, blame the dead vulnerable victim as usual, without
> > knowing the facts.
>
> Oh, c'mon...
> How many times have you heard of an articulated wagon overtaking a
> cyclist sat waiting at a red light, in the full knowledge he's about to
> turn left?

An experienced cyclist will have sat in the middle of the lane, and
taken the abuse from the taxis behind

Some of the fault lies with the planners who put the railings up, and
create artificial pinch points that kill cyclists.

> How many times have you heard of a cyclist going down the inside of a
> stationary artic, which would have been sat very wide at the lights in
> order to physically get round the corner?

Usually with no indicator on of course.

I've often filtered to the front of traffic to find the cycle ASL (not
applicable in this case) is full with an illegally stopped bus/taxi/
etc. In those cases the only safe thing to do is to position oneself
in front of the ASL beyond the stop line.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:364430d7-1d38-404b-9687-943b9f0f7958@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
> been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
>

We know.

Next.

On Sep 26, 7:33 am, Doug  wrote:
> As a cyclist I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left. This
> can be particularly dangerous if the pavement has those awful railings

I'll agree with you about the railings , they serve no purpose except
to keep HSE bed wetters happy and are just a waste of money and
impediment to movement. For everything else you're just talking
bollocks again. Quelle surprise.

B2003

On Sep 26, 9:17 am, Paul Weaver  wrote:
>
> > How many times have you heard of a cyclist going down the inside of a
> > stationary artic, which would have been sat very wide at the lights in
> > order to physically get round the corner?
>
> Usually with no indicator on of course.

Indicator or not, who is stupid or suicidal enough to cycle down the
inside of a 40 ton HGV when its moving?? Some cyclists really must
have a death wish.

B2003

Doug  wrote:

> This is why people cycle on pavements

No it's not, they cycle on pavements because they (you) are arrogant
twats.

>  and who can blame them? 

Pedestrians.


I see you're treating news as a write-only medium, again. This topic has
already been covered.

Doug  wrote:

> As a cyclist I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left. 

As a driver I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left. Such
overtaking manouevers are common and it is the responsibility of the
person being overtaken to co-operate with the vehicle overtaking. That
includes not travelling down the inside of the overtakign vehicle as it
slows to perform its turn.

This morning, as I waited to turn left onto the Great West Road, some
twurp on a bicycle travelled down the inside of the queue of traffic at
the lights ignoring every single vehicle indicating left. He passed
through the red light as it turned to amber and if the lead vehicle had
not been driven by an alert driver he would have been crushed.

The cyclist then rode onto the pavement cycle lane continued along the
road. I drove down the A4, passed the cyclist and left him about half a
mile behind. I turned left into an industrial estate. At this location
the cycle lane has a prominent "Give Way" marking, indicating that
cyclists must give way to traffic entering the industrial estate. As I
turned left the cyclist, head down, paying little attention to traffic
swerved to avoid runniing into the boot of my car. He stopped to emit
the usual stream of cyclist foul-mouthed abuse.

I stopped and pointed out to him the Give Way signs and markings. He
appeared to have no idea (or more likely did not care) about the meaning
of these signs. I suppose if he had hit my car, you would blame me. And
you woudl be just as fuckwittedly wrong in that event as you are in your
commentary on the accident referred to in this thread.

Cyclists, and you seem to be the perfect examplar, appear to spend no
time studying the Highway Code or the Cycling Code and then become
surprised when other road users behave in a way that the cyclist does
not expect. The fault does not lie with those other road users, it lies
with the ignoramus with the pedals.

"Paul Weaver"  wrote in message
news:e60389f7-10ec-439f-8894-33f7d97003ce@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

>Usually with no indicator on of course.

Which is why I would always always always indicate if I was turning left at 
a junction. But I've seen plenty of cases where cyclists overtake vehicles 
on the left even when those vehicles *are* indicating left. Unless there is 
an explicit prohibition like a green cycle lane, I usually position myself 
as far left as possible when I'm turning left to physically block any 
cyclists from overtaking me on the left. Unfortunately green lanes make you 
turn left from a lane which is not the left-most one :-(

> I've often filtered to the front of traffic to find the cycle ASL (not
> applicable in this case) is full with an illegally stopped bus/taxi/
> etc. In those cases the only safe thing to do is to position oneself
> in front of the ASL beyond the stop line.

No the safe thing to so is not to go to the front of the queue in the first
place but to take your position in the queue in the order that traffic
arrives. Either cyclists shoudl be totally segregated on a phyisically
separate cycle lane or else they should take their place along with all the
other traffic and not be accorded special rights like green markings or
ASLs.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1invb7t.azyaz215mclhtN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Doug  wrote:
>
>> As a cyclist I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left.
>
> As a driver I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left. Such

<snip semi-rant>

>Cyclists, and you seem to be the perfect examplar, appear to spend no
> time studying the Highway Code or the Cycling Code and then become
> surprised when other road users behave in a way that the cyclist does
> not expect. The fault does not lie with those other road users, it lies
> with the ignoramus with the pedals.

Spot on. I still cycle. I never have these problems because I cycle as I'd 
drive a car or ride a motorbike -  using the correct lanes, signalling, not 
being a fuckwit and taking others on the road into account. I'm not brain of 
Britain or anything, it's simple common sense FFS.

I don't have a problem with cyclists, but I do have a problem with 
fuckwitted road users in any sort of vehicle.

I've still got the old DVDs/practice theory tests for wifey here that she 
used a couple of years ago. One of the questions shows a picture of a lorry 
stopped and signalling to turn left at lights on a dual carriageway. The 
lorry is a long one and it's straddling both lanes. The question is 
something along the lines of  "what should you do when the lights change". I 
can't remember the 4 answers, but the correct one is "stay behind and wait 
for lorry to turn left". I'll see if I can find the other 3 fuckwitted 
answers, which IIRC were *plainly* wrong.

Mike P

Paul Weaver  wrote:

> Some of the fault lies with the planners who put the railings up, and
> create artificial pinch points that kill cyclists.

Absolute cobblers.

Even if the railings were not there, the cyclist getting themselves into
that position would be at risk of crushing with other items of street
furniture such as traffic light posts. And the cyclist on the inside of
a truck would only have an escape route onto the pavement even if there
were no railings. Anyone in that position was incorrectly positioned on
the road before the traffic started moving. This is usually because the
cyclist has ridden down the inside of a queue of traffic, and where that
is not the cause the problem is that the cyclist did not take the
correct position at the lights.

Doug wrote:
> On 26 Sep, 07:24, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
>>> been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
>>> "A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
>>> in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
>>> streets in the past week.
>>> The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
>>> year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
>>> Row.
>> Cyclists need to learn that trailers swing in when lorries turn. And
>> when they turn left they often have to position themselves over to the
>> right first, making the left side look pretty inviting to some people
>> who come unstuck when the lorry turns. Even as a car driver I'm aware of
>> this, how come the 'superior' cyclists don't know any better?
>>
> As a cyclist I am often overtaken by lorries who then turn left. This
> can be particularly dangerous if the pavement has those awful railings
> which are there to prevent pedestrians accessing public roads and
> against which cyclists can be crushed. As for those killed by
> cyclists, they are very few in number compared to those killed by
> motorists. Oh yes, and motorists also kill people and babies on
> pavements.

As shown here:

http://snipurl.com/3uv3c

-- 
Abo

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

>> Some of the fault lies with the planners who put the railings up, and
>> create artificial pinch points that kill cyclists.

> Absolute cobblers.
> 
> Even if the railings were not there, the cyclist getting themselves into
> that position would be at risk of crushing with other items of street
> furniture such as traffic light posts. And the cyclist on the inside of
> a truck would only have an escape route onto the pavement even if there
> were no railings. Anyone in that position was incorrectly positioned on
> the road before the traffic started moving. This is usually because the
> cyclist has ridden down the inside of a queue of traffic, and where that
> is not the cause the problem is that the cyclist did not take the
> correct position at the lights.

*ding*

Then, of course, there's the real reason for the railings - as so finely 
demonstrated in that video of the PorridgeWog brats trying to commit hari-
kiri using a bus the other week.

If that railing hadn't have been there, the stupid brats would both have 
undoubtedly been killed. With the railing there, even their determined 
efforts at suicide resulted in only one broken arm - and some serious 
comedy.

On Sep 26, 10:43 am, Adrian  wrote:
> Then, of course, there's the real reason for the railings - as so finely
> demonstrated in that video of the PorridgeWog brats trying to commit hari-
> kiri using a bus the other week.

I say if people want to jump in front of a vehicle then let them. The
railings look ugly, are a waste of money and in some case actually
prevent you from crossing at pretty safe locations especially in
central london and cause the pedestrian traffic to all bunch up and
push through in the small gap that our Lords And Masters have seen fit
to give us.

B2003

On Sep 26, 10:04 am, "Mortimer"  wrote:
> No the safe thing to so is not to go to the front of the queue in the first
> place but to take your position in the queue in the order that traffic

Mind you , its not just cyclist who do that - a lot of bikers seem to
think they're immortal too. On the A406 these days every morning and
evening theres usually a number of pillocks who zip down the gaps
between moving traffic - and these gaps arn't wide - probably doing 20
mph more than everyone else. It only takes someone to pull into a gap
in an inside lane without seeing if some smelly greaser is belting it
up on the inside to cause a nasty accident.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
> On Sep 26, 10:43 am, Adrian  wrote:
>> Then, of course, there's the real reason for the railings - as so
>> finely demonstrated in that video of the PorridgeWog brats trying to
>> commit hari- kiri using a bus the other week.
>
> I say if people want to jump in front of a vehicle then let them. The
> railings look ugly, are a waste of money and in some case actually
> prevent you from crossing at pretty safe locations especially in
> central london and cause the pedestrian traffic to all bunch up and
> push through in the small gap that our Lords And Masters have seen fit
> to give us.
>
In principle I agree, but have some consideration for the driver. Why should 
he or she have all the upset and inconvenience that would be caused?

On Sep 26, 11:04 am, "Brimstone" 
wrote:
> In principle I agree, but have some consideration for the driver. Why should
> he or she have all the upset and inconvenience that would be caused?

I'm not talking about roads where traffic is bowling along at 40 mph ,
i'm talking about streets where most of the traffic is pretty much
stationary anyway. Ironically on fairly free flowing roads you don't
see railings quite so much.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
> On Sep 26, 11:04 am, "Brimstone" 
> wrote:
>> In principle I agree, but have some consideration for the driver.
>> Why should he or she have all the upset and inconvenience that would
>> be caused?
>
> I'm not talking about roads where traffic is bowling along at 40 mph ,
> i'm talking about streets where most of the traffic is pretty much
> stationary anyway. Ironically on fairly free flowing roads you don't
> see railings quite so much.
>
It's where traffic is virtually stationary where pedestrians will be tempted 
to try and cross. Physical damage might be much less than on a fast moving 
road but upset to the driver (mental trauma if you wish) will be just as 
great.

"Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>> In principle I agree, but have some consideration for the driver. Why
>>> should he or she have all the upset and inconvenience that would be
>>> caused?

>> I'm not talking about roads where traffic is bowling along at 40 mph ,
>> i'm talking about streets where most of the traffic is pretty much
>> stationary anyway. Ironically on fairly free flowing roads you don't
>> see railings quite so much.

> It's where traffic is virtually stationary where pedestrians will be
> tempted to try and cross.

...forgetting about the two-wheeler (powered or pedal) filtering between 
the lanes of stationary traffic...

Doug wrote:

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061569/Woman-cyclist-crushed-death-lorry-horrific-accident.html>

> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them?

I can.

If you think it's too dangerous to cycle on the road, don't cycle.

It couldn't simpler.

"Doug"  wrote

> That's right, Drain, blame the dead vulnerable victim as usual,
> without knowing the facts.


There is a disproportionately high number of women killed in accidents 
involving HGVs in London and this is simply because women do not have the 
co-ordination and mental skills necessary to use a complicated machine such 
as a bicycle.

Hoover fine, iron fine, but bicycle no. Too many different knobs and levers.



-- 
Regards, Vince.

"To have masses of mouse droppings all over your food and utensils is very 
unpleasant" ( Doug Bollen)

In article <364430d7-1d38-404b-9687-943b9f0f7958@
26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
> been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
> 
> "A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
> in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
> streets in the past week.
> 
> The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
> year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
> Row.
> 

Or more likely the stupid bitch cycled down the nearside of a lorry 
turning left and was therefore in its blindspot and paid the price.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <ffe197be-b9a3-4381-aa00-
87bc1d39178c@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> That's right, Drain, blame the dead vulnerable victim as usual,
> without knowing the facts.
> 
In 1.7 million miles of driving artics and having many cyclists go down 
my nearside to the point of leaning over the kerb even though I'm 
indicating to turn left, I blame the cyclist.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <e60389f7-10ec-439f-8894-33f7d97003ce@
25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Paul Weaver says...

> Usually with no indicator on of course.
> 
You must be fucking kidding. Because we have to make wide turns 
inevitably involving moving out to the right even though we're turning 
left, we make damned sure we indicate when turning left. 
-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Petert wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
> 
>> This is why people cycle on pavements and who can blame them? Had she
>> been in a car she probably wouldn't even have been injured.
>>
>> "A woman cyclist was killed when she was hit by a lorry at a junction
>> in central London, the second cyclist to be killed on the capital's
>> streets in the past week.
>>
>> The crash happened yesterday morning in Vernon Place, Holborn. The 31-
>> year-old victim was crushed as the lorry turned left into Southampton
>> Row.
>>
>> Paramedics rushed to the scene but were unable to save the woman, who
>> died in the road.
>>
>> Witnesses told how they heard 'a terrible scream' at the moment of the
>> crash and said the lorry driver had apparently not noticed what had
>> happened..."
>>
>> More:
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061569/Woman-cyclist-crushed-death-lorry-horrific-accident.html
> 
> I think the Daily Mail headline sums it up nicley - it was am accident

Except that Duhg does not generally believe in accidents.

-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.

John Wright  wrote:

> Except that Duhg does not generally believe in accidents.

As witness his spinning on a sixpence over the death of the moron trying
to scrape the dog her boyfriend had just killed off the asphalt.

On 26 Sep, 09:46, Boltar  wrote:
> On Sep 26, 9:17 am, Paul Weaver  wrote:
> > > How many times have you heard of a cyclist going down the inside of a
> > > stationary artic, which would have been sat very wide at the lights in
> > > order to physically get round the corner?
>
> > Usually with no indicator on of course.
>
> Indicator or not, who is stupid or suicidal enough to cycle down the
> inside of a 40 ton HGV when its moving?? Some cyclists really must
> have a death wish.

Yes. On the other hand, when a vehicle isn't moving, and can't move
due to traffic in front of it, it's perfectly safe to pass as long as
you've got an escape route and are at a speed and distance where an
opening door won't hit you.

Having said that, passing a vehicle at the front of a traffic jam is
risky, and many cyclists will simply sit parallel to the vehicle.