Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: not on facebook on August 24, 2017, 01:02:07 pm
-
Something about him that gives me the right hump.
By all accounts he had some special type of sports push iron that don't have any brakes on it ,as it basically can only stop via it's own steam.
Said prick claims that he did not know he was breaking the law which means he must have thought he was never a threat on his push iron while bombing around his neck of woods on London streets with no brakes on it.
The above was his defence in court ffs.hiw the fcuk can you take a bike onto whatever street with no brakes and not think that you are a possible danger to whoever never mind yourself.
After having a crash with a lady who was crossing the road in the wrong place is neither here or there ,as after they crashed and banged heads he got up and was shouting his head off at the injuryed lady.
He even went onto various social media outlets putting all blame onto the lady who died some days after the incedent.
Basically it seems lady stepped out infront of him and he could not stop as he had no brakes and ploughed straight into her.
Every action has a reaction ,and his action to take a bike out that has no brakes lead to reaction of lady's death.
He will only get two years at most I guess and he and his family can carry o with their life,unlike the poor lady's family.
-
Think it had rear brakes only but none on the front. He's still a dick like.....
-
I've not seen the full account of what happened but as I understand it he claims that had it had a front break he wouldn't have time to use it, yet apparently had time to shout at the lady to get out of the way twice ???
-
I thought it was illegal to ride a bike on the road with no front brake?
-
I thought it was illegal to ride a bike on the road with no front brake?
I think it's the other way round in Stainy, it's illegal to have brakes and it's also illegal to have lights in the dark 😀
-
On the beeb news this morning they showed some videos that cyclists had taken themselves.
Groups of them weaving in and out of traffic at speed, not stopping for pedestrian crossings etc.
They were squeezing through tiny gaps between busses and lorries.
When they complain about vehicle drivers they should consider how bad this looks.
-
I thought it was illegal to ride a bike on the road with no front brake?
The pillock up in the dock for crashing into the lady must be a serious bike person to have such a sporty bike for knocking about on and part of his defence in court was the fact that he did not know it was against the law not to have front brakes on a push iron.
Thta claim is poppycock and his mother warrants a slap with a wet fish across her chops for baking him.
-
I thought it was illegal to ride a bike on the road with no front brake?
Yes but the law against it doesn't take any account of any injuries resulting from breaking that law, which is why he was found guilty under the archaic law that they used. The 'death by dangerous driving' law only covers motor vehicles, not bicycles.
-
Ah, thanks Glyn. I get it. The law doesnt take into consideration the consequences of the action, only the action itself.
-
Yes, that pretty much sums it up. The only step up from what he was found guilty of where the consequences of actions are taken into consideration is manslaughter and he was cleared of that.
-
I do not condone the cyclist in any way,and would like to bet that he was on the road without a bell on his bike as well,which I think is also illegal.
But,the report i heard on the radio also stated that the lady was using her phone while crossing the road,its just as bad not concentrating on the traffic.
-
That's possibly why he was cleared of manslaughter, but I don't know the details of what was said in court. It certainly doesn't absolve him of his culpability though.
-
He admitted in court that she wasn't on her phone like he'd said. The lying little bas**rd should have been done for perjury as well.
-
He admitted in court that she wasn't on her phone like he'd said. The lying little bas**rd should have been done for perjury as well.
He can only be done for perjury if he lied about it in court whilst under oath.
-
The fact he has shown no remorse speaks loudly of his character, a fact picked up on by the Judge and another reason why he will get a custodial sentence. What should also be highlighted is that it is this type of moron who makes it all the more dangerous for cyclists who do observe the rules of the road.
-
Why is it that the judge has said he is to expect a custodial sentence is he allowed out on bail?
-
It's a sad fact of life that these things happen..People make mistakes,misjudge distances,take there eye off the road or get distracted and it's in the hands of fate if you get away with it or not...I have to admit I didn't have a clue it was illegal to ride a bike without brakes...However if that had been me I would be distraught..remorse wouldn't even cover it and to him it comes across as it means nothing,so lock him up for me...
All we hear on roads is think Bike both for cyclists and my bug bear motorcyclists...Yet everyday I pass cyclists riding 2 abreast causing that bigger avenue of doubt and danger and motorbikes flying around at 100 mph in 60's passing you that quick you could easily miss them in the space it takes to look in your mirrors...
-
everyday I pass cyclists riding 2 abreast
Christ, don't say that to a cyclist it's like a red rag to bull.
-
It is legal for cyclists to ride side by side but they should go to single file on busy or narrow roads.
-
It's the t**ts who ride on the pavement - which is illegal - who are the bigger danger to other people, because they take no account whatsoever of people they can't see coming out of houses/gates etc.
-
When I used to cycle to work I was one of those 't**ts' who, for my own safety rode on pavements. I was constantly on guard for pedestrians and took every care that I should. Never caused a problem to anyone.
-
The bloke this thread is about never caused a problem to anyone either. Until he hit someone.
-
You couldnt pay me enough money to ride a bicycle on any road in the UK.
-
If someone is inconsiderate and selfish it's irrelevant the mode of transport they use - at some point they are going to cause danger to someone else. Look at the jogger who pushed the woman under the bus for instance.
-
The bloke this thread is about never caused a problem to anyone either. Until he hit someone.
I can't take onboard that he was on his bike around his neck of the woods bombing about.
There is no way he was going on reduced speed at any given time ,but claims that he was not doing anything wrong after he hit the lady crossing the road.
The fact that he was out on the streets with only back brakes will tell any person no matter how thick they are that they are a risk.
He was an adult not a kid.
What would be the stance be if a car driver went out with faulty braking action > he be deemed a fool and a danger on the road.
-
If someone is inconsiderate and selfish it's irrelevant the mode of transport they use - at some point they are going to cause danger to someone else. Look at the jogger who pushed the woman under the bus for instance.
Did they ever find that pillockk of a jogger
-
The bloke this thread is about never caused a problem to anyone either. Until he hit someone.
So, what do you think of those t**ts in the highways department who make cycle lanes on the pavements? are they the subject of your venom too?
-
The bloke this thread is about never caused a problem to anyone either. Until he hit someone.
So, what do you think of those t**ts in the highways department who make cycle lanes on the pavements? are they the subject of your venom too?
I've never seen one, but if they put them on pavements in residential or shopping areas, then yes.
-
I use my bike a lot, riding to work, to the bookies etc and 90% of the time I ride on the pavement admittedly there's hardly anyone about walking , but I feel a lot more safer.
-
The prospect of a fine is more attractive than a death sentence.
-
The prospect of a fine is more attractive than a death sentence.
Is that the prospect for the cyclist or anyone they might hit?
-
So would you rather a cyclist be killed when riding on a dangerous road instead of riding sensibly on a pavement? Of course, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on a pavement unless stated otherwise, but police often turn a blind eye to those doing it sensibly.
-
When I start to accept the fallacious logic that all roads are dangerous and also that all cyclists who ride on the pavement do so sensibly I might have an answer for you.
-
I do not condone the cyclist in any way,and would like to bet that he was on the road without a bell on his bike as well,which I think is also illegal.
But,the report i heard on the radio also stated that the lady was using her phone while crossing the road,its just as bad not concentrating on the traffic.i was reading somewhere last week that Honolulu has made it illegal to use a phone when crossing the road.
I cycle a lot as well on an off road, the bike the guy had does not have conventional brakes to stop the bike you use the pedals to do so and you have to be skilled to do this you do not just get one of these bikes and ride without knowing what to do.
The people what use these bike are mainly couriers in London and only get paid when they complete the job so they try and complete them as quick as possible.
if the guy wanted to get a kick out of riding his bike go off road and go crazy you can get some real speed and have a great time wear the right kit so when you come off you don't get hurt too bad , but buy a good bike.
I think the guy did not help himself with his social media posts after the event, as I think both parties are to blame.
-
When I start to accept the fallacious logic that all roads are dangerous and also that all cyclists who ride on the pavement do so sensibly I might have an answer for you.
Here we go again! Who said all roads are dangerous and all cyclists who ride on the pavement do so sensibly?
-
You asked a question based on that supposition. Which is why I can't answer it, apart from to say I don't want anyone to die or be hurt for any reason. And that includes from being hit by selfish inconsiderate cyclists who habitually ride on pavements as a matter of course.
-
Wrong again. I asked the question "would you rather a cyclist be killed when riding on a dangerous road instead of riding sensibly on a pavement"?
-
Exactly.
-
If you don't want anyone to be hurt or killed, don't you think the best way to achieve that would be to use the safest method?
-
If you don't want anyone to be hurt or killed, don't you think the best way to achieve that would be to use the safest method?
Yes, safe is always good. Walking is even safer though, isn't it? Apart from when you're dodging cyclists on a narrow pavement, of course.
It makes me wonder why you framed the question as though cycling on the pavement is the only possible alternative to cycling on a dangerous road when it clearly isn't.
-
Don't you find the safety of walking on pavements also ever so slightly impeded by the far greater existence of mobility scooters? The law states that bicycles are classed as motor vehicles in the sense that they are also banned from traveling on pavements. Why aren't mobility scooters also classed as motor vehicles, thus likewise, also banned from pavements? After all, they actually have a motor - unlike bicycles!
Before you go away to create another one of your usual bullshit replies, allow me to answer the reason for you. It's because 'common sense' prevails, and although pedestrians are often impeded by mobility vehicles, it is the safest method of the two evils. It is for THAT reason why police often turn a blind eye to cyclists riding safely on pavements.
It is common sense for them to not treat all cyclists who ride on pavements as t**ts.
It seems to me that it is common sense that you lack.
-
That's easy to say for someone who hasn't had cyclists whizzing past their face just as they're about to go out of their front gate on innumerable times, with the cyclist completely oblivious to me because they CANNOT see everything including whether someone is coming out of their front gate - which I think is a complete lack of the common sense that you're banging on about.
I've never seen a mobility scooter whizz anywhere, and they've never impeded me. They are defined as motor vehicles but are exempted from parts of the Road Traffic Act because they are used by disabled people, as long as they fall into specific classes of vehicle.
I know bicycles are legally defined as 'vehicles' and as such various traffic laws thus apply to them, but I've never, ever seen them defined as 'motor vehicles' anywhere. Even the Road Traffic Act doesn't lump them together but has separate sections for motor vehicles and bicycles. Indeed, iff the law classed bicycles as 'motor vehicles' they could have prosecuted the idiot this thread is about with 'death by dangerous driving' but couldn't because he was on a bike and that law doesn't apply because it's not a motor vehicle.. Perhaps you can tell me where to find this law you're talking of that classifies them as 'motor vehicles'?
-
There you go again with your stereotypical attempt at diverting the argument with a triviality that you've managed to distort while fine-tooth combing every word of my post.
I stated that "bicycles are classed as motor vehicles IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE ALSO BANNED FROM TRAVELING ON PAVEMENTS". Meaning treated the same as, in that respect.
Your disregard for inconsiderate mobility scooter drivers, as if they don't exist because you've never seen any just sums up your attitude on this subject.
Why am I not in the slightest surprised!
-
You can't even quote yourself fully, how that for stereotypical?
The law states that bicycles are classed as motor vehicles in the sense that they are also banned from traveling on pavements.
Which law is it that states that?
And don't worry, I have just as much disdain for inconsiderate motor scooter drivers as I have for dangerous inconsiderate cyclists. However, the difference to me is that I've never come across an inconsiderate mobility scooter driver who was anything more than a nuisance, and certainly not actually a danger to my life and limb, unlike cyclists. So perhaps now YOU can stop diverting the argument, eh?
-
You really are a pathetic waste of time.
-
You brought the law into this, not me.
You brought mobility scooters into this, not me.
Then when I talk about what you've brought into the conversation, I'm the one diverting things!
You couldn't make it up!
-
You couldn't make it up!
You can on this forum
-
You brought the law into this, not me.
You brought mobility scooters into this, not me.
Then when I talk about what you've brought into the conversation, I'm the one diverting things!
You couldn't make it up!
You are a very argumentative individual aren't you Glyn. In the last 6 months or so you will argue with anyone about absolutely anything
-
You brought the law into this, not me.
You brought mobility scooters into this, not me.
Then when I talk about what you've brought into the conversation, I'm the one diverting things!
You couldn't make it up!
You are a very argumentative individual aren't you Glyn. In the last 6 months or so you will argue with anyone about absolutely anything
No I won't.
-
There's nowt wrong with arguing the toss about everything like mr Wigerly does, but it does get frustrating trying to decipher his gobbledygook b*llocks.
-
You can't even quote yourself fully, how that for stereotypical?
The law states that bicycles are classed as motor vehicles in the sense that they are also banned from traveling on pavements.
Which law is it that states that?
And don't worry, I have just as much disdain for inconsiderate motor scooter drivers as I have for dangerous inconsiderate cyclists. However, the difference to me is that I've never come across an inconsiderate mobility scooter driver who was anything more than a nuisance, and certainly not actually a danger to my life and limb, unlike cyclists. So perhaps now YOU can stop diverting the argument, eh?
You wasn't the unfortunate bloke whose leg my (now departed) neighbour broke with a mobility scooter in town then I take it?
-
Well Ive not really read the whole thread however if you look into the reports the cyclist was useing a "fixed wheel bike" by law this must have a front brake as the only other way of slowing down is what I suppose you could call "back pedalling" which I suppose is a bit of a bugger when hammering down the road a normal bike by law is supposed to have a front and rear brake he knew the score and theres a load of bullshit and save my arse somewhere along the line am I surprised ....no
-
Having driven around London a lot recently I'm not surprised there are so many accidents to cyclists. There seems to be a sub section of them who want to ride on the road and then disregard traffic signals gaining shakes of the head from law abiding cyclists
-
I've deliberated over whether or not to wade into this but here goes:
I drive a fair bit (circa 25k miles p/a). I used to do about double that.
I also ride a bike for fun and fitness when I can find the time.
I always ride my bike on the roads, bridleways or in cycle lanes in accordance with the law. The polarisation of "us versus them" in the media (social, broadcast and print) over the last couple of years is becoming more concerning all the time. There are irresponsible drivers and there are irresponsible cyclists. There's probably quite an overlap with the same people being dicks in both forms of transport.
As a responsible cyclist, I find few things more irritating and infuriating than seeing idiots on push irons ignoring traffic signals, riding on pavements and the like. They give aggressive idiots in motor vehicles a sense of justification in targeting all cyclists including the majority of sensible folk like me.
The bloke in this case is an extreme example of that. Had he been riding a road legal bike at the time and hit a pedestrian who stepped out without looking then shown sympathy for the deceased party and her family there would be no case to answer in the same way that a car/van/lorry driver couldn't be held accountable if someone stepped out in front of them. His belligerence is truly disgraceful.
Moving on to address another thing that's cropped up here; the slightly contentious issue of riding two abreast:
When overtaking a cyclist, a motorist should treat them the same way they would treat a car. If there wouldn't be room to overtake a car by moving across into the opposite carriageway, you shouldn't overtake a cyclist. Therefore two cyclists riding two abreast would present a smaller obstacle than they would in single file as the motorist would be past them quicker.
In practice, I don't always give them a whole lane's clearance but certainly wouldn't go for a close pass. All it takes for a cyclist to swerve out a yard or so is a rock in the road, dangerous drain cover, pothole or some other obstruction.
With regard to narrow roads someone mentioned that cyclists are advised to travel in single file. Actually the opposite is true. In order to discourage motorists from attempting unsafe overtaking manoeuvres where there is insufficient space, the guidance is for cyclists to ride two abreast or take "primary position" in the middle of the lane. The same applies to passing traffic islands etc. where overtakes should not be attempted so I'll have a check over my shoulder then move into the middle of the lane when approaching such an obstacle.
-
My 10 year old will bike to school and back just about every day while there is no snow or ice on the deck.
It's a 20 min bike ride for him.
Through the woods ,along a off beat track ,then there is a road trip.
I allways tell him to use the pavement as the traffic is quite heavy at that time in the morning .
He is only on the pavement for about 4 mins ,then it's across the road at the perdestrian crossing,and then through fields and woods straight upto the school.
If I ever take this route on my bike I use the pavement aswell ,aswell as the traffic is just too heavy to take the risk.
But when he is on that pavement I drum it into him to go slow slow slow and to allways think about on comming joe public ,which in turn is light .
-
On the question of cycling on pavements the point as others have made is about the attitude of the rider. It is perfectly safe to ride on wide pavements if common sense and consideration for pedestrians is exercised. There are inconsiderate people in all groups you might mention and some of them will be cyclists who ride pavements.
-
18 months in a young offenders institute, got away lightly
-
Glad the pilllock got sent down ,and I really hope some puff inside kicks his back passage in.
Can't quite grasp why a young offenders centre thou as wormword scrubs would have been far better