Let the whining fool defend this

[The PNP]

Returning to the original report of the cyclists and the collision with a pedestrian, the reported circumstances are that it was 7a.m. and probably fairly quiet on the roads, but the the cyclists seem to have been at fault in conducting some kind of informal time trial in an urban area. They should have observed the pedestrian and slowed, even though there was no zebra crossing, because, unlike vehicles, cyclists are not easily seen or heard on approach. It seems that there were no neutral witnesses and not enough evidence for the police to make charges.

In an ideal world, slowing down to pass peds would reduce severity of an impact should it occur. Would also give more time to react, if someone was to step into the road. Which is of course, the main reason why we have so many 20mph zones nowadays. Myself, though I don't slow down to pass peds (either on bike or driving), I do move further out, giving them a couple of metres clear air when there's room to do so.

The report states there was a witness in the form of a jogger, who saw her step out without looking.

However, whatever the facts were, it is shameful, and also belittling to the victim and her family to use this tragic and highly unusual accident to support some general anti-cycling prejudice

Quite agree. Not really on, to use a tragic death like this, as ammo for an anti-bike post.....Try posting that sort of thing, where a motorist has caused death to a vulnerable road-user and it'll surely result in a permanent ban!

[SteveandLois]

IF EVERYONE does what I do regularly,that is to dislike EVERY comment by the PNP,would it not be better for the Admins of the site to BAN the PNP TOTALLY from either commenting,or posting any of his pathetic anti-motorist drivel on here...For example for every 10 dislikes he gets,he then gets a weeks total ban from posting nonesense on here...And it will give the majority of us a rest from replying to his tripe.

[Alikado]

IF EVERYONE does what I do regularly,that is to dislike EVERY comment by the PNP,would it not be better for the Admins of the site to BAN the PNP TOTALLY from either commenting,or posting any of his pathetic anti-motorist drivel on here...For example for every 10 dislikes he gets,he then gets a weeks total ban from posting nonesense on here...And it will give the majority of us a rest from replying to his tripe.

If he were banned it would cost the site a lot of money, it could possibly be the end of it, there is little enough traffic as it is.

[local]

Whatever you think of the dishonest, divisive and delusional PNP thank heavens every day you don't have to live with him.

On here you just click away

[The PNP]

Whatever you think of the dishonest, divisive and delusional PNP thank heavens every day you don't have to live with him.

On here you just click away

None more honest, mate....And unlike yourself, under no 'delusion' about the #Global Warming effect of burning gas, coal and oil on global temperatures.

[donkey22]

IF EVERYONE does what I do regularly,that is to dislike EVERY comment by the PNP,would it not be better for the Admins of the site to BAN the PNP TOTALLY from either commenting,or posting any of his pathetic anti-motorist drivel on here...For example for every 10 dislikes he gets,he then gets a weeks total ban from posting nonesense on here...And it will give the majority of us a rest from replying to his tripe.

So much for freedom of speech!
If you find his comments so offensive, why don’t you just block him?
Within reason people can post and comment on what they like. And so it should be.

[The PNP]

So much for freedom of speech!
If you find his comments so offensive, why don’t you just block him?
Within reason people can post and comment on what they like. And so it should be.

Quite so.....Back when I first began posting, a number on here tried their best to get me off, by constant goading. This, presumably in the hope I'd lose my rag and give them a sufficiently vile mouthful back, that it would result in a ban. But try as they might, I never fell for it!

[carliol]

IF EVERYONE does what I do regularly,that is to dislike EVERY comment by the PNP,would it not be better for the Admins of the site to BAN the PNP TOTALLY from either commenting,or posting any of his pathetic anti-motorist drivel on here...For example for every 10 dislikes he gets,he then gets a weeks total ban from posting nonesense on here...And it will give the majority of us a rest from replying to his tripe.

Ban all opposing views? An interesting although rather draconian procedure, but one which, if extended to all topics, would rather stifle the freedom of debate. Our forums, or fora, would be rather dull without differences of opinion.

Mr. Putin would approve of this system, and has indeed already put it into practice. It is one even now being favoured by some of our own university students, or at least the more vociferous of them, in the 'no platforming' of speakers with opinions which they, the students, disapprove.

[ausard2]

Big difference is that had it been a car . Someone would have been able to claim off the insurance company in most cases. Driver would possibly been do for reckless driving even manslaughter.

[carliol]

I am no expert, but in such cases I would assume that the victim would need to have had personal accident insurance, or it would have to be proved that the driver was negligent and not the pedestrian.

One for the legal people.

[The PNP]

Big difference is that had it been a car . Someone would have been able to claim off the insurance company in most cases. Driver would possibly been do for reckless driving even manslaughter.

Big difference is, those sports-riders are all insured, at the very least for third-party claims. How do I know that? Because they insist a person takes out insurance, before they will allow them to ride with the bunch. Why is that? because a rider can mess-up and bring other members of the group down, quite possibly resulting in injury and/or costly damage to their bike/s.

Btw, just because someone is in a car, it doesn't automatically follow they have any insurance....Churchill Insurance for instance, reckon there are over one million uninsured motorists on UK roads.

[The PNP]

I am no expert, but in such cases I would assume that the victim would need to have had personal accident insurance, or it would have to be proved that the driver was negligent and not the pedestrian.

One for the legal people.

I'm no legal-beagle either. But I suspect a verdict of 'misadventure' could have applied in this case. Because according to the witness (the jogger), the victim stepped into the road without looking.

[Stuartli]

Btw, just because someone is in a car, it doesn't automatically follow they have any insurance....Churchill Insurance for instance, reckon there are over one million uninsured motorists on UK roads.

...and just as many cyclists.....