no wonder you need a heart rate strap with that cat of yours'!!
RANT CORNER
Going back a year, but the justice system agrees with me ... conviction overturned.greenmark wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:21 pmI don't agree. Neuther does the justice system (barring successful appeal). She flailed an arm while swearing. The law doesn't require intent to harm, merely that the victim felt the threat of violence and took evasive action that resulted in harm.Derek27 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 8:44 amTake a look at the video and note how narrow the pavement is. As far as I can see, she didn't lunge, she just got in the way by walking in the centre of the pavement, but pedestrians have the right to walk on the left, right, centre or any other part of the pavement you can name. The video doesn't show the deceased cyclist's approach but it appears she was trying to squeeze through a narrow gap between the pedestrian and the road. Shouldn't it be her responsibility to control her bicycle and perhaps press the brakes?greenmark wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 7:56 am
The lady that got 3 years sadly deserved it because what she did amounted to assault and the consequences were fatal.
Cycling in safety really depends on the width of the road and the patience and alertness of drivers (and cyclists).
Riding on the pavement with pedestrians around requires an abundance of caution and preparedness to stop. The issue with this one was the lunge towards the cyclist regardless of whether she shouldn't have been on the pavement or not. Even if it had been another pedestrian that tried to avoid a percieved threat of violence and fell into the path of the car, regardless of there being no contact from the lunge makes no difference. The legal outcome would have been the same.
She chose to go for the gap instead of stopping. Just imagine the pedestrian walking on without gesturing or swearing. Would she still have got 3 years, or even been found guilty of a crime?
The thing about cycling on the road is that it avoids head-on collisions - the traffic close to you is moving in the same direction. Allowing cyclists on narrow pavements without a one-way system is bound to cause accidents and I suspect her 3-year sentence was induced by the fact that she showed no remorse, didn't stay at the scene of the accident and went shopping at the supermarket. I don't even know what she purchased from the supermarket but if it was beer and cigarettes that would have sealed her fate.
It should be illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavement once they reach the age of 12. People who are shit scared of cycling on the road shouldn't get a bike. FFS, my 10-year-old classmates passed their proficiency test and cycled home from school on the road!
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-03 ... -is-jailed
someone's having a slow day - lolDerek27 wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 3:29 pmGoing back a year, but the justice system agrees with me ... conviction overturned.greenmark wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:21 pmI don't agree. Neuther does the justice system (barring successful appeal). She flailed an arm while swearing. The law doesn't require intent to harm, merely that the victim felt the threat of violence and took evasive action that resulted in harm.Derek27 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 8:44 am
Take a look at the video and note how narrow the pavement is. As far as I can see, she didn't lunge, she just got in the way by walking in the centre of the pavement, but pedestrians have the right to walk on the left, right, centre or any other part of the pavement you can name. The video doesn't show the deceased cyclist's approach but it appears she was trying to squeeze through a narrow gap between the pedestrian and the road. Shouldn't it be her responsibility to control her bicycle and perhaps press the brakes?
She chose to go for the gap instead of stopping. Just imagine the pedestrian walking on without gesturing or swearing. Would she still have got 3 years, or even been found guilty of a crime?
The thing about cycling on the road is that it avoids head-on collisions - the traffic close to you is moving in the same direction. Allowing cyclists on narrow pavements without a one-way system is bound to cause accidents and I suspect her 3-year sentence was induced by the fact that she showed no remorse, didn't stay at the scene of the accident and went shopping at the supermarket. I don't even know what she purchased from the supermarket but if it was beer and cigarettes that would have sealed her fate.
It should be illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavement once they reach the age of 12. People who are shit scared of cycling on the road shouldn't get a bike. FFS, my 10-year-old classmates passed their proficiency test and cycled home from school on the road!
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2023-03 ... -is-jailed
OK Derek, you are right. But I still think she is guilty. Morally, if not legally. She commited a pointless act of aggression that resulted in someone losing their life.
-
Archery1969
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
She and many other cyclists shouldn’t be on the pavement to start with. Don’t know about other counties but it was banned in Surrey by a bylaw.
I would never push a cyclist off the pavement and into the path of a lorry, but I certainly wish they fell into the path themselves.
My understanding is common assault is a lot easier to commit than people think. Spitting, for example. But in this case - moving towards someone while swearing is also common assault. In this case the lady felt threatened and took evasive action but her 77 year old reactions weren't up to the task. Perhaps this was a case of how tricky it is to create thoroughfares for cars, pedestrians, cyclists in a place like London.
I visited Leiden in the Netherlands and I was staggered by the effort put into the cycleways there. Here as a cyclist you need to be super aware. Over there, cyclists have right of way, even have their own traffic lights. We're dumb about this issue. Anyhow, sorry gone off on one there.
If she got poor reactions she shouldn't be on the pavement; she might hit a pedestrian. She should be on the road risking her own life, not other peoples'.greenmark wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 7:23 pmMy understanding is common assault is a lot easier to commit than people think. Spitting, for example. But in this case - moving towards someone while swearing is also common assault. In this case the lady felt threatened and took evasive action but her 77 year old reactions weren't up to the task. Perhaps this was a case of how tricky it is to create thoroughfares for cars, pedestrians, cyclists in a place like London.
I visited Leiden in the Netherlands and I was staggered by the effort put into the cycleways there. Here as a cyclist you need to be super aware. Over there, cyclists have right of way, even have their own traffic lights. We're dumb about this issue. Anyhow, sorry gone off on one there.
Finally got an appointment with the vet. Cat chucked-up all over the place this morning. When a cat has difficulty using the litter tray they think there's something wrong with the litter tray, not them!
So she's been trying to do her business on my sofa and other places. Then she sat on my tray of seedlings and flattened them all.
So she's been trying to do her business on my sofa and other places. Then she sat on my tray of seedlings and flattened them all.
I am getting emails daily about the new improved TAB saying how much I will like it and checkout all the new options.
So I did, my favourite bet is on the First4 past the post and I use what they call a roving banker which means if it finishes 1-3 and my other runners fill the other 3 spots I will get paid. I only do this if there is a jackpot from the previous race (no one struck it) as it is free money sitting there. So i looked for this to no avail, I saw a notification feature that is new and sent a message to them asking where can I find the roving banker, 5 days later they say there in no roving banker, he did say he will check with the development team to see if this can be added.
If they use to do it, and it was a very popular bet, then surely a new improved platform must be offer this now
So I did, my favourite bet is on the First4 past the post and I use what they call a roving banker which means if it finishes 1-3 and my other runners fill the other 3 spots I will get paid. I only do this if there is a jackpot from the previous race (no one struck it) as it is free money sitting there. So i looked for this to no avail, I saw a notification feature that is new and sent a message to them asking where can I find the roving banker, 5 days later they say there in no roving banker, he did say he will check with the development team to see if this can be added.
If they use to do it, and it was a very popular bet, then surely a new improved platform must be offer this now
I've just spoken to a mate who didn't vote in the local elections because he (thought he) didn't have valid photo ID. Yet the disgraced lying buffoon who introduced the legislation and didn't even have the intelligence to realise he had to bring photo ID to the polling station (on top of his failure to understand basic maths and graphs when running the flipping country during the Covid crisis) could simply go home and get the required ID to vote.
What a flipping democracy we live in!
What a flipping democracy we live in!
Sunak: "Imagine a welfare system, where new technologies allow us to crackdown on the fraudsters".
Yes, we can Sunak. It was called Horizon!
In case you didn't know, it was originally designed for what was then called the Benefit Agency, to crack down on benefit and pension fraud. The BA scrapped it in 1995 for unreliability issues, at a cost of £40M to the taxpayer!
Yes, we can Sunak. It was called Horizon!
In case you didn't know, it was originally designed for what was then called the Benefit Agency, to crack down on benefit and pension fraud. The BA scrapped it in 1995 for unreliability issues, at a cost of £40M to the taxpayer!
I say that's bullshit. You are telling porkies to fit within your anti-government stance
What normal person doesn't own a passport or driving licence?