Four years jail...

TOG@Toil said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Sure, but are you prepared to carry out the death sentence on her? Six
of one ...

TOG@Toil said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Are you arguing that she should be killed as well? That seems
excessive to me.

best wishes
james

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:29:22 -0800 (PST), [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

TOG@Toil said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Are you arguing that she should be killed as well? That seems
excessive to me.

But an understandable feeling of revenge under the circumstances.

TOG@Toil said:

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do.  Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

AW said:

TOG@Toil said:

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

Highway code rule 239 says, among other things :

you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for
cyclists or other traffic.

Hence the 100% responsibility.

Pete

AW said:

TOG@Toil said:

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

She looked in the mirror and still didn't see him?
He was going too fast? What speed would that be?
Too close to the parked cars? In a side street? How far away can you
get?
"Bent the door frame". If you hit the door nearer the outer edge, you
probably put quite a bit of leverage on the frame.

Based on my similar experience, as a cyclist.

"AW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

TOG@Toil said:

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

Perfectly correct. "Looked in her mirror" - except apparently not terribly
carefully.
SMIDSY doesn't cut it whether there's an engine on the bike or not.

"Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"AW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

TOG@Toil said:

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

Perfectly correct. "Looked in her mirror" - except apparently not terribly
carefully.
SMIDSY doesn't cut it whether there's an engine on the bike or not.

Quite right - the motorist was 100%at fault. but the cyclist was 100% stupid
for cycling within the "door zone" and putting themselves at risk of a
perfectly predicable accident.

pk

PK said:

"Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"AW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

TOG@Toil said:

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

Perfectly correct. "Looked in her mirror" - except apparently not terribly
carefully.
SMIDSY doesn't cut it whether there's an engine on the bike or not.

Quite right - the motorist was 100%at fault. but the cyclist was 100% stupid
for cycling within the "door zone" and putting themselves at risk of a
perfectly predicable accident.

On some side-streets it is unavoidable. Of course the best course of
action in those cases is slow and with extreme caution.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

"TOG@Toil" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

We had this discussion regarding texting while driving some time ago here; I
am very much against that sort of behaviour (and that incident shows
why-you're ) but I still think the verdict is a harsh. The rider went
through a red light and wasn't even wearing a helmet, that's really tempting
fate, unless you're in a Range Rover (where you tempt other people's fates).
Fair enough, she is responsible for the death of a person, but the way the
incident is presented, the accident happened mainly because of his rather
than her stupidity. It'd be a different story if she were speeding at the
same time.

I still think that texting while driving is wrong and worthy of punishment.

Geo

Quoted message said:

"TOG@Toil" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

<snip own reply>

Bad form and all that...

I should have read the entire item before stating my opinion, but I had
already read it somewhere else and there was no mention of speeding there. I
still think the rider had it coming, but under these circumstnances I don't
find the sentence absurd.

Geo

"Geo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"TOG@Toil" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

<snip own reply>

Bad form and all that...

I should have read the entire item before stating my opinion, but I had
already read it somewhere else and there was no mention of speeding there.
I still think the rider had it coming, but under these circumstnances I
don't find the sentence absurd.

If you can find me a helmet that works when you're hit by a car doing 45 I'd
be very grateful...

Andy Leighton said:

On some side-streets it is unavoidable. Of course the best course of
action in those cases is slow and with extreme caution.

As always, your speed should allow you to stop in the distance you can
see to be clear. In the door-zone, this means the number of cars ahead
with empty road-side seats.

Geo said:

"TOG@Toil" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

We had this discussion regarding texting while driving some time ago here; I
am very much against that sort of behaviour (and that incident shows
why-you're ) but I still think the verdict is a harsh. The rider went
through a red light and wasn't even wearing a helmet, that's really tempting
fate, unless you're in a Range Rover (where you tempt other people's fates).
Fair enough, she is responsible for the death of a person, but the way the
incident is presented, the accident happened mainly because of his rather
than her stupidity. It'd be a different story if she were speeding at the
same time.

I still think that texting while driving is wrong and worthy of punishment.

She was speeding, from the article "The 25-year-old from Hythe, Hampshire,
was driving at 45mph in a 30mph zone." I too don't like the tone in which
the item is presented but for entirely the opposite reasons you give, the
cyclist going through a red light part could very well have been arriving
at a light as it was changing, cyclists take longer to build up speed,
to clear junctions and can often get caught in dangerous situations due to
the timing of lights. As well as motorbikes, I ride bicycles and I am
never more aware of my vulnerability in traffic than on a pushbike, enough
to dissuade me from riding due to pushy aggressive moronic car drivers.

His stupidity (if any) pales into insignificance compared with hers.

Budstaff said:

If you can find me a helmet that works when you're hit by a car doing 45 I'd
be very grateful...

http://www.bobkestrut.com/images/bibendum3.jpg

--
Eiron.

Pete Fisher said:

Neither expected the unexpected. "Through a red light", is a bit lacking
in detail no? Cyclists seem to routinely do it round here when turning
left at lights.

They routinely do it in London when going straight on.

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

AW said:

TOG@Toil said:

I can understand what she did was daft, but then the cyclist went
through a red light, as so many seem wont to do. Six of one and half
a dozen of the other, surely?

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

I think they were correct, actually.

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

Geo said:

I still think that texting while driving is wrong and worthy of punishment.

Agreed.

Paging Mike Horton!

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

gbzzl said:

I too don't like the tone in which
the item is presented but for entirely the opposite reasons you give, the
cyclist going through a red light part could very well have been arriving
at a light as it was changing

Had that been the case, you can be sure it would have been presented in
court.

Quoted message said:

His stupidity (if any) pales into insignificance compared with hers.

Oh yes.

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com