Cyclist's death 'was the fault of all cyclists'

Cyclist's death 'was the fault of all cyclists'

Cyclist's death 'was the fault of all cyclists'

First published in Readers' Letters
Last updated

ANOTHER cyclist riding irresponsibly, another driver found not guilty and persecuted by the police and the CPS.

When are motorists going to get a fair deal and be listened to? When are cyclists going to learn that riding a bike is not something any sane or professional person does? It is not Call the Midwife in 2014!

To those cyclists that complain ‘It’s our right!’: So what?

Someone has died because you all fail to follow the rules, as cyclists do every day. Even if you did, so what? No driver wants to hit you, so stop this happening: give up.

We, the motorists, have won, the roads are ours now. It doesn’t matter who campaigned for what, it doesn’t matter that it’s healthy; the motorist outnumbers you 35:1. We weigh 2000kg, you weigh 70kg.

For your own safety leave the bike at home, get in the car like any rational person would. You’ve lost the fight for your right on the road and a legal precedent has been established.

ALEX OLIVER RIGBY, Southampton.

Editor's note: Steven Petterson was last week found not guilty of causing death by careless driving in relation to the fatal collision he was involved in with cyclist David Irving in Southampton.

However, there was nothing offered in evidence during the trial to suggest that Mr Irving was in any way responsible or to blame for the collision, which took his life in December 2012.

Comments (140)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:35pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Oh duckit, now we have a motorist living on the same stupid planet as some of the cyclists that post on this site.
Oh duckit, now we have a motorist living on the same stupid planet as some of the cyclists that post on this site. Inform Al
  • Score: -79

9:11pm Fri 7 Feb 14

geoff51 says...

This letter sums it all up, there is no place for militant cyclists on todays roads, they are far to dangerous for unprotected human bodies on cycles.
they contribute nothing and demand everything and in the scheme of things and are their own worst enemies.
This letter sums it all up, there is no place for militant cyclists on todays roads, they are far to dangerous for unprotected human bodies on cycles. they contribute nothing and demand everything and in the scheme of things and are their own worst enemies. geoff51
  • Score: -260

9:15pm Fri 7 Feb 14

hmw says...

Very poor trolling effort Mr Rigby
Very poor trolling effort Mr Rigby hmw
  • Score: 117

9:16pm Fri 7 Feb 14

hmw says...

Geoff, i take it the '51' refers to your IQ
Geoff, i take it the '51' refers to your IQ hmw
  • Score: 162

10:11pm Fri 7 Feb 14

geoff51 says...

hmw wrote:
Geoff, i take it the '51' refers to your IQ
no actually it my age idiot!
[quote][p][bold]hmw[/bold] wrote: Geoff, i take it the '51' refers to your IQ[/p][/quote]no actually it my age idiot! geoff51
  • Score: -166

8:55am Sat 8 Feb 14

hmw says...

geoff51 wrote:
hmw wrote:
Geoff, i take it the '51' refers to your IQ
no actually it my age idiot!
So you have to re-register every year? That's pretty dumb.

Think I'll register geoff52 and geoff5 myself, silence you for a couple of years
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hmw[/bold] wrote: Geoff, i take it the '51' refers to your IQ[/p][/quote]no actually it my age idiot![/p][/quote]So you have to re-register every year? That's pretty dumb. Think I'll register geoff52 and geoff5 myself, silence you for a couple of years hmw
  • Score: 158

10:55am Sat 8 Feb 14

bigfella777 says...

Yes the cars have won, the same cars that cause multi vehicle pile ups day after day because they are so ultimately safe, I suppose pedestrians that are killed crossing the roads should give up as well and we should all sit in cars and never get out.
When one of your relatives is killed or seriously injured in any form of accident involving a motor vehicle I hope you have this same sort of couldn't give a **** attitude then .
The cyclist in question had children who will grow up without their father the least he deserved was a proper investigation or do you think he should have just been shoveled off the road so as not to inconvenience car drivers ?
Yes the cars have won, the same cars that cause multi vehicle pile ups day after day because they are so ultimately safe, I suppose pedestrians that are killed crossing the roads should give up as well and we should all sit in cars and never get out. When one of your relatives is killed or seriously injured in any form of accident involving a motor vehicle I hope you have this same sort of couldn't give a **** attitude then . The cyclist in question had children who will grow up without their father the least he deserved was a proper investigation or do you think he should have just been shoveled off the road so as not to inconvenience car drivers ? bigfella777
  • Score: 234

1:19pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Mr Rigby, you are a complete and utterly stupid tool.
Mr Rigby, you are a complete and utterly stupid tool. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 177

4:35pm Sat 8 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

I can't explain how I feel about this letter without using swear words.

Alex Oliver Rugby, I hope we meet one day. My 83kg will do some serious damage to you. You utter Pollock.
I can't explain how I feel about this letter without using swear words. Alex Oliver Rugby, I hope we meet one day. My 83kg will do some serious damage to you. You utter Pollock. camerajuan
  • Score: 133

6:30pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
I can't explain how I feel about this letter without using swear words.

Alex Oliver Rugby, I hope we meet one day. My 83kg will do some serious damage to you. You utter Pollock.
You're on the same far off planet, so the chanbces are you will meet. I take it the 83kg refers to the bricks you have between your ears.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I can't explain how I feel about this letter without using swear words. Alex Oliver Rugby, I hope we meet one day. My 83kg will do some serious damage to you. You utter Pollock.[/p][/quote]You're on the same far off planet, so the chanbces are you will meet. I take it the 83kg refers to the bricks you have between your ears. Inform Al
  • Score: -113

6:32pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Drhysted says...

Note to editor.

You say you're pro cycling, and yet you print this, this, well printable words really fail me here.

Trolling above and beyond the normal high standard expressed in the Echo.
Note to editor. You say you're pro cycling, and yet you print this, this, well printable words really fail me here. Trolling above and beyond the normal high standard expressed in the Echo. Drhysted
  • Score: 116

7:54pm Sat 8 Feb 14

geoff51 says...

hmw wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
hmw wrote:
Geoff, i take it the '51' refers to your IQ
no actually it my age idiot!
So you have to re-register every year? That's pretty dumb.

Think I'll register geoff52 and geoff5 myself, silence you for a couple of years
That shows how stupid you really are!
[quote][p][bold]hmw[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hmw[/bold] wrote: Geoff, i take it the '51' refers to your IQ[/p][/quote]no actually it my age idiot![/p][/quote]So you have to re-register every year? That's pretty dumb. Think I'll register geoff52 and geoff5 myself, silence you for a couple of years[/p][/quote]That shows how stupid you really are! geoff51
  • Score: -105

9:04am Sun 9 Feb 14

bigfella777 says...

And the pile up on the M271 yesterday was the fault of all motorists
And the pile up on the M271 yesterday was the fault of all motorists bigfella777
  • Score: 110

9:23am Sun 9 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I can't explain how I feel about this letter without using swear words.

Alex Oliver Rugby, I hope we meet one day. My 83kg will do some serious damage to you. You utter Pollock.
You're on the same far off planet, so the chanbces are you will meet. I take it the 83kg refers to the bricks you have between your ears.
How about you sod off, get a hobby and quit your whining?
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I can't explain how I feel about this letter without using swear words. Alex Oliver Rugby, I hope we meet one day. My 83kg will do some serious damage to you. You utter Pollock.[/p][/quote]You're on the same far off planet, so the chanbces are you will meet. I take it the 83kg refers to the bricks you have between your ears.[/p][/quote]How about you sod off, get a hobby and quit your whining? camerajuan
  • Score: -22

10:59am Sun 9 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
I can't explain how I feel about this letter without using swear words.

Alex Oliver Rugby, I hope we meet one day. My 83kg will do some serious damage to you. You utter Pollock.
You're on the same far off planet, so the chanbces are you will meet. I take it the 83kg refers to the bricks you have between your ears.
How about you sod off, get a hobby and quit your whining?
Thrown your toys out of the pram again?
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: I can't explain how I feel about this letter without using swear words. Alex Oliver Rugby, I hope we meet one day. My 83kg will do some serious damage to you. You utter Pollock.[/p][/quote]You're on the same far off planet, so the chanbces are you will meet. I take it the 83kg refers to the bricks you have between your ears.[/p][/quote]How about you sod off, get a hobby and quit your whining?[/p][/quote]Thrown your toys out of the pram again? Inform Al
  • Score: -32

4:14pm Sun 9 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed?

You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.
Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed? You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with. camerajuan
  • Score: 68

4:51pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed?

You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.
You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed? You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.[/p][/quote]You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you. Inform Al
  • Score: -49

6:52pm Sun 9 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed?

You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.
You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.
In this case! One post from dozens I've seen! Well done you're so in sync with cyclists!

I am a sensible one - lights, hand signals, good Brakes and no weaving. Like you care or ever have. One post does not make you a supporter, everyone knows what you're like.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed? You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.[/p][/quote]You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.[/p][/quote]In this case! One post from dozens I've seen! Well done you're so in sync with cyclists! I am a sensible one - lights, hand signals, good Brakes and no weaving. Like you care or ever have. One post does not make you a supporter, everyone knows what you're like. camerajuan
  • Score: 27

7:52pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed?

You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.
You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.
In this case! One post from dozens I've seen! Well done you're so in sync with cyclists!

I am a sensible one - lights, hand signals, good Brakes and no weaving. Like you care or ever have. One post does not make you a supporter, everyone knows what you're like.
You may be sensible on a bike, but on a keyboard you are insane
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed? You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.[/p][/quote]You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.[/p][/quote]In this case! One post from dozens I've seen! Well done you're so in sync with cyclists! I am a sensible one - lights, hand signals, good Brakes and no weaving. Like you care or ever have. One post does not make you a supporter, everyone knows what you're like.[/p][/quote]You may be sensible on a bike, but on a keyboard you are insane Inform Al
  • Score: -34

9:20pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument Mary80
  • Score: 62

9:33pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 109

10:12pm Sun 9 Feb 14

geoff51 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up. geoff51
  • Score: -141

10:13pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Get lost Geoffry, you're just bad as the writer of this letter.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Get lost Geoffry, you're just bad as the writer of this letter. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 60

11:26pm Sun 9 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed?

You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.
You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.
In this case! One post from dozens I've seen! Well done you're so in sync with cyclists!

I am a sensible one - lights, hand signals, good Brakes and no weaving. Like you care or ever have. One post does not make you a supporter, everyone knows what you're like.
You may be sensible on a bike, but on a keyboard you are insane
Of course you talk sense all the time don't you?!?!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed? You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.[/p][/quote]You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.[/p][/quote]In this case! One post from dozens I've seen! Well done you're so in sync with cyclists! I am a sensible one - lights, hand signals, good Brakes and no weaving. Like you care or ever have. One post does not make you a supporter, everyone knows what you're like.[/p][/quote]You may be sensible on a bike, but on a keyboard you are insane[/p][/quote]Of course you talk sense all the time don't you?!?! camerajuan
  • Score: 6

11:30pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 67

12:22am Mon 10 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed?

You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.
You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.
In this case! One post from dozens I've seen! Well done you're so in sync with cyclists!

I am a sensible one - lights, hand signals, good Brakes and no weaving. Like you care or ever have. One post does not make you a supporter, everyone knows what you're like.
You may be sensible on a bike, but on a keyboard you are insane
Of course you talk sense all the time don't you?!?!
Yes, not answering any more of your ridiculous comments as I have a policy of not arguing with fools.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Nothing you ever say has any substance, ever. All you are out to do is claim cyclists are the problem while backing it up with absolute sweet FA. Myself and a few others on here bring fact based opinion and get ridiculed? You're a joke and a waste of space. The less you say on these matters the better. For everyone. Except maybe you and Geoff51, who I suspect you may be sleeping with.[/p][/quote]You are such a pr4t and unable to comprehend that my first post was in this case supporting cyclists, however that was the sensible ones, not numpties like you.[/p][/quote]In this case! One post from dozens I've seen! Well done you're so in sync with cyclists! I am a sensible one - lights, hand signals, good Brakes and no weaving. Like you care or ever have. One post does not make you a supporter, everyone knows what you're like.[/p][/quote]You may be sensible on a bike, but on a keyboard you are insane[/p][/quote]Of course you talk sense all the time don't you?!?![/p][/quote]Yes, not answering any more of your ridiculous comments as I have a policy of not arguing with fools. Inform Al
  • Score: -25

12:25am Mon 10 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood. Inform Al
  • Score: -38

12:32am Mon 10 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
It's the same with anything though, some are luckier than others, farm work is one of the most dangerous land based jobs you can do but not eveybody ies or gets injured doing it and I've already explained before as to why cyclist might prefer riding illegally on the pavement in portswood, the cycle lanes are rubbish, lot's of large vehicles stopping everywhere, people not anticipating tha cyclists will have to move ou to get past said vehicles, car doors opening into the cycle lanes, rubbish road surface, dangerous drivers and a number of other reasons.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]It's the same with anything though, some are luckier than others, farm work is one of the most dangerous land based jobs you can do but not eveybody ies or gets injured doing it and I've already explained before as to why cyclist might prefer riding illegally on the pavement in portswood, the cycle lanes are rubbish, lot's of large vehicles stopping everywhere, people not anticipating tha cyclists will have to move ou to get past said vehicles, car doors opening into the cycle lanes, rubbish road surface, dangerous drivers and a number of other reasons. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 30

9:31am Mon 10 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you. camerajuan
  • Score: 18

1:55pm Mon 10 Feb 14

From the sidelines says...

Truly shameful that the Echo publishes this letter.
Truly shameful that the Echo publishes this letter. From the sidelines
  • Score: 43

2:04pm Mon 10 Feb 14

From the sidelines says...

I would recommend a read of: http://beyondthekerb
.wordpress.com/2013/
10/11/the-most-basic
-respect/
I would recommend a read of: http://beyondthekerb .wordpress.com/2013/ 10/11/the-most-basic -respect/ From the sidelines
  • Score: 15

2:05pm Mon 10 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Its not a coincidence that this letter has received more negativity than agreement.

There's more sensible people on here than idiots.
Its not a coincidence that this letter has received more negativity than agreement. There's more sensible people on here than idiots. camerajuan
  • Score: 32

2:08pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Paul_M says...

I get the sense, after another letter published last week, that the Echo is beginning to enjoy this. You can tell from their footnote that they don't think much of Mr Rigby's argument, but they publish his letter anyway, presumably to show that in cases such as Mr Rigby, to make them look like complete and utter t*ssers all you have to do is let them open their mouths.
I get the sense, after another letter published last week, that the Echo is beginning to enjoy this. You can tell from their footnote that they don't think much of Mr Rigby's argument, but they publish his letter anyway, presumably to show that in cases such as Mr Rigby, to make them look like complete and utter t*ssers all you have to do is let them open their mouths. Paul_M
  • Score: 43

2:15pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Adrian Smith* says...

I think Paul_M is spot on in his assessment.

The letter may be a deeply unpleasant thing, but the Echo is right to publish it. These views exist and must be combated - you don't do that by pretending they don't exist.

If you want free speech, you have to be prepared to be offended.

As Paul says above, I think the Echo is just giving these people enough rope to hang themselves with.
I think Paul_M is spot on in his assessment. The letter may be a deeply unpleasant thing, but the Echo is right to publish it. These views exist and must be combated - you don't do that by pretending they don't exist. If you want free speech, you have to be prepared to be offended. As Paul says above, I think the Echo is just giving these people enough rope to hang themselves with. Adrian Smith*
  • Score: 28

2:17pm Mon 10 Feb 14

ChopStick says...

Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself.
Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...
Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye... ChopStick
  • Score: -90

2:28pm Mon 10 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

ChopStick wrote:
Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself.
Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...
Did you design these modern roads and put the rule in place that they are specifically to be used by motor vehicles only?

Didn't think so. Cyclists have as much right as motorists to use roads and cause less deaths/accidents/inj
uries every year without fail. If you enjoy those statistics then you need help.
[quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...[/p][/quote]Did you design these modern roads and put the rule in place that they are specifically to be used by motor vehicles only? Didn't think so. Cyclists have as much right as motorists to use roads and cause less deaths/accidents/inj uries every year without fail. If you enjoy those statistics then you need help. camerajuan
  • Score: 40

2:32pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike. Inform Al
  • Score: -30

2:37pm Mon 10 Feb 14

From the sidelines says...

ChopStick wrote:
Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself.
Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...
You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.
[quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...[/p][/quote]You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong. From the sidelines
  • Score: 42

2:44pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
It's the same with anything though, some are luckier than others, farm work is one of the most dangerous land based jobs you can do but not eveybody ies or gets injured doing it and I've already explained before as to why cyclist might prefer riding illegally on the pavement in portswood, the cycle lanes are rubbish, lot's of large vehicles stopping everywhere, people not anticipating tha cyclists will have to move ou to get past said vehicles, car doors opening into the cycle lanes, rubbish road surface, dangerous drivers and a number of other reasons.
As nearly all of us are pedestriams it follows that there will be more accidents involving pedestrians than cyclists, there's only 1 cyclist in my block of 120 flats. The fact that cycling on the road may be more hazardous than riding on the pavement is not an acceptable reason for putting elderly and very young pedestrians at risk.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]It's the same with anything though, some are luckier than others, farm work is one of the most dangerous land based jobs you can do but not eveybody ies or gets injured doing it and I've already explained before as to why cyclist might prefer riding illegally on the pavement in portswood, the cycle lanes are rubbish, lot's of large vehicles stopping everywhere, people not anticipating tha cyclists will have to move ou to get past said vehicles, car doors opening into the cycle lanes, rubbish road surface, dangerous drivers and a number of other reasons.[/p][/quote]As nearly all of us are pedestriams it follows that there will be more accidents involving pedestrians than cyclists, there's only 1 cyclist in my block of 120 flats. The fact that cycling on the road may be more hazardous than riding on the pavement is not an acceptable reason for putting elderly and very young pedestrians at risk. Inform Al
  • Score: -7

2:52pm Mon 10 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945! camerajuan
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Mon 10 Feb 14

gazza_d says...

That is a extremely ill informed and actually offensive letter.

Shame on the Daily Echo editors for printing such material.
That is a extremely ill informed and actually offensive letter. Shame on the Daily Echo editors for printing such material. gazza_d
  • Score: 22

8:25pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the on the road.


On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars..

As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars.

The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes.




,,
Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the on the road. On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars.. As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars. The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 8

8:26pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road.


On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars..

As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars.

The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes.





,,
Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road. On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars.. As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars. The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

10:45pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days. Inform Al
  • Score: -2

12:52am Tue 11 Feb 14

tobiasfunke says...

Where is your evidence for the 'cyclist riding irresponsibly?'

Apparently you have the right to dismiss law abiding cyclists by saying 'so what?' - way to kill your own argument, Alex.

You talk as if this is a victory for motorists, and ignore the fact that nobody has won out of this situation - not motorists, not cyclists.

Perhaps you see the world as being full of kamikaze cyclists just relishing the opportunity to be martyred for the cycling cause.

More importantly, maybe you should realise that cyclists will always be on our roads whether you like it or not - and these kind of accidents will happen. It may be the cyclists fault, it may be the drivers fault - both have the right to use the roads, and neither is superior over the other.

So when you can comprehend that, perhaps try going for a bike ride it might cheer you up, Alex

As for me I will keep riding my bike - like any rational person would do.

Cheers
Where is your evidence for the 'cyclist riding irresponsibly?' Apparently you have the right to dismiss law abiding cyclists by saying 'so what?' - way to kill your own argument, Alex. You talk as if this is a victory for motorists, and ignore the fact that nobody has won out of this situation - not motorists, not cyclists. Perhaps you see the world as being full of kamikaze cyclists just relishing the opportunity to be martyred for the cycling cause. More importantly, maybe you should realise that cyclists will always be on our roads whether you like it or not - and these kind of accidents will happen. It may be the cyclists fault, it may be the drivers fault - both have the right to use the roads, and neither is superior over the other. So when you can comprehend that, perhaps try going for a bike ride it might cheer you up, Alex As for me I will keep riding my bike - like any rational person would do. Cheers tobiasfunke
  • Score: 22

7:55am Tue 11 Feb 14

Hieronymus says...

It's difficult to put into words how offensive and ill informed this letter and the how ignorant and odious some of comments above are, for example those made by Geoff51. However, dealing with the various points.

"ANOTHER cyclist riding irresponsibly, another driver found not guilty and persecuted by the police and the CPS". The Police and CPS were simply doing their job and it was up to the Court to decide whether the van driver was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to suggest the cyclist was riding irresponsibly.

"When are motorists going to get a fair deal and be listened to? When are cyclists going to learn that riding a bike is not something any sane or professional person does?" The vast majority of research and statistics point to cycling being a very safe activity. I know this surprises many but the evidence can be found fairly easily and anyone wanting to sound off about the dangers of cycling should do a bit of homework first. In 2012 UK cycling deaths were roughly 1 per 40 million miles cycled (from Dept of Transport Statistics). Try http://cyclehelmets.
org/1026.html as a starting point.

"To those cyclists that complain ‘It’s our right!’: So what?" And the point of this statement is?

"Someone has died because you all fail to follow the rules, as cyclists do every day. Even if you did, so what? No driver wants to hit you, so stop this happening: give up". And the evidence for this sweeping assertion is? The reality, as shown by a 2011 Transport for London study, is that mistakes made by motorists are most likely to be the cause. This report can easily be found on the net.

"We, the motorists, have won, the roads are ours now. It doesn’t matter who campaigned for what, it doesn’t matter that it’s healthy; the motorist outnumbers you 35:1. We weigh 2000kg, you weigh 70kg". Cyclist are slightly more likely to own cars than non cyclists but what is the point being made here? I repeat, cycling is low risk. Motorcycles are at considerable risk of being hit by cars and outnumbered by cars. Should they 'give up' as well?

"For your own safety leave the bike at home, get in the car like any rational person would. You’ve lost the fight for your right on the road and a legal precedent has been established". What legal precedent? The court only found there was not enough evidence to convict the motorist. What happened in reality is entirely speculative.
It's difficult to put into words how offensive and ill informed this letter and the how ignorant and odious some of comments above are, for example those made by Geoff51. However, dealing with the various points. "ANOTHER cyclist riding irresponsibly, another driver found not guilty and persecuted by the police and the CPS". The Police and CPS were simply doing their job and it was up to the Court to decide whether the van driver was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to suggest the cyclist was riding irresponsibly. "When are motorists going to get a fair deal and be listened to? When are cyclists going to learn that riding a bike is not something any sane or professional person does?" The vast majority of research and statistics point to cycling being a very safe activity. I know this surprises many but the evidence can be found fairly easily and anyone wanting to sound off about the dangers of cycling should do a bit of homework first. In 2012 UK cycling deaths were roughly 1 per 40 million miles cycled (from Dept of Transport Statistics). Try http://cyclehelmets. org/1026.html as a starting point. "To those cyclists that complain ‘It’s our right!’: So what?" And the point of this statement is? "Someone has died because you all fail to follow the rules, as cyclists do every day. Even if you did, so what? No driver wants to hit you, so stop this happening: give up". And the evidence for this sweeping assertion is? The reality, as shown by a 2011 Transport for London study, is that mistakes made by motorists are most likely to be the cause. This report can easily be found on the net. "We, the motorists, have won, the roads are ours now. It doesn’t matter who campaigned for what, it doesn’t matter that it’s healthy; the motorist outnumbers you 35:1. We weigh 2000kg, you weigh 70kg". Cyclist are slightly more likely to own cars than non cyclists but what is the point being made here? I repeat, cycling is low risk. Motorcycles are at considerable risk of being hit by cars and outnumbered by cars. Should they 'give up' as well? "For your own safety leave the bike at home, get in the car like any rational person would. You’ve lost the fight for your right on the road and a legal precedent has been established". What legal precedent? The court only found there was not enough evidence to convict the motorist. What happened in reality is entirely speculative. Hieronymus
  • Score: 17

8:47am Tue 11 Feb 14

Hieronymus says...

I wonder what it is, in reality, that gets the anti cycling brigade so frequently frothing at the mouth?

Certainly, there is bad cycling behaviour, such as jumping red lights and cycling on the pavement. But equally deplorable, there's plenty of bad driving behaviour such as the use of mobiles and excessive speed (which are of course more likely to cause serious accidents due to the weight of the vehicle) . Somehow, bad driving behaviour does not seem to come in for the same sort of slating. For example, in spite of what's often said about the dangers posed by cycling on pavements, pedestrians are about 100 times more likely to be killed by a car mounting the pavement ( 2 pedestrian deaths caused by cyclist on pavements v nearly 200 deaths caused by cars mounting pavements - 2008 to 2012).

I suspect the explanation for many of the rabid and ill informed comments lies in a mixture of ignorance and resentment. Ignorance of the facts concerning road transport statistics, and resentment that those that prefer to cycle to work or the shops often get there faster, with less frustration, and at less cost. Today I'll drive to work as I don't fancy braving the wind and rain but I hope for better weather soon so I can avoid the frustrations of driving and enjoy a bit of moderate exercise to start the day.
I wonder what it is, in reality, that gets the anti cycling brigade so frequently frothing at the mouth? Certainly, there is bad cycling behaviour, such as jumping red lights and cycling on the pavement. But equally deplorable, there's plenty of bad driving behaviour such as the use of mobiles and excessive speed (which are of course more likely to cause serious accidents due to the weight of the vehicle) . Somehow, bad driving behaviour does not seem to come in for the same sort of slating. For example, in spite of what's often said about the dangers posed by cycling on pavements, pedestrians are about 100 times more likely to be killed by a car mounting the pavement ( 2 pedestrian deaths caused by cyclist on pavements v nearly 200 deaths caused by cars mounting pavements - 2008 to 2012). I suspect the explanation for many of the rabid and ill informed comments lies in a mixture of ignorance and resentment. Ignorance of the facts concerning road transport statistics, and resentment that those that prefer to cycle to work or the shops often get there faster, with less frustration, and at less cost. Today I'll drive to work as I don't fancy braving the wind and rain but I hope for better weather soon so I can avoid the frustrations of driving and enjoy a bit of moderate exercise to start the day. Hieronymus
  • Score: 30

8:47am Tue 11 Feb 14

imspacedout says...

WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS? I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS RIDICULOUS ONLINE BATTLE OF CYCLISTS VS CARS - WE ARE ALL ALLOWED TO CHOOSE WHATEVER FORM OF TRANSPORT WE WANT SO GET OVER IT. ALSO, YOU MAKE OUT AS IF CAR DRIVERS ARE ALL IN SOME KIND OF GANG AND YOU ARE THE LEADER BUT, MATE. MOST OF THEM PROBABLY DO NOT LIKE YOU. MAYBE SOME CYCLISTS WOULD GET ALONG WITH YOU MORE. THIS IS PATHETIC.
WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS? I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS RIDICULOUS ONLINE BATTLE OF CYCLISTS VS CARS - WE ARE ALL ALLOWED TO CHOOSE WHATEVER FORM OF TRANSPORT WE WANT SO GET OVER IT. ALSO, YOU MAKE OUT AS IF CAR DRIVERS ARE ALL IN SOME KIND OF GANG AND YOU ARE THE LEADER BUT, MATE. MOST OF THEM PROBABLY DO NOT LIKE YOU. MAYBE SOME CYCLISTS WOULD GET ALONG WITH YOU MORE. THIS IS PATHETIC. imspacedout
  • Score: 8

9:09am Tue 11 Feb 14

ChopStick says...

From the sidelines wrote:
ChopStick wrote:
Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself.
Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...
You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.
Most roads have no cycling infrastructure whatsoever. The ones than do have a bit of blue paint in the gutter or a dangerous ASZ. Tell me how I'm wrong when I say roads and their layout are NOT designed with motor vehicles in mind. I didn't say cyclists weren't allowed on them..
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...[/p][/quote]You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.[/p][/quote]Most roads have no cycling infrastructure whatsoever. The ones than do have a bit of blue paint in the gutter or a dangerous ASZ. Tell me how I'm wrong when I say roads and their layout are NOT designed with motor vehicles in mind. I didn't say cyclists weren't allowed on them.. ChopStick
  • Score: -4

9:10am Tue 11 Feb 14

ChopStick says...

ChopStick wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
ChopStick wrote:
Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself.
Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...
You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.
Most roads have no cycling infrastructure whatsoever. The ones than do have a bit of blue paint in the gutter or a dangerous ASZ. Tell me how I'm wrong when I say roads and their layout are NOT designed with motor vehicles in mind. I didn't say cyclists weren't allowed on them..
ARE
[quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...[/p][/quote]You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.[/p][/quote]Most roads have no cycling infrastructure whatsoever. The ones than do have a bit of blue paint in the gutter or a dangerous ASZ. Tell me how I'm wrong when I say roads and their layout are NOT designed with motor vehicles in mind. I didn't say cyclists weren't allowed on them..[/p][/quote]ARE ChopStick
  • Score: -2

9:45am Tue 11 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Hieronymus wrote:
I wonder what it is, in reality, that gets the anti cycling brigade so frequently frothing at the mouth?

Certainly, there is bad cycling behaviour, such as jumping red lights and cycling on the pavement. But equally deplorable, there's plenty of bad driving behaviour such as the use of mobiles and excessive speed (which are of course more likely to cause serious accidents due to the weight of the vehicle) . Somehow, bad driving behaviour does not seem to come in for the same sort of slating. For example, in spite of what's often said about the dangers posed by cycling on pavements, pedestrians are about 100 times more likely to be killed by a car mounting the pavement ( 2 pedestrian deaths caused by cyclist on pavements v nearly 200 deaths caused by cars mounting pavements - 2008 to 2012).

I suspect the explanation for many of the rabid and ill informed comments lies in a mixture of ignorance and resentment. Ignorance of the facts concerning road transport statistics, and resentment that those that prefer to cycle to work or the shops often get there faster, with less frustration, and at less cost. Today I'll drive to work as I don't fancy braving the wind and rain but I hope for better weather soon so I can avoid the frustrations of driving and enjoy a bit of moderate exercise to start the day.
Every anti-cyclist out there - this is why you are wrong when you say Cyclists are the danger.
[quote][p][bold]Hieronymus[/bold] wrote: I wonder what it is, in reality, that gets the anti cycling brigade so frequently frothing at the mouth? Certainly, there is bad cycling behaviour, such as jumping red lights and cycling on the pavement. But equally deplorable, there's plenty of bad driving behaviour such as the use of mobiles and excessive speed (which are of course more likely to cause serious accidents due to the weight of the vehicle) . Somehow, bad driving behaviour does not seem to come in for the same sort of slating. For example, in spite of what's often said about the dangers posed by cycling on pavements, pedestrians are about 100 times more likely to be killed by a car mounting the pavement ( 2 pedestrian deaths caused by cyclist on pavements v nearly 200 deaths caused by cars mounting pavements - 2008 to 2012). I suspect the explanation for many of the rabid and ill informed comments lies in a mixture of ignorance and resentment. Ignorance of the facts concerning road transport statistics, and resentment that those that prefer to cycle to work or the shops often get there faster, with less frustration, and at less cost. Today I'll drive to work as I don't fancy braving the wind and rain but I hope for better weather soon so I can avoid the frustrations of driving and enjoy a bit of moderate exercise to start the day.[/p][/quote]Every anti-cyclist out there - this is why you are wrong when you say Cyclists are the danger. camerajuan
  • Score: 12

10:02am Tue 11 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?! camerajuan
  • Score: 5

10:13am Tue 11 Feb 14

From the sidelines says...

ChopStick wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
ChopStick wrote:
Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself.
Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...
You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.
Most roads have no cycling infrastructure whatsoever. The ones than do have a bit of blue paint in the gutter or a dangerous ASZ. Tell me how I'm wrong when I say roads and their layout are NOT designed with motor vehicles in mind. I didn't say cyclists weren't allowed on them..
Roads ARE cycling infrastructure. Much as you may want to deny it.
[quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...[/p][/quote]You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.[/p][/quote]Most roads have no cycling infrastructure whatsoever. The ones than do have a bit of blue paint in the gutter or a dangerous ASZ. Tell me how I'm wrong when I say roads and their layout are NOT designed with motor vehicles in mind. I didn't say cyclists weren't allowed on them..[/p][/quote]Roads ARE cycling infrastructure. Much as you may want to deny it. From the sidelines
  • Score: 18

11:40am Tue 11 Feb 14

@skippydetour says...

Visit & " LIKE "
https://www.facebook
.com/pages/Vision-ZE
RO-Worldwide/5401236
32761709

ONE more Life LOST ! Whether because one , OR , the other was RESPONSIBLE !

Roads they used , were provided by THEIR Community , of which they were MEMBERS !

GET over the CAUSE of Traffic Incidents and WORK together ! YOU go to the same place by various means , Foot , Bike or Motorised transport ! There is ENOUGH space for ALL , yet there are those that behave like the "Class Bully " , egged on by those around them !

Driver Permits/Licences are hard work to obtain and only available to THOSE thought to be ADULT enough to OBEY the Highway Code ! WHY do some think that Bullying the Vulnerable Road User in 2014 , is ACCEPTABLE ?
Visit & " LIKE " https://www.facebook .com/pages/Vision-ZE RO-Worldwide/5401236 32761709 ONE more Life LOST ! Whether because one , OR , the other was RESPONSIBLE ! Roads they used , were provided by THEIR Community , of which they were MEMBERS ! GET over the CAUSE of Traffic Incidents and WORK together ! YOU go to the same place by various means , Foot , Bike or Motorised transport ! There is ENOUGH space for ALL , yet there are those that behave like the "Class Bully " , egged on by those around them ! Driver Permits/Licences are hard work to obtain and only available to THOSE thought to be ADULT enough to OBEY the Highway Code ! WHY do some think that Bullying the Vulnerable Road User in 2014 , is ACCEPTABLE ? @skippydetour
  • Score: 5

11:50am Tue 11 Feb 14

STEAKnKIDNEY says...

There's two reasons I cycle.
1st-It is cost effective
2nd-It keeps me fit
The main problem I see between car users and cyclists is the fact that neither abide by the highway code. It has changed loads over the years.
It's worth a read by both parties.
There's two reasons I cycle. 1st-It is cost effective 2nd-It keeps me fit The main problem I see between car users and cyclists is the fact that neither abide by the highway code. It has changed loads over the years. It's worth a read by both parties. STEAKnKIDNEY
  • Score: 10

12:08pm Tue 11 Feb 14

wilson castaway says...

Im not anti-car.
Im not anti-cyclist.
I am however anti-idiot.
There is plenty of them about.
Driving, cycling and walking.
Im not anti-car. Im not anti-cyclist. I am however anti-idiot. There is plenty of them about. Driving, cycling and walking. wilson castaway
  • Score: 27

12:26pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

wilson castaway wrote:
Im not anti-car.
Im not anti-cyclist.
I am however anti-idiot.
There is plenty of them about.
Driving, cycling and walking.
I concur, I am ALSO anti-idiot, just today, I told a couple of motorists to put their phones away, one of them held up their hands and were like "Yes, I know it's wrong, I shouldn't do it, hope you tell the others the same" then a few cars in front of him there was another guy texting at the wheel, put his phone down but decided to act like a child caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and stuck his fingers up at me, also had people passing me with hardly any space at all and an idiot or 2 who decided it would be funny to tailgate me.
[quote][p][bold]wilson castaway[/bold] wrote: Im not anti-car. Im not anti-cyclist. I am however anti-idiot. There is plenty of them about. Driving, cycling and walking.[/p][/quote]I concur, I am ALSO anti-idiot, just today, I told a couple of motorists to put their phones away, one of them held up their hands and were like "Yes, I know it's wrong, I shouldn't do it, hope you tell the others the same" then a few cars in front of him there was another guy texting at the wheel, put his phone down but decided to act like a child caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and stuck his fingers up at me, also had people passing me with hardly any space at all and an idiot or 2 who decided it would be funny to tailgate me. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 8

12:44pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young Inform Al
  • Score: 3

12:53pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Sweed says...

ChopStick wrote:
ChopStick wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
ChopStick wrote:
Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself.
Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...
You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.
Most roads have no cycling infrastructure whatsoever. The ones than do have a bit of blue paint in the gutter or a dangerous ASZ. Tell me how I'm wrong when I say roads and their layout are NOT designed with motor vehicles in mind. I didn't say cyclists weren't allowed on them..
ARE
So all historic roads, like the ones in the middle of towns and major roads between towns, were built with motorists in mind were they? Well I'm very grateful to the Romans and such for their incredible foresight.

Please, don't be so stupid. Roads were designed for pedestrians and horses first. Then Bicycles came along and the people riding them shared the roads with horse riders. Then along came trams, and motor cars.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think cyclists should ride on the pavement or the motorway, or disregard the rules of the road. But to say "modern" roads are built for motorists is just showing how ignorant you are of basic history.
[quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...[/p][/quote]You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.[/p][/quote]Most roads have no cycling infrastructure whatsoever. The ones than do have a bit of blue paint in the gutter or a dangerous ASZ. Tell me how I'm wrong when I say roads and their layout are NOT designed with motor vehicles in mind. I didn't say cyclists weren't allowed on them..[/p][/quote]ARE[/p][/quote]So all historic roads, like the ones in the middle of towns and major roads between towns, were built with motorists in mind were they? Well I'm very grateful to the Romans and such for their incredible foresight. Please, don't be so stupid. Roads were designed for pedestrians and horses first. Then Bicycles came along and the people riding them shared the roads with horse riders. Then along came trams, and motor cars. Don't get me wrong, I don't think cyclists should ride on the pavement or the motorway, or disregard the rules of the road. But to say "modern" roads are built for motorists is just showing how ignorant you are of basic history. Sweed
  • Score: 15

12:54pm Tue 11 Feb 14

spragger says...

Approaching 3000 people killed by the metal box year on year & this fool has a go at cyclists. Which planet is he from?
Approaching 3000 people killed by the metal box year on year & this fool has a go at cyclists. Which planet is he from? spragger
  • Score: 17

1:00pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

The judge for the case of Mr. Irvings death told the jury to IGNORE the highway code that says "Slow down or stopf if dazzled" because Petterson may NOT have followed that rule.
The judge for the case of Mr. Irvings death told the jury to IGNORE the highway code that says "Slow down or stopf if dazzled" because Petterson may NOT have followed that rule. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 7

3:01pm Tue 11 Feb 14

sherson says...

What on earth possessed you to print this Echo editor...
What on earth possessed you to print this Echo editor... sherson
  • Score: 7

3:10pm Tue 11 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?! camerajuan
  • Score: 8

4:18pm Tue 11 Feb 14

S!monOn says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
wilson castaway wrote:
Im not anti-car.
Im not anti-cyclist.
I am however anti-idiot.
There is plenty of them about.
Driving, cycling and walking.
I concur, I am ALSO anti-idiot, just today, I told a couple of motorists to put their phones away, one of them held up their hands and were like "Yes, I know it's wrong, I shouldn't do it, hope you tell the others the same" then a few cars in front of him there was another guy texting at the wheel, put his phone down but decided to act like a child caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and stuck his fingers up at me, also had people passing me with hardly any space at all and an idiot or 2 who decided it would be funny to tailgate me.
I couldn't help but laugh at "stuck his fingers up at me"..... so was that all his fingers or thumb too?

Sorry, carry on.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilson castaway[/bold] wrote: Im not anti-car. Im not anti-cyclist. I am however anti-idiot. There is plenty of them about. Driving, cycling and walking.[/p][/quote]I concur, I am ALSO anti-idiot, just today, I told a couple of motorists to put their phones away, one of them held up their hands and were like "Yes, I know it's wrong, I shouldn't do it, hope you tell the others the same" then a few cars in front of him there was another guy texting at the wheel, put his phone down but decided to act like a child caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and stuck his fingers up at me, also had people passing me with hardly any space at all and an idiot or 2 who decided it would be funny to tailgate me.[/p][/quote]I couldn't help but laugh at "stuck his fingers up at me"..... so was that all his fingers or thumb too? Sorry, carry on. S!monOn
  • Score: -5

6:04pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right. Inform Al
  • Score: -2

6:06pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

S!monOn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
wilson castaway wrote:
Im not anti-car.
Im not anti-cyclist.
I am however anti-idiot.
There is plenty of them about.
Driving, cycling and walking.
I concur, I am ALSO anti-idiot, just today, I told a couple of motorists to put their phones away, one of them held up their hands and were like "Yes, I know it's wrong, I shouldn't do it, hope you tell the others the same" then a few cars in front of him there was another guy texting at the wheel, put his phone down but decided to act like a child caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and stuck his fingers up at me, also had people passing me with hardly any space at all and an idiot or 2 who decided it would be funny to tailgate me.
I couldn't help but laugh at "stuck his fingers up at me"..... so was that all his fingers or thumb too?

Sorry, carry on.
Lol No, just 2 fingers, I bettered him by pointing out my helmet cam.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilson castaway[/bold] wrote: Im not anti-car. Im not anti-cyclist. I am however anti-idiot. There is plenty of them about. Driving, cycling and walking.[/p][/quote]I concur, I am ALSO anti-idiot, just today, I told a couple of motorists to put their phones away, one of them held up their hands and were like "Yes, I know it's wrong, I shouldn't do it, hope you tell the others the same" then a few cars in front of him there was another guy texting at the wheel, put his phone down but decided to act like a child caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and stuck his fingers up at me, also had people passing me with hardly any space at all and an idiot or 2 who decided it would be funny to tailgate me.[/p][/quote]I couldn't help but laugh at "stuck his fingers up at me"..... so was that all his fingers or thumb too? Sorry, carry on.[/p][/quote]Lol No, just 2 fingers, I bettered him by pointing out my helmet cam. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 7

6:40pm Tue 11 Feb 14

saintly-jim says...

From the sidelines wrote:
ChopStick wrote:
Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself.
Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...
You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.
Not quite true... There are some specially designated A roads that are not available to some road users, including cyclists. The only one I'm aware of is the A720 City of Edinburgh bypass, but there's probably more.
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChopStick[/bold] wrote: Excellent letter... I couldn't have put it better myself. Modern roads are designed specifically for motor vehicles.. This is 2014 not 1914.. Time for cyclists to say bye bye...[/p][/quote]You are only correct with respect to motorways. With respect to ANY other road, you are very wrong.[/p][/quote]Not quite true... There are some specially designated A roads that are not available to some road users, including cyclists. The only one I'm aware of is the A720 City of Edinburgh bypass, but there's probably more. saintly-jim
  • Score: 5

6:45pm Tue 11 Feb 14

saintly-jim says...

geoff51 wrote:
This letter sums it all up, there is no place for militant cyclists on todays roads, they are far to dangerous for unprotected human bodies on cycles.
they contribute nothing and demand everything and in the scheme of things and are their own worst enemies.
I contribute nothing as a cyclist, except for the income tax, VAT, alcohol duty, vehicle excise duty and fuel duty to keep my car on the road, council tax, tobacco duty (erm...) and other taxes that I pay.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: This letter sums it all up, there is no place for militant cyclists on todays roads, they are far to dangerous for unprotected human bodies on cycles. they contribute nothing and demand everything and in the scheme of things and are their own worst enemies.[/p][/quote]I contribute nothing as a cyclist, except for the income tax, VAT, alcohol duty, vehicle excise duty and fuel duty to keep my car on the road, council tax, tobacco duty (erm...) and other taxes that I pay. saintly-jim
  • Score: 18

11:29pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Cocoa Jackson says...

Stupid unevolved decision. Lets hope the country develops a better set of values.

Because this punitive behaviour toward cyclist through neglect is making the place look like a Banana Republic ...
Stupid unevolved decision. Lets hope the country develops a better set of values. Because this punitive behaviour toward cyclist through neglect is making the place look like a Banana Republic ... Cocoa Jackson
  • Score: 9

3:03am Wed 12 Feb 14

kaido says...

Absolutely disgusting letter but moreso becaude thr Daily Echo printed it. Shame on yourselves.

As for the accident, there's a simple way to deduce if the driver was lying- take a speed camera to the scene of the crash and record the average speed of motorists. If I recall correctly, generally speaking cars tend to go fast on that section of road.
Absolutely disgusting letter but moreso becaude thr Daily Echo printed it. Shame on yourselves. As for the accident, there's a simple way to deduce if the driver was lying- take a speed camera to the scene of the crash and record the average speed of motorists. If I recall correctly, generally speaking cars tend to go fast on that section of road. kaido
  • Score: 6

8:57am Wed 12 Feb 14

Urbane Forager says...

ALEX OLIVER RIGBY
You should be very careful with what you state publicly.
Some people have been prosecuted for similar provocative, inflammatory and irresponsible statements.
What on earth is the point of your letter, or indeed you, yourself.
I hope I never meet you in your car or otherwise.
Car drivers kill other car drivers and pedestrians too by driving irresponsibly.
A lot of arguments and accidents come from people believing that they have a "right". You probably think that you have a "right" to run over cyclists who cycle without lights; this is a stupid thing to do but it does not mean you can legally kill people who are stupid or misguided.
It is not a war.
It is not a competition.
It is transport; people getting to and from work or the shops.
Some of us walk, some drive, some catch a train and some cycle. Each to their own ability,need and want.
Like it or not, a cyclist on a bike is given the same priority as a driver in a car on the road.
A bicycle is a vehicle.
When you say stupid things like, "We, the motorists, have won, the roads are ours now." I am just soooooooo glad that you DO NOT speak for all the other right minded road users, motorists or not.
Do everyone a favour ALEX OLIVER RIGBY... Please just go away.
Actually, you probably need to visit your doctor (or maybe a priest would be more appropriate).
It is you who are irrational and probably not a well person at all.
ALEX OLIVER RIGBY You should be very careful with what you state publicly. Some people have been prosecuted for similar provocative, inflammatory and irresponsible statements. What on earth is the point of your letter, or indeed you, yourself. I hope I never meet you in your car or otherwise. Car drivers kill other car drivers and pedestrians too by driving irresponsibly. A lot of arguments and accidents come from people believing that they have a "right". You probably think that you have a "right" to run over cyclists who cycle without lights; this is a stupid thing to do but it does not mean you can legally kill people who are stupid or misguided. It is not a war. It is not a competition. It is transport; people getting to and from work or the shops. Some of us walk, some drive, some catch a train and some cycle. Each to their own ability,need and want. Like it or not, a cyclist on a bike is given the same priority as a driver in a car on the road. A bicycle is a vehicle. When you say stupid things like, "We, the motorists, have won, the roads are ours now." I am just soooooooo glad that you DO NOT speak for all the other right minded road users, motorists or not. Do everyone a favour ALEX OLIVER RIGBY... Please just go away. Actually, you probably need to visit your doctor (or maybe a priest would be more appropriate). It is you who are irrational and probably not a well person at all. Urbane Forager
  • Score: 16

9:01am Wed 12 Feb 14

Urbane Forager says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
wilson castaway wrote:
Im not anti-car.
Im not anti-cyclist.
I am however anti-idiot.
There is plenty of them about.
Driving, cycling and walking.
I concur, I am ALSO anti-idiot, just today, I told a couple of motorists to put their phones away, one of them held up their hands and were like "Yes, I know it's wrong, I shouldn't do it, hope you tell the others the same" then a few cars in front of him there was another guy texting at the wheel, put his phone down but decided to act like a child caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and stuck his fingers up at me, also had people passing me with hardly any space at all and an idiot or 2 who decided it would be funny to tailgate me.
I couldn't help but laugh at "stuck his fingers up at me"..... so was that all his fingers or thumb too?

Sorry, carry on.
Lol No, just 2 fingers, I bettered him by pointing out my helmet cam.
I am also Anti Idiot; more specifically this one... ALIX UNLIVER RUGBY
Such a TWIT
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilson castaway[/bold] wrote: Im not anti-car. Im not anti-cyclist. I am however anti-idiot. There is plenty of them about. Driving, cycling and walking.[/p][/quote]I concur, I am ALSO anti-idiot, just today, I told a couple of motorists to put their phones away, one of them held up their hands and were like "Yes, I know it's wrong, I shouldn't do it, hope you tell the others the same" then a few cars in front of him there was another guy texting at the wheel, put his phone down but decided to act like a child caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and stuck his fingers up at me, also had people passing me with hardly any space at all and an idiot or 2 who decided it would be funny to tailgate me.[/p][/quote]I couldn't help but laugh at "stuck his fingers up at me"..... so was that all his fingers or thumb too? Sorry, carry on.[/p][/quote]Lol No, just 2 fingers, I bettered him by pointing out my helmet cam.[/p][/quote]I am also Anti Idiot; more specifically this one... ALIX UNLIVER RUGBY Such a TWIT Urbane Forager
  • Score: -3

9:45am Wed 12 Feb 14

Niel says...

@skippydetour wrote:
Visit & " LIKE "
https://www.facebook

.com/pages/Vision-ZE

RO-Worldwide/5401236

32761709

ONE more Life LOST ! Whether because one , OR , the other was RESPONSIBLE !

Roads they used , were provided by THEIR Community , of which they were MEMBERS !

GET over the CAUSE of Traffic Incidents and WORK together ! YOU go to the same place by various means , Foot , Bike or Motorised transport ! There is ENOUGH space for ALL , yet there are those that behave like the "Class Bully " , egged on by those around them !

Driver Permits/Licences are hard work to obtain and only available to THOSE thought to be ADULT enough to OBEY the Highway Code ! WHY do some think that Bullying the Vulnerable Road User in 2014 , is ACCEPTABLE ?
I agree, unfortunately so many have the 'me me me and screw you' selfish attitude promoted in the 80's mindset.

The businessman on the M27 driving his black BMW (LM60 HKE) who moved over to try and stop two motorcyclists 'making progress' legally by filtering slowly through the queued traffic this morning (12-2-14), even when the unmarked Police car moved further over to make room for them, being an excellent example of the type.

Every cyclist or motorcyclist is one less car adding to the congestion!
[quote][p][bold]@skippydetour[/bold] wrote: Visit & " LIKE " https://www.facebook .com/pages/Vision-ZE RO-Worldwide/5401236 32761709 ONE more Life LOST ! Whether because one , OR , the other was RESPONSIBLE ! Roads they used , were provided by THEIR Community , of which they were MEMBERS ! GET over the CAUSE of Traffic Incidents and WORK together ! YOU go to the same place by various means , Foot , Bike or Motorised transport ! There is ENOUGH space for ALL , yet there are those that behave like the "Class Bully " , egged on by those around them ! Driver Permits/Licences are hard work to obtain and only available to THOSE thought to be ADULT enough to OBEY the Highway Code ! WHY do some think that Bullying the Vulnerable Road User in 2014 , is ACCEPTABLE ?[/p][/quote]I agree, unfortunately so many have the 'me me me and screw you' selfish attitude promoted in the 80's mindset. The businessman on the M27 driving his black BMW (LM60 HKE) who moved over to try and stop two motorcyclists 'making progress' legally by filtering slowly through the queued traffic this morning (12-2-14), even when the unmarked Police car moved further over to make room for them, being an excellent example of the type. Every cyclist or motorcyclist is one less car adding to the congestion! Niel
  • Score: 11

10:22am Wed 12 Feb 14

sidbarnes says...

Mr Rigby appears to be rejoicing at a man's death. I don't know if Mr Rigby is trolling or mentally ill, either way I sincerely hope Mr Irving's family don't read this.
Mr Rigby appears to be rejoicing at a man's death. I don't know if Mr Rigby is trolling or mentally ill, either way I sincerely hope Mr Irving's family don't read this. sidbarnes
  • Score: 15

10:29am Wed 12 Feb 14

sidbarnes says...

Consider this, replace the word "cyclist" with "black person" and see how the letter reads.

ANOTHER black child walking irresponsibly, another person with a knife arrested and persecuted by the police and the CPS.

When are stabbers going to get a fair deal and be listened to? When are black people going to learn that walking around is not something any sane or professional person does? It is not Call the Midwife in 2014!

To those black people that complain ‘It’s our right!’: So what?

Someone has died because you all fail to follow the rules, as black people do every day. Even if you did, so what? No stabber wants to stab you, so stop this happening: give up.

We, the stabbers, have won, the roads are ours now. It doesn’t matter who campaigned for what, it doesn’t matter that it’s healthy; the stabbers outnumbers you 35:1.

For your own safety stay at home, get a knife ike any rational person would. You’ve lost the fight for your right on the road and a legal precedent has been established."

See what I mean?

It's rank prejudice, it's sickening to think that people like this are driivng around.
Consider this, replace the word "cyclist" with "black person" and see how the letter reads. ANOTHER black child walking irresponsibly, another person with a knife arrested and persecuted by the police and the CPS. When are stabbers going to get a fair deal and be listened to? When are black people going to learn that walking around is not something any sane or professional person does? It is not Call the Midwife in 2014! To those black people that complain ‘It’s our right!’: So what? Someone has died because you all fail to follow the rules, as black people do every day. Even if you did, so what? No stabber wants to stab you, so stop this happening: give up. We, the stabbers, have won, the roads are ours now. It doesn’t matter who campaigned for what, it doesn’t matter that it’s healthy; the stabbers outnumbers you 35:1. For your own safety stay at home, get a knife ike any rational person would. You’ve lost the fight for your right on the road and a legal precedent has been established." See what I mean? It's rank prejudice, it's sickening to think that people like this are driivng around. sidbarnes
  • Score: 17

11:37am Wed 12 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human. camerajuan
  • Score: 15

1:33pm Wed 12 Feb 14

missopinion2014 says...

Having been knocked off of my bike recently... I would say I was one of the lucky ones....
I was in full high vis in a cycle lane and a female car drive just decided to hit me... how is this my fault?
As humans, shouldn't we have compassion for each other and love life? Shouldn't we be considerate of other people and their passions?
To say that the roads belong to one person or another is ridiculous and to be honest, somewhat short sighted.
Now, I will not deny that there are some cyclists out there who do not follow the rules or the road.. but in the same vein, there are some road users who do not either... but irrespective of any of that, why can't we all stop being so selfish and self absorbed and quite simply look out for each other? We all have mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers and other family... treat a stranger with the same courtesey as you would treat your own. If in doubt, slow down... life is for living and by taking an extra couple of seconds either from a cyclist going through a red traffic light (which I don't condone) or from a car driver just hanging back a couple of seconds until is truely is safe to pass a cyclist?
Respect and value life... its the only one you will ever have. And by having someone elses life on your concious because you thought you ruled the road? In my opinion... not worth it.
Having been knocked off of my bike recently... I would say I was one of the lucky ones.... I was in full high vis in a cycle lane and a female car drive just decided to hit me... how is this my fault? As humans, shouldn't we have compassion for each other and love life? Shouldn't we be considerate of other people and their passions? To say that the roads belong to one person or another is ridiculous and to be honest, somewhat short sighted. Now, I will not deny that there are some cyclists out there who do not follow the rules or the road.. but in the same vein, there are some road users who do not either... but irrespective of any of that, why can't we all stop being so selfish and self absorbed and quite simply look out for each other? We all have mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers and other family... treat a stranger with the same courtesey as you would treat your own. If in doubt, slow down... life is for living and by taking an extra couple of seconds either from a cyclist going through a red traffic light (which I don't condone) or from a car driver just hanging back a couple of seconds until is truely is safe to pass a cyclist? Respect and value life... its the only one you will ever have. And by having someone elses life on your concious because you thought you ruled the road? In my opinion... not worth it. missopinion2014
  • Score: 16

4:39pm Wed 12 Feb 14

theoriginalwasp says...

Have I actually just read this correctly. Alex Oliver Rigby you are an appalling human being. Have you even read the article - at what point was the cyclist riding irresponsibly?

I genuinely wish that the motorist and the cyclist could use our road network without injury, fatality or argument - something that I doubt will ever actually happen.

I'll continue to use my bike and my car on the roads, I'll continue to ride as many of my cyclist friends do.. Responsibly. And I'll continue to drive that was also.

By all means if you see me out and about and care to discuss this flag me down...
Have I actually just read this correctly. Alex Oliver Rigby you are an appalling human being. Have you even read the article - at what point was the cyclist riding irresponsibly? I genuinely wish that the motorist and the cyclist could use our road network without injury, fatality or argument - something that I doubt will ever actually happen. I'll continue to use my bike and my car on the roads, I'll continue to ride as many of my cyclist friends do.. Responsibly. And I'll continue to drive that was also. By all means if you see me out and about and care to discuss this flag me down... theoriginalwasp
  • Score: 8

4:42pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the on the road.


On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars..

As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars.

The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes.




,,
UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs



Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles..

Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe.

-


UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS.

5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07.

The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars.

It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads.

It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles.

Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks.

"It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities.

"HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said.


-

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/technology-252
30483

-

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/technology/ne
ws/10497814/UK-to-be
-driverless-car-worl
d-leader.html




,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the on the road. On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars.. As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars. The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes. ,,[/p][/quote]UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles.. Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe. - UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS. 5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07. The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars. It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads. It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles. Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks. "It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities. "HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said. - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-252 30483 - http://www.telegraph .co.uk/technology/ne ws/10497814/UK-to-be -driverless-car-worl d-leader.html ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

4:48pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road.


On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars..

As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars.

The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes.





,,
UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs



Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles..

Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe.

-


UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS.

5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07.

The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars.

It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads.

It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles.

Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks.

"It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities.

"HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said.


-

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/technology-252
30483

-

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/technology/ne
ws/10497814/UK-to-be
-driverless-car-worl
d-leader.html




,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road. On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars.. As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars. The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes. ,,[/p][/quote]UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles.. Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe. - UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS. 5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07. The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars. It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads. It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles. Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks. "It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities. "HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said. - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-252 30483 - http://www.telegraph .co.uk/technology/ne ws/10497814/UK-to-be -driverless-car-worl d-leader.html ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 2

5:09pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road.


On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars..

As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars.

The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes.





,,
UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs



Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles..

Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe.

-


UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS.

5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07.

The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars.

It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads.

It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles.

Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks.

"It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities.

"HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said.


-

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/technology-252

30483

-

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/technology/ne

ws/10497814/UK-to-be

-driverless-car-worl

d-leader.html




,,
Final thought..


One thing for sure.. if the road death toll (1.2 million people worldwide per year ) isn't drastically reduced by Urban/City 20 m.p.h. speed limits it hasten the introduction of self-driving cars.



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road. On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars.. As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars. The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes. ,,[/p][/quote]UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles.. Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe. - UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS. 5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07. The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars. It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads. It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles. Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks. "It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities. "HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said. - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-252 30483 - http://www.telegraph .co.uk/technology/ne ws/10497814/UK-to-be -driverless-car-worl d-leader.html ,,[/p][/quote]Final thought.. One thing for sure.. if the road death toll (1.2 million people worldwide per year ) isn't drastically reduced by Urban/City 20 m.p.h. speed limits it hasten the introduction of self-driving cars. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 1

5:12pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road.


On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars..

As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars.

The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes.





,,
UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs



Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles..

Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe.

-


UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS.

5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07.

The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars.

It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads.

It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles.

Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks.

"It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities.

"HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said.


-

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/technology-252

30483

-

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/technology/ne

ws/10497814/UK-to-be

-driverless-car-worl

d-leader.html




,,
Final thought..


One thing for sure.. if the road death toll (1.2 million people worldwide per year ) isn't drastically reduced by Urban/City 20 m.p.h. speed limits it will hasten the introduction of self-driving cars.



,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road. On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars.. As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars. The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes. ,,[/p][/quote]UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles.. Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe. - UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS. 5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07. The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars. It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads. It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles. Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks. "It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities. "HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said. - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-252 30483 - http://www.telegraph .co.uk/technology/ne ws/10497814/UK-to-be -driverless-car-worl d-leader.html ,,[/p][/quote]Final thought.. One thing for sure.. if the road death toll (1.2 million people worldwide per year ) isn't drastically reduced by Urban/City 20 m.p.h. speed limits it will hasten the introduction of self-driving cars. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

6:42pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Bladen says...

Just astonishing. What a tool. Gloating over the death of another human being. Did he even consider what the bereaved family might feel?
Just astonishing. What a tool. Gloating over the death of another human being. Did he even consider what the bereaved family might feel? Bladen
  • Score: 8

7:30pm Wed 12 Feb 14

sidbarnes says...

Alex Oliver Rigby is a sad, dishonest character desperate for attention.

So is this newspaper's editor,Colin Channing, for posting this disgusting click bait.
Alex Oliver Rigby is a sad, dishonest character desperate for attention. So is this newspaper's editor,Colin Channing, for posting this disgusting click bait. sidbarnes
  • Score: 5

8:24pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road.


On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars..

As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars.

The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes.





,,
UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs



Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles..

Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe.

-


UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS.

5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07.

The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars.

It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads.

It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles.

Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks.

"It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities.

"HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said.


-

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/technology-252


30483

-

http://www.telegraph


.co.uk/technology/ne


ws/10497814/UK-to-be


-driverless-car-worl


d-leader.html




,,
Final thought..


One thing for sure.. if the road death toll (1.2 million people worldwide per year ) isn't drastically reduced by Urban/City 20 m.p.h. speed limits it will hasten the introduction of self-driving cars.



,,
Mr Rigby says car divers have won ?



Mr Rigby the only thing you have won is the right travel in a driverless vehicle as a backseat driver.. unless that is you can afford all the insurance premium hikes ?

When are you going to learn that cyclists don't need to earn rights, be that the freedom of an open safe road or anything else...

Arrogant people like you have ruined it for the majority of car divers who see their diving ability as a skill that they can hone/improve over time.

-


INSURERS TOLD TO PREPARE FOR 'SEISMIC' IMPACT OF DRIVERLESS VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY.

ABI set to attend Valentine’s Day government summit on driverless cars.

05 Feb 2014 By Mark Sands.

The Association of British Insurers has been urged to use its ticket to a government-hosted summit on driverless cars next week wisely after futurist suggestions that insurance could be “ripped apart” by innovation.

Futurist Rohit Talwar, chief executive of Fast Future, urged insurers to make the most of the ABI’s presence at the summit, claiming the impact of driverless vehicles will likely be “seismic”. Talwar, who says policymakers in New York City are already discussing plans to acquire more than 5000 driverless vehicles to serve as taxis, told Post: "OUR VIEW IS THAT ONCE THESE THINGS START TO COME ONTO THE ROAD, GOVERNMENT WILL FORCE THROUGH LEGISLATION QUITE QUICKLY TO GET PEOPLE TO RETROFIT THEIR CARS, AND THAT COULD BE WITHIN 10 YEARS.

“The insurance industry needs to get in there, not with some sort of negative protectionist stance in trying to prevent this from happening, but to talk about experimenting with different models to assess and price the risks.

“It could be bypassed by things like a manufacturer pricing the cost of insurance into a vehicle. Insurance could be one of those industries that could get ripped apart by innovation.”

ON THE AGENDA.

The agenda for the summit includes how the government will allocate funding for further development, following Chancellor George Osborne’s pledge in his Autumn Statement last year to move the UK to the forefront of driverless car technology.


-

http://www.postonlin
e.co.uk/post/news/23
26898/insurers-told-
to-prepare-for-seism
ic-impact-of-driverl
ess-vehicle-technolo
gy





,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Alex Oliver says.. Cyclist have lost the right to be on the road. On the contrary it's motorist that have lost the right to drive their cars.. As I type governments and insurance companies are pressing motor car manufacturers to build Self-Driving Cars. The road from car parking assistance to autonomous self-driving cars is a short one and it's paved with huge insurance premium hikes. ,,[/p][/quote]UK To Be 'Driverless Car World Leader.. £10 million prize up for grabs Interestingly... in 2011 Southampton University introduced the World’s first Master’s Degree for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles.. the new course covers the Design, Manufacture and Operation of Autonomous/Robotic Vehicles.. Who knows, this government initiative could bring 'Driverless Cars to Southampton's roads within years rather than decades as some believe. - UK GOVERNMENT PAVES WAY FOR DRIVERLESS CARS. 5 December 2013 Last updated at 12:07. The government has announced that it wants to make the UK a world centre for the development of driverless cars. It said it would conduct a review next year to ensure that the legislative and regulatory framework is in place for such vehicles to be incorporated on Britain's roads. It will also create a £10m prize to fund a town or city to become a testing ground for autonomous vehicles. Such cars will make cities both safer and greener, he thinks. "It will radically change the amount of energy we use, how congested our streets are and eliminate most of the parking lots that take up a huge amount of space in our cities. "HUMANS KILL 1.2 MILLION PEOPLE IN CAR ACCIDENTS EACH YEAR SO THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE A SAFER VEHICLE IS VERY APPEALING," he said. - http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-252 30483 - http://www.telegraph .co.uk/technology/ne ws/10497814/UK-to-be -driverless-car-worl d-leader.html ,,[/p][/quote]Final thought.. One thing for sure.. if the road death toll (1.2 million people worldwide per year ) isn't drastically reduced by Urban/City 20 m.p.h. speed limits it will hasten the introduction of self-driving cars. ,,[/p][/quote]Mr Rigby says car divers have won ? Mr Rigby the only thing you have won is the right travel in a driverless vehicle as a backseat driver.. unless that is you can afford all the insurance premium hikes ? When are you going to learn that cyclists don't need to earn rights, be that the freedom of an open safe road or anything else... Arrogant people like you have ruined it for the majority of car divers who see their diving ability as a skill that they can hone/improve over time. - INSURERS TOLD TO PREPARE FOR 'SEISMIC' IMPACT OF DRIVERLESS VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY. ABI set to attend Valentine’s Day government summit on driverless cars. 05 Feb 2014 By Mark Sands. The Association of British Insurers has been urged to use its ticket to a government-hosted summit on driverless cars next week wisely after futurist suggestions that insurance could be “ripped apart” by innovation. Futurist Rohit Talwar, chief executive of Fast Future, urged insurers to make the most of the ABI’s presence at the summit, claiming the impact of driverless vehicles will likely be “seismic”. Talwar, who says policymakers in New York City are already discussing plans to acquire more than 5000 driverless vehicles to serve as taxis, told Post: "OUR VIEW IS THAT ONCE THESE THINGS START TO COME ONTO THE ROAD, [UK] GOVERNMENT WILL FORCE THROUGH LEGISLATION QUITE QUICKLY TO GET PEOPLE TO RETROFIT THEIR CARS, AND THAT COULD BE WITHIN 10 YEARS. “The insurance industry needs to get in there, not with some sort of negative protectionist stance in trying to prevent this from happening, but to talk about experimenting with different models to assess and price the risks. “It could be bypassed by things like a manufacturer pricing the cost of insurance into a vehicle. Insurance could be one of those industries that could get ripped apart by innovation.” ON THE AGENDA. The agenda for the summit includes how the government will allocate funding for further development, following Chancellor George Osborne’s pledge in his Autumn Statement last year to move the UK to the forefront of driverless car technology. - http://www.postonlin e.co.uk/post/news/23 26898/insurers-told- to-prepare-for-seism ic-impact-of-driverl ess-vehicle-technolo gy ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 1

10:45pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right. Inform Al
  • Score: -4

9:52am Thu 13 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it. camerajuan
  • Score: 7

12:33pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Folkestone Saint says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
If a pedestrian was walking in the middle of the road and got run over you may well say they deserved it, if a pedestrian is walking along a path and got run over by a car then it would be the car drivers responsability, so why not the cyclist's, they have NO right to use the path, and yes I do cycle, I also drive and walk.
I am no supporter of Rigby or his comments.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.[/p][/quote]If a pedestrian was walking in the middle of the road and got run over you may well say they deserved it, if a pedestrian is walking along a path and got run over by a car then it would be the car drivers responsability, so why not the cyclist's, they have NO right to use the path, and yes I do cycle, I also drive and walk. I am no supporter of Rigby or his comments. Folkestone Saint
  • Score: -2

1:54pm Thu 13 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

geoff51andabit wrote:
My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot.

Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.
Good troll well played.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51andabit[/bold] wrote: My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot. Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.[/p][/quote]Good troll well played. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

2:02pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to
exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.[/p][/quote]You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP. Inform Al
  • Score: -3

2:05pm Thu 13 Feb 14

callcopse says...

This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing.

The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling).

Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.
This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing. The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling). Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are. callcopse
  • Score: 9

2:20pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Folkestone Saint says...

callcopse wrote:
This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing.

The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling).

Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.
David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not
[quote][p][bold]callcopse[/bold] wrote: This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing. The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling). Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.[/p][/quote]David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not Folkestone Saint
  • Score: 2

3:33pm Thu 13 Feb 14

vag says...

I can't believe anyone who is as ignorant and downright stupid as the person who wrote the letter, can actually type, and doesn't just write on his computer monitor with a crayon.
I can't believe anyone who is as ignorant and downright stupid as the person who wrote the letter, can actually type, and doesn't just write on his computer monitor with a crayon. vag
  • Score: 7

3:58pm Thu 13 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to
exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.
The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point.

All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that!

You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people.

You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.[/p][/quote]You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.[/p][/quote]The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point. All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that! You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people. You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

4:10pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to
exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.
The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point.

All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that!

You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people.

You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.
I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.[/p][/quote]You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.[/p][/quote]The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point. All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that! You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people. You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.[/p][/quote]I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. **** Inform Al
  • Score: -5

4:20pm Thu 13 Feb 14

callcopse says...

Folkestone Saint wrote:
callcopse wrote:
This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing.

The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling).

Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.
David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not
OK, sorry, fair point. 'Manslaughtered' cyclist it is, just sounds a bit clumsy I guess.
[quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]callcopse[/bold] wrote: This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing. The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling). Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.[/p][/quote]David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not[/p][/quote]OK, sorry, fair point. 'Manslaughtered' cyclist it is, just sounds a bit clumsy I guess. callcopse
  • Score: 3

4:44pm Thu 13 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to
exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.
The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point.

All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that!

You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people.

You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.
I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****
Oh man, you are the gift that keeps on giving aren't you!

"Especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist." - Way to misquote me, I said "near 70 year old man" which is exactly what you are, by your own admission.

"Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily." - I don't think that, nor did I say that. STATISTICALLY, most "old men" - as you put it, who are injured in a fall, have nobody to blame but their own infirm state. Plus, if I cycled straight into you and you didn't move, I'll say it again. You would fall over. No question. I ride hard and fast.

"I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything." - I would never cycle on the pavement as I obey all traffic laws. But from what I know about you and what I know about me, you have about as much chance of "putting my lights out" as Portsmouth FC do of winning the Champions League.

"So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond." - Yet, here is your response. Hypocrisy, Inform Al be thy name.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.[/p][/quote]You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.[/p][/quote]The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point. All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that! You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people. You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.[/p][/quote]I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****[/p][/quote]Oh man, you are the gift that keeps on giving aren't you! "Especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist." - Way to misquote me, I said "near 70 year old man" which is exactly what you are, by your own admission. "Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily." - I don't think that, nor did I say that. STATISTICALLY, most "old men" - as you put it, who are injured in a fall, have nobody to blame but their own infirm state. Plus, if I cycled straight into you and you didn't move, I'll say it again. You would fall over. No question. I ride hard and fast. "I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything." - I would never cycle on the pavement as I obey all traffic laws. But from what I know about you and what I know about me, you have about as much chance of "putting my lights out" as Portsmouth FC do of winning the Champions League. "So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond." - Yet, here is your response. Hypocrisy, Inform Al be thy name. camerajuan
  • Score: 3

4:52pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Folkestone Saint wrote:
callcopse wrote:
This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing.

The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling).

Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.
David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not
He was killed though, wether it was murder or manslaughter, he was killed.
[quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]callcopse[/bold] wrote: This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing. The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling). Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.[/p][/quote]David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not[/p][/quote]He was killed though, wether it was murder or manslaughter, he was killed. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

4:59pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to
exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.
The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point.

All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that!

You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people.

You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.
I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****
Would you prefer he said "70 year young man" even though it wouldn't make a shred of grammatical sense? Or would "man nearing death from old age" more appropriate? He used "old man" because he was saying your age, NOT being "ageist", if he was being ageist, he would have called you things like "a senile old man, gramps" or might have said something like "get back in your nursing home", that would have been ageist, obviously I'm not being ageist, just giving an example of just how wrong you are.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.[/p][/quote]You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.[/p][/quote]The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point. All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that! You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people. You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.[/p][/quote]I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****[/p][/quote]Would you prefer he said "70 year young man" even though it wouldn't make a shred of grammatical sense? Or would "man nearing death from old age" more appropriate? He used "old man" because he was saying your age, NOT being "ageist", if he was being ageist, he would have called you things like "a senile old man, gramps" or might have said something like "get back in your nursing home", that would have been ageist, obviously I'm not being ageist, just giving an example of just how wrong you are. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

5:03pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to
exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.
The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point.

All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that!

You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people.

You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.
I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****
Would you prefer he said "70 year young man" even though it wouldn't make a shred of grammatical sense? Or would "man nearing death from old age" more appropriate? He used "old man" because he was saying your age, NOT being "ageist", if he was being ageist, he would have called you things like "a senile old man, gramps" or might have said something like "get back in your nursing home", that would have been ageist, obviously I'm not being ageist, just giving an example of just how wrong you are.
Wondered when you'ld pipe in, bet you've got the same ip address. As you can be as stupid as your alter ego I will not be responding to your cr4p either.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.[/p][/quote]You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.[/p][/quote]The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point. All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that! You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people. You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.[/p][/quote]I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****[/p][/quote]Would you prefer he said "70 year young man" even though it wouldn't make a shred of grammatical sense? Or would "man nearing death from old age" more appropriate? He used "old man" because he was saying your age, NOT being "ageist", if he was being ageist, he would have called you things like "a senile old man, gramps" or might have said something like "get back in your nursing home", that would have been ageist, obviously I'm not being ageist, just giving an example of just how wrong you are.[/p][/quote]Wondered when you'ld pipe in, bet you've got the same ip address. As you can be as stupid as your alter ego I will not be responding to your cr4p either. Inform Al
  • Score: -5

5:04pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.
I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.
Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood!

Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.
Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.
"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike."

Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945!
I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.
There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road.

Coincidence?!?!
No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young
And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?!
2 wrongs do not make a right.
So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?!

"2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here.

Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.
I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.
"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike"

I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off.

I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences.

I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts.

You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.
You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to
exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.
The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point.

All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that!

You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people.

You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.
I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****
Would you prefer he said "70 year young man" even though it wouldn't make a shred of grammatical sense? Or would "man nearing death from old age" more appropriate? He used "old man" because he was saying your age, NOT being "ageist", if he was being ageist, he would have called you things like "a senile old man, gramps" or might have said something like "get back in your nursing home", that would have been ageist, obviously I'm not being ageist, just giving an example of just how wrong you are.
Wondered when you'ld pipe in, bet you've got the same ip address. As you can be as stupid as your alter ego I will not be responding to your cr4p either.
Nope, different people, sorry to burst your severly uninformed little bubble.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Anyway, it IS our LEGAL right and legal OBLIGATION to use the roads, don't like it? WALK, just bear in mind that for every mile you walk, you are 60 TIMES more likely to be hit by a car than a cyclist is, so by your logic with that fact from a scientific study, there's no place for pedestrians on the roads either and no, I'm MORE than safe enough to use the roads, far more so than the minibus driver who caused Mr. Irving's death through careless/dangerous driving, yes the driver is at fault, if he was blinded by the sun as he claimed, he should have stopped as he couldn't see ahead, also the fact that he didn't stop straight away as he should have, suggests he knew exactly what he had done.[/p][/quote]I must take issue here, I walk at least 10 miles every day, and have done for many years. I am nearly 70 now and have never come close to being run over by a motorised vehicle. Wish I could say the same about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Still you go on about cyclists on the pavement in Portswood! Though, you admitting your age has extremely relaxed my opinion of you.[/p][/quote]Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike.[/p][/quote]"Have just returned home after walking from Swaythling to the Civic and return, on the way back I was confronted yet again by a cyclist, about 40 years old, riding straight at me on the pavement in Portswood. As usual I did not give way much to his chagrin. If this was not such a regular in Portswood I would not keep going on about it. PS the pavement was far from empty of pedestrians and he was going at quite a fast pace, he had to brake and swerve like mad when he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike." Pavement Vigilante, keeping you safe since 1945![/p][/quote]I don't think idiots rode bikes on the pavement when I was a year old. We had police in those days.[/p][/quote]There was less cars also. And less deaths on the road. Coincidence?!?![/p][/quote]No, but just because you feel insecure on the road is not good reason to put the safety of pedestrians at risk, some of whom may be elderly or very young[/p][/quote]And just because you can't be bothered to drive according to the weather conditions doesn't mean you can get away with killing people. Yet here we are. Whats worse?![/p][/quote]2 wrongs do not make a right.[/p][/quote]So with that in mind, why on EARTH would you deliberately knock someone off their bike if they were riding on the pavement?!?! "2 wrongs do not make a right" - How does that even correlate to the cyclists death?!?! The driver couldn't see properly, failed to slow down and ended up killing a man. Those 2 wrongs definitely don't make a right but I fail to see why that matters here. Someone DIED on that road and you keep vilifying cyclists like its all their fault. You're sick in the head and you're as disgusting as the writer. Nothing you ever say has any substance or meaning and you need to stop writing on these boards. Utter vile human.[/p][/quote]I do not vilify cyclists, just prats like you. I also never said I would knock the idiot off of his bike, that would have been the direct result of him colliding with me. One day, perhaps when, if, you ever grow up you will be able to get your facts right.[/p][/quote]"he twigged I had seen him and he was about to be knocked off his bike" I don't know if you know much about physics, but as you have admitted you are nearly 70. If a bike rides into you, you will fall down. UNLESS you deliberately knock them off. I'm grown up already and for some reason defending my right to have an active lifestyle without being branded a menace despite never causing an accident seems to be a daily task thanks to people like you, who hold a grudge over an entire spectrum of people because of a few experiences. I have been knocked off my bike 4 times in the past year by drivers who weren't looking where they were going and been cut off by countless more. I don't hate all drivers but thanks to the facts, they're the ones who cause most of the accidents/deaths to people/animals every year. The facts cannot be wrong. They're facts. Your opinions are your opinions. Not facts. You're nearly 70, maybe you need to finally grow up. Or realise that the world - and the majority of the people who use this site - do not agree with your views and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that nor is there anything wrong with it.[/p][/quote]You appear to be, as well as cyclist, ageist. probably racist and sexist as well as you seem to want all the 'ists'. Just because I am nearly 70 does not mean I will suffer if an idiot illegally riding on the footpath collides with me. I am quite capable of standing my ground, and the idiot will come off second best. Bearing in mind that I do sometimes, when I forget my allergy to exercise. actually ride a bike so I know just what will happen if my handlebar meets an immovable object. So I have to say it again. GROW UP.[/p][/quote]The only "ist" I am on your selection is cyclist. Branding me a racist and sexist is nothing more than you showing your true colours and avoiding the truth whilst simultaneously missing the point. All of my statements on most matters are based on statistics and facts. Statistically, you as a near 70 year old man are quite possibly, farther away from being classed as an immovable object than most adults. It's quite hilarious that you would even contemplate writing that! You said it yourself, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If someone decides to ride on the pavement illegally, that's one wrong. Deliberately knocking them off is another - it's not up to you to punish people. You would fall over and suffer if I cycled into you. I guarantee that. And if you stood there trying to prove you are some kind of immovable object as you claim, you're more ridiculous and pathetic than your posts make you seem.[/p][/quote]I have just remembered that I do not argue with a fool, especially one who cannot understand that the way he uses 'old man' is actually ageist. Also one who thinks all old men fall over easily. I don't, and would probably put your lights out for you if you were ever silly enough to try anything. So you just waffle on as much as you like on this thread, I'm not going to lower myself to respond. ****[/p][/quote]Would you prefer he said "70 year young man" even though it wouldn't make a shred of grammatical sense? Or would "man nearing death from old age" more appropriate? He used "old man" because he was saying your age, NOT being "ageist", if he was being ageist, he would have called you things like "a senile old man, gramps" or might have said something like "get back in your nursing home", that would have been ageist, obviously I'm not being ageist, just giving an example of just how wrong you are.[/p][/quote]Wondered when you'ld pipe in, bet you've got the same ip address. As you can be as stupid as your alter ego I will not be responding to your cr4p either.[/p][/quote]Nope, different people, sorry to burst your severly uninformed little bubble. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 5

5:10pm Thu 13 Feb 14

camerajuan says...

I love it when people have nothing left!
I love it when people have nothing left! camerajuan
  • Score: 5

5:49pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Folkestone Saint says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Folkestone Saint wrote:
callcopse wrote:
This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing.

The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling).

Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.
David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not
He was killed though, wether it was murder or manslaughter, he was killed.
It was neither, and as awful as it is for this man to die it remains that it it was accidental death, not that his family and freinds (who most seem to have forgotten whilst trying to score cheap points) will be comforted however the incident is called
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]callcopse[/bold] wrote: This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing. The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling). Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.[/p][/quote]David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not[/p][/quote]He was killed though, wether it was murder or manslaughter, he was killed.[/p][/quote]It was neither, and as awful as it is for this man to die it remains that it it was accidental death, not that his family and freinds (who most seem to have forgotten whilst trying to score cheap points) will be comforted however the incident is called Folkestone Saint
  • Score: -5

6:07pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Folkestone Saint wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Folkestone Saint wrote:
callcopse wrote:
This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing.

The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling).

Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.
David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not
He was killed though, wether it was murder or manslaughter, he was killed.
It was neither, and as awful as it is for this man to die it remains that it it was accidental death, not that his family and freinds (who most seem to have forgotten whilst trying to score cheap points) will be comforted however the incident is called
Manslaughter is unintentionally killing someone, the minibus driver, claimed to have been "blinded by the low sun", if he was blinded, why didn't he slow down or stop as he highway code says to? And why didn't he stop as soon as he knew he hit someone/something which was when his wing mirror hit Mr. Irving's head, if he had stopped, Mr. Irving might still be alive, the driver is responsible for the death by driving carelessly, "accidental death" is when someone dies and no one is responsible, the driver in this case, WAS responsible, death by careless driving is the same as vehicular manslaughter.
[quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]callcopse[/bold] wrote: This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing. The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling). Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.[/p][/quote]David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not[/p][/quote]He was killed though, wether it was murder or manslaughter, he was killed.[/p][/quote]It was neither, and as awful as it is for this man to die it remains that it it was accidental death, not that his family and freinds (who most seem to have forgotten whilst trying to score cheap points) will be comforted however the incident is called[/p][/quote]Manslaughter is unintentionally killing someone, the minibus driver, claimed to have been "blinded by the low sun", if he was blinded, why didn't he slow down or stop as he highway code says to? And why didn't he stop as soon as he knew he hit someone/something which was when his wing mirror hit Mr. Irving's head, if he had stopped, Mr. Irving might still be alive, the driver is responsible for the death by driving carelessly, "accidental death" is when someone dies and no one is responsible, the driver in this case, WAS responsible, death by careless driving is the same as vehicular manslaughter. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

11:52pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

I thought roads were designed for horses and carts
I thought roads were designed for horses and carts Mary80
  • Score: 5

9:23am Fri 14 Feb 14

Folkestone Saint says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Folkestone Saint wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Folkestone Saint wrote:
callcopse wrote:
This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing.

The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling).

Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.
David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not
He was killed though, wether it was murder or manslaughter, he was killed.
It was neither, and as awful as it is for this man to die it remains that it it was accidental death, not that his family and freinds (who most seem to have forgotten whilst trying to score cheap points) will be comforted however the incident is called
Manslaughter is unintentionally killing someone, the minibus driver, claimed to have been "blinded by the low sun", if he was blinded, why didn't he slow down or stop as he highway code says to? And why didn't he stop as soon as he knew he hit someone/something which was when his wing mirror hit Mr. Irving's head, if he had stopped, Mr. Irving might still be alive, the driver is responsible for the death by driving carelessly, "accidental death" is when someone dies and no one is responsible, the driver in this case, WAS responsible, death by careless driving is the same as vehicular manslaughter.
As I said previously, "cheap points", and when it comes to cyclists I don't expect a balanced view from you Gc
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Folkestone Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]callcopse[/bold] wrote: This story certainly hits home for me. I am similar in age to the murdered cyclist. I was knocked off my bike from behind whilst minding my own business. I'm completely used to the shenanigans drivers invariably get up to ahead of me where I can do something about it. When you are just taken out from behind you can do nothing. The driver got no points, no course on driver awareness, nothing. His excuse was also that the sun was in his eyes. Right, thanks. I was incredibly lucky and am just getting over my injuries 6 months later (and still cycling). Until we get continental style strict liability laws in this country I don't think the situation will improve, and there will be unamusing buffoons like the letter writer and his defenders carrying on as they are.[/p][/quote]David Irving was not murdered, there was no intent by the driver to kill him, don't make this into something it is not[/p][/quote]He was killed though, wether it was murder or manslaughter, he was killed.[/p][/quote]It was neither, and as awful as it is for this man to die it remains that it it was accidental death, not that his family and freinds (who most seem to have forgotten whilst trying to score cheap points) will be comforted however the incident is called[/p][/quote]Manslaughter is unintentionally killing someone, the minibus driver, claimed to have been "blinded by the low sun", if he was blinded, why didn't he slow down or stop as he highway code says to? And why didn't he stop as soon as he knew he hit someone/something which was when his wing mirror hit Mr. Irving's head, if he had stopped, Mr. Irving might still be alive, the driver is responsible for the death by driving carelessly, "accidental death" is when someone dies and no one is responsible, the driver in this case, WAS responsible, death by careless driving is the same as vehicular manslaughter.[/p][/quote]As I said previously, "cheap points", and when it comes to cyclists I don't expect a balanced view from you Gc Folkestone Saint
  • Score: -6

10:24am Fri 14 Feb 14

callcopse says...

Ginger said:
Manslaughter is unintentionally killing someone, the minibus driver, claimed to have been "blinded by the low sun", if he was blinded, why didn't he slow down or stop as he highway code says to? And why didn't he stop as soon as he knew he hit someone/something which was when his wing mirror hit Mr. Irving's head, if he had stopped, Mr. Irving might still be alive, the driver is responsible for the death by driving carelessly, "accidental death" is when someone dies and no one is responsible, the driver in this case, WAS responsible, death by careless driving is the same as vehicular manslaughter.

Folkestone said:
As I said previously, "cheap points", and when it comes to cyclists I don't expect a balanced view from you Gc

Folkestone, kindly explain how that is a cheap point. There was clear neglect in the driver a) driving without being able to see where he was going b) not stopping at the scene of an accident. Between these two points a cyclist died. There is no cheap point scoring there, those are the bald facts. His neglectful actions lead to the man's death.

You are correct in that the driver is not proven guilty in a court of law. Until courts are willing to convict in these cases and this seems as cut and dried as they come, there will exist these problems, and the resulting odious views expressed above. It's not a one-off situation, drivers escape penalty time and time again when maiming and killing cyclists. I for one think the family would like to know that this situation might be progressed.
Ginger said: Manslaughter is unintentionally killing someone, the minibus driver, claimed to have been "blinded by the low sun", if he was blinded, why didn't he slow down or stop as he highway code says to? And why didn't he stop as soon as he knew he hit someone/something which was when his wing mirror hit Mr. Irving's head, if he had stopped, Mr. Irving might still be alive, the driver is responsible for the death by driving carelessly, "accidental death" is when someone dies and no one is responsible, the driver in this case, WAS responsible, death by careless driving is the same as vehicular manslaughter. Folkestone said: As I said previously, "cheap points", and when it comes to cyclists I don't expect a balanced view from you Gc Folkestone, kindly explain how that is a cheap point. There was clear neglect in the driver a) driving without being able to see where he was going b) not stopping at the scene of an accident. Between these two points a cyclist died. There is no cheap point scoring there, those are the bald facts. His neglectful actions lead to the man's death. You are correct in that the driver is not proven guilty in a court of law. Until courts are willing to convict in these cases and this seems as cut and dried as they come, there will exist these problems, and the resulting odious views expressed above. It's not a one-off situation, drivers escape penalty time and time again when maiming and killing cyclists. I for one think the family would like to know that this situation might be progressed. callcopse
  • Score: 9

11:09am Fri 14 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Mary80 wrote:
I thought roads were designed for horses and carts
The very first roads before horses started being used were actually for people, they were widened over time to accomadate horse rawn carts and wagons, then bicycles came along and their riders kickstarted the paving of these roads to become what we know as roads today, green lanes give a good representation of what roads were originally like.
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: I thought roads were designed for horses and carts[/p][/quote]The very first roads before horses started being used were actually for people, they were widened over time to accomadate horse rawn carts and wagons, then bicycles came along and their riders kickstarted the paving of these roads to become what we know as roads today, green lanes give a good representation of what roads were originally like. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

11:22am Fri 14 Feb 14

MrTiff says...

I for one will continue to campaign for cycling, and do so more fervently now, given the reasonable expectation that Alex Oliver Rigby will, when cyclists outnumber car drivers, abandon his car, such is the perversity of his numbers game.
I for one will continue to campaign for cycling, and do so more fervently now, given the reasonable expectation that Alex Oliver Rigby will, when cyclists outnumber car drivers, abandon his car, such is the perversity of his numbers game. MrTiff
  • Score: 5

11:36am Fri 14 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

MrTiff wrote:
I for one will continue to campaign for cycling, and do so more fervently now, given the reasonable expectation that Alex Oliver Rigby will, when cyclists outnumber car drivers, abandon his car, such is the perversity of his numbers game.
Seen the abomination that is now the saltmarsh/itchen bridge junction? It's going to get people killed.
[quote][p][bold]MrTiff[/bold] wrote: I for one will continue to campaign for cycling, and do so more fervently now, given the reasonable expectation that Alex Oliver Rigby will, when cyclists outnumber car drivers, abandon his car, such is the perversity of his numbers game.[/p][/quote]Seen the abomination that is now the saltmarsh/itchen bridge junction? It's going to get people killed. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Mary80 says...

I really hope to god the letter writer is just a troll out to try and stir the pot because if that is his LEGIT way of thinking i fear for his safety. OK there are a tiny amount of bad cyclists that seem to think they own the road but there are a lot who are very careful and safety conscious. I just think the actions of a few have badly maligned the rest
I really hope to god the letter writer is just a troll out to try and stir the pot because if that is his LEGIT way of thinking i fear for his safety. OK there are a tiny amount of bad cyclists that seem to think they own the road but there are a lot who are very careful and safety conscious. I just think the actions of a few have badly maligned the rest Mary80
  • Score: 7

1:06pm Sat 15 Feb 14

Mind the gap says...

This c u next Tuesday will get his comeuppance what a nasty little c. U. N. T rigby is
This c u next Tuesday will get his comeuppance what a nasty little c. U. N. T rigby is Mind the gap
  • Score: 3

4:52pm Sat 15 Feb 14

sidbarnes says...

This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without.

It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive.

I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.
This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without. It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive. I hope you get cancer Mr Murray. sidbarnes
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Sun 16 Feb 14

DanWeston says...

geoff51andabit wrote:
My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot.

Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.
Is this muppet for real?

Is he really saying that expecting road users to be aware of their surroundings, where other vehicles are, is "idiotic?

It is the basic of any good motorist or cyclist's interaction with other road users.

Methinks that no-one can post rubbish like this and be anything but a Troll!
[quote][p][bold]geoff51andabit[/bold] wrote: My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot. Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.[/p][/quote]Is this muppet for real? Is he really saying that expecting road users to be aware of their surroundings, where other vehicles are, is "idiotic? It is the basic of any good motorist or cyclist's interaction with other road users. Methinks that no-one can post rubbish like this and be anything but a Troll! DanWeston
  • Score: 2

2:09pm Sun 16 Feb 14

DanWeston says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Yet again we have the bigoted bile of Geoff 51 being spouted on this paper's comments pages.

Each time his pathetic statements are shown to be a figment of his little fantasy world, and then runs away until next time.


Although his ranting should be welcomed as it demonstrates unequivocally the poor attitudes that make our roads unsafe for everyone including other motorista
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Yet again we have the bigoted bile of Geoff 51 being spouted on this paper's comments pages. Each time his pathetic statements are shown to be a figment of his little fantasy world, and then runs away until next time. Although his ranting should be welcomed as it demonstrates unequivocally the poor attitudes that make our roads unsafe for everyone including other motorista DanWeston
  • Score: 4

2:16pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Mr Rigby said... For your own safety leave the bike at home, get in the car like any rational person would.


Lets not forget Steven Petterson was diving a white Ford Transit van not a car when he killed cyclist David Irving, from his van I'd say he had a better view of David Irvinthe than most, yet he claimed.. I did not see what had caused the impact due to driving in very bright conditions with low sun in the sky.

On the subject of appropriate speed for conditions and increasing use of Supermarket home deliveries.. a van/lorry can whiz around Southampton at all speeds making deliveries yet get blasted for going over 5 mph in a works/stock yard.. Why the discrepancy?

Isn't time to make delivery vans/lorries a special case and restrict them to 20 mph or lower on narrow urban roads?



,,
Mr Rigby said... For your own safety leave the bike at home, get in the car like any rational person would. Lets not forget Steven Petterson was diving a white Ford Transit van not a car when he killed cyclist David Irving, from his van I'd say he had a better view of David Irvinthe than most, yet he claimed.. I did not see what had caused the impact due to driving in very bright conditions with low sun in the sky. On the subject of appropriate speed for conditions and increasing use of Supermarket home deliveries.. a van/lorry can whiz around Southampton at all speeds making deliveries yet get blasted for going over 5 mph in a works/stock yard.. Why the discrepancy? Isn't time to make delivery vans/lorries a special case and restrict them to 20 mph or lower on narrow urban roads? ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 8

3:55pm Sun 16 Feb 14

geoff51 says...

DanWeston wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument
Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.
I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles.
The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on.
Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.
Yet again we have the bigoted bile of Geoff 51 being spouted on this paper's comments pages.

Each time his pathetic statements are shown to be a figment of his little fantasy world, and then runs away until next time.


Although his ranting should be welcomed as it demonstrates unequivocally the poor attitudes that make our roads unsafe for everyone including other motorista
And I love you too!!!
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: Can we agree there are equally bad cyclists as there are drivers and stop the pointless argument[/p][/quote]Agreed, now let's get back to the real problem which is the sickening victim blaming from Mr. Rigby, I actually felt phyically sick when I read his "letter" that blames cyclists who get killed, for doing nothing wrong.[/p][/quote]I agree with the letter from Mr Rigby when he states the obvious that there is no place on todays busy roads for unprotected cyclists and until there are designated cycle paths that are compulsory to use there will always be accidents caused by the arrogant attitudes of many cyclists that its their right to wobble in front of moving vehicles. The fact that you felt physical sick when reading the letter makes me wonder if you are safe enough to use the roads as you seem to be too lilly livered to make a decision which your life could depend on. Cyclists are a vociferous minority whose demands far outstrip their input into the system, and it is about time they put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Yet again we have the bigoted bile of Geoff 51 being spouted on this paper's comments pages. Each time his pathetic statements are shown to be a figment of his little fantasy world, and then runs away until next time. Although his ranting should be welcomed as it demonstrates unequivocally the poor attitudes that make our roads unsafe for everyone including other motorista[/p][/quote]And I love you too!!! geoff51
  • Score: -2

4:00pm Sun 16 Feb 14

geoff51 says...

sidbarnes wrote:
This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without.

It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive.

I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.
And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.
[quote][p][bold]sidbarnes[/bold] wrote: This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without. It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive. I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.[/p][/quote]And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context. geoff51
  • Score: -2

4:03pm Sun 16 Feb 14

geoff51 says...

DanWeston wrote:
geoff51andabit wrote:
My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot.

Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.
Is this muppet for real?

Is he really saying that expecting road users to be aware of their surroundings, where other vehicles are, is "idiotic?

It is the basic of any good motorist or cyclist's interaction with other road users.

Methinks that no-one can post rubbish like this and be anything but a Troll!
Please note this comment was not from me and my moniker was hijacked to wind me up.
[quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51andabit[/bold] wrote: My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot. Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.[/p][/quote]Is this muppet for real? Is he really saying that expecting road users to be aware of their surroundings, where other vehicles are, is "idiotic? It is the basic of any good motorist or cyclist's interaction with other road users. Methinks that no-one can post rubbish like this and be anything but a Troll![/p][/quote]Please note this comment was not from me and my moniker was hijacked to wind me up. geoff51
  • Score: -1

6:39pm Sun 16 Feb 14

DanWeston says...

geoff51 wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
geoff51andabit wrote:
My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot.

Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.
Is this muppet for real?

Is he really saying that expecting road users to be aware of their surroundings, where other vehicles are, is "idiotic?

It is the basic of any good motorist or cyclist's interaction with other road users.

Methinks that no-one can post rubbish like this and be anything but a Troll!
Please note this comment was not from me and my moniker was hijacked to wind me up.
Ironically it is difficult to tell the difference!

You have made similar claims and statements before!
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51andabit[/bold] wrote: My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot. Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.[/p][/quote]Is this muppet for real? Is he really saying that expecting road users to be aware of their surroundings, where other vehicles are, is "idiotic? It is the basic of any good motorist or cyclist's interaction with other road users. Methinks that no-one can post rubbish like this and be anything but a Troll![/p][/quote]Please note this comment was not from me and my moniker was hijacked to wind me up.[/p][/quote]Ironically it is difficult to tell the difference! You have made similar claims and statements before! DanWeston
  • Score: 1

6:41pm Sun 16 Feb 14

DanWeston says...

geoff51 wrote:
DanWeston wrote:
geoff51andabit wrote:
My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot.

Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.
Is this muppet for real?

Is he really saying that expecting road users to be aware of their surroundings, where other vehicles are, is "idiotic?

It is the basic of any good motorist or cyclist's interaction with other road users.

Methinks that no-one can post rubbish like this and be anything but a Troll!
Please note this comment was not from me and my moniker was hijacked to wind me up.
Ironically it is difficult to tell the difference!

You have made similar claims and statements before!
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DanWeston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51andabit[/bold] wrote: My brother is right. Anyone who rides a bike and expects drivers to look out for them, or anyone else on the road, is an idiot. Just like anyone on here that adds a comment backed up by research and common sense - an idiot. Right, time for a cup of tea and the Mail before I go out to beat up some gays and immigrants.[/p][/quote]Is this muppet for real? Is he really saying that expecting road users to be aware of their surroundings, where other vehicles are, is "idiotic? It is the basic of any good motorist or cyclist's interaction with other road users. Methinks that no-one can post rubbish like this and be anything but a Troll![/p][/quote]Please note this comment was not from me and my moniker was hijacked to wind me up.[/p][/quote]Ironically it is difficult to tell the difference! You have made similar claims and statements before! DanWeston
  • Score: 1

10:15pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
sidbarnes wrote:
This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without.

It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive.

I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.
And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.
He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sidbarnes[/bold] wrote: This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without. It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive. I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.[/p][/quote]And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.[/p][/quote]He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

10:26pm Sun 16 Feb 14

geoff51 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
sidbarnes wrote:
This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without.

It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive.

I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.
And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.
He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.
Wishing cancer on anybody is as low as you can sink, and represents all that is hateful about the pro cycling lobby. you have all as a group hoisted yourself on your own petard and need to get a PR guru to rescue your case.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sidbarnes[/bold] wrote: This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without. It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive. I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.[/p][/quote]And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.[/p][/quote]He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.[/p][/quote]Wishing cancer on anybody is as low as you can sink, and represents all that is hateful about the pro cycling lobby. you have all as a group hoisted yourself on your own petard and need to get a PR guru to rescue your case. geoff51
  • Score: -1

10:31pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
sidbarnes wrote:
This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without.

It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive.

I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.
And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.
He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.
Wishing cancer on anybody is as low as you can sink, and represents all that is hateful about the pro cycling lobby. you have all as a group hoisted yourself on your own petard and need to get a PR guru to rescue your case.
Did I condone wishing cancer on people? No, infact, I hope Rigby doesn't get it because I have seen first hand, what that disease does to a person but I DO hope that what he wrote comes back on him tenfold in some way.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sidbarnes[/bold] wrote: This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without. It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive. I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.[/p][/quote]And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.[/p][/quote]He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.[/p][/quote]Wishing cancer on anybody is as low as you can sink, and represents all that is hateful about the pro cycling lobby. you have all as a group hoisted yourself on your own petard and need to get a PR guru to rescue your case.[/p][/quote]Did I condone wishing cancer on people? No, infact, I hope Rigby doesn't get it because I have seen first hand, what that disease does to a person but I DO hope that what he wrote comes back on him tenfold in some way. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:56am Mon 17 Feb 14

saintly-jim says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
sidbarnes wrote:
This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without.

It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive.

I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.
And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.
He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.
Wishing cancer on anybody is as low as you can sink, and represents all that is hateful about the pro cycling lobby. you have all as a group hoisted yourself on your own petard and need to get a PR guru to rescue your case.
Hold on there. I've not been reading your conversation but cyclists do not all hold the same views. I doubt the Ginger Cyclist does wish cancer on people but even if he did, it would not mean that I would too.

As well as riding bikes, I do archery, enjoy conquering Scottish peaks and watch Southport FC; I doubt there's any other cyclists out there who do all those things! We're all individuals.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sidbarnes[/bold] wrote: This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without. It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive. I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.[/p][/quote]And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.[/p][/quote]He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.[/p][/quote]Wishing cancer on anybody is as low as you can sink, and represents all that is hateful about the pro cycling lobby. you have all as a group hoisted yourself on your own petard and need to get a PR guru to rescue your case.[/p][/quote]Hold on there. I've not been reading your conversation but cyclists do not all hold the same views. I doubt the Ginger Cyclist does wish cancer on people but even if he did, it would not mean that I would too. As well as riding bikes, I do archery, enjoy conquering Scottish peaks and watch Southport FC; I doubt there's any other cyclists out there who do all those things! We're all individuals. saintly-jim
  • Score: 2

4:19pm Tue 18 Feb 14

sidbarnes says...

geoff51 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
sidbarnes wrote:
This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without.

It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive.

I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.
And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.
He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.
Wishing cancer on anybody is as low as you can sink, and represents all that is hateful about the pro cycling lobby. you have all as a group hoisted yourself on your own petard and need to get a PR guru to rescue your case.
I'm not a cyclist. My son is.

My eleven year old son cycles to school. He obeys the law. he doesn't jump red lights or ride on pavements, he carries lights and wears a helmet.

By printing this letter Mr Murray is pandering to the psycho drivers out there who use their vehicles as weapons to bully and intimidate vulnerable road users.

By printing this letter Mr Murray has made the roads more dangerous for everyone, including my son.


The world would be a better place if Mr Murray died. Then letters like these would not be printed and my son would not be placed in danger.

Hurry up and die Mr Murray.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sidbarnes[/bold] wrote: This is the editor, Ian Murray, prostituting himself and the name of journalism in order to get clicks. This letter, and Murray's decision to print it, is like standing in a shop doorway twirling a handbag and offering anal without. It's a rank decision, it's like printing a letter from a paedophile who says it's the child's fault they got raped because they're so attractive. I hope you get cancer Mr Murray.[/p][/quote]And you represent the side of the cyclist? with an attitude like that you deserve to get run over by a motorist to put you out of your misery comparing motorist to paedophiles is really scraping the insult barrel and shows you sexual proclivities to even mention children in this context.[/p][/quote]He wasn't comparing motorists to paedophiles, just comparing Mr. Rigby to a paedophile that blames their victims, or people who blame rape victims for being raped, that's what Rigby is doing, is victim blaming, so shut up and get off your high horse before you hurt yourself.[/p][/quote]Wishing cancer on anybody is as low as you can sink, and represents all that is hateful about the pro cycling lobby. you have all as a group hoisted yourself on your own petard and need to get a PR guru to rescue your case.[/p][/quote]I'm not a cyclist. My son is. My eleven year old son cycles to school. He obeys the law. he doesn't jump red lights or ride on pavements, he carries lights and wears a helmet. By printing this letter Mr Murray is pandering to the psycho drivers out there who use their vehicles as weapons to bully and intimidate vulnerable road users. By printing this letter Mr Murray has made the roads more dangerous for everyone, including my son. The world would be a better place if Mr Murray died. Then letters like these would not be printed and my son would not be placed in danger. Hurry up and die Mr Murray. sidbarnes
  • Score: 1

10:07am Fri 21 Feb 14

Adrian Smith* says...

Does sidbarnes wish cancer and death on Ian Murray for all the pro-cycling letters that are published in this very paper? There are quite a lot, probably more than there are anti ones.

This letter is a nasty piece of writing, but sidbarnes' comments are far, far worse and show a worrying lack of perspective and God knows what else.

Besides, surely the person to aim any vitriol at is the writer of the letter rather than the newspaper which published it among a glut of pro/anti-cycling letters from its readers.
Does sidbarnes wish cancer and death on Ian Murray for all the pro-cycling letters that are published in this very paper? There are quite a lot, probably more than there are anti ones. This letter is a nasty piece of writing, but sidbarnes' comments are far, far worse and show a worrying lack of perspective and God knows what else. Besides, surely the person to aim any vitriol at is the writer of the letter rather than the newspaper which published it among a glut of pro/anti-cycling letters from its readers. Adrian Smith*
  • Score: 4

10:40am Fri 21 Feb 14

Dazman67 says...

Until the local authorities separate cyclists from cars by building dedicated cycle only lanes, these arguments will go on forever. In the world of H&S, businesses must make every effort to separate pedestrians from vehicles. It should be the same in the city for cyclists and cars. Keep them apart and accidents won't happen. It's that simple. If the authorities can't afford to build cycle only lanes, take it up with the local authority, not the cyclists. The law abiding cyclists have every right to be there as do the law abiding motorists. In reality and with the lack of space in this overcrowded island, it's not going to happen unless you build them from scratch (like the redways in MK) so we'll all just have to get along with each others choice of transport.
Until the local authorities separate cyclists from cars by building dedicated cycle only lanes, these arguments will go on forever. In the world of H&S, businesses must make every effort to separate pedestrians from vehicles. It should be the same in the city for cyclists and cars. Keep them apart and accidents won't happen. It's that simple. If the authorities can't afford to build cycle only lanes, take it up with the local authority, not the cyclists. The law abiding cyclists have every right to be there as do the law abiding motorists. In reality and with the lack of space in this overcrowded island, it's not going to happen unless you build them from scratch (like the redways in MK) so we'll all just have to get along with each others choice of transport. Dazman67
  • Score: 0

11:40am Fri 21 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Dazman67 wrote:
Until the local authorities separate cyclists from cars by building dedicated cycle only lanes, these arguments will go on forever. In the world of H&S, businesses must make every effort to separate pedestrians from vehicles. It should be the same in the city for cyclists and cars. Keep them apart and accidents won't happen. It's that simple. If the authorities can't afford to build cycle only lanes, take it up with the local authority, not the cyclists. The law abiding cyclists have every right to be there as do the law abiding motorists. In reality and with the lack of space in this overcrowded island, it's not going to happen unless you build them from scratch (like the redways in MK) so we'll all just have to get along with each others choice of transport.
I actually agree with this post, but unfortunately there are some who whatever they are riding or driving think the law does not apply to them. Last night on the way home from a meeting at the sports centre, I was walking along Winchester Road admiring the widest cycle lane I have ever seen when a tw4t on a bike brushed past me from behind at about 15 mph on the pavement. As he was displaying lights there was absolutely no excuse for this action, putting my safety at risk.
[quote][p][bold]Dazman67[/bold] wrote: Until the local authorities separate cyclists from cars by building dedicated cycle only lanes, these arguments will go on forever. In the world of H&S, businesses must make every effort to separate pedestrians from vehicles. It should be the same in the city for cyclists and cars. Keep them apart and accidents won't happen. It's that simple. If the authorities can't afford to build cycle only lanes, take it up with the local authority, not the cyclists. The law abiding cyclists have every right to be there as do the law abiding motorists. In reality and with the lack of space in this overcrowded island, it's not going to happen unless you build them from scratch (like the redways in MK) so we'll all just have to get along with each others choice of transport.[/p][/quote]I actually agree with this post, but unfortunately there are some who whatever they are riding or driving think the law does not apply to them. Last night on the way home from a meeting at the sports centre, I was walking along Winchester Road admiring the widest cycle lane I have ever seen when a tw4t on a bike brushed past me from behind at about 15 mph on the pavement. As he was displaying lights there was absolutely no excuse for this action, putting my safety at risk. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Urbane Forager says...

People please, calm down and carry on with your lives!
Walk, cycle, scoot, skateboard, drive or tricycle but do it with due consideration for others
The cowardly writer of the original letter is probably suffering from mental illness (or maybe his Mother pushed him off his tricycle at the tender age of four).
Let’s all hope that he gets locked up soon, for his own good, and for the sake of the public at large.
Possibly the Echo published the, frankly demented, letter as part of a campaign to allow the terminally deranged to express themselves. More likely though, they knew that the roads were a fiercely contested territory and that the opposing views quickly become polarised.
Really everyone should stop with the threats and wishing ill on each other; it’s not at all healthy or productive.
For the record, I am a pedestrian, cyclist and a driver. I am as careful as I can reasonably be when doing any of these activities, which is probably why I am still alive despite all the psychopaths out there. I aim to stay this way if I can and this will be a lot easier if this kind of stupid confrontation is not stoked up.
Fortunately. the vast majority of road users are both careful and considerate of all the others that share this space with them.
The rabid minority of haters are a potential danger to all of us, but only if we give them the attention they crave…
People please, calm down and carry on with your lives! Walk, cycle, scoot, skateboard, drive or tricycle but do it with due consideration for others The cowardly writer of the original letter is probably suffering from mental illness (or maybe his Mother pushed him off his tricycle at the tender age of four). Let’s all hope that he gets locked up soon, for his own good, and for the sake of the public at large. Possibly the Echo published the, frankly demented, letter as part of a campaign to allow the terminally deranged to express themselves. More likely though, they knew that the roads were a fiercely contested territory and that the opposing views quickly become polarised. Really everyone should stop with the threats and wishing ill on each other; it’s not at all healthy or productive. For the record, I am a pedestrian, cyclist and a driver. I am as careful as I can reasonably be when doing any of these activities, which is probably why I am still alive despite all the psychopaths out there. I aim to stay this way if I can and this will be a lot easier if this kind of stupid confrontation is not stoked up. Fortunately. the vast majority of road users are both careful and considerate of all the others that share this space with them. The rabid minority of haters are a potential danger to all of us, but only if we give them the attention they crave… Urbane Forager
  • Score: 3

3:12pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

How dare you come onto this site spouting sense, begone
How dare you come onto this site spouting sense, begone Inform Al
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Inform Al says...

Urbane Forager wrote:
People please, calm down and carry on with your lives!
Walk, cycle, scoot, skateboard, drive or tricycle but do it with due consideration for others
The cowardly writer of the original letter is probably suffering from mental illness (or maybe his Mother pushed him off his tricycle at the tender age of four).
Let’s all hope that he gets locked up soon, for his own good, and for the sake of the public at large.
Possibly the Echo published the, frankly demented, letter as part of a campaign to allow the terminally deranged to express themselves. More likely though, they knew that the roads were a fiercely contested territory and that the opposing views quickly become polarised.
Really everyone should stop with the threats and wishing ill on each other; it’s not at all healthy or productive.
For the record, I am a pedestrian, cyclist and a driver. I am as careful as I can reasonably be when doing any of these activities, which is probably why I am still alive despite all the psychopaths out there. I aim to stay this way if I can and this will be a lot easier if this kind of stupid confrontation is not stoked up.
Fortunately. the vast majority of road users are both careful and considerate of all the others that share this space with them.
The rabid minority of haters are a potential danger to all of us, but only if we give them the attention they crave…
How dare you come onto this site spouting sense, begone.
[quote][p][bold]Urbane Forager[/bold] wrote: People please, calm down and carry on with your lives! Walk, cycle, scoot, skateboard, drive or tricycle but do it with due consideration for others The cowardly writer of the original letter is probably suffering from mental illness (or maybe his Mother pushed him off his tricycle at the tender age of four). Let’s all hope that he gets locked up soon, for his own good, and for the sake of the public at large. Possibly the Echo published the, frankly demented, letter as part of a campaign to allow the terminally deranged to express themselves. More likely though, they knew that the roads were a fiercely contested territory and that the opposing views quickly become polarised. Really everyone should stop with the threats and wishing ill on each other; it’s not at all healthy or productive. For the record, I am a pedestrian, cyclist and a driver. I am as careful as I can reasonably be when doing any of these activities, which is probably why I am still alive despite all the psychopaths out there. I aim to stay this way if I can and this will be a lot easier if this kind of stupid confrontation is not stoked up. Fortunately. the vast majority of road users are both careful and considerate of all the others that share this space with them. The rabid minority of haters are a potential danger to all of us, but only if we give them the attention they crave…[/p][/quote]How dare you come onto this site spouting sense, begone. Inform Al
  • Score: 1

6:35pm Fri 21 Feb 14

klappdrachen says...

As a public transport user I take no sides in this increasingly vitriolic argument, although I believe the original letter to show a frightening lack of compassion.
What is worrying me is this talk of continental style liability insurance. I may be wrong, and if I am I will happily be corrected, but does this not automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver?
If so is this not the suspension of the basic human right of innocence until proven guilty, and thus unconstitutional?
As a public transport user I take no sides in this increasingly vitriolic argument, although I believe the original letter to show a frightening lack of compassion. What is worrying me is this talk of continental style liability insurance. I may be wrong, and if I am I will happily be corrected, but does this not automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver? If so is this not the suspension of the basic human right of innocence until proven guilty, and thus unconstitutional? klappdrachen
  • Score: 3

6:57pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

klappdrachen wrote:
As a public transport user I take no sides in this increasingly vitriolic argument, although I believe the original letter to show a frightening lack of compassion.
What is worrying me is this talk of continental style liability insurance. I may be wrong, and if I am I will happily be corrected, but does this not automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver?
If so is this not the suspension of the basic human right of innocence until proven guilty, and thus unconstitutional?
No, it doesn't automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver, it puts responsibility of more vulnerable road users safety on them unless the more vulnerable road user is found to be at fault, both are at fault or neither are at fault, much like it does in the work place where the employer is held responsible for the safety of their employees unless the employee is found to be at fault, both are found to be at fault or neither are found to be at fault.
[quote][p][bold]klappdrachen[/bold] wrote: As a public transport user I take no sides in this increasingly vitriolic argument, although I believe the original letter to show a frightening lack of compassion. What is worrying me is this talk of continental style liability insurance. I may be wrong, and if I am I will happily be corrected, but does this not automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver? If so is this not the suspension of the basic human right of innocence until proven guilty, and thus unconstitutional?[/p][/quote]No, it doesn't automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver, it puts responsibility of more vulnerable road users safety on them unless the more vulnerable road user is found to be at fault, both are at fault or neither are at fault, much like it does in the work place where the employer is held responsible for the safety of their employees unless the employee is found to be at fault, both are found to be at fault or neither are found to be at fault. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

6:59pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
klappdrachen wrote:
As a public transport user I take no sides in this increasingly vitriolic argument, although I believe the original letter to show a frightening lack of compassion.
What is worrying me is this talk of continental style liability insurance. I may be wrong, and if I am I will happily be corrected, but does this not automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver?
If so is this not the suspension of the basic human right of innocence until proven guilty, and thus unconstitutional?
No, it doesn't automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver, it puts responsibility of more vulnerable road users safety on them unless the more vulnerable road user is found to be at fault, both are at fault or neither are at fault, much like it does in the work place where the employer is held responsible for the safety of their employees unless the employee is found to be at fault, both are found to be at fault or neither are found to be at fault.
By the way, it would also do the same for cyclist/pedestrian incidents where the cyclist is held responsible for the safety of pedestrians on off-road facilities, unless the pedestrian, both or neitherare found to be at fault.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]klappdrachen[/bold] wrote: As a public transport user I take no sides in this increasingly vitriolic argument, although I believe the original letter to show a frightening lack of compassion. What is worrying me is this talk of continental style liability insurance. I may be wrong, and if I am I will happily be corrected, but does this not automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver? If so is this not the suspension of the basic human right of innocence until proven guilty, and thus unconstitutional?[/p][/quote]No, it doesn't automatically assume guilt on the part of the driver, it puts responsibility of more vulnerable road users safety on them unless the more vulnerable road user is found to be at fault, both are at fault or neither are at fault, much like it does in the work place where the employer is held responsible for the safety of their employees unless the employee is found to be at fault, both are found to be at fault or neither are found to be at fault.[/p][/quote]By the way, it would also do the same for cyclist/pedestrian incidents where the cyclist is held responsible for the safety of pedestrians on off-road facilities, unless the pedestrian, both or neitherare found to be at fault. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Fri 21 Feb 14

klappdrachen says...

Thank You,

That makes perfect sense and is totally reasonable.
Thank You, That makes perfect sense and is totally reasonable. klappdrachen
  • Score: 0

10:20pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

klappdrachen wrote:
Thank You,

That makes perfect sense and is totally reasonable.
Wish everyone would see it that way but then, there was probably a lot of opposition to it being introduced into health and safety at work laws to start with as well.
[quote][p][bold]klappdrachen[/bold] wrote: Thank You, That makes perfect sense and is totally reasonable.[/p][/quote]Wish everyone would see it that way but then, there was probably a lot of opposition to it being introduced into health and safety at work laws to start with as well. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

11:17pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Mr Rigby said... For your own safety leave the bike at home, get in the car like any rational person would.


Lets not forget Steven Petterson was diving a white Ford Transit van not a car when he killed cyclist David Irving, from his van I'd say he had a better view of David Irvinthe than most, yet he claimed.. I did not see what had caused the impact due to driving in very bright conditions with low sun in the sky.

On the subject of appropriate speed for conditions and increasing use of Supermarket home deliveries.. a van/lorry can whiz around Southampton at all speeds making deliveries yet get blasted for going over 5 mph in a works/stock yard.. Why the discrepancy?

Isn't time to make delivery vans/lorries a special case and restrict them to 20 mph or lower on narrow urban roads?



,,
,,


When are motorists going to get a fair deal and be listened to?.. ho yeah, lets talk about car pollution, that kills more people than car accidents..


It looks like Southampton's car drivers have copped a £19 million air pollution fine.

Being realistic.. I don't think they're going to cough up their portion of the fine, so that leaves me and the rest of the UKs 30 million taxpayers with a £300 million bill.. and lets not forget the extra billions in health costs!!



UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010.

IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014.

poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents.

"It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said

last year.

CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE

UK.

The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire &

Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015

-
http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
014/feb/20/air-pollu
tion-european-commis
sion-legal-action-uk
-nitrogen-dioxide



,,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Mr Rigby said... For your own safety leave the bike at home, get in the car like any rational person would. Lets not forget Steven Petterson was diving a white Ford Transit van not a car when he killed cyclist David Irving, from his van I'd say he had a better view of David Irvinthe than most, yet he claimed.. I did not see what had caused the impact due to driving in very bright conditions with low sun in the sky. On the subject of appropriate speed for conditions and increasing use of Supermarket home deliveries.. a van/lorry can whiz around Southampton at all speeds making deliveries yet get blasted for going over 5 mph in a works/stock yard.. Why the discrepancy? Isn't time to make delivery vans/lorries a special case and restrict them to 20 mph or lower on narrow urban roads? ,,[/p][/quote],, When are motorists going to get a fair deal and be listened to?.. ho yeah, lets talk about car pollution, that kills more people than car accidents.. It looks like Southampton's car drivers have copped a £19 million air pollution fine. Being realistic.. I don't think they're going to cough up their portion of the fine, so that leaves me and the rest of the UKs 30 million taxpayers with a £300 million bill.. and lets not forget the extra billions in health costs!! UK FACES £300M FINE OVER FAILURE TO MEET AIR POLLUTION TARGETS BY 2010. IAN JOHNSTON Thursday 20 February 2014. poor air quality is the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU with a toll that outstrips road traffic accidents. "It is an invisible killer and it prevents many people from living a fully active life. It already costs Europe €330bn-€940bn (£277bn-£789bn) a year in extra health costs and prematurely killed over 100,000 people a year," he said last year. CITY-DWELLERS ARE PARTICULARLY EXPOSED, AS MOST NITROGEN DIOXIDE ORIGINATES IN TRAFFIC FUMES … AIR POLLUTION LIMITS ARE REGULARLY EXCEEDED IN 16 ZONES ACROSS THE UK. The affected areas are Greater London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Teesside, the Potteries, Hull, SOUTHAMPTON, Glasgow, the east, the south-east, the east Midlands, Merseyside, Yorkshire & Humberside, the west Midlands, and the north-east. But the commission said that Britain had not presented any "credible and workable plan" for meeting air quality standards by 2015 - http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 014/feb/20/air-pollu tion-european-commis sion-legal-action-uk -nitrogen-dioxide ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

11:29am Sat 1 Mar 14

AlexStanek says...

This article brings Daily Echo standards to a new low....

No Research
No Facts
Pure Bias
Sh*tty Solution

Get on your bike son, no one wants to read this!
This article brings Daily Echo standards to a new low.... No Research No Facts Pure Bias Sh*tty Solution Get on your bike son, no one wants to read this! AlexStanek
  • Score: 2

6:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Mark.D says...

I cant believe the Echo actually chose to print this - its totally insensitive to the family of the Cyclist and is unlikely to make the Van driver feel better , its a stupid point of view written by someone who lacks empathy.
I cant believe the Echo actually chose to print this - its totally insensitive to the family of the Cyclist and is unlikely to make the Van driver feel better , its a stupid point of view written by someone who lacks empathy. Mark.D
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree