anyone know this cyclist?

Thomk

Veteran
Location
Warwickshire
It's just a semantic merry-go-round as most of these thread sub plots tend to sink into.

Consider the following scenarios:
  1. Man goes onto a roof sober to fix his roof and without realising it knocks a slate off which kills a dog - he claims it was an accident
  2. Man gets drunk and then goes onto his roof to howl at the moon and without realising it knocks a slate off which kills a dog - he claims it was an accident
  3. Man goes onto a roof in order to pick up a big fat slate he knows is there and throws it at the neighbours dog to scare it. He hits the dog instead and kills it - he says he killed the dog by accident
  4. 12 year old child climbs onto the roof (even though she has been warned not to because it's dangerous), knocks off a slate which kills a dog - she says it was an accident
  5. 2 year old child climbs onto a roof (even though he has been told not to) and throws a slate off the roof which kills a dog - parent says it was an accident
I could go on but the idea should be clear. In all of those cases an accident can be claimed but all of the cases are different and the cry of "accident" is arguable. The word "accident" means different things to different people at different times.
 
You mean the fire extinguisher chucker deliberately propelled a heavy metal object where it was likely there would be people?
As I said, that has crossed the line, and would be stretching it to call an accident.
 
Thanks. Actually, I'm also quite happy to deal with constructive criticism but I think if someone's going to call me a numpty, the least I can do is turn up and say hello.
If anyone here's called you a numpty, I'd hope it's for something else rather than the (excellent) article.
Welcome by the way !
 
Thanks. Actually, I'm also quite happy to deal with constructive criticism but I think if someone's going to call me a numpty, the least I can do is turn up and say hello.
Good stuff, enjoyed reading that. The UK government has much it could learn from our continental neighbours regarding cycling, yet at best pays lip service to the subject. The attitude of some drivers towards cyclists is shocking and scarcely credible, yet penalties for inexcusable driving are derisory. Critical articles such as this are a welcome addition in the battle to combat much of the drivel spouted by our media. Thank you, don't stop.
 

HBlack

Member
If anyone here's called you a numpty, I'd hope it's for something else rather than the (excellent) article.
Welcome by the way !
Thanks for the welcome! Just starting to find my way around. As for the numpty comment, it appeared to be directed at me but I've been called a lot worse (though other insults have been more accurate, I'm many things but not really a numpty).
 

anothersam

SMIDSMe
Location
Far East Sussex
Another very good blog posting about the skewed 'You and Yours' programme on this incident. http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/06/bez-them-and-us/
I liked the beginning
A collective groan passed as a wave across social media.
and the middle
One caller, Barry, was given two and a half minutes of national airtime to tell a tale of bicycles that defied his understanding, with “no seats, no bell, nothing, and they’re in gangs, and they just jump out on you”, with this forming the basis for his demands for swathes of additional legislation. (I did enjoy Barry’s contribution, though, largely because his voice was rather Dudley Moore-ish, which conjured up a mental image of these terrifying biker gangs lurking somewhere inside Jayne Mansfield….) And this summed things up; it summed up the whole premise of the programme: that everyone has a tale to tell, their view of the world, their perspective; and that a quick bit of legislation will solve all the problems with all of those tales.
and the end
We’re going to have to endure more of these myopic, insular and divisive discussions before the issues of freedom of transport become Us and Ours.
so thanks for the heads up.
 
Top Bottom