Jump to content

Boxing Day - kick-off 3pm

Scottish Premiership - Kilmarnock v Aberdeen

Just signed up to DonsTalk? Check your SPAM mailbox for your DonsTalk validation email - Click for more info

Things that really annoy you

donsdaft

By donsdaft
in Off Topic

 Share

Recommended Posts

manc_don

manc_don

Posted
Posted

Except as was proved in court using CCTV evidence that the cyclist didnt realise existed, she most definitely did not. I believe he now on bail awaiting sentence...

 

Fair enough. Wasn't aware of that. The guy seemed like a complete cunt. I've never liked fixed wheel cyclists, tend to be the arseholes of cycling.

 

Regardless, my point still stands, having had to deal with multiple idiots like that when cycling to work myself. I've had to purposefully drop my shoulder to ensure it wasn't me that got taken out.

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

RicoS321

RicoS321

Posted
Posted

Except as was proved in court using CCTV evidence that the cyclist didnt realise existed, she most definitely did not. I believe he now on bail awaiting sentence...

 

Have you got a link to that? All the paper reports I read suggested that was not contended by the prosecution (I say suggested, because it wasn't explicitly mentioned, which you thought it would have been otherwise).

 

The case seemed to be based entirely on the person's perceived lack of remorse and what he said on online forums. A person being a dick should be not taken into account in the courtroom, as people react different ways when accused of something. The whole case appeared to be a persecution circus, where the guy was held to account for something that was clearly a horrible accident. I suspect that had he a better lawyer he'd have got off. Ignorance of the law is a perfectly acceptable defence. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished for it, but the punishment should be in line with the risk. Back pedalling instead of braking isn't inherently risky (especially not for the cyclist) and couldn't reasonably have been expected to have led to a death of a pedestrian. Indeed, front breaks would have sent him flying over the handlebars because the poor lady didn't look before crossing.

 

There appeared to be a massive political side to this case, and a stoking of the flames by a retarded press. The important take away should have been the requirement for better cycling infrastructure, but that wasn't the case.

tom_widdows

tom_widdows

Posted
Posted

Have you got a link to that? All the paper reports I read suggested that was not contended by the prosecution (I say suggested, because it wasn't explicitly mentioned, which you thought it would have been otherwise).

 

The case seemed to be based entirely on the person's perceived lack of remorse and what he said on online forums. A person being a dick should be not taken into account in the courtroom, as people react different ways when accused of something. The whole case appeared to be a persecution circus, where the guy was held to account for something that was clearly a horrible accident. I suspect that had he a better lawyer he'd have got off. Ignorance of the law is a perfectly acceptable defence. It doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished for it, but the punishment should be in line with the risk. Back pedalling instead of braking isn't inherently risky (especially not for the cyclist) and couldn't reasonably have been expected to have led to a death of a pedestrian. Indeed, front breaks would have sent him flying over the handlebars because the poor lady didn't look before crossing.

 

There appeared to be a massive political side to this case, and a stoking of the flames by a retarded press. The important take away should have been the requirement for better cycling infrastructure, but that wasn't the case.

 

I would disagree. The back pedaling break system IMO is up there with stopping your car using just the handbrake. If you are confident experienced cyclist the only thing that should send you over the handle bars is hitting something, or some joker jamming a stick through the front wheels which then spins, hits the frame and causes the 'kick' that puts you in the air.

if you have to apply the front brake in an emergency you do it the same way ABS does on your car - on/off/on/off. You either stop or at least have the control to swerve which means you either avoid a collision or reduce its impact.

If yer really good yer left hand is also activating the rear brake which takes away some of the impact of the front.

I narrowly avoided hitting someone who decided to step into the cycle lane on waterloo street while looking at his phone using the front & rear brakes on my bike. The other reason I didn't hit him was about 10m before the incident I clocked his body language and guessed he was looking to cross but was only interested in avoiding oncoming traffic rather than checking behind him (road is one way, cycle lane is 2 way).

Hazard perception was part of my cycling proficiency test in Primary school, my driving test when I was 17 and my fairly recent CBT.

 

This guy appears to think he is a great cyclist but as I see it his use of the illegal track bike on a public road shows he was more interested in the speed aspect and was primarily interested in himself. A cycling boy racer if you will. The whole 'oh its all about being in control' just doesn't wash with me. My experiences of rear wheel braking is restricted to a couple of BMX rides and I never ever felt in control.

 

You want to drive/ ride any vehicle on a public road it is your responsibility to ensure it is Legal (not for race tracks only) and also road worthy.

If the cops do you for illegal tyres on your car your defence of 'I didn't realise they were illegal' is dismissed straight away as it is your responsibility to keep your vehicle in a road worthy legal condition.

 

I personally hope this incident starts the ball rolling on how cycling is policed/ regulated as successive governments are really pushing for people to reduce their car use and get on a push-bike but there is little to no education on the dangers and your responsibilities for doing so.

Cycling Infrastructure takes time to install but any muppet can head down to Evans or halfords and buy a bike and be causing chaos and/or accidents on the city streets or shared concourses before the credit card payment has cleared.

 

RicoS321

RicoS321

Posted
Posted

I ken fit the fixie brakes are. He swerved to avoid her, but he also shouted, so she stepped back into the path he had subsequently taken. I think that's what I would have done rather than break given the distance between them (6metres). I was suggesting he'd go over his handle bars, because of the distance he had to stop; he wouldn't have been able to use the techniques you suggest and come to a stop. Again, I'd say that he's clearly a dick, but it's unreasonable to expect anyone to assume that removing front brakes could possibly lead to death.

 

Ten Caat, your link to the daily mail does not say that she wasn't on her phone. Neither does any of the evidence raised in court that I've seen. It all suggest she was at the point she stepped onto the road. Had he swerved into the road to avoid her and was killed by a car, would she have been (attempted to be) charged with manslaughter? What makes stepping onto to a road on yer phone less irresponsible than riding a bike without brakes. Neither can reasonably be expected to lead to a death other than yer own.

Tyrant

Tyrant

Posted
Posted

The horrible lazy cunts that park in the drop off/pick up zone in supermarket car parks. Fuck you. You ignorant fucking cretins. I wish supermarkets policed their car parks better. I know they can't really dish out fines but they should do what Aberdeen College (amongst others) used to do. Stick a big sticker on the car that'll take ages to clean off.

RicoS321

RicoS321

Posted
Posted

I'm sure it wouldn't happen to you, Rico, as you wouldn't park like a selfish, ignorant cunt.

 

You're correct. I have legs, so I park appropriately in the correct spaces. Also, I don't go to supermarkets because I'm an ignorant cunt.

Tyrant

Tyrant

Posted
Posted

You're correct. I have legs, so I park appropriately in the correct spaces. Also, I don't go to supermarkets because I'm an ignorant cunt.

 

 

Where do you buy your super noodles and white bread from then?  ???

Tyrant

Tyrant

Posted
Posted

It's ok to be an ignorant cunt but only if it doesn't manifest itself in any way at all. Which arguably makes you not an ignorant cunt. But also knowing that you're an ignorant cunt actually shows that you're not completely ignorant. But it's also pretty ignorant to claim to not be an ignorant cunt which would then in turn show that you're an ignorant cunt.

 

So the bottom line is dinna park in the drop off/pick up zone. That's for dropping folk off and picking them up. Nae for being a lazy ignorant cunt.

 

I'd also like to add.. Don't park in disabled spaces unless you've got a valid blue badge. Dinna open yer door and whack the car next to you. Just because you dinna give a fuck about yer car doesn't mean that the cunt parked next to you doesn't. Dinna take up  two  spaces because you can't be arsed taking an additional few seconds to properly position your shite car in between the white lines properly. Cunts min.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...