Four years jail...

Have you never heard of equal and opposite reaction?

 

TOG discussing physics. Where's the popcorn?

 

Steve Berry on Radio 2 the other day summed up the whole cyclist vs
human argument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/main...radio/aod/radio2_aod.shtml?radio2/r2_vine_wed

Skip to 1 hour 40.

 

Indeed. The bit that says that you /must/ check before opening your door
is, however.

Cheers,
Luke

 

Oh, I know, but Berrys rant had me laughing like a total muppet whilst
sitting in traffic the other day. So I figured it was worth posting a
link to anyone who hadn't laughed along!

 

I seem to remember Chris Malcolm, of this parish, passing on as
standard motorcyclist's advice, that when someone opens a door in your
path you should open the throttle and take it off its hinges, rather
than risk it stopping you. What I can't remember is whether he was
recounting a personal experience.

Brendan

 

You appear to be suggesting that 'cyclists' as a whole do not care for
the safety of others.

Ta ra,
Luke

 

Go on, what's your point? Are you claiming that people are not, in fact,
legally obliged to check before opening their doors or are you just
writing as a means of keeping your typing fingers busy?

Cheers,
Luke

 

Yes, that's why she didn't get life.

 

So she was. She was breaking the law. The cyclist wasn't. Lucky she didn't
get a stiff fine and points on her licence.

 

Cyclists are vermin who should be removed from the face of the earth.

 

When Stupid Cunts collide.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."

 

Granted. But the HC also says of cyclists, albeit without the legal
obligations:
67
Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for
doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
be aware of traffic coming up behind you


But this is digressing. The legal point is clear.

 

Indeed. Though I doubt that's actually law, per se. The _HC_ says
you must check and if an accident results it gets taken up under due
care & attention or somesuch. </splitting hairs>

 

She checked - thus could not be accused of due care or similar which
is the law that would be taken into account. She failed to spot the
cyclist but that in itself is not an offence. The cyclist was also in
the wrong, if not actually breaking a law.

The police attended and didn't even bother issuing a producer.

Legally 100% culpable, sure. But in actual fact there was fault on
both sides.

 

I don't really see the difference between this and a cyclist being hit
after going through a red light - sure, running the red light is
breaking a law, which riding like a twat isn't, but fundamentally the
issue is the same - an accident caused by fault on both sides. The
greater fault lies with the motorist in both examples but the cyclist
has put himself in a position where the inattention (or whatever) of
another caused an accident.

 

She's watching you type, isn't she?

 

You might not be required in law to follow it, but the courts do use
it in determining culpability.

 

She also had three previous FPNs for speeding, AIUI at least one was on
the same stretch of road.
IMHO she should be banned from driving for life.

 

Or skip it altogether. If that bloke was a balloon, he'd be a fucking
Zeppelin.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19