Re: Sydney Bicycle accident

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:68uc47F2upuuiU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:0NydnWUfSOJ5p7XVnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Doug Jewell" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>> news:482820dc$0$22133$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> "Noddy" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:4827a55a$0$58058$c30e37c6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message 
>>>>>> news:68p9l8F2sshtoU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Swerving and stopping in front of a group of cyclists, then
leaving 
>>>>>>> the scene of the resulting accident, is not only illegal, but 
>>>>>>> extremely poor form.
>>>>>> It depends entirely on the cir***stances.
>>>>> **Indeed. An engine fault is not a situation which calls for 
>>>>> endangering the lives of 50 cyclists. It is a situation which calls
for 
>>>>> the driver to allow the vehicle to slow, whilst looking for an 
>>>>> op****tunity to get off the road SAFELY.
>>>> One re****t that I saw (and bear in mind it was a re****t, so there is
no 
>>>> guarantee to it's truth), said that several cyclists overtook him
BEFORE 
>>>> they started ploughing into the back of the car. If he stopped in the

>>>> way you are describing you would expect the front cyclists to be the 
>>>> ones hitting him. If the front cyclists got past, and it was ones 
>>>> further down in the pack that hit him, it tells me that there is
nothing 
>>>> wrong with his stopping action, but it was the cyclists were riding
too 
>>>> close to each other to be able to A) see the unexpected and B) react
to 
>>>> the unexpected.
>>>
>>> Precisely. For a hypothetical, try reversing the situation...........
>>>
>>> 5 cars driving nose to tail. The front car comes upon a cyclist and at

>>> the last minute swerves to pass the bike. The other 4 cars, driving to

>>> close to the car in front, don't have time to react and run straight
over 
>>> the cyclist.
>>> Who does Trevor think would be at fault there?
>> **Try reversing the situation and I'll attempt to answer. Your scenario

>> doesn't come close.
> 
> **In fact, I'll do it for you:
> 
> Cyclist swerves into the right hand lane, in front of several vehicles, 
> travelling at high speed. The cyclist slams his brakes on, thus causing
the 
> cars to crash into him and each other.
> 
> IMO, the cyclist, if he is still alive, should be locked up for the rest
of 
> his life. Clearly, the cyclist is at fault. Additionally, he should be 
> forced to pay the full costs of damage to the vehicles concerned.
> 
> Same deal with this idiot motorist, who caused the lives of 50 cyclists
to 
> be placed at risk. I hope they take his driver's license away and lock
the 
> bastard up. His property should be sold to pay for any damage caused, 
> because I doubt insurance would cover it. His story is simply not 
> believable.
Whatever the reason he stopped, I ride bikes as well as 
drive, and I can stop my bike from 50-60 much quicker than I 
can a stop a car. It has also been stated that the front 
riders got past him, and it was riders in the middle of the 
pack that hit him.
Sounds to me like the cyclists were not paying due care and 
attention, or possibly even used their numbers to 
deliberately hit the car to teach him a lesson. Some 
cyclists seem to get agro over the slightest thing car 
drivers do, like the bunch I encountered near Canberra that 
were blocking the road preventing overtaking, that started 
looking for a fight when I tooted the horn.
Sorry, but I find the motorists story quite believable, and 
even IF he did deliberately pull up in front of the pack as 
has been claimed, the cyclists should have been able to 
avoid him if they were maintaining sufficient gap between 
each other and observing the road ahead properly. As I said, 
sounds VERY much like the cyclists have deliberately run 
into him.
> 
> Trevor Wilson
> 
> 
>