Tragic news.

[Madmark62]

SomeAs i said before, your behaviour is inexcusable, and largely offensive.

 

I agree with that.

[nb Innisfree]

Someone who tries to wind others up on a forum by posting offensive remarks,getting a reaction or 'bite', which will in turn fuel the trolls need to keep posting on the same offensive theme to get further reaction ! Does THAT sound familiar ? I won't be repsonding to you again on this thread, as that is exactly what a troll would desire.As i said before, your behaviour is inexcusable, and largely offensive.

 

You're entitled to your opinion about me, but actually if you read my posts properly you will see that I am responding to other posters remarks, am I not allowed to respond in a reasonable manner? You are responding in an illogical and emotional manner, you say this is an offensive theme, then on that basis surely subjects such as these should be banned from an open forum.

[Barry]

You are one of the saddest, most ridiculous internet trolls i have ever had the misfortune to read posts from..

 

A man died for gods sake!

 

Can you for once please stop defending the indefensible, stop being a complete t*****, and just shut the f*** up!

 

You are unreal and pathetic...

 

Mod - ban me if you wish but this needed saying...

 

Good heavens what on earth are you on about? Your emotional outburst adds nothing to the discussion and achieves nothing other than to make you feel better

 

Grow up man

 

 

well said Mate, someone that members of this forum knew personally has died in tragic circumstances, and a man has been convicted of his death. End of. The trolls remarks are insensitive and crass.

 

Where does this piece of information come from?

 

 

Someone who tries to wind others up on a forum by posting offensive remarks,getting a reaction or 'bite', which will in turn fuel the trolls need to keep posting on the same offensive theme to get further reaction ! Does THAT sound familiar ? I won't be repsonding to you again on this thread, as that is exactly what a troll would desire.As i said before, your behaviour is inexcusable, and largely offensive.

 

I'm going to challenge this. I've read Innisfree's posts on here for a long time. He is a long long way from being a troll. I suggest that you are allowing your emotions to rule your head. Innisfree makes some good points. I don't particularly like some of what he has said but what he says is worth thinking about

[romarni123]

Another assumption.

We live in the countryside hitting wildlife happens all the time,phesants a badger and a muntjac?? trust me we know we have hit them, I think we would know we had hit someone on a bike.

[muddywaters]

But you're assuming he was aware that he had hit a cyclist, he may or may not have been, you or I simply don't know.

 

If he drove by later and wasn't aware that he had hit anybody why would he stop? We just don't know

How many times do we all lose concentration for a short while, if it doesn't result in an incident then we don't realise we lost concentration, on that basis should all of us stay at home.

 

You're just making assumptions.

If he was not aware what he had hit = driving with undue care and attention IMHO.

But he would have been aware he had hit something at that spot so any rational person would think better check it's not whatI hit.

[LoneWolf]

You're entitled to your opinion about me, but actually if you read my posts properly you will see that I am responding to other posters remarks, am I not allowed to respond in a reasonable manner? You are responding in an illogical and emotional manner, you say this is an offensive theme, then on that basis surely subjects such as these should be banned from an open forum.

 

I agree with you about all the assumptions being made on this thread but I think you're wasting your time. This forum has plenty of people who seem to enjoy expressing outrage, most of the time about things that don't affect them at all and they wont be persuaded otherwise by (lack of) facts.

[nb Innisfree]

We live in the countryside hitting wildlife happens all the time,phesants a badger and a muntjac?? trust me we know we have hit them, I think we would know we had hit someone on a bike.

 

All I'm saying is I don't know what it sounds or feels like to hit someone on a bike, god forbid that I ever would, I have hit wildlife but always seen it coming, I just can't say for an absolute certainty that I would know I had hit a cyclist if I didn't see them for some reason. That's all, just trying not to automatically jump to the attack of the driver when it is all based on supposition.

 

Am I the only one to think this?

[BelgiumBrit]

 

 

Where does this piece of information come from?

 

 

 

 

 

Are you not capable of reading the entire thread before commenting ? Check page one ( O.P ) and beyond ......... that is where my info comes from ! Keep up !

[mayalld]

yep, that's a bit over the top isn't it? Expecting him to work for the 'good of the community' 'unpaid' for 200 hrs , instead of going to prison;Community service is the harsh option indeed !

Possibly not harsh as such (and in my view the sentence appears on the stated facts to be too lenient), but assuming that he does his unpaid work close to home we can be assured that he will actually be working hard

[Dr Bradley]

The fact that Innisfree has said we don't know all the circumstamnces is true.He has not resorted to base insults as some respondents have done. I posted earlier that I thought the sentance was too lenient, but I also agree with Innisfree that there may be extenuating circumstances. There is no need to resort to insults when a person expresses an opinion, no matter how tragic the circumstances.

[Lesd]

 

Where does this piece of information come from?

 

 

 

See post 1 and topic title Bazza, the deceased was a friend of Travis'(Andy). I think some of the comments here have been insensitive in the extreme.

Les

[magpie patrick]

No I'm being logical.

 

To the point of being ridiculous?

 

no we don't know, but having seen several accident scene reports there are usually giveaways, the road wearing course scars easily, tyres leave marks even when they don't skid

 

and throwing a human off a bike(never mind 50 feet) involves a level of force that will damage the vehicle that did it, and the driver will notice something by way of kickback, judder etc

[bargemast]

Posted Today, 09:47 PM

 

 

bargemast, on 06 July 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

 

 

I'm not just making assumptions, I was reading post #27, in which was said that the man stopped 200m further to check the damage on his vehicle, so he very well knew he'd hit someone or something and didn't stop immediatly but 200m further, so why only then ?

 

Peter.

 

 

 

But you are making the assumption that he knew he had hit a cyclist, why would he "very well know he'd hit someone"? just because he'd stopped to inspect any damage 200m further on? If indeed he did think he'd only hit some road furniture there might not be any immediate urgency and he stopped when he though it was safe to do so. If I thought I had hit something inanimate I probably would stop when it was safe to do so, if I thought I had hit someone I would stop immediately, there is a difference between the two.

 

You're entitled to your opinion about me, but actually if you read my posts properly you will see that I am responding to other posters remarks, am I not allowed to respond in a reasonable manner? You are responding in an illogical and emotional manner, you say this is an offensive theme, then on that basis surely subjects such as these should be banned from an open forum.

 

 

 

You write here "if you read my posts properly", but that doesn't seem what you're doing yourself, as in my writing I clearly wrote "someone or something", but you only took the "someone" part out of it.

 

Anyway, if I would have hit something, I wouldn't make the assumption that it could have been road furniture, and I would stop to make sure that it wasn't anything much more important, which you'll only know after you've stopped and looked.

 

To avoid anymore upsetting posts about this very sad happening, this will be my last post about this subject.

 

Peter.

[BelgiumBrit]

I agree with you about all the assumptions being made on this thread but I think you're wasting your time. This forum has plenty of people who seem to enjoy expressing outrage, most of the time about things that don't affect them at all and they wont be persuaded otherwise by (lack of) facts.

 

Lack of facts ? Sentence has been passed on the Charges presented before the Court.That is fact based on Fact offered and accepted by The Jury in Evidence. The only outrage I have is against your 'thoughtless' comment (above) and that of another. What are YOU on ? Unbelievable.

[romarni123]

All I'm saying is I don't know what it sounds or feels like to hit someone on a bike, god forbid that I ever would, I have hit wildlife but always seen it coming, I just can't say for an absolute certainty that I would know I had hit a cyclist if I didn't see them for some reason. That's all, just trying not to automatically jump to the attack of the driver when it is all based on supposition.

 

Am I the only one to think this?

Nor me but taking the muncjac as a near example of hitting something largish it makes a right noise and a very audable bang inside the car which would alert you to the fact that you had hit something.My husband was run over by a car he said the impact makes a loud noise

[nb Innisfree]

Lack of facts ? Sentence has been passed on the Charges presented before the Court.That is fact based on Fact offered and accepted by The Jury in Evidence. The only outrage I have is against your 'thoughtless' comment (above) and that of another. What are YOU on ? Unbelievable.

 

I think that's twice you have stated you won't be posting on this subject any more and also said you wouldn't be responding to me. I think it is you that is a troll.

 

Lack of facts ? Sentence has been passed on the Charges presented before the Court.That is fact based on Fact offered and accepted by The Jury in Evidence. The only outrage I have is against your 'thoughtless' comment (above) and that of another. What are YOU on ? Unbelievable.

 

So why your problem with the sentence passed?

[RLWP]

I agree with you about all the assumptions being made on this thread but I think you're wasting your time. This forum has plenty of people who seem to enjoy expressing outrage, most of the time about things that don't affect them at all and they wont be persuaded otherwise by (lack of) facts.

 

Nicely put. I agree

 

Richard

 

I think that's twice you have stated you won't be posting on this subject any more and also said you wouldn't be responding to me. I think it is you that is a troll.

 

<snip>

 

You are not alone in that opinion

 

Richard

[magpie patrick]

All I'm saying is I don't know what it sounds or feels like to hit someone on a bike, god forbid that I ever would, I have hit wildlife but always seen it coming, I just can't say for an absolute certainty that I would know I had hit a cyclist if I didn't see them for some reason. That's all, just trying not to automatically jump to the attack of the driver when it is all based on supposition.

 

Am I the only one to think this?

 

You may not be the only one who thinks this, but the idea you didn't know you had hit something worth stopping to investigate IS ludicrous

 

Sorry to all those who think Innisfree has a point, I don't. There have been too many apologists on here who have said "well, we only know what we're told, not reliable evidence" etc. Alan made the point, cycle lane, one of the safest stretches of road to cycle, others have pointed out "thought he'd hit abandoned furniture" or similar means he wasn't asleep, the road was safe (there is little excuse for hitting a cyclist where there is no cycle lane, however tiresome they might be, to hit a cyclist where there is such a lane, and the evidence available (for that is what it is) suggesting the cyclist was in it, is not plausible

 

The motorist admits hitting something, not a cyclist but an inanimate object

 

on a clear straight road an inanimate object should be seen long before you hit it, ipso facto, motorist ventured off clear straight road

 

cycle plus rider weighs 80kg minimum (which would figure if driver knew he'd hit "something") that will damage car and leave evidence on the carriageway

 

There is more to this than those three points, but I think they carry the gist of the argument. They do not prove who the driver was, but they demonstrate he or she was either culpable or grossly negligent

 

Sorry folks, I'm not even a keen cyclist, and they are a curse round here, tackling the long climbs with a queue of motorists who can't get past... and don't try until it is safe to do so

[RLWP]

You may not be the only one who thinks this, but the idea you didn't know you had hit something worth stopping to investigate IS ludicrous

 

Sorry to all those who think Innisfree has a point, I don't. There have been too many apologists on here who have said "well, we only know what we're told, not reliable evidence" etc. Alan made the point, cycle lane, one of the safest stretches of road to cycle, others have pointed out "thought he'd hit abandoned furniture" or similar means he wasn't asleep, the road was safe (there is little excuse for hitting a cyclist where there is no cycle lane, however tiresome they might be, to hit a cyclist where there is such a lane, and the evidence available (for that is what it is) suggesting the cyclist was in it, is not plausible

 

The motorist admits hitting something, not a cyclist but an inanimate object

 

on a clear straight road an inanimate object should be seen long before you hit it, ipso facto, motorist ventured off clear straight road

 

cycle plus rider weighs 80kg minimum (which would figure if driver knew he'd hit "something") that will damage car and leave evidence on the carriageway

 

There is more to this than those three points, but I think they carry the gist of the argument. They do not prove who the driver was, but they demonstrate he or she was either culpable or grossly negligent

 

Sorry folks, I'm not even a keen cyclist, and they are a curse round here, tackling the long climbs with a queue of motorists who can't get past... and don't try until it is safe to do so

 

OK Patrick, please present the facts of the case as used in the trial. Then we can properly criticise the judge and the sentence

 

Otherwise, it's all hot air and speculation

 

Richard

[BelgiumBrit]

Nicely put. I agree

 

Richard

 

 

 

You are not alone in that opinion

 

Richard

 

Ah Richard , but we know that you are NEVER wrong though don't we ? You do like the sound of your own voice now don't you ?

 

Very silly to join in on the distractions of a troll, really very silly ...........You are just taking this thread 'off topic' ( and seemingly enjoying it too ) , May i remind you , this thread is about a man who died in tragic circumstances., so grow up mate! Maybe his family , and certainly his friends ( on here ) will read this thread. They will of course make their own mind up about you and your cronies as I have. Your behaviour is disgraceful and shameful.You are a bore .............. let's at least hear something interesting and original from you for a change, instead of jumping into personal criticism or weak attempts at ascerbic wit ! Oddly, you can never carry it off !

Edited July 6, 2011 by BelgiumBrit

[nb Innisfree]

You may not be the only one who thinks this, but the idea you didn't know you had hit something worth stopping to investigate IS ludicrous

 

Sorry to all those who think Innisfree has a point, I don't. There have been too many apologists on here who have said "well, we only know what we're told, not reliable evidence" etc. Alan made the point, cycle lane, one of the safest stretches of road to cycle, others have pointed out "thought he'd hit abandoned furniture" or similar means he wasn't asleep, the road was safe (there is little excuse for hitting a cyclist where there is no cycle lane, however tiresome they might be, to hit a cyclist where there is such a lane, and the evidence available (for that is what it is) suggesting the cyclist was in it, is not plausible

 

The motorist admits hitting something, not a cyclist but an inanimate object

 

on a clear straight road an inanimate object should be seen long before you hit it, ipso facto, motorist ventured off clear straight road

 

cycle plus rider weighs 80kg minimum (which would figure if driver knew he'd hit "something") that will damage car and leave evidence on the carriageway

 

There is more to this than those three points, but I think they carry the gist of the argument. They do not prove who the driver was, but they demonstrate he or she was either culpable or grossly negligent

 

Sorry folks, I'm not even a keen cyclist, and they are a curse round here, tackling the long climbs with a queue of motorists who can't get past... and don't try until it is safe to do so

 

Good points, I actually agree with some of that, a good observation I think, but just to make a point, he did stop to investigate, whether that was with the knowledge or not that he had hit a cyclist I can't really say, only he knows that. Also I don't agree that there are a lot of apologists, to me they are just expressing some doubt, I certainly am not apologising for anyone.

[RLWP]

Ah Richard , but we know that you are NEVER wrong though don't we ? You do like the sound of your own voice now don't you ?

 

Very silly to join in on the distractions of a troll, really very silly ...........You are just taking this thread 'off topic' ( and seemingly enjoying it too ) , May i remind you , this thread is about a man who died in tragic circumstances., so grow up mate! Maybe his family , and certainly his friends ( on here ) will read this thread. They will of course make their own mind up about you and your cronies as I have. Your behaviour is disgraceful and shameful.You are a bore .............. let's at least hear something interesting and original from you for a change, instead of jumping into personal criticism or weak attempts at ascerbic wit ! Oddly, you can never carry it off !

 

I think you are a troll because you seem to have confused discussion with argument and insult. It is you who is getting off on the latter

 

Richard

[BelgiumBrit]

I think you are a troll because you seem to have confused discussion with argument and insult. It is you who is getting off on the latter

 

Richard

 

Indeed ....... Maybe now,this thread may get back to the original discussion, about a 36 yr old man who died tragically. This thread is NOT about you 'Dickie' !

[Travis]

The road where Mike died is straight, 40ft wide and has a yard wide bike lane.

 

The man who killed him stopped in sight of the accident, just a couple of hundred yards up the road. There he re-attached his front bumper and threw the loose bits of his car behind the local bus stop shelter. When found the pieces had Mikes blood on them. One of the first people who stopped to help Mike saw the accused's van.

 

He then drove up to the local factory, made his delivery and drove back down the same road, right past where people were trying to revive Mike. And still he drove back to Hyde.

 

He didn't go to trial, he pleaded guilty earlier, not surprising when he was caught bang to rights.....he was sentenced this week.

 

So....he is guilty, Mike is dead and family and friends feel cheated.

 

And NB innifree, I think you are a mouthy tw*t. Please feel free to pop into Barnoldswick when your ccing, the whole town would love to hear your pathetic points.

 

Andy.

[alan_fincher]

OK Patrick, please present the facts of the case as used in the trial. Then we can properly criticise the judge and the sentence

 

Otherwise, it's all hot air and speculation

 

Richard

Richard,

 

We obviously do not have access to all the facts the court and the judge had - I fully accept that.

 

But the news reports say that even the van driver's own barrister admitted in court that he had veered into the cycle lane.

 

Assuming he was concious and not affected by any mind altering chemicals, it seems almost inconceivable to me that he could not have known he needed to go back and see what it was that he had hit - and nobody seems to be disputing he knew he had hit something.

 

It's hard to imagine any circumstance that justifies the leniency of the sentence, in my view.

 

The occasional death of cyclists on our roads, (and frankly its not that occasional), seems to be just seen by many non cyclists as an occupational hazard that goes with the territory.

 

If you can't expect to be all right as an experienced cyclist, in a marked cycle lane, on a decent bit of road, in good daylight conditions, something seems wrong to me somewhere.

Edited July 6, 2011 by alan_fincher