Cyclist taken to hospital after collision with car on Salisbury Road in Winkton

Bournemouth Echo: Salisbury Road in Winkton Salisbury Road in Winkton

TRAFFIC is being delayed in Winkton this morning after a car and a cyclist collided.

Emergency services were called to Salisbury Road at 8.04am and one lane has since been closed to deal with the scene.

A police spokesman said that the cyclist was left with cuts and bruises after the crash with a Ford Fiesta, which was registered to a Verwood man.

An ambulance crew was also called to the scene.

The cyclist has been taken to Poole Hospital

 

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:41am Thu 6 Feb 14

Snowing1965 says...

Being a cyclist and a car driver, I find it puzzling to why, if the cyclist only suffered cuts and bruises, do the police find it necessary to close one lane of traffic. Surely the car and bike can be moved to the side along with the cyclist....or is it just Health and Safety.
Being a cyclist and a car driver, I find it puzzling to why, if the cyclist only suffered cuts and bruises, do the police find it necessary to close one lane of traffic. Surely the car and bike can be moved to the side along with the cyclist....or is it just Health and Safety. Snowing1965
  • Score: -3

10:14am Thu 6 Feb 14

Squars says...

When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed. Squars
  • Score: -21

10:58am Thu 6 Feb 14

bluto999 says...

Squars wrote:
When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense.
The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
[quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene. bluto999
  • Score: 10

11:02am Thu 6 Feb 14

Ash_69 says...

Snowing1965 wrote:
Being a cyclist and a car driver, I find it puzzling to why, if the cyclist only suffered cuts and bruises, do the police find it necessary to close one lane of traffic. Surely the car and bike can be moved to the side along with the cyclist....or is it just Health and Safety.
Looking at the windscreen of the fiesta in the picture, it doesn't look like it was a minor brush. And yes, cars are still getting round and the vehicle on the side. But if someone has gone through your windscreen, would you just drag them out of the way, not knowing what injuries have been done?
[quote][p][bold]Snowing1965[/bold] wrote: Being a cyclist and a car driver, I find it puzzling to why, if the cyclist only suffered cuts and bruises, do the police find it necessary to close one lane of traffic. Surely the car and bike can be moved to the side along with the cyclist....or is it just Health and Safety.[/p][/quote]Looking at the windscreen of the fiesta in the picture, it doesn't look like it was a minor brush. And yes, cars are still getting round and the vehicle on the side. But if someone has gone through your windscreen, would you just drag them out of the way, not knowing what injuries have been done? Ash_69
  • Score: 10

12:22pm Thu 6 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote:
When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense.
The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
[quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime? speedy231278
  • Score: -1

12:25pm Thu 6 Feb 14

FNS-man says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy. FNS-man
  • Score: 10

1:03pm Thu 6 Feb 14

bluto999 says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote:
When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense.
The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
If someone has been put in hospital, then I would hope the police will do everything reasonable within their power to find out the truth about what happened.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]If someone has been put in hospital, then I would hope the police will do everything reasonable within their power to find out the truth about what happened. bluto999
  • Score: 8

2:51pm Thu 6 Feb 14

retry69 says...

FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
It was only a few days ago a letter was printed from a reader who it appears from his own admittance was unable to establish where the lanes ran on the A31/A338 and also drove blind,how and why ?
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]It was only a few days ago a letter was printed from a reader who it appears from his own admittance was unable to establish where the lanes ran on the A31/A338 and also drove blind,how and why ? retry69
  • Score: 5

4:21pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Hessenford says...

FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

4:45pm Thu 6 Feb 14

sprintervanman says...

Witnessed two near misses between a cyclist and motor vehicle so far today in Bournemouth.First one involved a silver Ford Transit that close passed and turned left on the cyclist, the cyclist did have to brake hard to avoid hitting the side of the van.Van blasted horn.
Second one White BMW accelerated and overtook cyclist who had made clear intension to turn right and made a correct and safe move to the centre of road.The cyclist was nearly toppled with fright.
Would just like to remind people that the the roads are not yours or mine they are Public,paid for by all of us.They are everyones to use and share regardless a cyclist or motorist.Respect each others safety and lives.
Witnessed two near misses between a cyclist and motor vehicle so far today in Bournemouth.First one involved a silver Ford Transit that close passed and turned left on the cyclist, the cyclist did have to brake hard to avoid hitting the side of the van.Van blasted horn. Second one White BMW accelerated and overtook cyclist who had made clear intension to turn right and made a correct and safe move to the centre of road.The cyclist was nearly toppled with fright. Would just like to remind people that the the roads are not yours or mine they are Public,paid for by all of us.They are everyones to use and share regardless a cyclist or motorist.Respect each others safety and lives. sprintervanman
  • Score: 18

5:27pm Thu 6 Feb 14

martin1512 says...

sprintervanman wrote:
Witnessed two near misses between a cyclist and motor vehicle so far today in Bournemouth.First one involved a silver Ford Transit that close passed and turned left on the cyclist, the cyclist did have to brake hard to avoid hitting the side of the van.Van blasted horn.
Second one White BMW accelerated and overtook cyclist who had made clear intension to turn right and made a correct and safe move to the centre of road.The cyclist was nearly toppled with fright.
Would just like to remind people that the the roads are not yours or mine they are Public,paid for by all of us.They are everyones to use and share regardless a cyclist or motorist.Respect each others safety and lives.
On the other side of that, saw an apparently suicidal cyclist almost flattened outside castlepoint today. He came down between 2 lanes of traffic, and then turned left across the front of a car pulling away from the lights, forcing the car into an emergency stop. As you say, respect and common sense is needed from all road users.
[quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: Witnessed two near misses between a cyclist and motor vehicle so far today in Bournemouth.First one involved a silver Ford Transit that close passed and turned left on the cyclist, the cyclist did have to brake hard to avoid hitting the side of the van.Van blasted horn. Second one White BMW accelerated and overtook cyclist who had made clear intension to turn right and made a correct and safe move to the centre of road.The cyclist was nearly toppled with fright. Would just like to remind people that the the roads are not yours or mine they are Public,paid for by all of us.They are everyones to use and share regardless a cyclist or motorist.Respect each others safety and lives.[/p][/quote]On the other side of that, saw an apparently suicidal cyclist almost flattened outside castlepoint today. He came down between 2 lanes of traffic, and then turned left across the front of a car pulling away from the lights, forcing the car into an emergency stop. As you say, respect and common sense is needed from all road users. martin1512
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Thu 6 Feb 14

FNS-man says...

Hessenford wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.
Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.[/p][/quote]Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched? FNS-man
  • Score: 6

9:17pm Thu 6 Feb 14

FNS-man says...

http://www.theguardi
an.com/lifeandstyle/
2009/dec/15/cycling-
bike-accidents-study
http://www.theguardi an.com/lifeandstyle/ 2009/dec/15/cycling- bike-accidents-study FNS-man
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Hessenford says...

FNS-man wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.
Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?
Definitely the one who is going to have their paint scratched by an uninsured cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.[/p][/quote]Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?[/p][/quote]Definitely the one who is going to have their paint scratched by an uninsured cyclist. Hessenford
  • Score: -7

1:21am Fri 7 Feb 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote:
When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense.
The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
A few years ago it changed from RTA road traffic accident to RTC road traffic collision because accident implies it's no ones fault
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]A few years ago it changed from RTA road traffic accident to RTC road traffic collision because accident implies it's no ones fault HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -2

1:21am Fri 7 Feb 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote:
When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense.
The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
A few years ago it changed from RTA road traffic accident to RTC road traffic collision because accident implies it's no ones fault
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]A few years ago it changed from RTA road traffic accident to RTC road traffic collision because accident implies it's no ones fault HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -2

9:22am Fri 7 Feb 14

suzigirl says...

Hessenford wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.
Bad cyclists - bad car drivers - simples!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.[/p][/quote]Bad cyclists - bad car drivers - simples! suzigirl
  • Score: -2

10:31am Fri 7 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

FNS-man wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.
Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?
I would say looking at the damage to that windscreen on this occasion it was the cyclist not paying attention and must have been traveling at quite some speed. The near misses I have encountered with cyclists have been because they have this misguided belief that a driver of a car is aware of their every move, which certainly isn't always the case. So from my own experience I would say cyclists pay less attention to other road users than motorist do.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.[/p][/quote]Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?[/p][/quote]I would say looking at the damage to that windscreen on this occasion it was the cyclist not paying attention and must have been traveling at quite some speed. The near misses I have encountered with cyclists have been because they have this misguided belief that a driver of a car is aware of their every move, which certainly isn't always the case. So from my own experience I would say cyclists pay less attention to other road users than motorist do. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -3

11:44am Fri 7 Feb 14

Franks Tank says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.
Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?
I would say looking at the damage to that windscreen on this occasion it was the cyclist not paying attention and must have been traveling at quite some speed. The near misses I have encountered with cyclists have been because they have this misguided belief that a driver of a car is aware of their every move, which certainly isn't always the case. So from my own experience I would say cyclists pay less attention to other road users than motorist do.
Oh yer, and the current bad weather is due to gay marriages as well no doubt.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.[/p][/quote]Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?[/p][/quote]I would say looking at the damage to that windscreen on this occasion it was the cyclist not paying attention and must have been traveling at quite some speed. The near misses I have encountered with cyclists have been because they have this misguided belief that a driver of a car is aware of their every move, which certainly isn't always the case. So from my own experience I would say cyclists pay less attention to other road users than motorist do.[/p][/quote]Oh yer, and the current bad weather is due to gay marriages as well no doubt. Franks Tank
  • Score: 3

1:24pm Fri 7 Feb 14

FNS-man says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.
Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?
I would say looking at the damage to that windscreen on this occasion it was the cyclist not paying attention and must have been traveling at quite some speed. The near misses I have encountered with cyclists have been because they have this misguided belief that a driver of a car is aware of their every move, which certainly isn't always the case. So from my own experience I would say cyclists pay less attention to other road users than motorist do.
Sadly repeated studies have shown the opposite. And in case you were wondering, these are studies that are done in Great Blighty, rather than in Bongo-Bongo Land.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.[/p][/quote]Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?[/p][/quote]I would say looking at the damage to that windscreen on this occasion it was the cyclist not paying attention and must have been traveling at quite some speed. The near misses I have encountered with cyclists have been because they have this misguided belief that a driver of a car is aware of their every move, which certainly isn't always the case. So from my own experience I would say cyclists pay less attention to other road users than motorist do.[/p][/quote]Sadly repeated studies have shown the opposite. And in case you were wondering, these are studies that are done in Great Blighty, rather than in Bongo-Bongo Land. FNS-man
  • Score: 2

1:56pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

FNS-Man says "Sadly repeated studies have shown the opposite. And in case you were wondering, these are studies that are done in Great Blighty, rather than in Bongo-Bongo Land."

Do you have a link to these wonderful studies that prove that cyclists are more aware of the dangers around them than car drivers because speaking from experience I would say those studies are 100% wrong.

As for your Bongo jibe, if I were to say bagpipe you'd think Scotland, If I was to say didgeridoo you'd think Australia, there happens to be two types of bongo in Africa a drum and an antelope. So maybe you shouldn't so proudly advertise the fact that you swallowed a media smear so easily. Just saying ;)
FNS-Man says "Sadly repeated studies have shown the opposite. And in case you were wondering, these are studies that are done in Great Blighty, rather than in Bongo-Bongo Land." Do you have a link to these wonderful studies that prove that cyclists are more aware of the dangers around them than car drivers because speaking from experience I would say those studies are 100% wrong. As for your Bongo jibe, if I were to say bagpipe you'd think Scotland, If I was to say didgeridoo you'd think Australia, there happens to be two types of bongo in Africa a drum and an antelope. So maybe you shouldn't so proudly advertise the fact that you swallowed a media smear so easily. Just saying ;) Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

2:47pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Franks Tank says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
FNS-Man says "Sadly repeated studies have shown the opposite. And in case you were wondering, these are studies that are done in Great Blighty, rather than in Bongo-Bongo Land."

Do you have a link to these wonderful studies that prove that cyclists are more aware of the dangers around them than car drivers because speaking from experience I would say those studies are 100% wrong.

As for your Bongo jibe, if I were to say bagpipe you'd think Scotland, If I was to say didgeridoo you'd think Australia, there happens to be two types of bongo in Africa a drum and an antelope. So maybe you shouldn't so proudly advertise the fact that you swallowed a media smear so easily. Just saying ;)
Just like what you said about Lee Rigby's family is an ugly media smear eh?
Just saying ;)
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: FNS-Man says "Sadly repeated studies have shown the opposite. And in case you were wondering, these are studies that are done in Great Blighty, rather than in Bongo-Bongo Land." Do you have a link to these wonderful studies that prove that cyclists are more aware of the dangers around them than car drivers because speaking from experience I would say those studies are 100% wrong. As for your Bongo jibe, if I were to say bagpipe you'd think Scotland, If I was to say didgeridoo you'd think Australia, there happens to be two types of bongo in Africa a drum and an antelope. So maybe you shouldn't so proudly advertise the fact that you swallowed a media smear so easily. Just saying ;)[/p][/quote]Just like what you said about Lee Rigby's family is an ugly media smear eh? Just saying ;) Franks Tank
  • Score: 1

6:58pm Fri 7 Feb 14

FNS-man says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
FNS-Man says "Sadly repeated studies have shown the opposite. And in case you were wondering, these are studies that are done in Great Blighty, rather than in Bongo-Bongo Land."

Do you have a link to these wonderful studies that prove that cyclists are more aware of the dangers around them than car drivers because speaking from experience I would say those studies are 100% wrong.

As for your Bongo jibe, if I were to say bagpipe you'd think Scotland, If I was to say didgeridoo you'd think Australia, there happens to be two types of bongo in Africa a drum and an antelope. So maybe you shouldn't so proudly advertise the fact that you swallowed a media smear so easily. Just saying ;)
Happy to:

http://www.thetimes.
co.uk/tto/public/cyc
lesafety/article3758
677.ece

And these stats are from the police, who are notoriously anti-cyclist.

Further, "just saying" is the sign-off of a coward. You are not "just saying" something: you are saying something to hint at something else. And using "just saying" to absolve yourself of any responsibility. Pathetic.

So you're saying it's fine to use the phrase "bongo-bongo land"?
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: FNS-Man says "Sadly repeated studies have shown the opposite. And in case you were wondering, these are studies that are done in Great Blighty, rather than in Bongo-Bongo Land." Do you have a link to these wonderful studies that prove that cyclists are more aware of the dangers around them than car drivers because speaking from experience I would say those studies are 100% wrong. As for your Bongo jibe, if I were to say bagpipe you'd think Scotland, If I was to say didgeridoo you'd think Australia, there happens to be two types of bongo in Africa a drum and an antelope. So maybe you shouldn't so proudly advertise the fact that you swallowed a media smear so easily. Just saying ;)[/p][/quote]Happy to: http://www.thetimes. co.uk/tto/public/cyc lesafety/article3758 677.ece And these stats are from the police, who are notoriously anti-cyclist. Further, "just saying" is the sign-off of a coward. You are not "just saying" something: you are saying something to hint at something else. And using "just saying" to absolve yourself of any responsibility. Pathetic. So you're saying it's fine to use the phrase "bongo-bongo land"? FNS-man
  • Score: 2

11:14pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Former MEXE apprentice says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Squars wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.
The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.
Why are accidents always treated as a crime?
They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.
Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.
Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?
I would say looking at the damage to that windscreen on this occasion it was the cyclist not paying attention and must have been traveling at quite some speed. The near misses I have encountered with cyclists have been because they have this misguided belief that a driver of a car is aware of their every move, which certainly isn't always the case. So from my own experience I would say cyclists pay less attention to other road users than motorist do.
'Hardly sane' what a German you are , if your driving a car you're not supposed to drive into anything, that includes cyclists!
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Squars[/bold] wrote: When the socialists where in power, they decided the presumption of guiilt lay with the motorist, hence a crime has been committed.[/p][/quote]The bit about presumption of guilt is nonsense. The police can't tell whether a crime has been committed unless they examine the scene.[/p][/quote]Why are accidents always treated as a crime?[/p][/quote]They aren't. But most collisions are the result of negligence on the motorist's part, and are not treated as such. Witness the frankly terrifying result of the trial recently where the minibus driver, despite being blinded by the sun, carries on driving and is involved in killing a cyclist. Apparently this is just fine and dandy.[/p][/quote]Same old crud, motorist at fault, motorist not looking where he was going, motorist shouldn't be on the road, motorist negligent, blah blah blah, so predictable, of course the cyclist couldn't be at fault could he, they are so perfect and law abiding, perish the thought of a cyclist doing something wrong on the road, boring predictable rubbish from FNS-man again.[/p][/quote]Who do you think pays more attention? The person who is going to be seriously injured or killed, or the person who is going to have their paint scratched?[/p][/quote]I would say looking at the damage to that windscreen on this occasion it was the cyclist not paying attention and must have been traveling at quite some speed. The near misses I have encountered with cyclists have been because they have this misguided belief that a driver of a car is aware of their every move, which certainly isn't always the case. So from my own experience I would say cyclists pay less attention to other road users than motorist do.[/p][/quote]'Hardly sane' what a German you are , if your driving a car you're not supposed to drive into anything, that includes cyclists! Former MEXE apprentice
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree