OAP cyclist killed in horror crash was 'trying to reach for cap'

OAP cyclist killed in horror crash was 'trying to reach for cap'

OAP cyclist killed in horror crash was 'trying to reach for cap'

First published in News
Last updated
by

A 78-YEAR-OLD cyclist killed in a horror crash may have been trying to retrieve his baseball cap from the road, an inquest heard.

James Edwards’ hat had blown off seconds before the impact which left him with fatal head and spinal injuries, Dorset Coroner Sheriff Payne was told.

A Bournemouth inquest heard the 4x4 vehicle which was in collision with Mr Edwards had numerous faults.

But accident investigators were unable to say whether the collision would have been avoided if the Mitsubishi Shogun had been in better condition.

Mr Payne heard Mr Edwards, a keen cyclist of Old Furzebrook Road, Wareham was travelling east on the C80 near Bovington when witnesses saw his hat blow off.

Michael Watkins said Mr Edwards slowed down and his wife, Karen Watkins, said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Both said they assumed he was stopping to collect his hat.

Mitsubishi driver Stuart White and his passenger Callum McGoldrick, both farm assistants, said they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

The inquest heard the Shogun’s anti-lock braking system (ABS) was not working, it had faulty lights and the MOT had run out.

Recording a verdict that Mr Edwards died as the result of a road traffic collision, Mr Payne said: “It would appear to me that the fault to the ABS does not make an awful lot of difference to the outcome.

“I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:41am Thu 5 Jun 14

Moro99 says...

The headline makes it sound like he wobbled reaching for his cap, but he was hit by a car with no MOT and faulty brakes.
The headline makes it sound like he wobbled reaching for his cap, but he was hit by a car with no MOT and faulty brakes. Moro99
  • Score: 25

8:03am Thu 5 Jun 14

billy bumble says...

OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people

But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road?

AND without a helmet
OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road? AND without a helmet billy bumble
  • Score: -26

8:05am Thu 5 Jun 14

Huey says...

Clearly there are lessons here to be learned for both cyclists and drivers.
Clearly there are lessons here to be learned for both cyclists and drivers. Huey
  • Score: 13

8:53am Thu 5 Jun 14

billy bumble says...

It appears that there is no reasoning with the cyclist Fascists

Arrogant - JUST like you are in reality!
It appears that there is no reasoning with the cyclist Fascists Arrogant - JUST like you are in reality! billy bumble
  • Score: -34

9:02am Thu 5 Jun 14

Franks Tank says...

billy bumble wrote:
OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people

But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road?

AND without a helmet
A 78 year old is perfectly entitled to use any road they like (with the exception of a motorway on a bicycle) after all there's plenty of 78 year olds behind the wheel of cars.

Also, exactly what difference would wearing a helmet make when being hit by a 4x4?

What is clear is that the 4x4 shouldn't have been on the road.
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road? AND without a helmet[/p][/quote]A 78 year old is perfectly entitled to use any road they like (with the exception of a motorway on a bicycle) after all there's plenty of 78 year olds behind the wheel of cars. Also, exactly what difference would wearing a helmet make when being hit by a 4x4? What is clear is that the 4x4 shouldn't have been on the road. Franks Tank
  • Score: 47

9:26am Thu 5 Jun 14

Lisanova says...

billy bumble wrote:
OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people

But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road?

AND without a helmet
There are plenty of 78 year olds driving out there
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road? AND without a helmet[/p][/quote]There are plenty of 78 year olds driving out there Lisanova
  • Score: 20

9:43am Thu 5 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

Lisanova wrote:
billy bumble wrote:
OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people

But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road?

AND without a helmet
There are plenty of 78 year olds driving out there
And older, ones who can barely walk and see let alone drive.

It's a shame the driver of the 4x4, unlike the car in front of it, failed to see the cyclist in time.
[quote][p][bold]Lisanova[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road? AND without a helmet[/p][/quote]There are plenty of 78 year olds driving out there[/p][/quote]And older, ones who can barely walk and see let alone drive. It's a shame the driver of the 4x4, unlike the car in front of it, failed to see the cyclist in time. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 13

9:53am Thu 5 Jun 14

Franks Tank says...

billy bumble wrote:
OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people

But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road?

AND without a helmet
It happened on the C80. Hardly a dual carriageway.
How small and quiet would be acceptable to you?
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road? AND without a helmet[/p][/quote]It happened on the C80. Hardly a dual carriageway. How small and quiet would be acceptable to you? Franks Tank
  • Score: 16

9:54am Thu 5 Jun 14

JemBmth says...

Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road. JemBmth
  • Score: -21

10:25am Thu 5 Jun 14

Franks Tank says...

JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself. Franks Tank
  • Score: 40

11:10am Thu 5 Jun 14

pigfarmer says...

Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part. pigfarmer
  • Score: 3

11:25am Thu 5 Jun 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

My cap blew off once when I was in the middle of a rally with Stefan Edberg.
The umpire gave the point to Stefan as it counted as a distraction even though I had hit a nice in-to-out forehand to win the point and set.

These things happen occasionally with caps, there's no real solution to the problem.
My cap blew off once when I was in the middle of a rally with Stefan Edberg. The umpire gave the point to Stefan as it counted as a distraction even though I had hit a nice in-to-out forehand to win the point and set. These things happen occasionally with caps, there's no real solution to the problem. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -16

11:38am Thu 5 Jun 14

Franks Tank says...

pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
[quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit? Franks Tank
  • Score: 27

1:02pm Thu 5 Jun 14

GuidingLight says...

Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
But if the 4x4 hadn't have been on the road, something else would have.

If the accident was proven to be because of a faulty vehicle, then yes, it wouldn't have happened.
But as there were witnesses who saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn, it is clear that it wasn't just due to a 4x4 with no MOT.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]But if the 4x4 hadn't have been on the road, something else would have. If the accident was proven to be because of a faulty vehicle, then yes, it wouldn't have happened. But as there were witnesses who saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn, it is clear that it wasn't just due to a 4x4 with no MOT. GuidingLight
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Thu 5 Jun 14

pigfarmer says...

Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do.

And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months.

However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said.

Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do. And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months. However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said. Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.” pigfarmer
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Thu 5 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
Her and others should be, but we know they won't.

They truly disgust me.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]Her and others should be, but we know they won't. They truly disgust me. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 10

1:22pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Repo says...

Always give cyclists plenty of room when overtaking !!!
Always give cyclists plenty of room when overtaking !!! Repo
  • Score: 18

1:27pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Franks Tank says...

GuidingLight wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
But if the 4x4 hadn't have been on the road, something else would have.

If the accident was proven to be because of a faulty vehicle, then yes, it wouldn't have happened.
But as there were witnesses who saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn, it is clear that it wasn't just due to a 4x4 with no MOT.
Brian Hampton shouldn't have been on the road when he mowed down Jade Clark.
Do you defend his actions as well?
Do you blame Jade Clark for being on the road?
[quote][p][bold]GuidingLight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]But if the 4x4 hadn't have been on the road, something else would have. If the accident was proven to be because of a faulty vehicle, then yes, it wouldn't have happened. But as there were witnesses who saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn, it is clear that it wasn't just due to a 4x4 with no MOT.[/p][/quote]Brian Hampton shouldn't have been on the road when he mowed down Jade Clark. Do you defend his actions as well? Do you blame Jade Clark for being on the road? Franks Tank
  • Score: 11

1:35pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Franks Tank says...

pigfarmer wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do.

And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months.

However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said.

Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”
If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also.
I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road.

Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.
[quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do. And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months. However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said. Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”[/p][/quote]If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also. I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road. Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us. Franks Tank
  • Score: 11

2:33pm Thu 5 Jun 14

pigfarmer says...

Quote - 'Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.'

How pray tell can you leap to such a conclusion.

The condition of the vehicle had no bearing on the matter, read the article & witness comments, what would you be saying if it had a valid MOT certificate.

This is a traditional, old world (that in this modern, someone's to blame culture doesn't happen) accident.

And why drag poor Jade Clark into this - completely unrelated and un-necessary.
Quote - 'Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.' How pray tell can you leap to such a conclusion. The condition of the vehicle had no bearing on the matter, read the article & witness comments, what would you be saying if it had a valid MOT certificate. This is a traditional, old world (that in this modern, someone's to blame culture doesn't happen) accident. And why drag poor Jade Clark into this - completely unrelated and un-necessary. pigfarmer
  • Score: -6

2:55pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Huey says...

Ahhh quality bickering as usual. Well done everyone.
Ahhh quality bickering as usual. Well done everyone. Huey
  • Score: 13

3:03pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Franks Tank says...

pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - 'Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.'

How pray tell can you leap to such a conclusion.

The condition of the vehicle had no bearing on the matter, read the article & witness comments, what would you be saying if it had a valid MOT certificate.

This is a traditional, old world (that in this modern, someone's to blame culture doesn't happen) accident.

And why drag poor Jade Clark into this - completely unrelated and un-necessary.
It is absolutely and completely related, neither vehicle should have been on the road.
[quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - 'Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.' How pray tell can you leap to such a conclusion. The condition of the vehicle had no bearing on the matter, read the article & witness comments, what would you be saying if it had a valid MOT certificate. This is a traditional, old world (that in this modern, someone's to blame culture doesn't happen) accident. And why drag poor Jade Clark into this - completely unrelated and un-necessary.[/p][/quote]It is absolutely and completely related, neither vehicle should have been on the road. Franks Tank
  • Score: 10

5:29pm Thu 5 Jun 14

sc61 says...

Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
Did the lack of MoT have any bearing on the outcome of the incident? no.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]Did the lack of MoT have any bearing on the outcome of the incident? no. sc61
  • Score: -8

5:55pm Thu 5 Jun 14

JemBmth says...

Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away. JemBmth
  • Score: -9

6:03pm Thu 5 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one.

We'll be here waiting.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one. We'll be here waiting. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

6:09pm Thu 5 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 4

6:52pm Thu 5 Jun 14

bobthedestroyer says...

pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The brakes aren't faulty just because ABS isn't working. Older cars don't have ABS so should they all be taken off the road with immediate effect.

I have a question I hope someone can answer. If a car does have ABS and it isn't working would it fail an MOT? In some cars you can turn off options like the ESP and I think I've seen an ABS button to enable you to turn it off.

I know none of the above makes any difference to the situation but I would like to know as maybe the safety features in cars should form part of the MOT if they don't already. Again in this story it makes no difference as the MOT had expired.

And an MOT is really only valid at the time it is done.
[quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The brakes aren't faulty just because ABS isn't working. Older cars don't have ABS so should they all be taken off the road with immediate effect. I have a question I hope someone can answer. If a car does have ABS and it isn't working would it fail an MOT? In some cars you can turn off options like the ESP and I think I've seen an ABS button to enable you to turn it off. I know none of the above makes any difference to the situation but I would like to know as maybe the safety features in cars should form part of the MOT if they don't already. Again in this story it makes no difference as the MOT had expired. And an MOT is really only valid at the time it is done. bobthedestroyer
  • Score: -2

6:54pm Thu 5 Jun 14

JemBmth says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.
Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.[/p][/quote]Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason.. JemBmth
  • Score: -9

7:30pm Thu 5 Jun 14

DUCKFEEDER says...

So lets get this right a 78 man has died and people are trying to justify his death by passing the blame between the cyclist and the motorist,please stop this planet as i wish to leave
So lets get this right a 78 man has died and people are trying to justify his death by passing the blame between the cyclist and the motorist,please stop this planet as i wish to leave DUCKFEEDER
  • Score: 2

7:31pm Thu 5 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

JemBmth wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.
Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..
Oi mouth seem to have decided you can't answer my reply eh?

Just to remind you:

Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one.

We'll be here waiting.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.[/p][/quote]Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..[/p][/quote]Oi mouth seem to have decided you can't answer my reply eh? Just to remind you: Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one. We'll be here waiting. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 6

8:22pm Thu 5 Jun 14

sc61 says...

bobthedestroyer wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The brakes aren't faulty just because ABS isn't working. Older cars don't have ABS so should they all be taken off the road with immediate effect.

I have a question I hope someone can answer. If a car does have ABS and it isn't working would it fail an MOT? In some cars you can turn off options like the ESP and I think I've seen an ABS button to enable you to turn it off.

I know none of the above makes any difference to the situation but I would like to know as maybe the safety features in cars should form part of the MOT if they don't already. Again in this story it makes no difference as the MOT had expired.

And an MOT is really only valid at the time it is done.
Yes if the ABS is faulty the vehicle will fail the MoT (as of 2012 or thereabouts). Vehicles without ABS have a brake proportioning valve to try and stop the rear overtaking the front under heavy braking. ABS equipped vehicles do not need this valve hence it isn't fitted. This does mean that a vehicle with faulty ABS is more likely to get into spin then a vehicle that doesn't have ABS fitted under heavy braking.
[quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The brakes aren't faulty just because ABS isn't working. Older cars don't have ABS so should they all be taken off the road with immediate effect. I have a question I hope someone can answer. If a car does have ABS and it isn't working would it fail an MOT? In some cars you can turn off options like the ESP and I think I've seen an ABS button to enable you to turn it off. I know none of the above makes any difference to the situation but I would like to know as maybe the safety features in cars should form part of the MOT if they don't already. Again in this story it makes no difference as the MOT had expired. And an MOT is really only valid at the time it is done.[/p][/quote]Yes if the ABS is faulty the vehicle will fail the MoT (as of 2012 or thereabouts). Vehicles without ABS have a brake proportioning valve to try and stop the rear overtaking the front under heavy braking. ABS equipped vehicles do not need this valve hence it isn't fitted. This does mean that a vehicle with faulty ABS is more likely to get into spin then a vehicle that doesn't have ABS fitted under heavy braking. sc61
  • Score: 5

8:38pm Thu 5 Jun 14

JemBmth says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one.

We'll be here waiting.
I rest my case. Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. So we'll just let cyclist go around without insurance, not paying road tax even though they use the roads, no 'MOT' to see if brakes/tyres are safe, no registration number so I was unable to identify the bike whose cyclist smashed my wing mirror while I was sitting at traffic lights (criminal damage - reported to police) just for the sheer hell of it. People are knocked over on the pavement by cyclists (I've seen it)

It actually admire cyclists who behave properly. However, I don't get a buzz from motorist signalling. Why? Because they have respect for other road-users which is normal.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one. We'll be here waiting.[/p][/quote]I rest my case. Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. So we'll just let cyclist go around without insurance, not paying road tax even though they use the roads, no 'MOT' to see if brakes/tyres are safe, no registration number so I was unable to identify the bike whose cyclist smashed my wing mirror while I was sitting at traffic lights (criminal damage - reported to police) just for the sheer hell of it. People are knocked over on the pavement by cyclists (I've seen it) It actually admire cyclists who behave properly. However, I don't get a buzz from motorist signalling. Why? Because they have respect for other road-users which is normal. JemBmth
  • Score: -16

9:01pm Thu 5 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

JemBmth wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.
Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..
DC reports they are pretty unbiased as far as blame is concerned, yes they are reporting accidents but from what I've read they don't tend to slant the story either way so I'm not sure what you mean about witch hunt...
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.[/p][/quote]Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..[/p][/quote]DC reports they are pretty unbiased as far as blame is concerned, yes they are reporting accidents but from what I've read they don't tend to slant the story either way so I'm not sure what you mean about witch hunt... boardsandphotos
  • Score: 5

9:04pm Thu 5 Jun 14

boardsandphotos says...

JemBmth wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one.

We'll be here waiting.
I rest my case. Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. So we'll just let cyclist go around without insurance, not paying road tax even though they use the roads, no 'MOT' to see if brakes/tyres are safe, no registration number so I was unable to identify the bike whose cyclist smashed my wing mirror while I was sitting at traffic lights (criminal damage - reported to police) just for the sheer hell of it. People are knocked over on the pavement by cyclists (I've seen it)

It actually admire cyclists who behave properly. However, I don't get a buzz from motorist signalling. Why? Because they have respect for other road-users which is normal.
Ah ok...you've mentioned 'Road Tax' which pretty much means everything you say from this point onwards is null and void.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one. We'll be here waiting.[/p][/quote]I rest my case. Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. So we'll just let cyclist go around without insurance, not paying road tax even though they use the roads, no 'MOT' to see if brakes/tyres are safe, no registration number so I was unable to identify the bike whose cyclist smashed my wing mirror while I was sitting at traffic lights (criminal damage - reported to police) just for the sheer hell of it. People are knocked over on the pavement by cyclists (I've seen it) It actually admire cyclists who behave properly. However, I don't get a buzz from motorist signalling. Why? Because they have respect for other road-users which is normal.[/p][/quote]Ah ok...you've mentioned 'Road Tax' which pretty much means everything you say from this point onwards is null and void. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 12

9:34pm Thu 5 Jun 14

bobthedestroyer says...

sc61 wrote:
bobthedestroyer wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The brakes aren't faulty just because ABS isn't working. Older cars don't have ABS so should they all be taken off the road with immediate effect.

I have a question I hope someone can answer. If a car does have ABS and it isn't working would it fail an MOT? In some cars you can turn off options like the ESP and I think I've seen an ABS button to enable you to turn it off.

I know none of the above makes any difference to the situation but I would like to know as maybe the safety features in cars should form part of the MOT if they don't already. Again in this story it makes no difference as the MOT had expired.

And an MOT is really only valid at the time it is done.
Yes if the ABS is faulty the vehicle will fail the MoT (as of 2012 or thereabouts). Vehicles without ABS have a brake proportioning valve to try and stop the rear overtaking the front under heavy braking. ABS equipped vehicles do not need this valve hence it isn't fitted. This does mean that a vehicle with faulty ABS is more likely to get into spin then a vehicle that doesn't have ABS fitted under heavy braking.
Thanks for explaining to me. Sadly doesn't change the unfortunate incident that took place.

I'm not sure why I receivd a thumbs down on my original comment as I was asking a question but hey ho.
[quote][p][bold]sc61[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The brakes aren't faulty just because ABS isn't working. Older cars don't have ABS so should they all be taken off the road with immediate effect. I have a question I hope someone can answer. If a car does have ABS and it isn't working would it fail an MOT? In some cars you can turn off options like the ESP and I think I've seen an ABS button to enable you to turn it off. I know none of the above makes any difference to the situation but I would like to know as maybe the safety features in cars should form part of the MOT if they don't already. Again in this story it makes no difference as the MOT had expired. And an MOT is really only valid at the time it is done.[/p][/quote]Yes if the ABS is faulty the vehicle will fail the MoT (as of 2012 or thereabouts). Vehicles without ABS have a brake proportioning valve to try and stop the rear overtaking the front under heavy braking. ABS equipped vehicles do not need this valve hence it isn't fitted. This does mean that a vehicle with faulty ABS is more likely to get into spin then a vehicle that doesn't have ABS fitted under heavy braking.[/p][/quote]Thanks for explaining to me. Sadly doesn't change the unfortunate incident that took place. I'm not sure why I receivd a thumbs down on my original comment as I was asking a question but hey ho. bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 2

11:37pm Thu 5 Jun 14

rozmister says...

JemBmth wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.
Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..
Many motorists do not take any notice of the law. Receiving a license and getting behind a wheel doesn't make silly people any less silly. Daily motorists near my work drive at me on crossings when the lights turn orange, they fail to indicate on roundabouts so I think I can cross the road only to find they're coming towards me, they drive onto pavements to park while you're walking. All of these things are dangerous as a pedestrian and a car is much more likely to kill me than a bike!

Also you can't intentionally have an accident - it's an oxymoron.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.[/p][/quote]Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..[/p][/quote]Many motorists do not take any notice of the law. Receiving a license and getting behind a wheel doesn't make silly people any less silly. Daily motorists near my work drive at me on crossings when the lights turn orange, they fail to indicate on roundabouts so I think I can cross the road only to find they're coming towards me, they drive onto pavements to park while you're walking. All of these things are dangerous as a pedestrian and a car is much more likely to kill me than a bike! Also you can't intentionally have an accident - it's an oxymoron. rozmister
  • Score: 9

12:10am Fri 6 Jun 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

Moro99 wrote:
The headline makes it sound like he wobbled reaching for his cap, but he was hit by a car with no MOT and faulty brakes.
A completely illegal car that shouldn't have been on the road in the first place.
.
Oh and of course we only get their side of the story now.
.
These pooh scoopers should be hung.
[quote][p][bold]Moro99[/bold] wrote: The headline makes it sound like he wobbled reaching for his cap, but he was hit by a car with no MOT and faulty brakes.[/p][/quote]A completely illegal car that shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. . Oh and of course we only get their side of the story now. . These pooh scoopers should be hung. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 1

8:36am Fri 6 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

JemBmth wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one.

We'll be here waiting.
I rest my case. Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. So we'll just let cyclist go around without insurance, not paying road tax even though they use the roads, no 'MOT' to see if brakes/tyres are safe, no registration number so I was unable to identify the bike whose cyclist smashed my wing mirror while I was sitting at traffic lights (criminal damage - reported to police) just for the sheer hell of it. People are knocked over on the pavement by cyclists (I've seen it)

It actually admire cyclists who behave properly. However, I don't get a buzz from motorist signalling. Why? Because they have respect for other road-users which is normal.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

'I rest my case'? Err what case and on what 'evidence'?

'Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar.' - I bet you were embarrassed having to writie that?


Oh and I love the theory that all motorists have respect for every other road user 'which is normal'.

I think everyone has the measure of you now and what your comments are worth, thank you.
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one. We'll be here waiting.[/p][/quote]I rest my case. Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. So we'll just let cyclist go around without insurance, not paying road tax even though they use the roads, no 'MOT' to see if brakes/tyres are safe, no registration number so I was unable to identify the bike whose cyclist smashed my wing mirror while I was sitting at traffic lights (criminal damage - reported to police) just for the sheer hell of it. People are knocked over on the pavement by cyclists (I've seen it) It actually admire cyclists who behave properly. However, I don't get a buzz from motorist signalling. Why? Because they have respect for other road-users which is normal.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. 'I rest my case'? Err what case and on what 'evidence'? 'Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar.' - I bet you were embarrassed having to writie that? Oh and I love the theory that all motorists have respect for every other road user 'which is normal'. I think everyone has the measure of you now and what your comments are worth, thank you. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

8:40am Fri 6 Jun 14

mook140780 says...

Franks Tank wrote:
billy bumble wrote: OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road? AND without a helmet
A 78 year old is perfectly entitled to use any road they like (with the exception of a motorway on a bicycle) after all there's plenty of 78 year olds behind the wheel of cars. Also, exactly what difference would wearing a helmet make when being hit by a 4x4? What is clear is that the 4x4 shouldn't have been on the road.
he had a head injury so although the impact would have probably had the same result in this case, a helmet could still have protected his head and therefore would have increased his chances of survival.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road? AND without a helmet[/p][/quote]A 78 year old is perfectly entitled to use any road they like (with the exception of a motorway on a bicycle) after all there's plenty of 78 year olds behind the wheel of cars. Also, exactly what difference would wearing a helmet make when being hit by a 4x4? What is clear is that the 4x4 shouldn't have been on the road.[/p][/quote]he had a head injury so although the impact would have probably had the same result in this case, a helmet could still have protected his head and therefore would have increased his chances of survival. mook140780
  • Score: -5

8:45am Fri 6 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

JemBmth wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one.

We'll be here waiting.
I rest my case. Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. So we'll just let cyclist go around without insurance, not paying road tax even though they use the roads, no 'MOT' to see if brakes/tyres are safe, no registration number so I was unable to identify the bike whose cyclist smashed my wing mirror while I was sitting at traffic lights (criminal damage - reported to police) just for the sheer hell of it. People are knocked over on the pavement by cyclists (I've seen it)

It actually admire cyclists who behave properly. However, I don't get a buzz from motorist signalling. Why? Because they have respect for other road-users which is normal.
First you say:

....people including helpless children.DIE EVERY DAY in much more horrific circumstances - THOUSANDS in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.' (Note 'thousands a day' and 'I have read articles') (and thanks for pointing out children are 'people')


Then you say....

'Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. '
[quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Really. Name 3 - use the internet and search for more than one. We'll be here waiting.[/p][/quote]I rest my case. Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. So we'll just let cyclist go around without insurance, not paying road tax even though they use the roads, no 'MOT' to see if brakes/tyres are safe, no registration number so I was unable to identify the bike whose cyclist smashed my wing mirror while I was sitting at traffic lights (criminal damage - reported to police) just for the sheer hell of it. People are knocked over on the pavement by cyclists (I've seen it) It actually admire cyclists who behave properly. However, I don't get a buzz from motorist signalling. Why? Because they have respect for other road-users which is normal.[/p][/quote]First you say: ....people including helpless children.DIE EVERY DAY in much more horrific circumstances - THOUSANDS in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.' (Note 'thousands a day' and 'I have read articles') (and thanks for pointing out children are 'people') Then you say.... 'Those incidents are rarely reported because there would be an uproar. ' scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

11:19am Fri 6 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

rozmister wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.
Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..
Many motorists do not take any notice of the law. Receiving a license and getting behind a wheel doesn't make silly people any less silly. Daily motorists near my work drive at me on crossings when the lights turn orange, they fail to indicate on roundabouts so I think I can cross the road only to find they're coming towards me, they drive onto pavements to park while you're walking. All of these things are dangerous as a pedestrian and a car is much more likely to kill me than a bike! Also you can't intentionally have an accident - it's an oxymoron.
and of course you as a cyclist obey ALL the rules of the road! Probably not!
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.[/p][/quote]Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..[/p][/quote]Many motorists do not take any notice of the law. Receiving a license and getting behind a wheel doesn't make silly people any less silly. Daily motorists near my work drive at me on crossings when the lights turn orange, they fail to indicate on roundabouts so I think I can cross the road only to find they're coming towards me, they drive onto pavements to park while you're walking. All of these things are dangerous as a pedestrian and a car is much more likely to kill me than a bike! Also you can't intentionally have an accident - it's an oxymoron.[/p][/quote]and of course you as a cyclist obey ALL the rules of the road! Probably not! suzigirl
  • Score: -6

11:29am Fri 6 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

suzigirl wrote:
rozmister wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
JemBmth wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
JemBmth wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.
A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.
In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.
Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.
Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..
Many motorists do not take any notice of the law. Receiving a license and getting behind a wheel doesn't make silly people any less silly. Daily motorists near my work drive at me on crossings when the lights turn orange, they fail to indicate on roundabouts so I think I can cross the road only to find they're coming towards me, they drive onto pavements to park while you're walking. All of these things are dangerous as a pedestrian and a car is much more likely to kill me than a bike! Also you can't intentionally have an accident - it's an oxymoron.
and of course you as a cyclist obey ALL the rules of the road! Probably not!
At which point did Rozmister suggest otherwise?
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JemBmth[/bold] wrote: Of course, cyclists are never at fault. They all respect the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]A 78 year old gent has been killed by a 4x4 that shouldn't have been on the road and you come up with a comment like that. Should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]In case you had not noticed, people including helpless children ,die every day in much more horrific circumstances - thousands in fact. Not only that, I have read articles about cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away.[/p][/quote]Cyclists causing fatal accidents and running away, that doesn't happen very often. Even if you combined it with fatal accidents where the cyclist DIDN'T run off, it would probably be less than the number of Echo Stories in the last two weeks involving cars & cyclists where a cyclist has been killed or badly injured.[/p][/quote]Yes, as I have said before, the DE seems to be on a witch hunt as far as motorists are concerned. I reiterate, motorists do not intentionally have accidents with cyclists. Many cyclists just do not take any notice of the law. Red lights, roundabouts, cycle lanes, lights for bikes are there for a reason..[/p][/quote]Many motorists do not take any notice of the law. Receiving a license and getting behind a wheel doesn't make silly people any less silly. Daily motorists near my work drive at me on crossings when the lights turn orange, they fail to indicate on roundabouts so I think I can cross the road only to find they're coming towards me, they drive onto pavements to park while you're walking. All of these things are dangerous as a pedestrian and a car is much more likely to kill me than a bike! Also you can't intentionally have an accident - it's an oxymoron.[/p][/quote]and of course you as a cyclist obey ALL the rules of the road! Probably not![/p][/quote]At which point did Rozmister suggest otherwise? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

12:47pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Lisanova wrote:
billy bumble wrote:
OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people

But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road?

AND without a helmet
There are plenty of 78 year olds driving out there
And older, ones who can barely walk and see let alone drive.

It's a shame the driver of the 4x4, unlike the car in front of it, failed to see the cyclist in time.
How do you know he didn't see the cyclist, according to the story the cyclist did a u turn, no one would expect that.
The driver should and hopefully would be prosecuted for being on the road with no MOT, but even if he had an MOT the accident still couldn't have been avoided and the ABS fault would not have made any difference.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lisanova[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: OK I fall into the "old" category so I am not some youngster whinging about old people But what on earth is a 78 year old doing on a bike on anything but a small quiet road? AND without a helmet[/p][/quote]There are plenty of 78 year olds driving out there[/p][/quote]And older, ones who can barely walk and see let alone drive. It's a shame the driver of the 4x4, unlike the car in front of it, failed to see the cyclist in time.[/p][/quote]How do you know he didn't see the cyclist, according to the story the cyclist did a u turn, no one would expect that. The driver should and hopefully would be prosecuted for being on the road with no MOT, but even if he had an MOT the accident still couldn't have been avoided and the ABS fault would not have made any difference. Hessenford
  • Score: -2

12:54pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Hessenford says...

Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do.

And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months.

However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said.

Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”
If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also.
I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road.

Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.
You're wrong about invalidated insurance.
Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT.

However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected.

Driving with tax does not invalidate insurance either, If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do. And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months. However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said. Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”[/p][/quote]If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also. I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road. Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.[/p][/quote]You're wrong about invalidated insurance. Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT. However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected. Driving with tax does not invalidate insurance either, If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated. Hessenford
  • Score: -2

1:22pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Franks Tank says...

Hessenford wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do.

And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months.

However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said.

Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”
If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also.
I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road.

Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.
You're wrong about invalidated insurance.
Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT.

However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected.

Driving with tax does not invalidate insurance either, If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated.
"Road Tax"??
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do. And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months. However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said. Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”[/p][/quote]If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also. I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road. Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.[/p][/quote]You're wrong about invalidated insurance. Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT. However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected. Driving with tax does not invalidate insurance either, If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated.[/p][/quote]"Road Tax"?? Franks Tank
  • Score: 1

2:05pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Dont drop litter says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do.

And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months.

However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said.

Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”
If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also.
I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road.

Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.
You're wrong about invalidated insurance.
Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT.

However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected.

Driving with tax does not invalidate insurance either, If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated.
"Road Tax"??
I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment.
The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive.
It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything.
It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine. Unbelievable.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do. And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months. However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said. Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”[/p][/quote]If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also. I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road. Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.[/p][/quote]You're wrong about invalidated insurance. Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT. However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected. Driving with tax does not invalidate insurance either, If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated.[/p][/quote]"Road Tax"??[/p][/quote]I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine. Unbelievable. Dont drop litter
  • Score: 2

2:07pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Dont drop litter says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
pigfarmer wrote:
Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29.

Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction.

Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.
The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?
If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do.

And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months.

However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said.

Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”
If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also.
I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road.

Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.
You're wrong about invalidated insurance.
Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT.

However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected.

Driving with tax does not invalidate insurance either, If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated.
"Road Tax"??
In this instance the driver wasn't going to get an MOT - he was driving illegally and should not have been on the road.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pigfarmer[/bold] wrote: Quote - said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun at 3pm on Wednesday January 29. Quote 2 - they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them. They said he was looking in the opposite direction. Faulty brakes or not, sounds like an error on the cyclists part.[/p][/quote]The 4x4 didn't have an MOT, it shouldn't even have been on the road - geddit?[/p][/quote]If by 'geddit', you mean do I understand that the vehicle had no MOT, then yes I do. And remember, an MOT assesses the condition of the vehicle at that point in time - and can be valid for another 13 months. However, it would appear that a valid MOT would not have prevented this from happening - read what the witnesses said. Mr. Payne - “I think, sadly, Mr Edwards has not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”[/p][/quote]If you don't have a valid MOT then your insurance is automatically invalid also. I would suggest Stuart White has a caviller attitude when it comes to the responsibilities of using a car on the road, I wonder I this reflects on the amount of space he gave Mr Edwards and others on the road. Quite simply if the Mitsubishi hadn't been on the road Mr Edwards would, in all likelihood, be still with us.[/p][/quote]You're wrong about invalidated insurance. Driving without an MOT won't always make your insurance invalid. In most instances the insurers will still pay out in full - and if your car is stolen, or damaged, the payout will usually only be reduced to reflect the value of the car without a current MOT. However, some policies state in the small print that an MOT must be in force. Only in instances where the vehicle has a fault which contributed to, or caused the accident, can the claim be rejected. Driving with tax does not invalidate insurance either, If a car has no road tax then insurers are still obliged to pay out for all claims. Despite committing an offence by not having tax, this is irrelevant to the accident and the insurer. A car can legally be on the road without tax if it's going to a pre-booked MOT test - during which the insurance is not invalidated.[/p][/quote]"Road Tax"??[/p][/quote]In this instance the driver wasn't going to get an MOT - he was driving illegally and should not have been on the road. Dont drop litter
  • Score: 4

10:05pm Fri 6 Jun 14

cheeriedriteup says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
My cap blew off once when I was in the middle of a rally with Stefan Edberg.
The umpire gave the point to Stefan as it counted as a distraction even though I had hit a nice in-to-out forehand to win the point and set.

These things happen occasionally with caps, there's no real solution to the problem.
Unless you are a cyclist with a helmet with a chin strap, if you done wear one a car without a paper certificate will be to blame !!
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: My cap blew off once when I was in the middle of a rally with Stefan Edberg. The umpire gave the point to Stefan as it counted as a distraction even though I had hit a nice in-to-out forehand to win the point and set. These things happen occasionally with caps, there's no real solution to the problem.[/p][/quote]Unless you are a cyclist with a helmet with a chin strap, if you done wear one a car without a paper certificate will be to blame !! cheeriedriteup
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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