Re: motorist mows down small child

On 16/10/2010 08:58, Doug wrote:
On Oct 16, 1:03 am, "Mrcheerful"<nbk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful"<nbk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> considered Fri, 15 Oct 2010
10:22:45 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Doug wrote:
On 13 Oct, 18:53, "Mrcheerful"<nbk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought cyclists could stop instantly and that they never hurt
anyone?

http://www.jackbristol.com/newscentre/bristols-news/cyclist-and-motor...

Dreadful! I wonder which was the most dangerous, the car or the bike
and why were they BOTH unable to stop in time?

the bicycle, it was going the wrong way and collided hard enough to
throw the child into the air

What makes you say that?
The article says the cyclist was traveling in the opposite direction
to the pedestrians, which would be across the road, but the opposite
way to the way they were.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it?

It was a one way street. The 'opposite direction' would mean that the
bicycle was going the 'wrong' way. Or at least that is the way that a
normal person would read the report, apparently a cyclist can read that in
an alternate way.

Cyclists often have to ignore stupid laws for their own safety, you
have been told this often enough, so I would have thought by now even
you would understand.

I'm a "real" cyclist, only twats cycle the wrong way up a one way street, and only twats would defend twats.
.