The ArgusCyclist seriously injured in parked taxi collision (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Cyclist seriously injured in parked taxi collision

The Argus: Cyclist seriously injured in parked taxi collision Cyclist seriously injured in parked taxi collision

A cyclist was airlifted to hospital after suffering serious head injuries after colliding with a parked taxi.

Emergency services were called to Lansdowne Road near to the junction with Lansdowne Street in Hove at around 7.30pm last night.

The taxi was stopped on the westbound carriageway when a cyclist collided with it.

The cyclist, a 23-year-old man from Havant, was airlifted to Southampton General Hospital with serious head injuries.

Anyone who saw what happened is asked to contact police on 101 or email collision.appeal@sussex.pnn.police.uk quoting Op Viola.

 

See the latest crime figures in your area with our street-level crime map

Comments (67)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:14am Fri 30 May 14

wippasnapper says...

A cyclist accordantly rode his bicycle into a parked taxi WELL just go’s to show you some cyclists dote look where they are going and it would not surprise me if he was under the influence of alcohol I mean why not flaunt the law because no copper will ever stop you for riding irresponsibly on or off road because most cops feel it’s a waist of there time!
A cyclist accordantly rode his bicycle into a parked taxi WELL just go’s to show you some cyclists dote look where they are going and it would not surprise me if he was under the influence of alcohol I mean why not flaunt the law because no copper will ever stop you for riding irresponsibly on or off road because most cops feel it’s a waist of there time! wippasnapper
  • Score: -9

10:15am Fri 30 May 14

FC says...

I'm not convinced by the accuracy of this story... Airlifted? How did it even land anywhere near this incident in these narrow street? Also, what the hell was the cyclist doing colliding with a PARKED car?!

And finally, the fact it's a taxi is irrelevant, but we all like to jump on the taxi-hate bandwagon.
I'm not convinced by the accuracy of this story... Airlifted? How did it even land anywhere near this incident in these narrow street? Also, what the hell was the cyclist doing colliding with a PARKED car?! And finally, the fact it's a taxi is irrelevant, but we all like to jump on the taxi-hate bandwagon. FC
  • Score: 11

10:25am Fri 30 May 14

Martin999 says...

Probably landed in Brunswick Square. Lots of room there. However, if you need to know more ask wippasnapper, he seems to know EVERYTHING.
Probably landed in Brunswick Square. Lots of room there. However, if you need to know more ask wippasnapper, he seems to know EVERYTHING. Martin999
  • Score: 12

11:05am Fri 30 May 14

TMantripp says...

The helicopter did make a landing yesterday.
I live at Landsdowne Place and it the sound for the helicopter landing and taking off was deafening - I reckon it probably landed in the cricket ground. There was at least 4 ambulances and all roads around the incident were blocked off by police cars. The area was also taped off for pedestrians too. The road block was still in place around 11:30pm when I went to bed.

Seemed much more serious than just a road accident between a parked car and a cyclist, I hope he is ok.
The helicopter did make a landing yesterday. I live at Landsdowne Place and it the sound for the helicopter landing and taking off was deafening - I reckon it probably landed in the cricket ground. There was at least 4 ambulances and all roads around the incident were blocked off by police cars. The area was also taped off for pedestrians too. The road block was still in place around 11:30pm when I went to bed. Seemed much more serious than just a road accident between a parked car and a cyclist, I hope he is ok. TMantripp
  • Score: 14

11:09am Fri 30 May 14

wippasnapper says...

Martin999 wrote:
Probably landed in Brunswick Square. Lots of room there. However, if you need to know more ask wippasnapper, he seems to know EVERYTHING.
wippasnapper, dote know EVERYTHING I just find it hilarious your cycling along minding your own business and from out of know where a taxi appears parked in front of you but any normal person would have ride around it but I’m forgetting most cyclists dote look where there going because there looking ells where or operating a mobile devise or a good possibility **** or on drugs doesn’t mean I know everything just covering the obverse.
[quote][p][bold]Martin999[/bold] wrote: Probably landed in Brunswick Square. Lots of room there. However, if you need to know more ask wippasnapper, he seems to know EVERYTHING.[/p][/quote]wippasnapper, dote know EVERYTHING I just find it hilarious your cycling along minding your own business and from out of know where a taxi appears parked in front of you but any normal person would have ride around it but I’m forgetting most cyclists dote look where there going because there looking ells where or operating a mobile devise or a good possibility **** or on drugs doesn’t mean I know everything just covering the obverse. wippasnapper
  • Score: -15

12:07pm Fri 30 May 14

Mrolls says...

All of these comments are incorrect i live outside where this incident happened and the heli landed in the primary school field on somerhill road, hope this clears things up.
All of these comments are incorrect i live outside where this incident happened and the heli landed in the primary school field on somerhill road, hope this clears things up. Mrolls
  • Score: 7

12:29pm Fri 30 May 14

StyleCop says...

wippasnapper wrote:
Martin999 wrote:
Probably landed in Brunswick Square. Lots of room there. However, if you need to know more ask wippasnapper, he seems to know EVERYTHING.
wippasnapper, dote know EVERYTHING I just find it hilarious your cycling along minding your own business and from out of know where a taxi appears parked in front of you but any normal person would have ride around it but I’m forgetting most cyclists dote look where there going because there looking ells where or operating a mobile devise or a good possibility **** or on drugs doesn’t mean I know everything just covering the obverse.
Well done wippasnapper - it's hilarious that a 23 young man with all is life ahead of him could potentially lose it or be paralysed - really funny - hilarious, you should do stand up...

For the record.

1. The chopper landed in Davigdor school grounds.

2. The young man was cycling into the sun, (which was low in the sky) and the vehicle had parked just over the brow of a hill

3. A roadside door was opened on the stationary cab and the cyclist hit it as he was passing it...

In other words, he was going downhill, into the sun and a car door was opened onto him... Very little time to react in other words...

Hardly a laughing matter really, so before you know the details, it's probably best not to comment.

Fortunately there were enough of us more conscientious citizens on hand to call the emergency services and deal with the immediate aftermath...

I'm sure if you were involved in such an emergency which required immediate first aid and subsequent airlifting to hospital you'll be thankful for it... and wouldn't find it hilarious.

...poor kid.

I just hope to god he makes a full recovery.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martin999[/bold] wrote: Probably landed in Brunswick Square. Lots of room there. However, if you need to know more ask wippasnapper, he seems to know EVERYTHING.[/p][/quote]wippasnapper, dote know EVERYTHING I just find it hilarious your cycling along minding your own business and from out of know where a taxi appears parked in front of you but any normal person would have ride around it but I’m forgetting most cyclists dote look where there going because there looking ells where or operating a mobile devise or a good possibility **** or on drugs doesn’t mean I know everything just covering the obverse.[/p][/quote]Well done wippasnapper - it's hilarious that a 23 young man with all is life ahead of him could potentially lose it or be paralysed - really funny - hilarious, you should do stand up... For the record. 1. The chopper landed in Davigdor school grounds. 2. The young man was cycling into the sun, (which was low in the sky) and the vehicle had parked just over the brow of a hill 3. A roadside door was opened on the stationary cab and the cyclist hit it as he was passing it... In other words, he was going downhill, into the sun and a car door was opened onto him... Very little time to react in other words... Hardly a laughing matter really, so before you know the details, it's probably best not to comment. Fortunately there were enough of us more conscientious citizens on hand to call the emergency services and deal with the immediate aftermath... I'm sure if you were involved in such an emergency which required immediate first aid and subsequent airlifting to hospital you'll be thankful for it... and wouldn't find it hilarious. ...poor kid. I just hope to god he makes a full recovery. StyleCop
  • Score: 28

1:14pm Fri 30 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident.

It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them.

The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises.

I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.
The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident. It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them. The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises. I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -14

1:39pm Fri 30 May 14

ARMANA says...

Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !!
Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !! ARMANA
  • Score: -7

2:31pm Fri 30 May 14

P.Dant says...

StyleCop wrote: "..so before you know the details,it's probably best not to comment."
You`re in the wrong forum here,pal.
StyleCop wrote: "..so before you know the details,it's probably best not to comment." You`re in the wrong forum here,pal. P.Dant
  • Score: 8

5:57pm Fri 30 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

wippasnapper wrote:
A cyclist accordantly rode his bicycle into a parked taxi WELL just go’s to show you some cyclists dote look where they are going and it would not surprise me if he was under the influence of alcohol I mean why not flaunt the law because no copper will ever stop you for riding irresponsibly on or off road because most cops feel it’s a waist of there time!
You are an absolute **** and deserve a good hiding talking s*** about something you haven't got a clue about!
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: A cyclist accordantly rode his bicycle into a parked taxi WELL just go’s to show you some cyclists dote look where they are going and it would not surprise me if he was under the influence of alcohol I mean why not flaunt the law because no copper will ever stop you for riding irresponsibly on or off road because most cops feel it’s a waist of there time![/p][/quote]You are an absolute **** and deserve a good hiding talking s*** about something you haven't got a clue about! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 3

6:00pm Fri 30 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident.

It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them.

The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises.

I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.
And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident. It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them. The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises. I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 6

6:04pm Fri 30 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

ARMANA wrote:
Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !!
And yet another post from this **** who regularly seems to think it is amusing when a cyclist gets injured! Very gobby on here - but when provided with my phone number to back up his mouth I never heard a thing! Gobby AND a coward!!
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !![/p][/quote]And yet another post from this **** who regularly seems to think it is amusing when a cyclist gets injured! Very gobby on here - but when provided with my phone number to back up his mouth I never heard a thing! Gobby AND a coward!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 6

6:39pm Fri 30 May 14

StyleCop says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident.

It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them.

The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises.

I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.
And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!!
Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door?

There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will.

Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident. It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them. The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises. I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!![/p][/quote]Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door? There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will. Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi... StyleCop
  • Score: 1

7:29pm Fri 30 May 14

PorkyChopper says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
wippasnapper wrote:
A cyclist accordantly rode his bicycle into a parked taxi WELL just go’s to show you some cyclists dote look where they are going and it would not surprise me if he was under the influence of alcohol I mean why not flaunt the law because no copper will ever stop you for riding irresponsibly on or off road because most cops feel it’s a waist of there time!
You are an absolute **** and deserve a good hiding talking s*** about something you haven't got a clue about!
Maybe they are following your example.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: A cyclist accordantly rode his bicycle into a parked taxi WELL just go’s to show you some cyclists dote look where they are going and it would not surprise me if he was under the influence of alcohol I mean why not flaunt the law because no copper will ever stop you for riding irresponsibly on or off road because most cops feel it’s a waist of there time![/p][/quote]You are an absolute **** and deserve a good hiding talking s*** about something you haven't got a clue about![/p][/quote]Maybe they are following your example. PorkyChopper
  • Score: -1

8:26pm Fri 30 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
wippasnapper wrote:
A cyclist accordantly rode his bicycle into a parked taxi WELL just go’s to show you some cyclists dote look where they are going and it would not surprise me if he was under the influence of alcohol I mean why not flaunt the law because no copper will ever stop you for riding irresponsibly on or off road because most cops feel it’s a waist of there time!
You are an absolute **** and deserve a good hiding talking s*** about something you haven't got a clue about!
Maybe they are following your example.
Someone's seriously injured and those three dicks almost revel in it - I guess you've just made yourself Number 4!
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: A cyclist accordantly rode his bicycle into a parked taxi WELL just go’s to show you some cyclists dote look where they are going and it would not surprise me if he was under the influence of alcohol I mean why not flaunt the law because no copper will ever stop you for riding irresponsibly on or off road because most cops feel it’s a waist of there time![/p][/quote]You are an absolute **** and deserve a good hiding talking s*** about something you haven't got a clue about![/p][/quote]Maybe they are following your example.[/p][/quote]Someone's seriously injured and those three dicks almost revel in it - I guess you've just made yourself Number 4! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 3

8:45pm Fri 30 May 14

maggie4 says...

This Incident may involve a colleague of mine I am awaiting more details. However , I am absolutely disgusted by the comments I have seen on here. The young man in question is an extremely bright 1st/ 2:1 University Graduate, he is employed as a lifeguard and travels from Havant to Brighton each week to maintain employment. He is hard working, honest, reliable and an extremely lovely person. He is a credit to our company.Before you decide to place your judgement on peoples characters I suggest you await for more information in regards to what has happened ,as to debase someone who is seriously ill proves to me you do not possess even an ounce of the character or human morality this young man does. This is the first time I have commented on here and hopefully the last. But seriously take a good hard look at yourselves before posting complete crap. My thoughts and prayers are with this young man and his family yours should be too.
This Incident may involve a colleague of mine I am awaiting more details. However , I am absolutely disgusted by the comments I have seen on here. The young man in question is an extremely bright 1st/ 2:1 University Graduate, he is employed as a lifeguard and travels from Havant to Brighton each week to maintain employment. He is hard working, honest, reliable and an extremely lovely person. He is a credit to our company.Before you decide to place your judgement on peoples characters I suggest you await for more information in regards to what has happened ,as to debase someone who is seriously ill proves to me you do not possess even an ounce of the character or human morality this young man does. This is the first time I have commented on here and hopefully the last. But seriously take a good hard look at yourselves before posting complete crap. My thoughts and prayers are with this young man and his family yours should be too. maggie4
  • Score: 14

8:55pm Fri 30 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

maggie4 wrote:
This Incident may involve a colleague of mine I am awaiting more details. However , I am absolutely disgusted by the comments I have seen on here. The young man in question is an extremely bright 1st/ 2:1 University Graduate, he is employed as a lifeguard and travels from Havant to Brighton each week to maintain employment. He is hard working, honest, reliable and an extremely lovely person. He is a credit to our company.Before you decide to place your judgement on peoples characters I suggest you await for more information in regards to what has happened ,as to debase someone who is seriously ill proves to me you do not possess even an ounce of the character or human morality this young man does. This is the first time I have commented on here and hopefully the last. But seriously take a good hard look at yourselves before posting complete crap. My thoughts and prayers are with this young man and his family yours should be too.
A heartfelt comment for a decent young man - my thoughts are with him, his family and friends as well as yourself!
[quote][p][bold]maggie4[/bold] wrote: This Incident may involve a colleague of mine I am awaiting more details. However , I am absolutely disgusted by the comments I have seen on here. The young man in question is an extremely bright 1st/ 2:1 University Graduate, he is employed as a lifeguard and travels from Havant to Brighton each week to maintain employment. He is hard working, honest, reliable and an extremely lovely person. He is a credit to our company.Before you decide to place your judgement on peoples characters I suggest you await for more information in regards to what has happened ,as to debase someone who is seriously ill proves to me you do not possess even an ounce of the character or human morality this young man does. This is the first time I have commented on here and hopefully the last. But seriously take a good hard look at yourselves before posting complete crap. My thoughts and prayers are with this young man and his family yours should be too.[/p][/quote]A heartfelt comment for a decent young man - my thoughts are with him, his family and friends as well as yourself! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 6

8:59pm Fri 30 May 14

FatherTed11 says...

If he was going no more than 20mph, he would be ok.
If he was going no more than 20mph, he would be ok. FatherTed11
  • Score: -3

9:05pm Fri 30 May 14

ARMANA says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !!
And yet another post from this **** who regularly seems to think it is amusing when a cyclist gets injured! Very gobby on here - but when provided with my phone number to back up his mouth I never heard a thing! Gobby AND a coward!!
Usual Bolxxx from Brighton' s Toilet mouth, his mobil is always on answer phone, did he say gobby & coward, he should know, Wankxx
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !![/p][/quote]And yet another post from this **** who regularly seems to think it is amusing when a cyclist gets injured! Very gobby on here - but when provided with my phone number to back up his mouth I never heard a thing! Gobby AND a coward!![/p][/quote]Usual Bolxxx from Brighton' s Toilet mouth, his mobil is always on answer phone, did he say gobby & coward, he should know, Wankxx ARMANA
  • Score: -4

9:13pm Fri 30 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

ARMANA wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !!
And yet another post from this **** who regularly seems to think it is amusing when a cyclist gets injured! Very gobby on here - but when provided with my phone number to back up his mouth I never heard a thing! Gobby AND a coward!!
Usual Bolxxx from Brighton' s Toilet mouth, his mobil is always on answer phone, did he say gobby & coward, he should know, Wankxx
Not a single missed call you silly troll!
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !![/p][/quote]And yet another post from this **** who regularly seems to think it is amusing when a cyclist gets injured! Very gobby on here - but when provided with my phone number to back up his mouth I never heard a thing! Gobby AND a coward!![/p][/quote]Usual Bolxxx from Brighton' s Toilet mouth, his mobil is always on answer phone, did he say gobby & coward, he should know, Wankxx[/p][/quote]Not a single missed call you silly troll! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 3

9:19pm Fri 30 May 14

HJarrs says...

None of us are perfect. Every day, across the country dozens of people crash into stationary vehicles, but we are usually protected by the safety cage of our vehicles. This accident type is so common that the first thing those broken down on the motorway hard shoulder are told to do is get out of the car and stand clear.

Let's all wish him a full recovery.
None of us are perfect. Every day, across the country dozens of people crash into stationary vehicles, but we are usually protected by the safety cage of our vehicles. This accident type is so common that the first thing those broken down on the motorway hard shoulder are told to do is get out of the car and stand clear. Let's all wish him a full recovery. HJarrs
  • Score: 1

9:20pm Fri 30 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

StyleCop wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident.

It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them.

The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises.

I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.
And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!!
Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door?

There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will.

Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...
Take your point on which door was allegedly opened - apologies!
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident. It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them. The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises. I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!![/p][/quote]Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door? There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will. Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...[/p][/quote]Take your point on which door was allegedly opened - apologies! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 4

11:24pm Fri 30 May 14

IratusFurcifer says...

Accidents happen, no ones perfect. We all slip up in a variety of ways on a daily basis, it's just fortunate that the majority of the time when our concentration is lacking it doesn't result in a life death situation.

I hope all involved in this unfortunate accident heal quickly.

Oh and someone on here really needs to go back to school and learn English properly. I am amazed that no one even mentioned it!
Accidents happen, no ones perfect. We all slip up in a variety of ways on a daily basis, it's just fortunate that the majority of the time when our concentration is lacking it doesn't result in a life death situation. I hope all involved in this unfortunate accident heal quickly. Oh and someone on here really needs to go back to school and learn English properly. I am amazed that no one even mentioned it! IratusFurcifer
  • Score: 1

11:36pm Fri 30 May 14

FatherTed11 says...

StyleCop wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident.

It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them.

The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises.

I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.
And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!!
Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door?

There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will.

Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...
Apparently the police don't know what happened which is why there are signs up around the area asking people if they saw what happened.
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident. It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them. The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises. I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!![/p][/quote]Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door? There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will. Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...[/p][/quote]Apparently the police don't know what happened which is why there are signs up around the area asking people if they saw what happened. FatherTed11
  • Score: 1

2:27am Sat 31 May 14

Mr chock says...

maggie4 wrote:
This Incident may involve a colleague of mine I am awaiting more details. However , I am absolutely disgusted by the comments I have seen on here. The young man in question is an extremely bright 1st/ 2:1 University Graduate, he is employed as a lifeguard and travels from Havant to Brighton each week to maintain employment. He is hard working, honest, reliable and an extremely lovely person. He is a credit to our company.Before you decide to place your judgement on peoples characters I suggest you await for more information in regards to what has happened ,as to debase someone who is seriously ill proves to me you do not possess even an ounce of the character or human morality this young man does. This is the first time I have commented on here and hopefully the last. But seriously take a good hard look at yourselves before posting complete crap. My thoughts and prayers are with this young man and his family yours should be too.
please if the argus keep this page comments area open updates from you Maggie4 the argus soon moves on and this will just be tomorrows chip paper
[quote][p][bold]maggie4[/bold] wrote: This Incident may involve a colleague of mine I am awaiting more details. However , I am absolutely disgusted by the comments I have seen on here. The young man in question is an extremely bright 1st/ 2:1 University Graduate, he is employed as a lifeguard and travels from Havant to Brighton each week to maintain employment. He is hard working, honest, reliable and an extremely lovely person. He is a credit to our company.Before you decide to place your judgement on peoples characters I suggest you await for more information in regards to what has happened ,as to debase someone who is seriously ill proves to me you do not possess even an ounce of the character or human morality this young man does. This is the first time I have commented on here and hopefully the last. But seriously take a good hard look at yourselves before posting complete crap. My thoughts and prayers are with this young man and his family yours should be too.[/p][/quote]please if the argus keep this page comments area open updates from you Maggie4 the argus soon moves on and this will just be tomorrows chip paper Mr chock
  • Score: 1

2:36am Sat 31 May 14

Zeta Function says...

After introducing a helmet law for children under 14, the US state of New Jersey reported that bicycle-related fatalities for that group fell by 60%. For riders over 14, who were not required to wear helmets, the reduction was a mere 5% in the same period. (Trends in Pediatric and Adult Bicycling Deaths Before and After Passage of a Bicycle Helmet Law, Wessen et al)

The BMA recommend the wearing of bike helmets.

Where is the political will to improve cycling conditions? It's not enough for there to be more cycle routes. There needs to be education: for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians.
After introducing a helmet law for children under 14, the US state of New Jersey reported that bicycle-related fatalities for that group fell by 60%. For riders over 14, who were not required to wear helmets, the reduction was a mere 5% in the same period. (Trends in Pediatric and Adult Bicycling Deaths Before and After Passage of a Bicycle Helmet Law, Wessen et al) The BMA recommend the wearing of bike helmets. Where is the political will to improve cycling conditions? It's not enough for there to be more cycle routes. There needs to be education: for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians. Zeta Function
  • Score: 1

12:14pm Sat 31 May 14

Mr chock says...

Zeta Function wrote:
After introducing a helmet law for children under 14, the US state of New Jersey reported that bicycle-related fatalities for that group fell by 60%. For riders over 14, who were not required to wear helmets, the reduction was a mere 5% in the same period. (Trends in Pediatric and Adult Bicycling Deaths Before and After Passage of a Bicycle Helmet Law, Wessen et al)

The BMA recommend the wearing of bike helmets.

Where is the political will to improve cycling conditions? It's not enough for there to be more cycle routes. There needs to be education: for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians.
i dont wear a cycle helmet
"1 " item is a bit bulky and i dont like to carry it around just for the trips ....
"2 " it gets hot and mucks up my hair ...
" 3 " is i feel stupid wearing it
"5 " and the most important its not a law that UK cyclists have to wear helmet
so you will see the majority that do wear a helmet are dealing with safety in there own way

i have removed comment 4 because it might have sounded like i dont care about myself LOL
reports today in paper show..
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/health/health
news/10866273/Cycle-
helmets-are-useless-
says-brain-surgeon.h
tml


Bradley wiggins had a crash and made a bit of noise about making it law to have for uk Cycle helmets UNTIL then think of the guy Michael shoemaker his current situation althou slightly different helmet took some of the impact yes but his in coma .. wish them well but helmets not law so dont need to bother about protecting myself thanks rant number 2 today LOL
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: After introducing a helmet law for children under 14, the US state of New Jersey reported that bicycle-related fatalities for that group fell by 60%. For riders over 14, who were not required to wear helmets, the reduction was a mere 5% in the same period. (Trends in Pediatric and Adult Bicycling Deaths Before and After Passage of a Bicycle Helmet Law, Wessen et al) The BMA recommend the wearing of bike helmets. Where is the political will to improve cycling conditions? It's not enough for there to be more cycle routes. There needs to be education: for cyclists, drivers and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]i dont wear a cycle helmet "1 " item is a bit bulky and i dont like to carry it around just for the trips .... "2 " it gets hot and mucks up my hair ... " 3 " is i feel stupid wearing it "5 " and the most important its not a law that UK cyclists have to wear helmet so you will see the majority that do wear a helmet are dealing with safety in there own way i have removed comment 4 because it might have sounded like i dont care about myself LOL reports today in paper show.. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/health/health news/10866273/Cycle- helmets-are-useless- says-brain-surgeon.h tml Bradley wiggins had a crash and made a bit of noise about making it law to have for uk Cycle helmets UNTIL then think of the guy Michael shoemaker his current situation althou slightly different helmet took some of the impact yes but his in coma .. wish them well but helmets not law so dont need to bother about protecting myself thanks rant number 2 today LOL Mr chock
  • Score: -1

1:05pm Sat 31 May 14

hoveguyactually says...

I wonder if the taxi was parked on the side of the road where there are double yellow lines. That is not an unusual situation around that location, and it is very dangerous for other road users.
On the other hand, I see dangerous riding from cyclists every day, so it is not surprising that there are so many accidents.
I wonder if the taxi was parked on the side of the road where there are double yellow lines. That is not an unusual situation around that location, and it is very dangerous for other road users. On the other hand, I see dangerous riding from cyclists every day, so it is not surprising that there are so many accidents. hoveguyactually
  • Score: -1

6:21pm Sat 31 May 14

ARMANA says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !!
And yet another post from this **** who regularly seems to think it is amusing when a cyclist gets injured! Very gobby on here - but when provided with my phone number to back up his mouth I never heard a thing! Gobby AND a coward!!
Usual Bolxxx from Brighton' s Toilet mouth, his mobil is always on answer phone, did he say gobby & coward, he should know, Wankxx
Not a single missed call you silly troll!
More Bollxxx from the usual source, !!
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !![/p][/quote]And yet another post from this **** who regularly seems to think it is amusing when a cyclist gets injured! Very gobby on here - but when provided with my phone number to back up his mouth I never heard a thing! Gobby AND a coward!![/p][/quote]Usual Bolxxx from Brighton' s Toilet mouth, his mobil is always on answer phone, did he say gobby & coward, he should know, Wankxx[/p][/quote]Not a single missed call you silly troll![/p][/quote]More Bollxxx from the usual source, !! ARMANA
  • Score: -1

6:32pm Sat 31 May 14

voiceofthescoombe says...

Their may well have been a reduction in cyclist deaths but that might have been due to a reduction in people cycling not the sane as cycle helmets save lives.
Their may well have been a reduction in cyclist deaths but that might have been due to a reduction in people cycling not the sane as cycle helmets save lives. voiceofthescoombe
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Sat 31 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

StyleCop wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident.

It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them.

The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises.

I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.
And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!!
Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door?

There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will.

Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...
But YOU claimed that the cyclist rode into the door.

Are you going to argue with yourself, now?
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident. It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them. The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises. I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!![/p][/quote]Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door? There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will. Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...[/p][/quote]But YOU claimed that the cyclist rode into the door. Are you going to argue with yourself, now? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Sat 31 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
StyleCop wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident.

It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them.

The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises.

I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.
And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!!
Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door?

There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will.

Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...
But YOU claimed that the cyclist rode into the door.

Are you going to argue with yourself, now?
He didn't say a 'passenger' opened the door!
And more to the point it is unlikely that the cyclist rode into the door but quite possibly that someone opened the door into the cyclists path _ although unlike some of the dimmer contributors to these forums we ought to wait until the facts are fully known before heaping blame on anyone!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident. It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them. The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises. I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!![/p][/quote]Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door? There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will. Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...[/p][/quote]But YOU claimed that the cyclist rode into the door. Are you going to argue with yourself, now?[/p][/quote]He didn't say a 'passenger' opened the door! And more to the point it is unlikely that the cyclist rode into the door but quite possibly that someone opened the door into the cyclists path _ although unlike some of the dimmer contributors to these forums we ought to wait until the facts are fully known before heaping blame on anyone! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

3:12am Sun 1 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
StyleCop wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident.

It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them.

The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises.

I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.
And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!!
Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door?

There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will.

Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...
But YOU claimed that the cyclist rode into the door.

Are you going to argue with yourself, now?
He didn't say a 'passenger' opened the door!
And more to the point it is unlikely that the cyclist rode into the door but quite possibly that someone opened the door into the cyclists path _ although unlike some of the dimmer contributors to these forums we ought to wait until the facts are fully known before heaping blame on anyone!
He claimed it was 'fact' that a door had been opened.

He also claimed that he was on the scene.

Wriggle all you like on that one, but that won't alter.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The police have been reluctant to give too many details about this incident, possibly hoping not to draw too much attention to the cyclist's own part in this incident. It seems that he was cycling into the sun and not taking into account the dangers of riding too close to parked vehicles when riding past them. The fact that the incident occurred just after a brow of a hill shows that the sun won't have been directly in his eyes at that point. One poster claimed that the bike was going downhill, implying that the speed might have been considerable, but that same poster also claimed the incident happened right after the brow, so the slope won't have had any effect on speed. If the cyclist was cycling into the sun approaching the brow of a hill, then he was placing himself in danger from any parked vehicles beyond the brow. We should all ride according to the prevailing conditions just in case something arises. I do hope he learns this lesson upon his full and speedy recovery.[/p][/quote]And another one - perhaps the passenger who allegedly opened the door should have been looking at what they were doing - after all its quite possible that the taxi had overtaken the cyclist shortly before this incident!![/p][/quote]Can I just point out that no-one alleged a passenger opened the door? There's one assumption right there... make of that what you will. Happily the police know what happened as they were there for 3 hours combing the scene and interviewing witnesses, bystanders and the occupants of the taxi...[/p][/quote]But YOU claimed that the cyclist rode into the door. Are you going to argue with yourself, now?[/p][/quote]He didn't say a 'passenger' opened the door! And more to the point it is unlikely that the cyclist rode into the door but quite possibly that someone opened the door into the cyclists path _ although unlike some of the dimmer contributors to these forums we ought to wait until the facts are fully known before heaping blame on anyone![/p][/quote]He claimed it was 'fact' that a door had been opened. He also claimed that he was on the scene. Wriggle all you like on that one, but that won't alter. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

7:00am Sun 1 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!!
Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Sun 1 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!!
How can you be 'corrected' on anything if the facts are still unknown?

All the police have told us is that the bike hit a parked taxi.

One person who claimed to have been at the scene suggested that an open offside door was involved.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!![/p][/quote]How can you be 'corrected' on anything if the facts are still unknown? All the police have told us is that the bike hit a parked taxi. One person who claimed to have been at the scene suggested that an open offside door was involved. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Sun 1 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!!
How can you be 'corrected' on anything if the facts are still unknown?

All the police have told us is that the bike hit a parked taxi.

One person who claimed to have been at the scene suggested that an open offside door was involved.
The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it'!! But you are right in that we should wait until the facts are known - it's just a shame you didn't do that in your original comment when you blamed the cyclist for this incident!!!!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!![/p][/quote]How can you be 'corrected' on anything if the facts are still unknown? All the police have told us is that the bike hit a parked taxi. One person who claimed to have been at the scene suggested that an open offside door was involved.[/p][/quote]The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it'!! But you are right in that we should wait until the facts are known - it's just a shame you didn't do that in your original comment when you blamed the cyclist for this incident!!!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Sun 1 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!!
How can you be 'corrected' on anything if the facts are still unknown?

All the police have told us is that the bike hit a parked taxi.

One person who claimed to have been at the scene suggested that an open offside door was involved.
The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it'!! But you are right in that we should wait until the facts are known - it's just a shame you didn't do that in your original comment when you blamed the cyclist for this incident!!!!
I didn't blame the cyclist for the incident.

I said I hope he appreciates his part in it..

"The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it' "

Really??

State what the 'totally different' aspects are from the cyclist's point of view.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!![/p][/quote]How can you be 'corrected' on anything if the facts are still unknown? All the police have told us is that the bike hit a parked taxi. One person who claimed to have been at the scene suggested that an open offside door was involved.[/p][/quote]The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it'!! But you are right in that we should wait until the facts are known - it's just a shame you didn't do that in your original comment when you blamed the cyclist for this incident!!!![/p][/quote]I didn't blame the cyclist for the incident. I said I hope he appreciates his part in it.. "The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it' " Really?? State what the 'totally different' aspects are from the cyclist's point of view. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

12:03am Mon 2 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!!
How can you be 'corrected' on anything if the facts are still unknown?

All the police have told us is that the bike hit a parked taxi.

One person who claimed to have been at the scene suggested that an open offside door was involved.
The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it'!! But you are right in that we should wait until the facts are known - it's just a shame you didn't do that in your original comment when you blamed the cyclist for this incident!!!!
I didn't blame the cyclist for the incident.

I said I hope he appreciates his part in it..

"The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it' "

Really??

State what the 'totally different' aspects are from the cyclist's point of view.
If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!
As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following;
1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,;
2 - 'not taking into account the dangers';
3 - 'he was placing himself in danger';
4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'.

Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault - and I would further note that you have not made a single comment on the possible culpability of anyone in the taxi!

I rest my case!!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Christ! Not only are you stupid you are boring too - it has been stated that a door was opened into the path of the cyclist, I had initially assumed that it was the passenger, I was then corrected on this for which I apologised. At no point has the suggestion that a door was opened into the cyclists path been withdrawn - therefore the suggestion appears to be that it could well have been the drivers fault (allegedly) - how much clearer do you want it?!!![/p][/quote]How can you be 'corrected' on anything if the facts are still unknown? All the police have told us is that the bike hit a parked taxi. One person who claimed to have been at the scene suggested that an open offside door was involved.[/p][/quote]The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it'!! But you are right in that we should wait until the facts are known - it's just a shame you didn't do that in your original comment when you blamed the cyclist for this incident!!!![/p][/quote]I didn't blame the cyclist for the incident. I said I hope he appreciates his part in it.. "The actual quote is 'a roadside door was opened and the cyclist rode into it' - that is totally different from 'a roadside door was OPEN and the cyclist rode into it' " Really?? State what the 'totally different' aspects are from the cyclist's point of view.[/p][/quote]If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education! As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following; 1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,; 2 - 'not taking into account the dangers'; 3 - 'he was placing himself in danger'; 4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'. Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault - and I would further note that you have not made a single comment on the possible culpability of anyone in the taxi! I rest my case!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 1

8:46pm Mon 2 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!"

They both mean exactly the same ie there was an open door for him to ride into.


"As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following;
1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,;
2 - 'not taking into account the dangers';
3 - 'he was placing himself in danger';
4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'."

OED 'blame' - "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong"

At no point have I done that with anyone.

"Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault"

Only to a moron who doesn't understand the English language, as you just showed.

HTH
"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!" They both mean exactly the same ie there was an open door for him to ride into. "As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following; 1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,; 2 - 'not taking into account the dangers'; 3 - 'he was placing himself in danger'; 4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'." OED 'blame' - "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong" At no point have I done that with anyone. "Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault" Only to a moron who doesn't understand the English language, as you just showed. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Mon 2 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!"

They both mean exactly the same ie there was an open door for him to ride into.


"As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following;
1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,;
2 - 'not taking into account the dangers';
3 - 'he was placing himself in danger';
4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'."

OED 'blame' - "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong"

At no point have I done that with anyone.

"Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault"

Only to a moron who doesn't understand the English language, as you just showed.

HTH
You clearly are as thick as **** if you don't understand that it SEEMS that the door was opened on him just as he was going past THAT is the difference you idiot - but with regard to 'blame' the four quotes CLEARLY show that you think he was at fault especially, as I have already pointed out, that you have not once suggested that someone else might have been at fault!!
I am now officially bored by your moronic postings on this and wont respond to any more of your idiotic comments!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!" They both mean exactly the same ie there was an open door for him to ride into. "As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following; 1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,; 2 - 'not taking into account the dangers'; 3 - 'he was placing himself in danger'; 4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'." OED 'blame' - "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong" At no point have I done that with anyone. "Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault" Only to a moron who doesn't understand the English language, as you just showed. HTH[/p][/quote]You clearly are as thick as **** if you don't understand that it SEEMS that the door was opened on him just as he was going past THAT is the difference you idiot - but with regard to 'blame' the four quotes CLEARLY show that you think he was at fault especially, as I have already pointed out, that you have not once suggested that someone else might have been at fault!! I am now officially bored by your moronic postings on this and wont respond to any more of your idiotic comments! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

11:51pm Mon 2 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!"

They both mean exactly the same ie there was an open door for him to ride into.


"As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following;
1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,;
2 - 'not taking into account the dangers';
3 - 'he was placing himself in danger';
4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'."

OED 'blame' - "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong"

At no point have I done that with anyone.

"Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault"

Only to a moron who doesn't understand the English language, as you just showed.

HTH
You clearly are as thick as **** if you don't understand that it SEEMS that the door was opened on him just as he was going past THAT is the difference you idiot - but with regard to 'blame' the four quotes CLEARLY show that you think he was at fault especially, as I have already pointed out, that you have not once suggested that someone else might have been at fault!!
I am now officially bored by your moronic postings on this and wont respond to any more of your idiotic comments!
So you've realised (after having it pointed out to you) that ""the door possibly being 'open' as he approached " and " that it may have been 'opened' as he approached " amount to exactly the same thing.

I'm glad we got there in the end.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!" They both mean exactly the same ie there was an open door for him to ride into. "As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following; 1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,; 2 - 'not taking into account the dangers'; 3 - 'he was placing himself in danger'; 4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'." OED 'blame' - "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong" At no point have I done that with anyone. "Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault" Only to a moron who doesn't understand the English language, as you just showed. HTH[/p][/quote]You clearly are as thick as **** if you don't understand that it SEEMS that the door was opened on him just as he was going past THAT is the difference you idiot - but with regard to 'blame' the four quotes CLEARLY show that you think he was at fault especially, as I have already pointed out, that you have not once suggested that someone else might have been at fault!! I am now officially bored by your moronic postings on this and wont respond to any more of your idiotic comments![/p][/quote]So you've realised (after having it pointed out to you) that ""the door possibly being 'open' as he approached " and " that it may have been 'opened' as he approached " amount to exactly the same thing. I'm glad we got there in the end. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

6:24am Tue 3 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!"

They both mean exactly the same ie there was an open door for him to ride into.


"As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following;
1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,;
2 - 'not taking into account the dangers';
3 - 'he was placing himself in danger';
4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'."

OED 'blame' - "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong"

At no point have I done that with anyone.

"Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault"

Only to a moron who doesn't understand the English language, as you just showed.

HTH
You clearly are as thick as **** if you don't understand that it SEEMS that the door was opened on him just as he was going past THAT is the difference you idiot - but with regard to 'blame' the four quotes CLEARLY show that you think he was at fault especially, as I have already pointed out, that you have not once suggested that someone else might have been at fault!!
I am now officially bored by your moronic postings on this and wont respond to any more of your idiotic comments!
So you've realised (after having it pointed out to you) that ""the door possibly being 'open' as he approached " and " that it may have been 'opened' as he approached " amount to exactly the same thing.

I'm glad we got there in the end.
But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past knocking him off his bike! I am not sure why you seem to be deliberately suggesting that these are not two different scenarios but any sensible person would agree that they are!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he approached and that it may have been 'opened' as he approached then I can only blame your education!" They both mean exactly the same ie there was an open door for him to ride into. "As for you not blaming the cyclist you said the following; 1 - 'the cyclists own part in this incident,; 2 - 'not taking into account the dangers'; 3 - 'he was placing himself in danger'; 4 - 'hope he learns his lesson'." OED 'blame' - "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong" At no point have I done that with anyone. "Those four quotes indicate that you think it was largely his own fault" Only to a moron who doesn't understand the English language, as you just showed. HTH[/p][/quote]You clearly are as thick as **** if you don't understand that it SEEMS that the door was opened on him just as he was going past THAT is the difference you idiot - but with regard to 'blame' the four quotes CLEARLY show that you think he was at fault especially, as I have already pointed out, that you have not once suggested that someone else might have been at fault!! I am now officially bored by your moronic postings on this and wont respond to any more of your idiotic comments![/p][/quote]So you've realised (after having it pointed out to you) that ""the door possibly being 'open' as he approached " and " that it may have been 'opened' as he approached " amount to exactly the same thing. I'm glad we got there in the end.[/p][/quote]But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past knocking him off his bike! I am not sure why you seem to be deliberately suggesting that these are not two different scenarios but any sensible person would agree that they are! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Tue 3 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

StyleCop wrote:
wippasnapper wrote:
Martin999 wrote:
Probably landed in Brunswick Square. Lots of room there. However, if you need to know more ask wippasnapper, he seems to know EVERYTHING.
wippasnapper, dote know EVERYTHING I just find it hilarious your cycling along minding your own business and from out of know where a taxi appears parked in front of you but any normal person would have ride around it but I’m forgetting most cyclists dote look where there going because there looking ells where or operating a mobile devise or a good possibility **** or on drugs doesn’t mean I know everything just covering the obverse.
Well done wippasnapper - it's hilarious that a 23 young man with all is life ahead of him could potentially lose it or be paralysed - really funny - hilarious, you should do stand up...

For the record.

1. The chopper landed in Davigdor school grounds.

2. The young man was cycling into the sun, (which was low in the sky) and the vehicle had parked just over the brow of a hill

3. A roadside door was opened on the stationary cab and the cyclist hit it as he was passing it...

In other words, he was going downhill, into the sun and a car door was opened onto him... Very little time to react in other words...

Hardly a laughing matter really, so before you know the details, it's probably best not to comment.

Fortunately there were enough of us more conscientious citizens on hand to call the emergency services and deal with the immediate aftermath...

I'm sure if you were involved in such an emergency which required immediate first aid and subsequent airlifting to hospital you'll be thankful for it... and wouldn't find it hilarious.

...poor kid.

I just hope to god he makes a full recovery.
The young man was cycling into the sun, (which was low in the sky) and the vehicle had parked just over the brow of a hill - pardon the pun but the sun being a factor in everyone’s driving experience would still drive with duo care and attention to the conditions regardless.

A roadside door was opened on the stationary cab and the cyclist hit it as he was passing it... obviously not riding with duo care and attention i.e. all learner drivers are tort to expect the unexpected.

In other words, he was going downhill, into the sun and a car door was opened onto him... Very little time to react in other words... one would by your statement pre-zoom you see the accident somewhat doubt so, so you are making a presumption the door was open as he was about to pass witch could be far from the truth.

Hardly a laughing matter really, so before you know the details, it's probably best not to comment. Are but your not me HAAAAAAA and being most cyclist tend to ride without duo care and attention to the road conditions and hazards Sorry I do find it hilarious being every other road user has to fallow all the road traffic laws but cyclists dote.

Fortunately there were enough of us more conscientious citizens on hand to call the emergency services and deal with the immediate aftermath... well he’s in good hands then.

I'm sure if you were involved in such an emergency which required immediate first aid and subsequent airlifting to hospital you'll be thankful for it... and wouldn't find it hilarious. I would not find myself in such a situation i.e. I drive a mobility scooter on the public roads within accordants with the road traffic law i.e. I ride with duo care and attention to the conditions and hazards and to date I have not had an accident
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martin999[/bold] wrote: Probably landed in Brunswick Square. Lots of room there. However, if you need to know more ask wippasnapper, he seems to know EVERYTHING.[/p][/quote]wippasnapper, dote know EVERYTHING I just find it hilarious your cycling along minding your own business and from out of know where a taxi appears parked in front of you but any normal person would have ride around it but I’m forgetting most cyclists dote look where there going because there looking ells where or operating a mobile devise or a good possibility **** or on drugs doesn’t mean I know everything just covering the obverse.[/p][/quote]Well done wippasnapper - it's hilarious that a 23 young man with all is life ahead of him could potentially lose it or be paralysed - really funny - hilarious, you should do stand up... For the record. 1. The chopper landed in Davigdor school grounds. 2. The young man was cycling into the sun, (which was low in the sky) and the vehicle had parked just over the brow of a hill 3. A roadside door was opened on the stationary cab and the cyclist hit it as he was passing it... In other words, he was going downhill, into the sun and a car door was opened onto him... Very little time to react in other words... Hardly a laughing matter really, so before you know the details, it's probably best not to comment. Fortunately there were enough of us more conscientious citizens on hand to call the emergency services and deal with the immediate aftermath... I'm sure if you were involved in such an emergency which required immediate first aid and subsequent airlifting to hospital you'll be thankful for it... and wouldn't find it hilarious. ...poor kid. I just hope to god he makes a full recovery.[/p][/quote]The young man was cycling into the sun, (which was low in the sky) and the vehicle had parked just over the brow of a hill - pardon the pun but the sun being a factor in everyone’s driving experience would still drive with duo care and attention to the conditions regardless. A roadside door was opened on the stationary cab and the cyclist hit it as he was passing it... obviously not riding with duo care and attention i.e. all learner drivers are tort to expect the unexpected. In other words, he was going downhill, into the sun and a car door was opened onto him... Very little time to react in other words... one would by your statement pre-zoom you see the accident somewhat doubt so, so you are making a presumption the door was open as he was about to pass witch could be far from the truth. Hardly a laughing matter really, so before you know the details, it's probably best not to comment. Are but your not me HAAAAAAA and being most cyclist tend to ride without duo care and attention to the road conditions and hazards Sorry I do find it hilarious being every other road user has to fallow all the road traffic laws but cyclists dote. Fortunately there were enough of us more conscientious citizens on hand to call the emergency services and deal with the immediate aftermath... well he’s in good hands then. I'm sure if you were involved in such an emergency which required immediate first aid and subsequent airlifting to hospital you'll be thankful for it... and wouldn't find it hilarious. I would not find myself in such a situation i.e. I drive a mobility scooter on the public roads within accordants with the road traffic law i.e. I ride with duo care and attention to the conditions and hazards and to date I have not had an accident wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Tue 3 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

ARMANA wrote:
Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !!
it may well be a dangerous thing to do but if they are riding without duo care and attention who’s at fort you can’t contumely blame other road users as an excuse for your mistakes, yes there is clear evidents that some motorist dote drive with duo care and attention in regards to cyclists but it is also fear to say nether do many cyclist give duo care and attention to other road uses.

In my time I have been a cyclist a motorist and now a mobility scooter user on the public roads as a cyclist I never had an accident as a motorist I never had an accident as a mobility scooter user I have been few mouthed by cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, I’ve been frost into the curb by motorist punched by cyclists or had my scooter kicked by cyclists so who is the most aggressive road user sorry but going by what's has happened to me mainly from cyclists ever on the road or on a pavement/footpath I’d say it’s the cyclists that is at fort.
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: Cycling on the roads is a very dangerous thing to do, Car 1 Cyclist 0 again, !![/p][/quote]it may well be a dangerous thing to do but if they are riding without duo care and attention who’s at fort you can’t contumely blame other road users as an excuse for your mistakes, yes there is clear evidents that some motorist dote drive with duo care and attention in regards to cyclists but it is also fear to say nether do many cyclist give duo care and attention to other road uses. In my time I have been a cyclist a motorist and now a mobility scooter user on the public roads as a cyclist I never had an accident as a motorist I never had an accident as a mobility scooter user I have been few mouthed by cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, I’ve been frost into the curb by motorist punched by cyclists or had my scooter kicked by cyclists so who is the most aggressive road user sorry but going by what's has happened to me mainly from cyclists ever on the road or on a pavement/footpath I’d say it’s the cyclists that is at fort. wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Tue 3 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

BRIGHTON BLUENOSE:

"But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...."

I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was:

"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...."

In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out.

You're welcome.
BRIGHTON BLUENOSE: "But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...." I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was: "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out. You're welcome. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 1

5:09pm Tue 3 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
BRIGHTON BLUENOSE:

"But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...."

I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was:

"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...."

In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out.

You're welcome.
What I've said previously and my most recent comment are entirely consistent! You have blamed the cyclist - end of!!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: BRIGHTON BLUENOSE: "But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...." I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was: "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]What I've said previously and my most recent comment are entirely consistent! You have blamed the cyclist - end of!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Tue 3 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
BRIGHTON BLUENOSE:

"But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...."

I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was:

"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...."

In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out.

You're welcome.
What I've said previously and my most recent comment are entirely consistent! You have blamed the cyclist - end of!!
Consistent with what?

You claimed that two identical scenarios were 'different', and you later changed one of them to ensure that (at last) the two scenarios were indeed different.

You claimed I didn't know the difference between them, and I'm STILL waiting for you to prove that.

"You have blamed the cyclist"

Oh dear, you really do struggle with the English language. Here's what the OED says about 'blame':

"Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong"

I'd ask you to quote a comment from me in which I hold the cyclist responsible for this incident, but we both know that you won't be able to.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: BRIGHTON BLUENOSE: "But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...." I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was: "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]What I've said previously and my most recent comment are entirely consistent! You have blamed the cyclist - end of!![/p][/quote]Consistent with what? You claimed that two identical scenarios were 'different', and you later changed one of them to ensure that (at last) the two scenarios were indeed different. You claimed I didn't know the difference between them, and I'm STILL waiting for you to prove that. "You have blamed the cyclist" Oh dear, you really do struggle with the English language. Here's what the OED says about 'blame': "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong" I'd ask you to quote a comment from me in which I hold the cyclist responsible for this incident, but we both know that you won't be able to. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Tue 3 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
BRIGHTON BLUENOSE:

"But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...."

I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was:

"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...."

In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out.

You're welcome.
What I've said previously and my most recent comment are entirely consistent! You have blamed the cyclist - end of!!
Consistent with what?

You claimed that two identical scenarios were 'different', and you later changed one of them to ensure that (at last) the two scenarios were indeed different.

You claimed I didn't know the difference between them, and I'm STILL waiting for you to prove that.

"You have blamed the cyclist"

Oh dear, you really do struggle with the English language. Here's what the OED says about 'blame':

"Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong"

I'd ask you to quote a comment from me in which I hold the cyclist responsible for this incident, but we both know that you won't be able to.
As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: BRIGHTON BLUENOSE: "But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...." I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was: "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]What I've said previously and my most recent comment are entirely consistent! You have blamed the cyclist - end of!![/p][/quote]Consistent with what? You claimed that two identical scenarios were 'different', and you later changed one of them to ensure that (at last) the two scenarios were indeed different. You claimed I didn't know the difference between them, and I'm STILL waiting for you to prove that. "You have blamed the cyclist" Oh dear, you really do struggle with the English language. Here's what the OED says about 'blame': "Feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong" I'd ask you to quote a comment from me in which I hold the cyclist responsible for this incident, but we both know that you won't be able to.[/p][/quote]As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Tue 3 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!"

So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'.

I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.
"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!" So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'. I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

11:52am Wed 4 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
BRIGHTON BLUENOSE:

"But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...."

I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was:

"If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...."

In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out.

You're welcome.
What I've said previously and my most recent comment are entirely consistent! You have blamed the cyclist - end of!!
No but you have clearly stated that the taxi driver was in the wrong regardless of who was in the wrong the fact remains All Road Users Should expect the unexpected i.e. motors parked in arqued places people stepping out between two motors cyclists crossing a junction on a red light shell I go on or is it now clear that the cyclists was clearly not looking where he was going regardless of the fact that the sun was in his eyes because he could have been another motorist coming over the brow of the hill with the sun in his eye but he would not have hit the car simples and fact!
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: BRIGHTON BLUENOSE: "But they ARE two different things i) the door was already open, had been for, say, a couple of minutes minutes and the cyclist was not paying attention and road directly into the open door or ii) someone opened a door at the instant he was going past...." I agree that THOSE are two different things, but what YOU wrote earlier was: "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." In each of those scenarios, the bike hadn't yet reached the taxi, so the examples were identical, as I pointed out. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]What I've said previously and my most recent comment are entirely consistent! You have blamed the cyclist - end of!![/p][/quote]No but you have clearly stated that the taxi driver was in the wrong regardless of who was in the wrong the fact remains All Road Users Should expect the unexpected i.e. motors parked in arqued places people stepping out between two motors cyclists crossing a junction on a red light shell I go on or is it now clear that the cyclists was clearly not looking where he was going regardless of the fact that the sun was in his eyes because he could have been another motorist coming over the brow of the hill with the sun in his eye but he would not have hit the car simples and fact! wippasnapper
  • Score: 1

12:03pm Wed 4 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!"

So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'.

I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.
Boring and thick – regardless of what you may think of use you most defiantly have one way vision and are clearly seeing it in favor of the cyclist regardless of the fact nether was to blame but everyone that uses the road should expect the unexpected if you can’t see that then you are the think person hear.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!" So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'. I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.[/p][/quote]Boring and thick – regardless of what you may think of use you most defiantly have one way vision and are clearly seeing it in favor of the cyclist regardless of the fact nether was to blame but everyone that uses the road should expect the unexpected if you can’t see that then you are the think person hear. wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!"

So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'.

I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.
Ha ha ha - we ain't gonna agree on that one!!
Have a nice day x
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!" So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'. I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha - we ain't gonna agree on that one!! Have a nice day x brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!"

So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'.

I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.
Ha ha ha - we ain't gonna agree on that one!!
Have a nice day x
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!" So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'. I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha - we ain't gonna agree on that one!! Have a nice day x brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!"

So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'.

I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.
Ha ha ha - we ain't gonna agree on that one!!
Have a nice day x
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!" So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'. I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha - we ain't gonna agree on that one!! Have a nice day x brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!"

So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'.

I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.
Ha ha ha - we ain't gonna agree on that one!!
Have a nice day x
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!" So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'. I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.[/p][/quote]Ha ha ha - we ain't gonna agree on that one!! Have a nice day x brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

wippasnapper wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!"

So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'.

I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.
Boring and thick – regardless of what you may think of use you most defiantly have one way vision and are clearly seeing it in favor of the cyclist regardless of the fact nether was to blame but everyone that uses the road should expect the unexpected if you can’t see that then you are the think person hear.
I haven't actually stated anything about this incident, and I certainly haven't blamed anyone for it.

All I have done is pointed out the likely outcome IF the facts are as various people have stated them. I've also pointed out that one idiot confused himself.

For instance one person on here blamed excessive speed by the cyclist caused by a downhill slope for him being unable to avoid the collision. That same person also said that the taxi was parked just beyond the brow of that hill, thereby ruling out the slope's effect that HE had himself mentioned.

My comments about the cyclist failing to take into account the prevailing conditions which were alleged by certain people doe not place any blame on him at all.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!" So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'. I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.[/p][/quote]Boring and thick – regardless of what you may think of use you most defiantly have one way vision and are clearly seeing it in favor of the cyclist regardless of the fact nether was to blame but everyone that uses the road should expect the unexpected if you can’t see that then you are the think person hear.[/p][/quote]I haven't actually stated anything about this incident, and I certainly haven't blamed anyone for it. All I have done is pointed out the likely outcome IF the facts are as various people have stated them. I've also pointed out that one idiot confused himself. For instance one person on here blamed excessive speed by the cyclist caused by a downhill slope for him being unable to avoid the collision. That same person also said that the taxi was parked just beyond the brow of that hill, thereby ruling out the slope's effect that HE had himself mentioned. My comments about the cyclist failing to take into account the prevailing conditions which were alleged by certain people doe not place any blame on him at all. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
wippasnapper wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!"

So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'.

I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.
Boring and thick – regardless of what you may think of use you most defiantly have one way vision and are clearly seeing it in favor of the cyclist regardless of the fact nether was to blame but everyone that uses the road should expect the unexpected if you can’t see that then you are the think person hear.
I haven't actually stated anything about this incident, and I certainly haven't blamed anyone for it.

All I have done is pointed out the likely outcome IF the facts are as various people have stated them. I've also pointed out that one idiot confused himself.

For instance one person on here blamed excessive speed by the cyclist caused by a downhill slope for him being unable to avoid the collision. That same person also said that the taxi was parked just beyond the brow of that hill, thereby ruling out the slope's effect that HE had himself mentioned.

My comments about the cyclist failing to take into account the prevailing conditions which were alleged by certain people doe not place any blame on him at all.

HTH
Are you still going on?! Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?! My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "As previously stated you are both boring and thick - goodbye!!" So you've made to look stupid by someone who you claim is 'thick'. I do hope you can see the irony of that, lol.[/p][/quote]Boring and thick – regardless of what you may think of use you most defiantly have one way vision and are clearly seeing it in favor of the cyclist regardless of the fact nether was to blame but everyone that uses the road should expect the unexpected if you can’t see that then you are the think person hear.[/p][/quote]I haven't actually stated anything about this incident, and I certainly haven't blamed anyone for it. All I have done is pointed out the likely outcome IF the facts are as various people have stated them. I've also pointed out that one idiot confused himself. For instance one person on here blamed excessive speed by the cyclist caused by a downhill slope for him being unable to avoid the collision. That same person also said that the taxi was parked just beyond the brow of that hill, thereby ruling out the slope's effect that HE had himself mentioned. My comments about the cyclist failing to take into account the prevailing conditions which were alleged by certain people doe not place any blame on him at all. HTH[/p][/quote]Are you still going on?! Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?! My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -1

4:22pm Wed 4 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

" Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!"

1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past?

You don't.

2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't.

" My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! "

We haven't been told that an open door was involved..

"Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!"

So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you.

FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me.

HTH
" Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!" 1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past? You don't. 2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't. " My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! " We haven't been told that an open door was involved.. "Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!" So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you. FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

11:16pm Wed 4 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

O dear I do so love it when people get so stressed but calling me all sorts of names makes you sound like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum poor little thing go suck your dummy that will make you feel better.
O dear I do so love it when people get so stressed but calling me all sorts of names makes you sound like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum poor little thing go suck your dummy that will make you feel better. wippasnapper
  • Score: -1

11:27pm Wed 4 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!"

1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past?

You don't.

2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't.

" My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! "

We haven't been told that an open door was involved..

"Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!"

So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you.

FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me.

HTH
Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!" 1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past? You don't. 2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't. " My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! " We haven't been told that an open door was involved.. "Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!" So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you. FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me. HTH[/p][/quote]Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 1

6:15am Thu 5 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!"

1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past?

You don't.

2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't.

" My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! "

We haven't been told that an open door was involved..

"Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!"

So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you.

FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me.

HTH
Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!!
So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process?

I see.....
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!" 1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past? You don't. 2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't. " My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! " We haven't been told that an open door was involved.. "Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!" So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you. FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me. HTH[/p][/quote]Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!![/p][/quote]So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process? I see..... ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

10:28pm Thu 5 Jun 14

StyleCop says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!"

1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past?

You don't.

2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't.

" My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! "

We haven't been told that an open door was involved..

"Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!"

So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you.

FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me.

HTH
Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!!
So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process?

I see.....
Please stop this petty argument. It's utterly futile.

And as far as drawing my initial comment into doubt, may I say this.

1. I was there - you weren't.

2. I heard the smash and looked out of my window and I can assure you I had a good view... there was a guy immobile on the ground - with people rushing towards him... It was immediately clear it was a 999 job so we got on it, I rushed out to assist whilst the call was taking place... So no, I didn't see the collision but the aftermath... and had the sense, courage and civic sense to help someone in need of urgent attention...

3. Trust me, the state of the taxi door and the fact it was so damaged that it couldn't close was pretty much conclusive that the door itself was point of impact - coupled with the testimony of the occupants of the cab and the driver...

4. There was much discussion with the bystanders and other witnesses prior to the the paramedics and the police arriving... we didn't all stand there in silence doing nothing - the poor guy was in a bad way...

5. It was a fairly clear picture to those of us at the scene what had occurred - taxi had parked and occupants had settled their bill, a door was opened and bosh... blink of an eye.

Furthermore, two witnesses who did help on the scene prior to the paramedics arrival and may well have seen the impact, subsequently left prior to the police appearing... it's presumably these folks the police would like to speak to, to finalise their investigation into what happened. (hence the signs appealing for witnesses - which also, I'm sure, is normal procedure for incidents of this nature)

Again. I will urge you... don't comment if you don't know - for it is you who looks the fool.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!" 1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past? You don't. 2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't. " My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! " We haven't been told that an open door was involved.. "Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!" So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you. FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me. HTH[/p][/quote]Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!![/p][/quote]So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process? I see.....[/p][/quote]Please stop this petty argument. It's utterly futile. And as far as drawing my initial comment into doubt, may I say this. 1. I was there - you weren't. 2. I heard the smash and looked out of my window and I can assure you I had a good view... there was a guy immobile on the ground - with people rushing towards him... It was immediately clear it was a 999 job so we got on it, I rushed out to assist whilst the call was taking place... So no, I didn't see the collision but the aftermath... and had the sense, courage and civic sense to help someone in need of urgent attention... 3. Trust me, the state of the taxi door and the fact it was so damaged that it couldn't close was pretty much conclusive that the door itself was point of impact - coupled with the testimony of the occupants of the cab and the driver... 4. There was much discussion with the bystanders and other witnesses prior to the the paramedics and the police arriving... we didn't all stand there in silence doing nothing - the poor guy was in a bad way... 5. It was a fairly clear picture to those of us at the scene what had occurred - taxi had parked and occupants had settled their bill, a door was opened and bosh... blink of an eye. Furthermore, two witnesses who did help on the scene prior to the paramedics arrival and may well have seen the impact, subsequently left prior to the police appearing... it's presumably these folks the police would like to speak to, to finalise their investigation into what happened. (hence the signs appealing for witnesses - which also, I'm sure, is normal procedure for incidents of this nature) Again. I will urge you... don't comment if you don't know - for it is you who looks the fool. StyleCop
  • Score: 3

10:48pm Thu 5 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

StyleCop wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!"

1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past?

You don't.

2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't.

" My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! "

We haven't been told that an open door was involved..

"Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!"

So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you.

FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me.

HTH
Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!!
So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process?

I see.....
Please stop this petty argument. It's utterly futile.

And as far as drawing my initial comment into doubt, may I say this.

1. I was there - you weren't.

2. I heard the smash and looked out of my window and I can assure you I had a good view... there was a guy immobile on the ground - with people rushing towards him... It was immediately clear it was a 999 job so we got on it, I rushed out to assist whilst the call was taking place... So no, I didn't see the collision but the aftermath... and had the sense, courage and civic sense to help someone in need of urgent attention...

3. Trust me, the state of the taxi door and the fact it was so damaged that it couldn't close was pretty much conclusive that the door itself was point of impact - coupled with the testimony of the occupants of the cab and the driver...

4. There was much discussion with the bystanders and other witnesses prior to the the paramedics and the police arriving... we didn't all stand there in silence doing nothing - the poor guy was in a bad way...

5. It was a fairly clear picture to those of us at the scene what had occurred - taxi had parked and occupants had settled their bill, a door was opened and bosh... blink of an eye.

Furthermore, two witnesses who did help on the scene prior to the paramedics arrival and may well have seen the impact, subsequently left prior to the police appearing... it's presumably these folks the police would like to speak to, to finalise their investigation into what happened. (hence the signs appealing for witnesses - which also, I'm sure, is normal procedure for incidents of this nature)

Again. I will urge you... don't comment if you don't know - for it is you who looks the fool.
Let's hope we hear some good news soon that the cyclist is on the mend!
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!" 1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past? You don't. 2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't. " My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! " We haven't been told that an open door was involved.. "Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!" So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you. FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me. HTH[/p][/quote]Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!![/p][/quote]So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process? I see.....[/p][/quote]Please stop this petty argument. It's utterly futile. And as far as drawing my initial comment into doubt, may I say this. 1. I was there - you weren't. 2. I heard the smash and looked out of my window and I can assure you I had a good view... there was a guy immobile on the ground - with people rushing towards him... It was immediately clear it was a 999 job so we got on it, I rushed out to assist whilst the call was taking place... So no, I didn't see the collision but the aftermath... and had the sense, courage and civic sense to help someone in need of urgent attention... 3. Trust me, the state of the taxi door and the fact it was so damaged that it couldn't close was pretty much conclusive that the door itself was point of impact - coupled with the testimony of the occupants of the cab and the driver... 4. There was much discussion with the bystanders and other witnesses prior to the the paramedics and the police arriving... we didn't all stand there in silence doing nothing - the poor guy was in a bad way... 5. It was a fairly clear picture to those of us at the scene what had occurred - taxi had parked and occupants had settled their bill, a door was opened and bosh... blink of an eye. Furthermore, two witnesses who did help on the scene prior to the paramedics arrival and may well have seen the impact, subsequently left prior to the police appearing... it's presumably these folks the police would like to speak to, to finalise their investigation into what happened. (hence the signs appealing for witnesses - which also, I'm sure, is normal procedure for incidents of this nature) Again. I will urge you... don't comment if you don't know - for it is you who looks the fool.[/p][/quote]Let's hope we hear some good news soon that the cyclist is on the mend! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

10:44am Fri 6 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

StyleCop wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!"

1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past?

You don't.

2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't.

" My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! "

We haven't been told that an open door was involved..

"Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!"

So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you.

FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me.

HTH
Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!!
So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process?

I see.....
Please stop this petty argument. It's utterly futile.

And as far as drawing my initial comment into doubt, may I say this.

1. I was there - you weren't.

2. I heard the smash and looked out of my window and I can assure you I had a good view... there was a guy immobile on the ground - with people rushing towards him... It was immediately clear it was a 999 job so we got on it, I rushed out to assist whilst the call was taking place... So no, I didn't see the collision but the aftermath... and had the sense, courage and civic sense to help someone in need of urgent attention...

3. Trust me, the state of the taxi door and the fact it was so damaged that it couldn't close was pretty much conclusive that the door itself was point of impact - coupled with the testimony of the occupants of the cab and the driver...

4. There was much discussion with the bystanders and other witnesses prior to the the paramedics and the police arriving... we didn't all stand there in silence doing nothing - the poor guy was in a bad way...

5. It was a fairly clear picture to those of us at the scene what had occurred - taxi had parked and occupants had settled their bill, a door was opened and bosh... blink of an eye.

Furthermore, two witnesses who did help on the scene prior to the paramedics arrival and may well have seen the impact, subsequently left prior to the police appearing... it's presumably these folks the police would like to speak to, to finalise their investigation into what happened. (hence the signs appealing for witnesses - which also, I'm sure, is normal procedure for incidents of this nature)

Again. I will urge you... don't comment if you don't know - for it is you who looks the fool.
Let's hope that Brighton Bluenose takes your comments on board.
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!" 1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past? You don't. 2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't. " My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! " We haven't been told that an open door was involved.. "Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!" So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you. FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me. HTH[/p][/quote]Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!![/p][/quote]So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process? I see.....[/p][/quote]Please stop this petty argument. It's utterly futile. And as far as drawing my initial comment into doubt, may I say this. 1. I was there - you weren't. 2. I heard the smash and looked out of my window and I can assure you I had a good view... there was a guy immobile on the ground - with people rushing towards him... It was immediately clear it was a 999 job so we got on it, I rushed out to assist whilst the call was taking place... So no, I didn't see the collision but the aftermath... and had the sense, courage and civic sense to help someone in need of urgent attention... 3. Trust me, the state of the taxi door and the fact it was so damaged that it couldn't close was pretty much conclusive that the door itself was point of impact - coupled with the testimony of the occupants of the cab and the driver... 4. There was much discussion with the bystanders and other witnesses prior to the the paramedics and the police arriving... we didn't all stand there in silence doing nothing - the poor guy was in a bad way... 5. It was a fairly clear picture to those of us at the scene what had occurred - taxi had parked and occupants had settled their bill, a door was opened and bosh... blink of an eye. Furthermore, two witnesses who did help on the scene prior to the paramedics arrival and may well have seen the impact, subsequently left prior to the police appearing... it's presumably these folks the police would like to speak to, to finalise their investigation into what happened. (hence the signs appealing for witnesses - which also, I'm sure, is normal procedure for incidents of this nature) Again. I will urge you... don't comment if you don't know - for it is you who looks the fool.[/p][/quote]Let's hope that Brighton Bluenose takes your comments on board. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

10:55am Fri 6 Jun 14

brighton bluenose says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
StyleCop wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
" Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!"

1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past?

You don't.

2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't.

" My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! "

We haven't been told that an open door was involved..

"Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!"

So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you.

FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me.

HTH
Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!!
So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process?

I see.....
Please stop this petty argument. It's utterly futile.

And as far as drawing my initial comment into doubt, may I say this.

1. I was there - you weren't.

2. I heard the smash and looked out of my window and I can assure you I had a good view... there was a guy immobile on the ground - with people rushing towards him... It was immediately clear it was a 999 job so we got on it, I rushed out to assist whilst the call was taking place... So no, I didn't see the collision but the aftermath... and had the sense, courage and civic sense to help someone in need of urgent attention...

3. Trust me, the state of the taxi door and the fact it was so damaged that it couldn't close was pretty much conclusive that the door itself was point of impact - coupled with the testimony of the occupants of the cab and the driver...

4. There was much discussion with the bystanders and other witnesses prior to the the paramedics and the police arriving... we didn't all stand there in silence doing nothing - the poor guy was in a bad way...

5. It was a fairly clear picture to those of us at the scene what had occurred - taxi had parked and occupants had settled their bill, a door was opened and bosh... blink of an eye.

Furthermore, two witnesses who did help on the scene prior to the paramedics arrival and may well have seen the impact, subsequently left prior to the police appearing... it's presumably these folks the police would like to speak to, to finalise their investigation into what happened. (hence the signs appealing for witnesses - which also, I'm sure, is normal procedure for incidents of this nature)

Again. I will urge you... don't comment if you don't know - for it is you who looks the fool.
Let's hope that Brighton Bluenose takes your comments on board.
Moronic troll!!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: " Absolutely NO confusion on my part as I have said CONSISTENTLY that the door appears to have been opened onto the cyclist by someone in the taxi as he was going past - how f***ing clearer can you get?!" 1) How do you know that the door was opened as the bike went past? You don't. 2) Your confusion (as been explained earlier) was nin believeing that your comment "If you don't understand the difference between the door possibly being 'open' as he APPROACHED and that it may have been 'opened' as he APPROACHED...." referred to two different scenarios. It doesn't. " My only 'error' was assuming the door was opened by the passenger! " We haven't been told that an open door was involved.. "Now turning this off as you and this wipasnapper tw@t are a pair of idiots!!" So you're against freedom of expression. Shame on you. FYI I shall continue to comment on this and other things as much as I choose, and there is NOTHING you can do to stop me. HTH[/p][/quote]Stylecop @ 12.29 on the day of the incident TOLD US that a door was 'opened onto ' the cyclist as he went past 'giving him very little time to react' - those are direct quotes from someone who was in the vicinity and arrived on the scene shortly after it happened ffs - not that the cyclist rode INTO the door without seeing it! How many more times do you need telling this?!![/p][/quote]So they didn't see it, yet you decided that their story was accurate and decided to make yourself look foolish in the process? I see.....[/p][/quote]Please stop this petty argument. It's utterly futile. And as far as drawing my initial comment into doubt, may I say this. 1. I was there - you weren't. 2. I heard the smash and looked out of my window and I can assure you I had a good view... there was a guy immobile on the ground - with people rushing towards him... It was immediately clear it was a 999 job so we got on it, I rushed out to assist whilst the call was taking place... So no, I didn't see the collision but the aftermath... and had the sense, courage and civic sense to help someone in need of urgent attention... 3. Trust me, the state of the taxi door and the fact it was so damaged that it couldn't close was pretty much conclusive that the door itself was point of impact - coupled with the testimony of the occupants of the cab and the driver... 4. There was much discussion with the bystanders and other witnesses prior to the the paramedics and the police arriving... we didn't all stand there in silence doing nothing - the poor guy was in a bad way... 5. It was a fairly clear picture to those of us at the scene what had occurred - taxi had parked and occupants had settled their bill, a door was opened and bosh... blink of an eye. Furthermore, two witnesses who did help on the scene prior to the paramedics arrival and may well have seen the impact, subsequently left prior to the police appearing... it's presumably these folks the police would like to speak to, to finalise their investigation into what happened. (hence the signs appealing for witnesses - which also, I'm sure, is normal procedure for incidents of this nature) Again. I will urge you... don't comment if you don't know - for it is you who looks the fool.[/p][/quote]Let's hope that Brighton Bluenose takes your comments on board.[/p][/quote]Moronic troll!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Fri 6 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

You were told:

"don't comment if you don't know"

I suggest you stck to that BB
You were told: "don't comment if you don't know" I suggest you stck to that BB ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree