Addison Lee: It's okay to run over grannies
sfichele
Posts: 605
Have you seen the latest sh:te to erupt from the Addison Lee scum bag?
http://bit.ly/IXstQ8
http://bit.ly/IXstQ8
ScumBag wrote:Should a motorist fail to observe a granny wobbling to avoid a pothole or a rain drain, then he is guilty of failing to anticipate that this was somebody on her maiden voyage into the abyss. The fact is he just didn’t see her and however cautious, caring or alert he is, the influx of beginner cyclists is going to lead to an overall increase in accidents involving cyclists.
ScumBag wrote:It is time for us to say to cyclists ‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’.
0
Comments
-
seems like the backlash has begun, Cavendish etc tweeting about his comments and the possibility of cancelled contracts with AL. I will certainly be speaking to our practise manager and try to persuade her to abandon our account with them. As others have said, perhaps a Gerald Ratner moment...0
-
He doesn't seem to be saying that it is OK to run over grannies
He is saying that beginner cyclists could be a danger to themselves and others
A point also made repeatedly on the various 'Nodder' threads which pop up every January“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
TailWindHome wrote:He doesn't seem to be saying that it is OK to run over grannies
He is saying that beginner cyclists could be a danger to themselves and others
A point also made repeatedly on the various 'Nodder' threads which pop up every January
Not directly. But he's trying to imply that cyclists are a problem rather than poor driving, and that if someone navigates around a pot hole its okay to nail them. And yes there are nodders on bikes, but they should be killed for being a bit wobbly?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:He doesn't seem to be saying that it is OK to run over grannies
He is saying that beginner cyclists could be a danger to themselves and others
A point also made repeatedly on the various 'Nodder' threads which pop up every January
No, he seems to be saying that cyclists should pay "road tax" and that it's OK for a motorists to leave as little room as possible behind or next to a cyclist and the cyclist has to swerve or brake to avoid a hazard in the road and they have themselves to blame when the motorists who has left too little space to make evasive manoeuvres runs them down....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
I interpret his argument as:
More inexperienced cyclists => more swerving by cyclists (wobblers or avoiders) => more road space required => treat as vehicles => V.E.D. & licences.
Not quite as offensive as the blog of "Bob" of Palletline or whatever, but worthy of ridicule.Location: ciderspace0 -
bobinski wrote:seems like the backlash has begun, Cavendish etc tweeting about his comments and the possibility of cancelled contracts with AL. I will certainly be speaking to our practise manager and try to persuade her to abandon our account with them. As others have said, perhaps a Gerald Ratner moment...
Yeah lots of people on twitter are sticking the boot in0 -
Headhuunter wrote:No, he seems to be saying that cyclists should pay "road tax" and that it's OK for a motorists to leave as little room as possible behind or next to a cyclist and the cyclist has to swerve or brake to avoid a hazard in the road and they have themselves to blame when the motorists who has left too little space to make evasive manoeuvres runs them down....
^^^This. Griffin reminds of that offensive chap who heads up RyanAir who seems to think that controversy = publicity = no such thing as bad publicity. WAC.0 -
Adison Lee know they're about to get f*cked by the olympic traffic so they're getting their excuses / publicity in early.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Adison Lee know they're about to get f*cked by the olympic traffic so they're getting their excuses / publicity in early.
Interestingly he paid 250K to dine with Cameron but he got feck all out it. Wonder if all the current publicity stunts are related to that, i.e was he trying to get mini cabs into the Olympic lanes?
Can black cabs use them?0 -
sfichele wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Adison Lee know they're about to get f*cked by the olympic traffic so they're getting their excuses / publicity in early.
Interestingly he paid 250K to dine with Cameron but he got feck all out it. Wonder if all the current publicity stunts are related to that, i.e was he trying to get mini cabs into the Olympic lanes?
Makes sense.0 -
‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’
Your gang? Since when did using the roads involve joining his gang? Can we just take out a hit on him?0 -
BigMat wrote:‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’
Your gang? Since when did using the roads involve joining his gang? Can we just take out a hit on him?
Can't someone with some third party insurance run him over or something?
At least so he gets a feel for what his drivers get up to.0 -
ScumBag wrote:
It is time for us to say to cyclists ‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’.
Have they seen how much you lot spend, bloody sight more than the piddling VED
my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
BigMat wrote:‘You want to join our gang, get trained and pay up’
Your gang? Since when did using the roads involve joining his gang? Can we just take out a hit on him?
Quite. I am trained up and pay my taxes, thanks. Even if there was such a 'gang' why the f*** would we want to join.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
sfichele wrote:TailWindHome wrote:He doesn't seem to be saying that it is OK to run over grannies
He is saying that beginner cyclists could be a danger to themselves and others
A point also made repeatedly on the various 'Nodder' threads which pop up every January
Not directly. But he's trying to imply that cyclists are a problem rather than poor driving, and that if someone navigates around a pot hole its okay to nail them. And yes there are nodders on bikes, but they should be killed for being a bit wobbly?
He really really isn't saying that. No matter how much you (plural) want him to be saying it.
Is it not perfectly reasonable to suggest that cyclists should have some form of training before travelling on the road? Is it not a regular theme of the nodder threads?
Is the stock answer to a new commuter not "Buy Cyclecraft"?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:He really really isn't saying that. No matter how much you (plural) want him to be saying it.ScumBag wrote:Should a motorist fail to observe a granny wobbling to avoid a pothole or a rain drain
He sort of is. It's perfectly legitimate for a cyclist, regardless of experience or training, to wobble, swerve or to avoid a pothole. That's why cyclists are called 'vulnerable' in the Highway code, and that is why the rules clearly state that you should give them room in case they do need to swerve around an obstruction.0 -
TWH 1 - 0 sfichele
There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric. The good point (and it has been made here before) is that newbie cyclist numbers are increasing in metropolitan areas; those areas are crowded with motorised traffic; that makes them a dangerous place for newbies; training would help.
A problem we must all see is the newbie rider (easy to spot: completely knackered or completely brand new bike with no lights, wearing (eg) a mix of football kit and gym kit, pedalling madly but not making as much progress as their apparent fitness should provide) taking the techniques of experienced riders he can see around him and amplifying them. Darting in and out of gaps, filtering much faster than the traffic around him, but without the experience. And (possibly) ignoring RLs.
It's not unfair to point out that these riders are a problem. They are.
Nowhere does he say it is OK to "nail" newbie riders. Even if they veer unexpectedly. His point is that it is unfair that the apparently alert and careful driver is held responsible for hitting the swerving novice.
Of course, he conveniently overlooks that the driver can't have been *that* alert and careful if he hit something in the first place.
Besides, any fule kno that AL drivers are not highly trained, or experienced, or much good at driving, or particularly alert, much less careful.0 -
sfichele wrote:TailWindHome wrote:He really really isn't saying that. No matter how much you (plural) want him to be saying it.ScumBag wrote:Should a motorist fail to observe a granny wobbling to avoid a pothole or a rain drain
He sort of is. It's perfectly legitimate for a cyclist, regardless of experience or training, to wobble, swerve or to avoid a pothole. That's why cyclists are called 'vulnerable' in the Highway code, and that is why the rules clearly state that you should give them room in case they do need to swerve around an obstruction.
The bit in bold is a complete fail.
I quote DDD from the Nodderpocalypse thread'The swervers'
These are cyclists that will cycle beside the curb and then suddenly, without warning and without checking any shoulder, not yours, mine or more importantly theirs! They will swerve right at as close to a 90degree angle as possible. Why, I don't know. Escapes me. Dangerous though.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
sfichele wrote:It's perfectly legitimate for a cyclist, regardless of experience or training, to wobble, swerve or to avoid a pothole.
By the same token, if you were in the nearside blindspot of a car and it swerved to the kerb to avoid a pothole, wiping you out, no doubt you would accept the driver's manoeuvre had been "perfectly legitimate", would you?0 -
-
Greg66 wrote:TWH 1 - 0 sfichele
There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric. The good point (and it has been made here before) is that newbie cyclist numbers are increasing in metropolitan areas; those areas are crowded with motorised traffic; that makes them a dangerous place for newbies; training would help.
A problem we must all see is the newbie rider (easy to spot: completely knackered or completely brand new bike with no lights, wearing (eg) a mix of football kit and gym kit, pedalling madly but not making as much progress as their apparent fitness should provide) taking the techniques of experienced riders he can see around him and amplifying them. Darting in and out of gaps, filtering much faster than the traffic around him, but without the experience. And (possibly) ignoring RLs.
It's not unfair to point out that these riders are a problem. They are.
Nowhere does he say it is OK to "nail" newbie riders. Even if they veer unexpectedly. His point is that it is unfair that the apparently alert and careful driver is held responsible for hitting the swerving novice.
Of course, he conveniently overlooks that the driver can't have been *that* alert and careful if he hit something in the first place.
Besides, any fule kno that AL drivers are not highly trained, or experienced, or much good at driving, or particularly alert, much less careful.
So that sounds more like TWH 1-1 sfichele, or more accurately TWH ½-½ sfichele.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric..
The silly rhetoric is what's got people annoyed.
Not the kernal of truth.
You don't say.0 -
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric..
The silly rhetoric is what's got people annoyed.
Not the kernal of truth.
You don't say.
You seem to be defending him for the kernal, but most people aren't attacking him for that.
Seems a little strange from where I'm sitting, that's all.0 -
rjsterry wrote:So that sounds more like TWH 1-1 sfichele, or more accurately TWH ½-½ sfichele.
Referee's decision is final
Sorry“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:There is a kernal of a good point in Mr. AL's piece, but he butchers it and then burns the remains with his silly rhetoric..
The silly rhetoric is what's got people annoyed.
Not the kernal of truth.
You don't say.
You seem to be defending him for the kernal, but most people aren't attacking him for that.
Seems a little strange from where I'm sitting, that's all.
From where I'm sitting, people are attacking him for something he didn't say. They're attacking the inferences they've wrongly drawn.
Addressing what he said is usually a good starting point.0 -
Greg66 wrote:sfichele wrote:It's perfectly legitimate for a cyclist, regardless of experience or training, to wobble, swerve or to avoid a pothole.
By the same token, if you were in the nearside blindspot of a car and it swerved to the kerb to avoid a pothole, wiping you out, no doubt you would accept the driver's manoeuvre had been "perfectly legitimate", would you?
Well does the law say, Greg? I think (and I'm afraid I can't be bothered to check) that motor vehicles are supposed to give cyclists adequate space whils passing to accommodate the cyclist swerving round a pothole / wobbling / crashing on a patch of ice etc. Its not so much that its "perfectly legitimate" for a cyclist to do so, rather that a driver should anticipate such a risk and is obliged to leave sufficient space to accommodate it.
On the other hand, if you're driving a motor vehicle and you change direction without warning and collide with a cyclist, its going to be your fault regardless of "blind spot" issues.
Simple, right?0 -
Highway Code: rule 213Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.
@ TailWindHome, So you are not allowed to swerve?
And therefore any implied sh:te from Mr ScumBag Lee that it is not the drivers fault is BS and imo is indirectly saying its okay to hit a cyclist that swerved.0
