Pedestrian injured in hit and run incident(Doug Mode)
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Squashme on 24 Jun 2010 09:46 On 24 June, 13:20, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Squashme <squas...(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > > >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished. > >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases, > >> > lax design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is > >> > feared. > > >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where > >> > people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew > >> > Howard, head of road safety at the AA." > >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here... > > >> You cretin. > > Just providing the usual necessary balance. > > It's certainly true that there seems to be an unwritten rule that says at > least one muppet needs to post a reply that shows that they haven't > actually bothered to read the article even in passing - but that had > already been met by NM. This muppet had read the article. What makes you think otherwise? Did you not read my contribution?
From: Adrian on 24 Jun 2010 09:47 Squashme <squashme(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely >> >> >> punished. >> >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some >> >> > cases, lax design could be behind the rising death and injury >> >> > toll, it is feared. >> >> >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where >> >> > people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew >> >> > Howard, head of road safety at the AA." >> >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here... >> >> >> You cretin. >> > Just providing the usual necessary balance. >> It's certainly true that there seems to be an unwritten rule that says >> at least one muppet needs to post a reply that shows that they haven't >> actually bothered to read the article even in passing - but that had >> already been met by NM. > This muppet had read the article. What makes you think otherwise? Did > you not read my contribution? Yes, I did. That's precisely why I thought otherwise.
From: Squashme on 24 Jun 2010 09:49 On 24 June, 14:09, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > "Squashme" <squas...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:01b4b8ad-d747-42d0-bad8-e28ecee2202e(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 24 June, 11:31, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Squashme <squas...(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > >> were saying: > > >> >>news:88gmlfFrphU1(a)mid.individual.net...>http:// > > >>www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases... > > >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished. > >> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3242048/Zebra-crossing-road-deaths- > >> treble.html > > >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases, lax > >> > design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is feared. > > >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where people > >> > see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew Howard, head > >> > of road safety at the AA." > > >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here... > > >> You cretin. > > > Just providing the usual necessary balance. > > Your 'necessary balance' also states, "The AA believes that around 1,000 > zebra crossings have vanished completely from the UK in recent years". Did > they vanish over night, or were they being used at the time perhaps? The AA, that's Alcoholics Anonymous, isn't it? That explains it. Oh no, I forgot, it's Roadaholics Unanimous, isn't it? Still they have trouble seeing things too. Distracted by the bell, blinded by the sun, important incoming call ...
From: Squashme on 24 Jun 2010 09:54 On 24 June, 14:47, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Squashme <squas...(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > > > > >> >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely > >> >> >> punished. > >> >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some > >> >> > cases, lax design could be behind the rising death and injury > >> >> > toll, it is feared. > > >> >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where > >> >> > people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew > >> >> > Howard, head of road safety at the AA." > >> >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here... > > >> >> You cretin. > >> > Just providing the usual necessary balance. > >> It's certainly true that there seems to be an unwritten rule that says > >> at least one muppet needs to post a reply that shows that they haven't > >> actually bothered to read the article even in passing - but that had > >> already been met by NM. > > This muppet had read the article. What makes you think otherwise? Did > > you not read my contribution? > > Yes, I did. That's precisely why I thought otherwise. Goes to show how wrong you can be. Oh well, even Homer nods.
From: mileburner on 24 Jun 2010 11:05
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:88h486Fs88U25(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >> How often do any witnesses note the make or model if the >> bike? This is usually quite clearly displayed on the frame of the bike >> and would narrow any suspect down quite considerably. > > Is it clearly displayed, front and rear, in letters 80mm x 50mm in a > deliberately clear font in a deliberately high-contrast colour scheme? Is that a rhetorical question? |