| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 104582 | 2009-11-01 21:19:00 | Cell phone vs Smoking | bk T (215) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 826278 | 2009-11-03 01:08:00 | What about smoking after sex? Hmmmm...... I have smoked after sex as she was very HOT. But never during sex. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 826279 | 2009-11-03 02:45:00 | What about smoking after sex? Use Vaseline...or KY |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 826280 | 2009-11-03 03:52:00 | What about smoking after sex? Gee - I'll have to look next time. |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 826281 | 2009-11-03 04:12:00 | I noted the source at the end of the post - I'm sure if you're interested enough Sweep, you could probably track down the full story. It was posted in mild jest, not as a refutation... Out of interest, what made you rethink? And what did you rethink, after seeing the 60 Minutes item? I don't think the cycle couriers did any favours (improving the relationship between cyclists and motorists) for cyclists as a whole - everyone knows they're mad buggers. I think their bit will just reinforce the stereotype... A great way to get a full body search (including "cavity") back at the station - rark up a cop for no good reason (is there any good reason to rark up a cop????) at the end of a long day of dealing with total dickheads (which, unfortunately for them, is their job). :groan: :groan: What made me rethink was two facts as seen on 60 minutes. 1. Three of the people involved were interviewed and appeared not to remember the events leading up to the crash. Only one person saw the vehicle allegedly involved. Quite frankly I do not think they will make credible witnesses in Court. Has the alleged offender been charged yet? 2. The reporter followed another group of cyclists around Tamaki Drive at approx 25 kph and could not pass in a safe manner for some time due to the actions of the cyclists at that time. And to address your other comment I put it to you that if the police do not ask the right question then it may be that they may not get the answer they expect. Why not ask the mods to change your name to "nocar" |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 826282 | 2009-11-03 05:13:00 | What made me rethink was two facts as seen on 60 minutes. 1. Three of the people involved were interviewed and appeared not to remember the events leading up to the crash. Only one person saw the vehicle allegedly involved. Quite frankly I do not think they will make credible witnesses in Court. Has the alleged offender been charged yet? 2. The reporter followed another group of cyclists around Tamaki Drive at approx 25 kph and could not pass in a safe manner for some time due to the actions of the cyclists at that time. And to address your other comment I put it to you that if the police do not ask the right question then it may be that they may not get the answer they expect. Why not ask the mods to change your name to "nocar" 1. All of the guys (except Greg) can remember the events leading up to the 'incident'. Only Kevin can remember post-incident, because he is the only one that did not lose consciousness and may not have even got a concussion (not entirely sure on this) - but a smashed patella is damage enough. It is very common for anyone receiving a head injury (loss of consciousness and/or concussion) not to have memory of some events from around the time of the injury. I myself remember an "accident" I was involved in a couple of years ago (as a victim of a hit and run) where the last thing I remember was seeing a dark coloured vehicle u-turning in front of me, me yelling, and then talking to the paramedic in the ambulance - then another gap until I was in the ED. According to the guys I was with, I didn't lose consciousness - I was asking them how my bike was :D - but I did have mild concussion. No witnesses were required in court for that one - the offender was caught and pleaded guilty. But I was still able to submit a Victim Impact Report to the courts, which was taken into account at sentencing. There are plenty of witnesses, as there was a large group of bikes several metres behind the guys that were hit, plus all the pedestrians in the area at the time - I don't think there will be any issue of credibility. Their injuries speak for them. The alleged offender ("innocent until proven guilty") has been charged with 4 counts of Careless Driving Causing Injury which carries a penalty of "Imprisonment for up to 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $4,500, or both, and disqualification for at least 6 months" (www.ltsa.govt.nz). I would be very surprised if the alleged offender in this case tried to defend her actions in court, due to the seriousness of the injuries inflicted - there is no doubt that she was driving the car. The case seems pretty open and shut to me. Not that I know the results of the forensic examination of the car - but I would presume that the charges have been laid after consideration of the mechanical state of the car... 2. Yes, I saw that too. This was not our group and I'm not sure what relevance you think this has to the 'incident' on Tamaki Drive some weeks ago - we don't ride two abreast on Tamaki Drive, even though we are legally entitled to do so in some places. I have agreed on numerous occasions that there are idiots out there on our roads. On two wheels and four. But more idiots on four wheels than two purely from the ratio of cyclists to motorists. I was actually more concerned with the antics of the idiot cycle couriers, overtaking cars on a white line, squeezing between a truck and parked cars etc. Temporary Kiwis. :groan: "nocar" - very droll. But it would not be accurate. I own two - and wouldn't give them up for anything. I am a cyclist for health and social reasons - not a commuter. Sorry for the thread hijack bk T.... |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 826283 | 2009-11-03 05:29:00 | Thank you for your explanation. My point still remains. Only one cyclist admits to seeing the vehicle concerned before the crash. How do you explain the some 40 cyclists who were involved in an accident in the South Island without the help of a motorist? |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 826284 | 2009-11-03 06:22:00 | I don't think the point that "only one cyclist admits to seeing the vehicle concerned before the crash" has any relevance whatsoever. The vehicle "allegedly" did not stop at a compulsory stop. I am not going to speculate further, since the matter is now before the courts - and this public Forum is monitored by the news media - and others, besides those with login credentials. As far as the accident in the South Island is concerned (I assume you refer to the Tour of Southland), all I can say is that when you are travelling at high speed, very close together, it does not take much inattention to create havoc. Very hard to manoeuvre in the peloton if you're boxed in and something happens directly in front of you - there are occasionally even bigger crashes in the Tour De France. These guys are professionals and they compete in races knowing the risks. As Hayden Roulston said "It's bike racing, there's crashes...." I think you will find that many other sports have accidents without the assistance of motor vehicles. |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 826285 | 2009-11-03 06:44:00 | I don't think the point that "only one cyclist admits to seeing the vehicle concerned before the crash" has any relevance whatsoever. The vehicle "allegedly" did not stop at a compulsory stop. I am not going to speculate further, since the matter is now before the courts - and this public Forum is monitored by the news media - and others, besides those with login credentials. As far as the accident in the South Island is concerned (I assume you refer to the Tour of Southland), all I can say is that when you are travelling at high speed, very close together, it does not take much inattention to create havoc. Very hard to manoeuvre in the peloton if you're boxed in and something happens directly in front of you - there are occasionally even bigger crashes in the Tour De France. These guys are professionals and they compete in races knowing the risks. As Hayden Roulston said "It's bike racing, there's crashes...." I think you will find that many other sports have accidents without the assistance of motor vehicles. Quite correct that you should not speculate but three people involved in a matter before the court have gone public did they not? |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 826286 | 2009-11-03 06:52:00 | If you rewatch that 60 Minutes segment, you will find nothing that the courts will find objectionable. TV3 were very conscious of the fact that, at the time of filming, the alleged offender had not yet been charged and there was inevitably going to be a court case at some point. I imagine their legal department went over the interview, before it went to air, with a fine toothed comb as TV3 would be held responsible if anything had gone to air that might have been considered defamatory or in contempt of court. The interview was heavily edited - I can attest to this because I was there for the filming (off-camera, of course). | johcar (6283) | ||
| 826287 | 2009-11-04 07:23:00 | May I ask who are you to tell me and others how to conduct their life? Fair comment I guess, but you are not conducting your life! You are rescheduling your death, and bringing forward your expiry date. If you think otherwise you are in denial, but that's ok too, except it's a bit like premature ejaculation, the party's finished and the lights are out and you are still trying to park the car. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||