Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Tony Dragon on 27 Nov 2009 03:13 Doug wrote: > On 26 Nov, 08:12, "Partac" <petemac9...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> news:07e6ca8e-95b6-4d1e-a9f3-0d4ea539bddf(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >>> On 25 Nov, 23:09, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these cyclists. >>>> Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration unlike >>>> motorists. >>>> http://tiny.cc/iOoJY >>> Probably because the more enlightened among the police realise that >>> cyclists only do it to escape the serious dangers posed by drivers on >>> our roads. >> And where do the pedestrians go to escape the serious dangers posed by >> cyclists on our pavements? >> > Pedestrians are in a double bind because they are similarly and much > more dangerously menaced by cars. Even people inside houses are not > safe from crashing cars which demolish walls, something way beyond the > capability of cyclists. There is also the question of pavement > motorists who are allowed to park there and cross pavements to gain > access. > > I do feel sorry for pedestrians, hemmed in as they are by railings and > having to cope with cluttered pavements, while drivers are allowed to > travel freely nearby at excessive and dangerous speeds. In comparison > with motorists though, cyclists who are also vulnerable road victims, > seem to present pedestrians with little serious danger. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill. I don't recall being knocked over on the pavement by a motorist, but a cyclist has managed to do this. -- Tony Dragon
From: BrianW on 27 Nov 2009 03:58 On 27 Nov, 01:24, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2009 > 09:53:59 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > > > > > > >On 26 Nov, 16:39, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > >> Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> considered 26 Nov 2009 12:08:38 GMT the > >> perfect time to write: > > >> >Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > >> >like they were saying: > > >> >>> Perhaps you could clarify what you said. Are you proposing that killer > >> >>> cyclists should face appropriate jail sentences or are you proposing > >> >>> that the law should be enforced as it has been to-date. In a weak, > >> >>> ineffective manners which permits cyclists to kill and then walk free? > > >> >> As far as I am concerned, if you unlawfully kill someone whilst riding a > >> >> bike that is not substantially different from unlawfully killing someone > >> >> whilst driving a car. What have I said which makes you think I believe > >> >> differently? > > >> >You should believe differently, because it is different. > > >> >There is no equivalent, applicable to cycling, to the offences of Causing > >> >Death by Dangerous Driving or Causing Death by Careless Driving. > > >> >They were introduced specifically because, in the case of a road > >> >collision, it's very difficult to prove the gross negligence required for > >> >a Manslaughter conviction - basically, juries were very reluctant to > >> >convict because of the "There but for the grace..." angle. CDbDD and > >> >CDbCD carry much less onerous tests, so are considerably easier to prove > >> >- and thereby convict. > > >> >Which all means that, yes, there IS a substantial difference between > >> >unlawfully killing someone whilst riding a bike and unlawfully killing > >> >someone whilst driving a car - and that the cyclist IS much more likely > >> >to walk free. > > >> I'm fairly sure that if you check the stats on custodial sentences for > >> drivers who kill, the proportion is much lower than for cyclists who > >> kill. > >> Of course, it is so extremely rare for cyclists to kill anyone that > >> there aren't many cases to compare, unlike with motorists who manage > >> on average to kill each day as many people as cyclists do in a decade.- > > >You appear not to have spotted the word "unlawful" in Adrian's post. > > When has it not been unlawful to kill someone with a car? If, for example, the driver is driving fully within the law and someone runs out in front of the car, within the stopping distance, and is killed. Only people like Doug (and you???) would seek to blame the driver in such circumstances. > Even in the cases where the legal system fails to prosecute, I've > never heard of a coroner returning a "lawful homicide" verdict in a > motor vehicle killing. They would presumably record a verdict of accidental death in the above scenario. > The fact that they fail to return "unlawful killing" is part of the > problem. > If any weapon other than a motor vehicle was used in most of the road > deaths, there would be custodial sentences almost every time. Even if the driver was obeying the law in all respects?
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 04:29 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:52:42 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >On 27 Nov, 00:07, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:22:35 -0000, "Rob" >> >> >> >> <rsvptorob-newsREM...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >Peter Grange wrote: >> >|| On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:30:31 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> >|| <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >|| >> >||| webreader wrote: >> >|||| Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these >> >|||| cyclists. Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration >> >|||| unlike motorists. >> >|||| >> >|||| >> >||||http://tiny.cc/iOoJY >> >||| >> >||| Do you mean those cyclists who pay no road tax, have no insurance, >> >||| don't have to pass a test of competance & don't have any visible >> >||| means of being traced? >> >|| What's road tax please? >> >> >It's the tax one pays for permission to use a vehicle on the road. It's >> >referred to by various different names, eg. car tax, vehicle tax, Vehicle >> >excise duty, road tax etc. but most people understand what it means. >> >> >||| >> >||| Or did you mean those cyclists who get free cycle lanes that hold >> >||| up tax paying motorists, ignore lights, one way systems and ride on >> >||| pavements? >> >|| Pretty much everyone in the uk pays tax, how do you recognise the >> >|| non-taxpayers please? >> >> >Non-taxpayers (in the context used), can be recognised by the lack of a >> >vehicle excise duty disk attatched to their vehicle, ie. car, van, bike etc. >> >> >HTH >> >> Quite. It's a tax. It pays for things. What it does not do is give >> someone who pays that tax any more right to use the road than someone >> who pays whatever tax the government requires them to pay. The >> inference was that cyclists are somehow second class road users >> because they do not pay VED, which is plain nonsense. >> >Regarding the taxation, agreed it's nonsense, however they are still >second class road users. Bollocks
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 04:31 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:28:32 -0800 (PST), Paul Weaver <usenet(a)isorox.co.uk> wrote: >On 27 Nov, 00:07, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:22:35 -0000, "Rob" >> >> >> >> <rsvptorob-newsREM...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >Peter Grange wrote: >> >|| On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:30:31 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> >|| <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >|| >> >||| webreader wrote: >> >|||| Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these >> >|||| cyclists. Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration >> >|||| unlike motorists. >> >|||| >> >|||| >> >||||http://tiny.cc/iOoJY >> >||| >> >||| Do you mean those cyclists who pay no road tax, have no insurance, >> >||| don't have to pass a test of competance & don't have any visible >> >||| means of being traced? >> >|| What's road tax please? >> >> >It's the tax one pays for permission to use a vehicle on the road. It's >> >referred to by various different names, eg. car tax, vehicle tax, Vehicle >> >excise duty, road tax etc. but most people understand what it means. >> >> >||| >> >||| Or did you mean those cyclists who get free cycle lanes that hold >> >||| up tax paying motorists, ignore lights, one way systems and ride on >> >||| pavements? >> >|| Pretty much everyone in the uk pays tax, how do you recognise the >> >|| non-taxpayers please? >> >> >Non-taxpayers (in the context used), can be recognised by the lack of a >> >vehicle excise duty disk attatched to their vehicle, ie. car, van, bike etc. >> >> >HTH >> >> Quite. It's a tax. It pays for things. What it does not do is give >> someone who pays that tax any more right to use the road than someone >> who pays whatever tax the government requires them to pay. The >> inference was that cyclists are somehow second class road users >> because they do not pay VED, which is plain nonsense. > >Perhaps someone with a " New Ibiza 5 door 1.4 TDI 80PS Ecomotive M5 " >as a vehicle is a second-class citizen, like cyclists they also do not >"pay tax" (VED. at any rate) > >Someone in a Vauxhall " Insignia 5 Door Hatchback 2.8i V6 24v Turbo >(260PS) M6 " on the other hand pays more than most, perhaps drivers of >those vehicles have more right to the roads? Why? > >In any case, drivers of lorries would no doubt have the most right. Rubbish
From: mileburner on 27 Nov 2009 04:33
NM wrote: > Regarding the taxation, agreed it's nonsense, however they are still > second class road users. It's rather like going to hospital (or going to the doctor's surgery) and finding that you have to wait to be seen because there are old people, unemployed people and lower paid workers who do not pay the NI contributions which I do. |