From: mileburner on 27 Nov 2009 04:35
> On 27 Nov, 00:31, Paul Weaver <use...(a)isorox.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 26 Nov, 18:25, johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
>>> Doesn't make it legal. They probably are not enlightened just
>>> trying to avoid filling in the reams of paperwork they would need
>>> to if they stop a cyclist for any offence.
>> Or indeed stop anyone for any offence. I've certainly been let off
>> with warnings while driving plenty of times.
>> Having said that, I have delightedly seen cyclists given FPNs for
>> pavement cycling in London :)
> Good, more of that is required.
I agree, if you force them onto the roads, it will slow down the traffic and
make it safer for everyone.
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 04:38
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:26:33 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
>On 27 Nov, 00:09, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:13:48 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
>> <thirty-...(a)live.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 26 Nov, 17:53, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> "thirty-six" <thirty-...(a)live.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> > On 26 Nov, 16:14, dgoldst...(a)charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:26:36 -0000, "mileburner"
>> >> >> <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"webreader" <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:d281183f-003b-4a78-8185-ec7cbc50741a(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these cyclists.
>> >> >> >> Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration unlike
>> >> >> >> motorists.
>> >> >> >I disagree, I have contacted the police concerning drivers stopping past
>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >stop line at a set of traffic lights in the advanced stop reservoir for
>> >> >> >cyclists. They replied that drivers did not always understand what the
>> >> >> >advanced stop meant and would not take action.
>> >> >> Why do cyclists need this "advanced stop reservoir" if they don't stop
>> >> >> at red lights?
>> >> > They dont. �It's an excuse to move back stop lines for motorists in an
>> >> > attempt to reduced the fatalities caused by amber gamblers, those who
>> >> > jump the lights and dont ensure the junction is clear before
>> >> > proceeding. �It's also an effort to gain the ecology conscious voter.
>> >> > Cyclists do not as a rule go plowing into other vehicles because the
>> >> > orange light turns on so do not require this mummying aimed at the
>> >> > majority of drivers.
>> >> So what's the point of having them if drivers ignore the first stop line
>> >> (and sometimes the second one too) and the police do nothing to enforce the
>> >> rule.
>> >That's why the government dont tell you why but give you a cover
>> >story. �If the movement of stiop lines had reduced accident
>> >statistics, dont you think the government would be shouting about how
>> >well they've performed in reducing RTAs at TS-controlled cjunctions?
>> >Do you think they're saving it till next year?
>> Would need to be early next year :-)
>Before the budget which they promise to get you able to see your
>doctor of choice within 24hrs again, cut income tax to a flat rate of
>10% after a personal allowance of 10 000, Claim that the national
>debt of xxxbillion be wiped out in three years and reduce the duty on
>scotch by a penny. Or save it until after, before the proles realise
>they've been had and the numbers will never add up, in an effort to
>divert attention that ypu cant buy a calculator battery anymore
>because they're not green.
Sounds about par for the course.
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 04:48
On 26 Nov 2009 12:08:38 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Grange <peter(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
>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.
There are legal differences. However if you kill someone as a result
of a deliberate act or a failure to take due care whilst performing a
potentially dangerous activity (like driving, cycling, walking, waving
a chainsaw about in your local Tesco etc) you should be held to
account. There are differences in the frequency of deaths resulting
from various activities, which is why the laws are different, but for
the victim it's 100% the same.
From: NM on 27 Nov 2009 05:14
On 27 Nov, 09:35, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> > On 27 Nov, 00:31, Paul Weaver <use...(a)isorox.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 26 Nov, 18:25, johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
> >>> Doesn't make it legal. They probably are not enlightened just
> >>> trying to avoid filling in the reams of paperwork they would need
> >>> to if they stop a cyclist for any offence.
> >> Or indeed stop anyone for any offence. I've certainly been let off
> >> with warnings while driving plenty of times.
> >> Having said that, I have delightedly seen cyclists given FPNs for
> >> pavement cycling in London :)
> > Good, more of that is required.
> I agree, if you force them onto the roads, it will slow down the traffic and
> make it safer for everyone.
And the attrition rate amoungst cyclists will increase.
From: NM on 27 Nov 2009 05:17
On 27 Nov, 09:33, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.
The old people have already paid and probably paid for your education
as well so why should they not get priority, AFAIK all paid employees
pay NI contributions although they may not pay income tax so that
really only leaves the unemployed for you to have a go at.