Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Judith M Smith on 27 Nov 2009 18:08 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:04:03 +0000, Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: <snip> >>Here's something you could try to test the theory. Stop the next >>pavement cyclist that you see and ask them to ride where they belong. > >Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his >hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it belongs. > Ah yes - what has become known as "the cyclist's riposte". It usually goes like this: There is a discussion about cycling - probably in a cycling newsgroup. Someone is losing the argument and probably the plot As a last resort - they will introduce a totally spurious and irrelevant statement about motor vehicles or motorists. Yep - welcome to "the cyclist's riposte". -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Judith M Smith on 27 Nov 2009 18:13 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:58:35 -0800 (PST), BrianW <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> >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. "I believe that if I am driving or cycling there is no chance of a child running out in front of me and causing an accident." Simon Brooke - fuckwit and moderator on URCM -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 18:19 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:43:10 +0000, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >BrianW <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009 >00:58:35 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > >>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? > >If the driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting >to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without >due care. >People who operate machinery with the potential to cause death and >serious injury in public places have the responsibility to ensure that >they do so in such a manner that death or injury is not caused by >their presence in a public place. >It is perfectly possible to take account of the places from which a >pedestrian could emerge, and travel at a speed which enables you to >stop should it happen. >This is what is expected of competent drivers, although I can >understand that you have no comprehension of that concept. Sorry, but I have to disagree. No-one would get anywhere if we all drove around so we could stop safely in a foot. Society generally accepts there is a risk to moving around at a speed greater than walking, and we have compromises like speed limits to help mitigate that risk. The often-quoted problems of getting convictions for killing or maiming wirh a car are a tacit acceptance by society that people are going to get hurt or worse in a motorised society. -- Pete
From: Tony Dragon on 27 Nov 2009 18:25 Phil W Lee wrote: > BrianW <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009 > 00:58:35 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > >> 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? > > If the driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting > to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without > due care. > People who operate machinery with the potential to cause death and > serious injury in public places have the responsibility to ensure that > they do so in such a manner that death or injury is not caused by > their presence in a public place. > It is perfectly possible to take account of the places from which a > pedestrian could emerge, and travel at a speed which enables you to > stop should it happen. > This is what is expected of competent drivers, although I can > understand that you have no comprehension of that concept. You are Doug AICMFP -- Tony Dragon
From: Halmyre on 27 Nov 2009 18:26
In article <h5n0h5pt4h3p3hnfm1vr082biulfl7au66(a)4ax.com>, judithmsmith(a)live.co.uk says... > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:58:35 -0800 (PST), BrianW > <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > >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. > > > "I believe that if I am driving or cycling there is no chance of a > child running out in front of me and causing an accident." > > Simon Brooke - fuckwit and moderator on URCM > URCM - what's that? uk.rec.cycling.mutual masturbation? -- Halmyre This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off. |