Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 18:28 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:47:00 +0000, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009 >09:48:29 +0000 the perfect time to write: > >>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 >>>> 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. >> >>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. >> >The surviving relatives are more likely to feel that their dearly >departed has been judged as having some value if the instrument of >their death is something other than a motor vehicle though. >And of course, the same goes for injured survivors. That is, at the very least, a strange comment. If I thought someone had had a part in dispatching a friend or relative early I wouldn't really care whether said person was driving a car, riding a bike, flying an aeroplane, pissed whist taking his appendix out or whatever. I'd still be unhappy. The fact that out of all those "driving a car" is the statistically most likely has little influence on the individual event. -- Pete
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 18:31 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:08:30 +0000, Judith M Smith <judithmsmith(a)live.co.uk> wrote: >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". > > > FFS, it was in answer to The Motorists Assertion. Any likelihood of an apology soon over your pathetic points-scoring exercise over the death of a human being?
From: Halmyre on 27 Nov 2009 18:32 In article <1j9uw8n.l64huq25llicN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%@malloc.co.uk says... > johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote: > > > > > > There are also "Give Way" markings for cyclists which are use whenever > > > the cycle lane crosses the pavement. Would you like to guess how many > > > cyclists obey those markings? > > > > None? > > Give the man a cee-gar. > > They don't even give way to the trucks that are turning into the > industrial estate. Despite there being several large signs telling > cyclists to stop and look for traffic before crossing the entrance. > > Note, it says "Stop", not "Give Way". They don't stop. > > Apparently if a cyclist were to stop in London for a red light or a stop > sign their testicles would drop off. > What testicles? The combination of lycra and bicycle seats means their testicles have atrophied to the point of non-existence. Hence their constant high-pitched whining and general sense of inadequacy. -- Halmyre This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 18:33 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:26:59 -0000, Halmyre <no.spam(a)this.address> wrote: >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? One, two, three, four One, two, three, four, five. That'll be a no, then. -- Pete
From: Judith M Smith on 27 Nov 2009 19:04
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:31:03 +0000, Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:08:30 +0000, Judith M Smith ><judithmsmith(a)live.co.uk> wrote: > >>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". >> >> >> >FFS, it was in answer to The Motorists Assertion. > >Any likelihood of an apology soon over your pathetic points-scoring >exercise over the death of a human being? Bollocks - it was an answer to a straight post about cyclists. It had nothing to do with what you think the PP may or may not be. What's this you want me to apologise for? -- 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) |