Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Peter Grange on 30 Nov 2009 12:40 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:02:52 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >> wrote: >> >>> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> When I see a driver driving down the pavement at 25mph I shall tell >>> them off. >> >> Good luck with stopping him. > >Wouldn't need to. He would if he was going to tell him off like he said. >Cars have registration plates & can be easily identified >if they break the law. Cyclists don't, because they don't pay to use the >roads. Yes I do. >They break the law with impunity & get away with it because they >can't be identified. What, all of them? Shirley Knott?
From: Peter Grange on 30 Nov 2009 12:41 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:00:11 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Steve Firth wrote: >> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> No, it's just that the majority of cyclists are selfish, stupid >>>> bastards. You seem typical of the breed. >>> >>> There goes the unsubstantiated "majority" word again. >> >> The day this becomes a court of law or I get paid to do the research >> I'll provide the statistics. However on a random sample, the majority >> of cyclists I encounter are selfish, stupid bastards. Not to mention >> "holier than thou" and "smug". > >I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Mr Firth 100%. That must worry him.
From: Adrian on 30 Nov 2009 12:45 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> So careless driving (in a legal context) is not dangerous. >> Correct. >>> Why then is it illegal? >> Because it increases risk. > And is therefore dangerous. You clearly don't understand the difference between "danger" and "risk". I suggest you learn or shut up, for the sake of any shred of credibility you may have left. >>>> Or are you suggesting that evidence and due judicial process is >>>> irrelevant, that innocence until guilt is proven should not apply - >>>> because "it's obvious"...? >>> No, I am suggesting that if driving caused the death, the driving was >>> dangerous. >> So you're suggesting that the offence of "causing death by careless >> driving" is not only un-necessary, but completely tautologous? > Yes, it seems to be nit picking. Regardless of whether the driving was > "careless" or "dangerous" (in a legal sense) if the driving caused death > it was by definition dangerous (in a real sense). Therefore it seems > utterly pointless to differentiate. <sigh> >> You'd suggest that, in this case, since he was found by a jury not to >> be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, he must have been >> completely innocent of any blame in the collision? >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7888653.stm > Quite the opposite. He caused death by driving. He "got off" on a lesser > charge of "causing death by careless driving" as opposed to "causing > death by dangerous driving". Thank you for confirming that you don't give a toss about judicial due process, evidence, or innocent-until-proven-guilty. > This was no comfort to the deceased's family. <shrug> DILLIGAF? > "After the verdict, Michelle's father Peter Hagans said Irrelevant emotive bollocks from somebody who hasn't a hope in hell of having any kind of objectivity.
From: Peter Grange on 30 Nov 2009 12:54 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:41:20 +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 >23:19:33 +0000 the perfect time to write: > >>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. > >Read it again. >Nowhere did I say a foot - it would be rare indeed for the known safe >space in front of the vehicle to be that short, but I suppose you have >to create ridiculous straw-men in order to find something to >criticise. The "foot" was my word, but nowhere did you specify a minimum distance for "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." So, if a ped steps out a foot in front of you... I'm not justifying dangerous driving, and certainly driving licences should be withdrawn at least temporarily from drivers who overstep the mark, but much of your battle is lost, society has decided that a certain amount of killing and maiming is acceptable to preserve the motorised lifestyle. Speed limits in many towns are down to 20, so things are getting better.
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 13:04
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7niel6F3mggkbU2(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>>> So careless driving (in a legal context) is not dangerous. > >>> Correct. > >>>> Why then is it illegal? > >>> Because it increases risk. > >> And is therefore dangerous. > > You clearly don't understand the difference between "danger" and "risk". > I suggest you learn or shut up, for the sake of any shred of credibility > you may have left. This might help http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dangerous |