Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 02:07 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:tuZQm.10409$Ym4.7966(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > > 100% of cyclists are uninsured Not true. 3rd part cover is available for about �25 per year. & untraceable. Not true, they are as identifiable as anyone (unless they are wearing a full face balaclava or hoodie).
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 02:11 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:uwZQm.10410$Ym4.451(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > SW wrote: >> On 30 Nov, 01:02, "The Medway Handyman" >> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve >>>> Firth) wrote: >>> >>>>> Peter Grange <pe...(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. 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. >> >> Unless they pay council tax. > > Motorists also pay council tax - and road tax. Whoop-de-do! Although on the local housing estate where plenty of the residents are unemployed and live on benefits and do not pay council tax, they still manage to run untaxed cars on the road.
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 02:18 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1ja0n7a.1p14y5i1pfft4aN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> According to the poor dear, if a collision occurs involving a car, the >> motorist must be at least partially to blame because the car was there. > > So according to "mileburner" it seems obvious that when Robert Lambert > crashed into Dora Thompson killign her that by definition his actions > were "dangerous". That when Jason Howard crashed into Rhiannon Bennet > killing her, his actions were "dangerous". That when Peter Messen > crashed into Gary Green killing him, his actions were "dangerous". When > Darren Hall crashed into Ronald Turner killing him, that his actions > were "dangerous". If you crash into somone and kill them then yes, your actions must have been dangerous. If your actions were not dangerous you would not have crashed into them and they would not have died > And yet the same individual apears to believe that cycling on the > pavement, cycling through red lights and cycling at speed in close > proximity to pedestrians cannot possibly be "dangerous". Yet each of the > incidents referred to above involves one or more of those activities. It seems reasonable to me to class any of the above actions as dangerous. It seems that you are trying to invent arguments to give yourself something to argue with.
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 02:25 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1ja0c7j.s63hgtgg4noyN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Blame is not the issue. The issue is whether the driving was dangerous. >> >> If someone dies as a result of it, the driving must have been dangerous. > > Some years ago a friend of mine was driving along a busy high street. A > pedestrian jumped in front of the car when the car was approximately > three feet from the pedestrian. The pedestrian was killed. > > The police investigated the affair thoroughly including use of CCTV, > multiple witness statements and a forensic examination of vehicle, marks > left at the scene and a full clinical chemistry assessment of the > driver, with particular emphasis on drugs of abuse including alcohol. > The police made a rcommendation to the CPS that there was no case to > answer, that no blame attached to the driver in any way and that no > drivr could have avoided the collision. > > According to you the driving was "dangerous". Nonsense. If you beleive that driving caused the death, then you must accept that driving the driving was dangerous. What you are now trying to do is claim that the pedestrian was at fault. This is another matter. > About twenty years ago a motorcyclist failed to stop at a junction and > rode into the side of my car. I was moving at about 3mph at the time. > Fortunately although seriously injured the motorcyclist did not die. Had > he died presumably you would claim that I was "driving dangerously". > > In short, you're a fuckwit. Again this is a twist of reality. If you caused death then your driving must have been dangerous. If the motorcyclist caused death his driving must have been dangerous. You are slipping in to the dark world of inventing others opinions so that you can argue with them. Most bizarre!
From: NM on 1 Dec 2009 02:49
On 1 Dec, 07:11, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:uwZQm.10410$Ym4.451(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > > > > > SW wrote: > >> On 30 Nov, 01:02, "The Medway Handyman" > >> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Peter Grange wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve > >>>> Firth) wrote: > > >>>>> Peter Grange <pe...(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. 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. > > >> Unless they pay council tax. > > > Motorists also pay council tax - and road tax. > > Whoop-de-do! > > Although on the local housing estate where plenty of the residents are > unemployed and live on benefits and do not pay council tax, they still > manage to run untaxed cars on the road. Clearly all the residents you mention are breaking the law with the same impunity as most cyclists. |