Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Peter Grange on 1 Dec 2009 05:07 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:49:50 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >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. How come, aren't they all easily traceable?
From: Peter Grange on 1 Dec 2009 05:11 On 1 Dec 2009 09:54:19 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Keitht <KeithT> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >> It is also frequently demonstrated in court when an offence is >> committed by the actual driver cannot be identified and the case thrown >> out. > >ITYF that that particular "loophole" has long been closed, and there's >now a legal responsibility on the registered keeper to identify the >driver. As in "Please Sir, I can't remember whether it was my wife or myself that was driving when our car triggered the speed camera" you mean? > >> Idiot. > >Another one whose sig-sep is broken.
From: Adrian on 1 Dec 2009 05:24 Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> It is also frequently demonstrated in court when an offence is >>> committed by the actual driver cannot be identified and the case >>> thrown out. >>ITYF that that particular "loophole" has long been closed, and there's >>now a legal responsibility on the registered keeper to identify the >>driver. > As in "Please Sir, I can't remember whether it was my wife or myself > that was driving when our car triggered the speed camera" you mean? Yup. That is far from an automatic get-out.
From: JNugent on 1 Dec 2009 05:29 mileburner wrote: > "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. Is that one of these new wise saws and modern instances, like "talk the talk" and "walk the walk"?
From: JNugent on 1 Dec 2009 05:30
Keitht wrote: > The Medway Handyman wrote: > >> >> Cyclists are the problem, they & their poxy cycle lanes cause delays & >> traffic jams for motorists who put their hands in their pockets. >> >> Grow up, bikes are for kids, not adults. >> >> > Ah right, so bike races that last for a couple of weeks and cover a huge > distance are for kids while car races that last a couple of hours are > for groan-ups? Deliberate or Freudian? |