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>
>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.
>> 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
>ITYF that that particular "loophole" has long been closed, and there's
>now a legal responsibility on the registered keeper to identify the
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?
>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
> 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
> "Steve Firth" <%email@example.com> wrote in message
>> 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
> 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?