Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 05:31 In article <hf2eoj$agp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... > Not true. As a cyclist I pay income tax, council tax, VAT and specifically > for cycling, No you don't. The only thing out of all of that lot that is specific to cycling is the VAT on any purchases directly connected to the bicycle. > > I also pay VED and fuel taxes for running a car. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 05:33 In article <hf2fc9$c0a$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... > Not true, they are as identifiable as anyone (unless they are wearing a full > face balaclava or hoodie). Well the highest number of CCTV in the world hasn't helped the Police catch more criminals so how good is being able to give a half arsed description going to be? -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Peter Grange on 1 Dec 2009 05:34 On 1 Dec 2009 10:24:43 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >like they were saying: > >>>> It is also frequently demonstrated in court when an offence is >>>> committed by the actual driver cannot be identified and the case >>>> thrown out. > >>>ITYF that that particular "loophole" has long been closed, and there's >>>now a legal responsibility on the registered keeper to identify the >>>driver. > >> As in "Please Sir, I can't remember whether it was my wife or myself >> that was driving when our car triggered the speed camera" you mean? > >Yup. That is far from an automatic get-out. But it has worked often enough.
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 05:35 In article <hf2g0q$dp7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... > If you crash into somone and kill them then yes, your actions must have been > dangerous. If your actions were not dangerous you would not have crashed > into them and they would not have died > My friend killed someone in their car. They dived out of a side road in front of his lorry which was travelling at 50MPH on a dual carriageway. They fucked it up (possibly missed a gearchange) and he went straight over the car. He crashed into them however they created the situation. How were his actions dangerous? -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 05:38
In article <hf2gcu$esu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... > Nonsense. If you beleive that driving caused the death, then you must accept > that driving the driving was dangerous. > However, its quite often the victim who was the one driving dangerously, not the person who hit them. > What you are now trying to do is claim that the pedestrian was at fault. > This is another matter. > Why? > 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. > Thankfully, the law disagrees with this simpleton view. One example was on Road Wars where a drunk stepped into the road and ended up going through the windscreen of a taxi. The Police immediately exhonerated the taxi driver of any blame. > You are slipping in to the dark world of inventing others opinions so that > you can argue with them. > > Most bizarre! The only thing that's bizarre is how someone can be so incapable of working out that there are scenarios where the person hitting the other has done no wrong. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. |