Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: David Hansen on 26 Nov 2009 12:33 On 26 Nov 2009 17:30:52 GMT someone who may be Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote this:- >It's just zero-cost. That is different to being zero-rated. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
From: mileburner on 26 Nov 2009 12:53 "thirty-six" <thirty-six(a)live.co.uk> wrote in message news:129465ae-fb2f-4fd8-8e8a-e36f5446671e(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On 26 Nov, 16:14, dgoldst...(a)charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:26:36 -0000, "mileburner" >> >> <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >"webreader" <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >news:d281183f-003b-4a78-8185-ec7cbc50741a(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these cyclists. >> >> Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration unlike >> >> motorists. >> >> >I disagree, I have contacted the police concerning drivers stopping past >> >the >> >stop line at a set of traffic lights in the advanced stop reservoir for >> >cyclists. They replied that drivers did not always understand what the >> >advanced stop meant and would not take action. >> >> Why do cyclists need this "advanced stop reservoir" if they don't stop >> at red lights? > > They dont. It's an excuse to move back stop lines for motorists in an > attempt to reduced the fatalities caused by amber gamblers, those who > jump the lights and dont ensure the junction is clear before > proceeding. It's also an effort to gain the ecology conscious voter. > Cyclists do not as a rule go plowing into other vehicles because the > orange light turns on so do not require this mummying aimed at the > majority of drivers. So what's the point of having them if drivers ignore the first stop line (and sometimes the second one too) and the police do nothing to enforce the rule.
From: BrianW on 26 Nov 2009 12:53 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.
From: Tony Dragon on 26 Nov 2009 13:07 Phil W Lee wrote: > "Partac" <petemac9294(a)tiscali.co.uk> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2009 > 08:12:54 -0000 the perfect time to write: > >> "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> news:07e6ca8e-95b6-4d1e-a9f3-0d4ea539bddf(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >>> On 25 Nov, 23:09, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these cyclists. >>>> Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration unlike >>>> motorists. >>>> >>>> http://tiny.cc/iOoJY >>>> >>> Probably because the more enlightened among the police realise that >>> cyclists only do it to escape the serious dangers posed by drivers on >>> our roads. >> And where do the pedestrians go to escape the serious dangers posed by >> cyclists on our pavements? >> > Since it seems there is a greater problem of pedestrians posing > serious danger to each other than of cyclists posing danger to > pedestrians, that really doesn't seem to be a large enough problem to > need an answer. I don't recall being knocked over on the pavement by another pedestrian, but a cyclist has managed to do this. -- Tony Dragon
From: thirty-six on 26 Nov 2009 13:13
On 26 Nov, 17:53, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "thirty-six" <thirty-...(a)live.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:129465ae-fb2f-4fd8-8e8a-e36f5446671e(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 26 Nov, 16:14, dgoldst...(a)charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:26:36 -0000, "mileburner" > > >> <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > >> >"webreader" <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >> >news:d281183f-003b-4a78-8185-ec7cbc50741a(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > >> >> Why do the police not do anything about the likes of these cyclists.. > >> >> Yet again proof that cyclists get special consideration unlike > >> >> motorists. > > >> >I disagree, I have contacted the police concerning drivers stopping past > >> >the > >> >stop line at a set of traffic lights in the advanced stop reservoir for > >> >cyclists. They replied that drivers did not always understand what the > >> >advanced stop meant and would not take action. > > >> Why do cyclists need this "advanced stop reservoir" if they don't stop > >> at red lights? > > > They dont. It's an excuse to move back stop lines for motorists in an > > attempt to reduced the fatalities caused by amber gamblers, those who > > jump the lights and dont ensure the junction is clear before > > proceeding. It's also an effort to gain the ecology conscious voter. > > Cyclists do not as a rule go plowing into other vehicles because the > > orange light turns on so do not require this mummying aimed at the > > majority of drivers. > > So what's the point of having them if drivers ignore the first stop line > (and sometimes the second one too) and the police do nothing to enforce the > rule. That's why the government dont tell you why but give you a cover story. If the movement of stiop lines had reduced accident statistics, dont you think the government would be shouting about how well they've performed in reducing RTAs at TS-controlled cjunctions? Do you think they're saving it till next year? |