Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 18:04 In article <D9Sdnf9CJ5h--YjWnZ2dnUVZ8qpi4p2d(a)bt.com>, Keitht says... > > Conor wrote: > > In article <9d33e176-16e0-4113-8190- > > 918d191b121e(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, SW says... > > > >>> That is a weak argument, import duty on a foreign manufactured bike or > >>> bike parts allows rights to use the UK road system paid and maintained > >>> by vehicle users. FFS. > >> And Council Tax payers. > >> > > Nope. The road maintenance budget comes from central government. > > > > > > > Nope - check it out. So you're saying that council tax receipts cover all of a council's budget? -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 18:07 In article <87ocmi1ndr.fsf(a)lsip.4a.telent.net>, dan(a)telent.net says... > > Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> writes: > > >> "Hypothesise" and "hypothecate" are not the same word, any more than are > >> "hypocrite" and "hypodermic" > >> > > Rubbish. > > >> There are many free resources on the internet which you can use to help > >> educate yourself on the meaning of words. There are also > >> "dictionaries", which are available in libraries and bookshops > > > > You would do well to take your own advice. > > I have done, and it appears that I'm better at it than you are > > hypothecate [ha?'p????ke?t] > vb > 1. (Law) (tr) Law to pledge (personal property or a ship) as security for a debt without transferring possession or title > 2. (Economics) to allocate the revenue raised by a tax for a specified purpose See also bottomry > > > -dan VEry good. I notice you snipped out the rest of that definition as I got mine from the very same page. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: johnwright ""john" on 1 Dec 2009 18:11 Phil W Lee wrote: > johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> considered Sun, 29 Nov 2009 > 13:27:43 +0000 the perfect time to write: >> I think from casual observation it would slow bikes down more than any >> other group. With the possible exception of motorbikes. > > You must be using the policy based evidence making technique of > ignoring RLJs in the first few seconds of the red. Rather that cyclists who regard a red signal as "go" -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: johnwright ""john" on 1 Dec 2009 18:14 mileburner wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:7aCdnTuovtFnDY7WnZ2dnUVZ8vOdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> mileburner wrote: >>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:1j9ytmr.m1f9cnvel6tqN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... >>>> mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Are you suggesting that to cause death by dangerous driving there must >>>>> be an >>>>> intent to drive dangerously? >>>> No, that has a different test. There must a reckless disregard of >>>> driving standards sufficient for the driving to be "dangerous" if there >>>> is not then a lesser offence of "causing death by careless driving" may >>>> be considered. However for an act to be murder there must be criminal >>>> intent. >>>> >>>> You're not very good at this, are you? >>> Clearly I am not :-( >>> >>> It just seems blatantly obvious that if someone is killed, by someone >>> driving a car, that the driving must have, by definition, been dangerous. >> Yes of course it is dear, it could never be the fault of the other person >> could it? > > Regardless of fault, it was still dangerous, otherwise no one would have > died. <LOL> What planet do you live on? None in this solar system I see. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: johnwright ""john" on 1 Dec 2009 18:21
Phil W Lee wrote: > BrianW <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> considered Mon, 30 Nov 2009 > 05:54:21 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > >> On 30 Nov, 10:03, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> BrianW wrote: >>>> On 30 Nov, 09:13, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> "BrianW" <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:58bfb60b-7a33-45fe-abb7-8bada43f91eb(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> Interesting. Presumably, applying the same logic, the train in this >>>>>> story must have been driven dangerously: >>>>>> http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Level-crossing-death-woman-named-235... >>>>>> After all, it caused someone's death, so it *must* have been >>>>>> dangerous. Right? >>>>> Skidding on ice on a level crossing and being involved in a minor >>>>> collision with another vehicle and then hit by a train sounds >>>>> dangerous to me. >>>> No, no, it was the train that killed her, not the ice. Therefore, by >>>> your logic, the train must have been dangerous. Or does your "logic" >>>> only apply to cars? >>> Level crossings are dangerous. Especially if you stop on them. Especially if >>> a train is coming. >>> >>> Level crossings are not the place to skid on ice. >>> >>> Level crossings are not the place to have accidents. >>> >>> As proven, a train is very dangerous, especially if you get in its way.- >> <sigh> >> >> Rational thought really isn't your thing, is it? >> >> A train is not inherently dangerous. > > Of course it is. > That's why they fence off railway tracks and put barriers at > crossings. Please insert the word "most" between at and crossings. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright |