Justice at last
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Steve Firth on 18 Apr 2010 18:33 Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > > And what relevance does this case have? > This toddler was walked into the road by his mother directly into the > path of the cyclist. A pedestrian has right of way at all times. But I'd not expect Fuckwit Lee to think so, after all cyclists have right of way at all times in your tiny pointed head.
From: The Medway Handyman on 18 Apr 2010 19:06 Tom Crispin wrote: > On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:15:26 +0100, "Brimstone" > <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> Sussex Police confirmed they were called but no action has been >>> taken against the cyclist. >> >> But a vulnerable person was hurt! Surely the person driving the >> bigger, heavier vehicle should be prosecuted? > > Agreed. If Sussex police know who the culprit is they should press > charges of wanton and furious cycling. Clearly the cyclist was not in > control of his bicycle and an innocent toddler suffered. I knew you would see sense evenyually! If cyclists were properly regulated and had to display a registration number he could have been aprehended as easily as a motorist! > > It would then be up to the courts to decide if the culprit was guilty > or innocent of a crime. Either way, he is fully responsible for the > consequence. But couldn't be identified, so like most cyclist scum can break the law with impunity. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: Tom Crispin on 18 Apr 2010 23:03 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:06:07 +0100, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:15:26 +0100, "Brimstone" >> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Sussex Police confirmed they were called but no action has been >>>> taken against the cyclist. >>> >>> But a vulnerable person was hurt! Surely the person driving the >>> bigger, heavier vehicle should be prosecuted? >> >> Agreed. If Sussex police know who the culprit is they should press >> charges of wanton and furious cycling. Clearly the cyclist was not in >> control of his bicycle and an innocent toddler suffered. > >I knew you would see sense evenyually! If cyclists were properly regulated >and had to display a registration number he could have been aprehended as >easily as a motorist! Easily apprehended? As a New York policeman[1], and a Chinese vigalante[2] demonstrated, a cyclist can be easily apprehended by pushing him off his bike. The same cannot be said about a motorist. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT9aFrDIGTo [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP4nQe7IlsU >> It would then be up to the courts to decide if the culprit was guilty >> or innocent of a crime. Either way, he is fully responsible for the >> consequence. > >But couldn't be identified, so like most cyclist scum can break the law with >impunity.
From: Tony Dragon on 19 Apr 2010 02:20 The Medway Handyman wrote: > Tom Crispin wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:15:26 +0100, "Brimstone" >> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Sussex Police confirmed they were called but no action has been >>>> taken against the cyclist. >>> But a vulnerable person was hurt! Surely the person driving the >>> bigger, heavier vehicle should be prosecuted? >> Agreed. If Sussex police know who the culprit is they should press >> charges of wanton and furious cycling. Clearly the cyclist was not in >> control of his bicycle and an innocent toddler suffered. > > I knew you would see sense evenyually! If cyclists were properly regulated > and had to display a registration number he could have been aprehended as > easily as a motorist! > >> It would then be up to the courts to decide if the culprit was guilty >> or innocent of a crime. Either way, he is fully responsible for the >> consequence. > > But couldn't be identified, so like most cyclist scum can break the law with > impunity. > > As the article says no action has been taken & does not mention that the cyclist rode off, it seems probable that he stopped (could be that he could not carry on because he wrecked the bike) -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 19 Apr 2010 02:21
Tom Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:06:07 +0100, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Tom Crispin wrote: >>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:15:26 +0100, "Brimstone" >>> <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Sussex Police confirmed they were called but no action has been >>>>> taken against the cyclist. >>>> But a vulnerable person was hurt! Surely the person driving the >>>> bigger, heavier vehicle should be prosecuted? >>> Agreed. If Sussex police know who the culprit is they should press >>> charges of wanton and furious cycling. Clearly the cyclist was not in >>> control of his bicycle and an innocent toddler suffered. >> I knew you would see sense evenyually! If cyclists were properly regulated >> and had to display a registration number he could have been aprehended as >> easily as a motorist! > > Easily apprehended? > > As a New York policeman[1], and a Chinese vigalante[2] demonstrated, a > cyclist can be easily apprehended by pushing him off his bike. The > same cannot be said about a motorist. > > [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT9aFrDIGTo > [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP4nQe7IlsU > > >>> It would then be up to the courts to decide if the culprit was guilty >>> or innocent of a crime. Either way, he is fully responsible for the >>> consequence. >> But couldn't be identified, so like most cyclist scum can break the law with >> impunity. Do tell how you can push a cyclist off his bike if he is no longer there & could not be identified? -- Tony Dragon |