Justice at last
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: The Medway Handyman on 19 Apr 2010 15:43 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? Easily. (1) Note reg number (2) Obtain registered keepers details. (3) Obtain drivers details. Or. Policeman uses radio to alert other police vehicles, area traffic car, helicopter etc of reg number. > > 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. Whilst I'd agree that many cyclists should be pushed off their bikes, simply for fun, they probably found it necessary - he would have ridden off if not stopped and of course carries no registration number. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: Tom Crispin on 19 Apr 2010 16:52 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:43:46 +0100, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >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? > >Easily. > >(1) Note reg number >(2) Obtain registered keepers details. >(3) Obtain drivers details. > >Or. >Policeman uses radio to alert other police vehicles, area traffic car, >helicopter etc of reg number. > >> >> 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. > >Whilst I'd agree that many cyclists should be pushed off their bikes, simply >for fun, they probably found it necessary - he would have ridden off if not >stopped and of course carries no registration number. Do you think that all pedestrians should have registration numbers as they are so difficult to trace?
From: webreader on 21 Apr 2010 02:16 On Apr 20, 4:53 pm, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:52:23 +0100, Tom Crispin > > <kije.rem...(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > > <snip> > > >Do you think that all pedestrians should have registration numbers as > >they are so difficult to trace? > > A pedestrian is unlikely to cause an accident against another > pedestrian - and is unlikely to run off in such circumstances. > > Unlike a cyclist: > > run in to a car and damage it - and ride off from the scene. > run a red light and cause an accident : ride off from the scene. > knock someone down on a pedestrian crossing : ride off from the scene. > hit a pedestrian whilst riding on the footpath : ride off from the > scene. > > the list is endless. > -- > Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. > > The answer: > All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. > Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. > Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. > (With thanks to KeithT for the idea) You just don't get it do you. Cycle registration will not work because in a small percentage of cases it does not work on cars. Cyclists allready have insurance because they are either a member of CTC or they have household insurance that covers them. Cyclists do not need regulation because they dont damage people/ property. Cyclists do not need tutution as they never make mistakes. Cyclists do not need to stop at red lights because they know how to cross a red light safely. Cyclist only cycle on the pavement because they are forced to. Does this help you? WSR
From: mileburner on 21 Apr 2010 16:12
Steve Firth wrote: > mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> No? I know a driver who ran his car into a child and the police >> blamed the child. He was off scot free. > > Ah, excellent, pathetic made-up anecdote. Where? >> Maybe things are different on PlanetFirth. > > Maybe in web-foot territory talking bollocks is regarded as normal? Probably :-) |