Motorists above the law.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Bridge 1:0 Bus
Next: Ford Fiesta Auto Wipe
From: Simon Dean on 19 Dec 2009 07:40 Doug wrote: > On 14 Dec, 17:03, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> On 14/12/2009 08:02, Doug wrote: >> >>> The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air >>> pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by >>> buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit >>> several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening, >>> and get away with it. >> There's not much we are allowed to get away with these days, so this is >> a good thing. FWIW, my car is one of the lowest emitting cars you can >> buy. It probably emits less CO2 than your gob. >> > That's what they all say, "My car is greener than most." LOL! It helps > a flagging conscience I suppose. Ok, how do we get people out of their cars? Bearing in mind Public Transport is useless and quite a lot of people need to use their cars actively in their work. If we focus on people getting to work first, I presume the first thing is getting people living near to where they work. How do you propose we do that? I suppose the next thing then, is ensuring the houses in the local area are affordable in terms of the wages on offer for the local area. How do we achieve that? Perhaps reduction in economic migration might help that, and the big thing that would really help is cut back on availability of transport. But how do you manage the transition? > I know why, pragmatism, the economy and above all votes. Because > motorists are in a majority they are allowed to get away with it, Get away with what exactly? If a drunk cyclist goes through a red light and puts themselves in danger and gets run over and killed, you want us to blame the motorist. If a motorist goes through a red light and kills a cyclist, you want us to blame the motorist. And in both circumstances, you class the victim as being the cyclist, regardless of whether the victim endangered their own life or not.
From: Mike Barnes on 19 Dec 2009 08:03 Simon Dean <sjdean(a)home.cubeone.co.uk>: >We have stiffer penalties against mobile phone use, but people >disregard the law - not because of the penalty, but because they think >they won't get caught. Also they think they won't kill anyone. That's not always true either. -- Mike Barnes
From: Adrian on 19 Dec 2009 09:20 Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Simon Dean <sjdean(a)home.cubeone.co.uk>: >>We have stiffer penalties against mobile phone use, but people disregard >>the law - not because of the penalty, but because they think they won't >>get caught. > > Also they think they won't kill anyone. That's not always true either. Newsflash. Fuckwittery behind the wheel kill people. Phone, drink, excess speed, whatever - they're merely symptoms, not the cause. Bar people from driving fuckwittedly. Oh, wait. We already (long since) did. Perhaps we ought to actually start enforcing that? Just a thought...
From: MasonS on 19 Dec 2009 09:26 On 19 Dec, 14:20, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Bar people from driving fuckwittedly. > > Oh, wait. We already (long since) did. > > Perhaps we ought to actually start enforcing that? Just a thought... No need. They have to take a written and practical test that cyclists don't. Apparently that's the argument drivers use to prove that they are all law abiding and perfect drivers after the L plates and HC have been binned. Ho hum. -- Simon Mason
From: webreader on 19 Dec 2009 09:27
On Dec 19, 12:40 pm, Simon Dean <sjd...(a)home.cubeone.co.uk> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 14 Dec, 17:03, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> On 14/12/2009 08:02, Doug wrote: > > >>> The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air > >>> pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by > >>> buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit > >>> several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening, > >>> and get away with it. > >> There's not much we are allowed to get away with these days, so this is > >> a good thing. FWIW, my car is one of the lowest emitting cars you can > >> buy. It probably emits less CO2 than your gob. > > > That's what they all say, "My car is greener than most." LOL! It helps > > a flagging conscience I suppose. > > Ok, how do we get people out of their cars? Bearing in mind Public > Transport is useless and quite a lot of people need to use their cars > actively in their work. If we focus on people getting to work first, I > presume the first thing is getting people living near to where they work. > > How do you propose we do that? > > I suppose the next thing then, is ensuring the houses in the local area > are affordable in terms of the wages on offer for the local area. > > How do we achieve that? > > Perhaps reduction in economic migration might help that, and the big > thing that would really help is cut back on availability of transport. > But how do you manage the transition? Doug has promised in the past to answer many of your questions, all you need to do is request that he posts a copy of 'Vince's Report' > > > I know why, pragmatism, the economy and above all votes. Because > > motorists are in a majority they are allowed to get away with it, > > Get away with what exactly? If a drunk cyclist goes through a red light > and puts themselves in danger and gets run over and killed, you want us > to blame the motorist. > > If a motorist goes through a red light and kills a cyclist, you want us > to blame the motorist. > > And in both circumstances, you class the victim as being the cyclist, > regardless of whether the victim endangered their own life or not. Do not forget that in DougWorld (tm) the cyclist is always the victim & is never at fault. The motorist is allways at fault because he is a motorist. How exactly he equates this with 'acyclist who drives is not a propper cyclist' has not yet been answered. WSR |