Motorists above the law.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Bridge 1:0 Bus
Next: Ford Fiesta Auto Wipe
From: Tony Dragon on 20 Dec 2009 06:57 Doug wrote: > On 19 Dec, 14:27, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> 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. >> > Because of vulnerability to death or serious injury from uninjured > drivers. So because you are 'vulnerable' you can never be at fault. If a pedestrian walks in the road without looking & gets hit by a cyclist, it must be the cyclists fault? >> The motorist is allways at fault because he is a motorist. >> > No because he is much more dangerous. So if a motorist drives the wrong way down a motorway & hit a truck, it must be the truck drivers fault because it is more dangerous? >> How exactly he equates this with 'acyclist who drives is not a propper >> cyclist' has not yet been answered. >> > Yes it has. It is explained by the motorist's mindset, which is, "I > want the freedom to travel from A to B as fast as possible without any > impediments". That of course is only in your mind, many (most) motorists do not think like that. > Of course, cyclists are impediments In your mind > and are treated as > such Not by myself & most other motorists that I know. > and motorists kill cyclists but not vice versa. It is highly > unlikely therefore that someone who combines motoring and cycling is > well disposed towards cyclists. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others. > I would think that anybody who does both would understand the problems of both modes of types of transport, but of course you would not be able to understand that. -- Tony Dragon
From: Doug on 21 Dec 2009 01:13 On 20 Dec, 11:57, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 19 Dec, 14:27, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Because of vulnerability to death or serious injury from uninjured > > drivers. > > So because you are 'vulnerable' you can never be at fault. > No because you need more protection, particularly from blame and in law. > > If a pedestrian walks in the road without looking & gets hit by a > cyclist, it must be the cyclists fault? > Yes. > > >> The motorist is allways at fault because he is a motorist. > > > No because he is much more dangerous. > > So if a motorist drives the wrong way down a motorway & hit a truck, it > must be the truck drivers fault because it is more dangerous? > Driving the wrong way is illegal but walking or cycling in a road is not. > > >> How exactly he equates this with 'acyclist who drives is not a propper > >> cyclist' has not yet been answered. > > > Yes it has. It is explained by the motorist's mindset, which is, "I > > want the freedom to travel from A to B as fast as possible without any > > impediments". > > That of course is only in your mind, many (most) motorists do not think > like that. > > > Of course, cyclists are impediments > > In your mind > No literally. They are much slower than motorists. > > > and are treated as > > such > > Not by myself & most other motorists that I know. > It probably deoends on how impatient you have become in a certain situation. > > > and motorists kill cyclists but not vice versa. It is highly > > unlikely therefore that someone who combines motoring and cycling is > > well disposed towards cyclists. > > > I would think that anybody who does both would understand the problems > of both modes of types of transport, but of course you would not be able > to understand that. > I take the point. All drivers should receive relevant and mandatory annual cycle training to help them avoid killing cyclists. On the other hand, a motorist who sometimes cycles might not have the right sort of training. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: The Medway Handyman on 22 Dec 2009 11:02 Doug wrote: > On 19 Dec, 14:27, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> 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. >> > Because of vulnerability to death or serious injury from uninjured > drivers. >> >> The motorist is allways at fault because he is a motorist. >> > No because he is much more dangerous. So, the motorist who has passed an extensive practical & written examination of competance and has compulsory annual safety checks on his vehicle, is always more dangerous than a completely untrained cyclist on a potentially unsafe bike? >> >> How exactly he equates this with 'a cyclist who drives is not a >> propper cyclist' has not yet been answered. >> > Yes it has. It is explained by the motorist's mindset, which is, "I > want the freedom to travel from A to B as fast as possible without any > impediments". Of course, cyclists are impediments and are treated as > such and motorists kill cyclists but not vice versa. It is highly > unlikely therefore that someone who combines motoring and cycling is > well disposed towards cyclists. Cyclists have killed pedestrians though. Not often granted, but it has happened. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 22 Dec 2009 11:19 Doug wrote: >>>>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill. >>>>>The very fact >>>>> that virtually any individual, after a brief test, is allowed to >>>>> climb into a car and proceed to pollute, congest and pose a >>>>> threat to lives is a complete anathema. In no other context would >>>>> they be allowed to do this. >>> Yes but relatively speaking motorists are much more dangerous than >>> cyclists. > Its also and argument to impose stiffer penalties for putting lives at > risk instead of treating them with kid gloves. >>> Indeed. There is nothing stopping them getting in a vehicle, which >>> should really be treated as a lethal weapon in law. > Actually I am involved with campaigns against the system which allows > slaughter on our roads. > There is no guarantee of responsibility. It only takes a moment's > inattention to turn a responsible person into a killer due to the > inherently dangerous choice of personal transport. Hence the freedom > to kill. >> >>> It goes with the territory, along with parking fines/fees and a load >>> of other hassle. As I frequently point out, cars are much more >>> dangerous than bicycles. >> >>> On the contrary, the vulnerable victim cyclist is often made to take >>> the blame, even for their own death, instead of the completely >>> uninjured killer driver. > So does that justify killing them with what amounts to a dangerous > weapon? According to many cases in law it does, where the vulnerable > dead or injured victim is often blamed. As long as this climate of > protection for drivers is maintained the slaughter will,continue. This bloke is completely & utterly barking mad. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 22 Dec 2009 15:03
Doug wrote: >>> A driving licence is a licence to kill. My daughter frequently drives around London at above the speed limit and occassionally drives through red lights. I take it you would classify her as a potential killer? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |