Motorists above the law.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Bridge 1:0 Bus
Next: Ford Fiesta Auto Wipe
From: Tony Dragon on 23 Dec 2009 09:48 The Medway Handyman wrote: > Ian Dalziel wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:08:54 +0000, Phil W Lee >> <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >> >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered >>> Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:03:12 GMT the perfect time to write: >>> >>>> 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? >>> If she deliberately chooses to drive that recklessly, then her >>> chances of becoming a killer are far higher than those of a more >>> careful and considerate driver. >> Who mentioned recklessly? > > Did I forget to mention that she does so in the course of her job as a > Paramedic with London Ambulance Service? In a Fast Response Vehicle? > > I rather thought they saved lives? > > I thought I heard a whoosh, but it was better to let him dig his own hole. -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 23 Dec 2009 09:48 JNugent wrote: > The Medway Handyman wrote: > >> Ian Dalziel wrote: >>> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk>: >>>>> 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? > >>>> If she deliberately chooses to drive that recklessly, then her >>>> chances of becoming a killer are far higher than those of a more >>>> careful and considerate driver. > >>> Who mentioned recklessly? > >> Did I forget to mention that she does so in the course of her job as a >> Paramedic with London Ambulance Service? In a Fast Response Vehicle? > >> I rather thought they saved lives? > > > I could see that one coming from a mile off. I wonder why PWL couldn't. Blinkers? -- Tony Dragon
From: Doug on 24 Dec 2009 03:21 On 22 Dec, 16:02, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> 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. > > >> 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? > Obviously, because his vehicle has a much greater momentum and is capable of causing much more damage from human error or mechanical failure.. > > > >> 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. > Very rarely and not nearly as often as motorists. Also motorists knock holes in the walls of houses and endanger those inside, which no cyclist is capable of doing, and this clearly indicates the much greater danger posed by a car. It follows that cyclists should receive much more lenient treatment in law as they are much less dnagerous. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Tony Dragon on 24 Dec 2009 03:38 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:23:14 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> Ian Dalziel wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:08:54 +0000, Phil W Lee >>> <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >>> >>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered >>>> Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:03:12 GMT the perfect time to write: >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> If she deliberately chooses to drive that recklessly, then her >>>> chances of becoming a killer are far higher than those of a more >>>> careful and considerate driver. >>> Who mentioned recklessly? >> Did I forget to mention that she does so in the course of her job as a >> Paramedic with London Ambulance Service? In a Fast Response Vehicle? >> >> I rather thought they saved lives? > > Anyone can fabricate a special case, by not pointing out the > additional training and lights/sirens. > > But I don't think I am the only person to find it difficult to believe > that anyone with the handjob's genes would be sufficiently educable. > > Are you sure she's your daughter? Ah, good answer. Because a blinkered, knee jerk answer make you look a fool, instead of admitting your mistake you resort to abuse. -- Tony Dragon
From: The Medway Handyman on 24 Dec 2009 04:07
Tony Dragon wrote: > Phil W Lee wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered >> Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:23:14 GMT the perfect time to write: >> >>> Ian Dalziel wrote: >>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:08:54 +0000, Phil W Lee >>>> <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> >>>>> considered Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:03:12 GMT the perfect time to >>>>> write: >>>>>> 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? >>>>> If she deliberately chooses to drive that recklessly, then her >>>>> chances of becoming a killer are far higher than those of a more >>>>> careful and considerate driver. >>>> Who mentioned recklessly? >>> Did I forget to mention that she does so in the course of her job >>> as a Paramedic with London Ambulance Service? In a Fast Response >>> Vehicle? I rather thought they saved lives? >> >> Anyone can fabricate a special case, by not pointing out the >> additional training and lights/sirens. >> >> But I don't think I am the only person to find it difficult to >> believe that anyone with the handjob's genes would be sufficiently >> educable. Are you sure she's your daughter? > > Ah, good answer. > Because a blinkered, knee jerk answer make you look a fool, instead of > admitting your mistake you resort to abuse. Typical lycra lout response really. I'll add it to the list. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |