Motorists above the law.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Bridge 1:0 Bus
Next: Ford Fiesta Auto Wipe
From: delboy on 24 Dec 2009 04:17 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? > > > > >> 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I am a motorist and an occasional cyclist, mostly off road. In my local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal! As a motorist my pet hate is cyclists who insist on riding dark coloured bikes, wearing dark coloured clothes, at night, without lights, and often without helmets. I almost knocked one over at a roundabout on a very dark night only a few weeks ago, only spotting him at the last second. When I was a young chap, I am sure that riding a bike without lights at night was an offence. Cyclists should not be above the law just because they are more likely to be injured than motorists. If I had have hit the above cyclist I am sure that I would have been in a lot of trouble with the law. I have lights on my own bike by the way. They cost less than a tenner each and weigh almost nothing. Del C
From: The Medway Handyman on 24 Dec 2009 12:41 Phil W Lee wrote: > delboy <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> considered Thu, 24 Dec 2009 > 01:17:38 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > >> >> I am a motorist and an occasional cyclist, mostly off road. In my >> local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or >> seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town >> centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have >> less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal! > > You're going to have to back that up with some kind of evidence, > because the national statistics indicate that any such local problem > would be such a huge proportion of that recorded nationally that it > almost never happened anywhere else. The gentleman has personal knowledge of several pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists, but you just can't accept it. How do cyclists get those helmets on over their halos? > So the best evidence available indicates you're lying. Cyclists are potentially lethal. No question. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 24 Dec 2009 17:12 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Wankstain" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:41:51 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> Phil W Lee wrote: >>> delboy <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> considered Thu, 24 Dec 2009 >>> 01:17:38 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: >>> >>>> >>>> I am a motorist and an occasional cyclist, mostly off road. In my >>>> local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or >>>> seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised >>>> town centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their >>>> riders have less mass than a car, they are still potentially >>>> lethal! >>> >>> You're going to have to back that up with some kind of evidence, >>> because the national statistics indicate that any such local problem >>> would be such a huge proportion of that recorded nationally that it >>> almost never happened anywhere else. >> >> The gentleman has personal knowledge of several pedestrians killed or >> seriously injured by cyclists, >> but you just can't accept it. How do cyclists get those helmets on >> over their halos? >> >>> So the best evidence available indicates you're lying. >> >> Cyclists are potentially lethal. No question. > > Prove it with the official figures or FOAD, arsehole. 'Medway Wankstain', 'FOAD' and 'areshole' all in one post? Oh dear. I suspect you might be a little pissed off about making a complete prat of yourself. 'Paramedics are all killers' IIRC. I can't believe you were stupid enough to fall for it. Typical lycra loon response. No valid argument. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
From: Doug on 25 Dec 2009 02:59 On 24 Dec, 09:17, delboy <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > 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? > > > >> 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I am a motorist and an occasional cyclist, > Enough said! So its plain where you are coming from. > > mostly off road. In my > local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or > seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town > centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have > less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal! > Lots of things are potentially lethal but what you should consider instead is relative risk. BTW, when was a motorist last killed by a cyclist following a collision between the two? > > As a motorist my pet hate is cyclists > No kidding! Do you ever ram them? > > who insist on riding dark > coloured bikes, wearing dark coloured clothes, at night, without > lights, and often without helmets. I almost knocked one over at a > roundabout on a very dark night only a few weeks ago, only spotting > him at the last second. > So either your lights were faulty or you weren't paying proper attention? > > When I was a young chap, I am sure that riding > a bike without lights at night was an offence. Cyclists should not be > above the law just because they are more likely to be injured than > motorists. If I had have hit the above cyclist I am sure that I would > have been in a lot of trouble with the law. > Nope. the first thing the cops would have done would be to question the cyclist, if he was still alive, on having no lights, no reflective vest and no crash helmet. If any of those had been lacking the cyclist would be blamed. Of course this would be little consolation for a dead cyclist who had all of those when struck by a much more dangerous vehicle. > > I have lights on my own > bike by the way. They cost less than a tenner each and weigh almost > nothing. > Good for you. When did you last use it in the dark, instead of your car? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: delboy on 25 Dec 2009 04:14
On 25 Dec, 07:59, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 24 Dec, 09:17, delboy <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > >> 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I am a motorist and an occasional cyclist, > > Enough said! So its plain where you are coming from. > > > mostly off road. In my > > local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or > > seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town > > centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have > > less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal! > > Lots of things are potentially lethal but what you should consider > instead is relative risk. BTW, when was a motorist last killed by a > cyclist following a collision between the two? > > > As a motorist my pet hate is cyclists > > No kidding! Do you ever ram them? > > > who insist on riding dark > > coloured bikes, wearing dark coloured clothes, at night, without > > lights, and often without helmets. I almost knocked one over at a > > roundabout on a very dark night only a few weeks ago, only spotting > > him at the last second. > > So either your lights were faulty or you weren't paying proper > attention? > > > When I was a young chap, I am sure that riding > > a bike without lights at night was an offence. Cyclists should not be > > above the law just because they are more likely to be injured than > > motorists. If I had have hit the above cyclist I am sure that I would > > have been in a lot of trouble with the law. > > Nope. the first thing the cops would have done would be to question > the cyclist, if he was still alive, on having no lights, no reflective > vest and no crash helmet. If any of those had been lacking the cyclist > would be blamed. Of course this would be little consolation for a dead > cyclist who had all of those when struck by a much more dangerous > vehicle. > > > I have lights on my own > > bike by the way. They cost less than a tenner each and weigh almost > > nothing. > > Good for you. When did you last use it in the dark, instead of your > car? > > -- > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Just a small detail. The headlights on my car point forward, but the darkly coloured unlit cyclist on a very dark moonless night was coming from my right! What am I supposed to do, wear night vision goggles? I last rode my own bike at night (with lights on) just over a week ago. Haven't been out on it since due to all the ice and snow on the roads. DC |