about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_blames_toddler_for_ accident/

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...

>
I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>
> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
desire to cycle where they like.

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>
> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

NB: only an arrogant and selfish tosser would take the side of the
arrogant and selfish tosser who ran the toddler over...

[Justin[_3_]]

On 17 nov, 11:16, ash > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> > >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_....
>
> > I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> > Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> > killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>
> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
> to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
> protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
> invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
> desire to cycle where they like.

The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
responsibility nor even accountability.

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 10:25*am, Justin > wrote:
> On 17 nov, 11:16, ash > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> > > >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>
> > > I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed..
> > > Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> > > killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>
> > > -- .
> > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> > Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
> > to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
> > protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
> > invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
> > desire to cycle where they like.
>
> The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
> countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
> responsibility nor even accountability.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
roads & pavements want others using these spaces around them to be
presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence. How ridiculous
is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group
they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is
not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more!

[Justin[_3_]]

On 17 nov, 11:40, ash > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:25*am, Justin > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 17 nov, 11:16, ash > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> > > > >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>
> > > > I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> > > > Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> > > > killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>
> > > > -- .
> > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> > > Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
> > > to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
> > > protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
> > > invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
> > > desire to cycle where they like.
>
> > The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
> > countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
> > responsibility nor even accountability.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
> roads & pavements want others using these spaces around them to be
> presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking
(including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which
you will produce. Thanks.

Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to
do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your
opinion) want is redundant.



> How ridiculous
> is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group
> they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is
> not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more!

Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position?
The right wish to see more dangerous roads?

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 2:39*pm, Justin > wrote:
> On 17 nov, 11:40, ash > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:25*am, Justin > wrote:
>
> > > On 17 nov, 11:16, ash > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> > > > > >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>
> > > > > I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> > > > > Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> > > > > killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't..
>
> > > > > -- .
> > > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> > > > Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
> > > > to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
> > > > protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
> > > > invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
> > > > desire to cycle where they like.
>
> > > The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
> > > countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
> > > responsibility nor even accountability.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
> > roads & pavements want others using these spaces around them to be
> > presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
>
> First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking
> (including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which
> you will produce. Thanks.
>
> Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to
> do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your
> opinion) want is redundant.
>
> > How ridiculous
> > is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group
> > they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is
> > not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more!
>
> Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position?
> The right wish to see more dangerous roads?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other
political parties. As cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so
became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving.

[Justin[_3_]]

On 17 nov, 15:51, ash > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2:39*pm, Justin > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 17 nov, 11:40, ash > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 10:25*am, Justin > wrote:
>
> > > > On 17 nov, 11:16, ash > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> > > > > > >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>
> > > > > > I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> > > > > > Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> > > > > > killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>
> > > > > > -- .
> > > > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> > > > > Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
> > > > > to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
> > > > > protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
> > > > > invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
> > > > > desire to cycle where they like.
>
> > > > The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
> > > > countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
> > > > responsibility nor even accountability.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
> > > roads & pavements want others using these spaces around them to be
> > > presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
>
> > First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking
> > (including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which
> > you will produce. Thanks.
>
> > Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to
> > do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your
> > opinion) want is redundant.
>
> > > How ridiculous
> > > is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group
> > > they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is
> > > not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more!
>
> > Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position?
> > The right wish to see more dangerous roads?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other
> political parties. As *cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so
> became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving.

That has nothing to do with the reversal of the burden of truth.

[francis]

On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>
> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

I think you mean, that the person who is blameworthy is to blame.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

francis wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:37 am, Doug > wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 9:10 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>> Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>>
>>> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>>
>> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be
>> blamed. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists
>> who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but
>> didn't.
>>
>> -- .
>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> I think you mean, that the person who is blameworthy is to blame.

not in dougworld.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 17/11/2010 16:13, Justin wrote:

> On 17 nov, 15:51, > wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2:39 pm, > wrote:
>>> On 17 nov, 11:40, > wrote:
>>>> On Nov 17, 10:25 am, > wrote:
>>>>> On 17 nov, 11:16, > wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 17, 9:37 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 9:10 am, > wrote:

>>>>>>>> Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>>>>>>>> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...

>>>>>>> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
>>>>>>> Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
>>>>>>> killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.

>>>>>> Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
>>>>>> to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
>>>>>> protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
>>>>>> invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
>>>>>> desire to cycle where they like.

>>>>> The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
>>>>> countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
>>>>> responsibility nor even accountability.

>>>> Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
>>>> roads& pavements want others using these spaces around them to be
>>>> presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

>>> First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking
>>> (including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which
>>> you will produce. Thanks.

>>> Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to
>>> do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your
>>> opinion) want is redundant.

>>>> How ridiculous
>>>> is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group
>>>> they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is
>>>> not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more!

>>> Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position?
>>> The right wish to see more dangerous roads?

>> The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other
>> political parties. As cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so
>> became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving.

> That has nothing to do with the reversal of the burden of truth.

I do like that phrase.

If some cyclists were ever to get their way on that ridiculous demand for
innocent parties to be deemed to be at fault, the truth of any relevant
"incident" would indeed have become irrelevant. The law would simply
substitute a lie for the truth.

[Justin[_3_]]

On 17 nov, 20:02, JNugent > wrote:
> On 17/11/2010 16:13, Justin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 17 nov, 15:51, > *wrote:
> >> On Nov 17, 2:39 pm, > *wrote:
> >>> On 17 nov, 11:40, > *wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 17, 10:25 am, > *wrote:
> >>>>> On 17 nov, 11:16, > *wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 17, 9:37 am, > *wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 17, 9:10 am, > *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
> >>>>>>>>http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
> >>>>>>> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> >>>>>>> Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> >>>>>>> killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't..
> >>>>>> Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
> >>>>>> to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
> >>>>>> protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
> >>>>>> invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
> >>>>>> desire to cycle where they like.
> >>>>> The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
> >>>>> countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
> >>>>> responsibility nor even accountability.
> >>>> Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
> >>>> roads& *pavements want others using these spaces around them to be
> >>>> presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
> >>> First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking
> >>> (including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which
> >>> you will produce. Thanks.
> >>> Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to
> >>> do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your
> >>> opinion) want is redundant.
> >>>> How ridiculous
> >>>> is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group
> >>>> they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is
> >>>> not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more!
> >>> Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position?
> >>> The right wish to see more dangerous roads?
> >> The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other
> >> political parties. As *cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so
> >> became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving.
> > That has nothing to do with the reversal of the burden of truth.
>
> I do like that phrase.
>
> If some cyclists were ever to get their way on that ridiculous demand for
> innocent parties to be deemed to be at fault, the truth of any relevant
> "incident" would indeed have become irrelevant. The law would simply
> substitute a lie for the truth.

I apologise for my oversight: I meant to type "burden of proof".

That was completely unintentional, sorry.

[OG]

On 17/11/2010 10:40, ash wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:25 am, > wrote:
>> On 17 nov, 11:16, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 9:37 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 17, 9:10 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>>
>>>>> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>>
>>>> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
>>>> Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
>>>> killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>>
>>>> -- .
>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>>> Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
>>> to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
>>> protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
>>> invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
>>> desire to cycle where they like.
>>
>> The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
>> countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
>> responsibility nor even accountability.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
> roads& pavements

Do you have figures to back this up?

[Adam Lea[_3_]]

> On 17/11/10 22:02, OG wrote:
>> On 17/11/2010 10:40, ash wrote: -
>>
>> Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
>> roads& pavements
>
> Do you have figures to back this up?

Of course he does, it's called "I think, therefore I know".

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 17/11/2010 21:28, Justin wrote:
> On 17 nov, 20:02, > wrote:
>> On 17/11/2010 16:13, Justin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 17 nov, 15:51, > wrote:
>>>> On Nov 17, 2:39 pm, > wrote:
>>>>> On 17 nov, 11:40, > wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 17, 10:25 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17 nov, 11:16, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 9:37 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 9:10 am, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>>>>>>>>> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
>>>>>>>>> Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
>>>>>>>>> killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>>>>>>>> Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
>>>>>>>> to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
>>>>>>>> protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
>>>>>>>> invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
>>>>>>>> desire to cycle where they like.
>>>>>>> The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
>>>>>>> countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
>>>>>>> responsibility nor even accountability.
>>>>>> Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
>>>>>> roads& pavements want others using these spaces around them to be
>>>>>> presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
>>>>> First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking
>>>>> (including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which
>>>>> you will produce. Thanks.
>>>>> Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to
>>>>> do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your
>>>>> opinion) want is redundant.
>>>>>> How ridiculous
>>>>>> is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group
>>>>>> they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is
>>>>>> not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more!
>>>>> Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position?
>>>>> The right wish to see more dangerous roads?
>>>> The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other
>>>> political parties. As cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so
>>>> became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving.
>>> That has nothing to do with the reversal of the burden of truth.
>>
>> I do like that phrase.
>>
>> If some cyclists were ever to get their way on that ridiculous demand for
>> innocent parties to be deemed to be at fault, the truth of any relevant
>> "incident" would indeed have become irrelevant. The law would simply
>> substitute a lie for the truth.
>
> I apologise for my oversight: I meant to type "burden of proof".
>
> That was completely unintentional, sorry.

Don't apologise. You were right frst time.

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 17, 10:16*am, ash > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> > >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_....
>
> > I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
> > Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> > killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
> >
> Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
> to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
> protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
> invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
> desire to cycle where they like.
>
I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more
dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements
should be banned completely.

The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements,
amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the
roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers.

So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers.

> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

On 19/11/2010 06:32, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:16 am, > wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 9:37 am, > wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 9:10 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>>
>>>> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>>
>>> I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
>>> Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
>>> killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>>>
>> Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
>> to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
>> protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
>> invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
>> desire to cycle where they like.
>>
> I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more
> dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements
> should be banned completely.
>
> The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements,
> amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the
> roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers.

We can't have the lawbreaking cyclist inconvenienced by those
pedestrians on the pavements, can we?

>
> So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers.
>
>>> -- .
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 19, 6:32*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 10:16*am, ash > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > > Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
>
> > > >http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8670448.Mum_s_anger_as_cyclist_...
>
> > > I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed..
> > > Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
> > > killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.
>
> > Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
> > to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
> > protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
> > invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
> > desire to cycle where they like.
>
> I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more
> dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements
> should be banned completely.
>
> The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements,
> amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the
> roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers.
>
> So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers.
>
>
>
> > > -- .
> > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Don't forget idiot electric bike users blasting along on the
pavemements either because toddlers are softer to run into than cars
Doug !

[mischastar]

The toddler is the innocent party in this, anyone selfish enough to ride in a pedestrian area should be punished.