Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On Apr 12, 6:41*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote:



On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, *wrote:
Should have been on the books years ago
You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here..
What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and
don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin....

You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death
statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists
whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles."

Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply
the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at
present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max
life, *he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH,
motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft'
option.

Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists so the whole thing is
still a bit one sided. It would be much simpler if the same laws
applied to road users as they do elsewhere, i.e. manslaughter,
aggravated assault, where an offence under section 18 carries a
maximum penalty of life imprisonment, etc.

Why on earth are road users singled out for special treatment when it
comes to killing or injuring people? Alternatively road laws could be
applied everywhere so that, for example, causing death by dangerous
knifing would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years instead of life.

Its long overdue time that these anomalies were sorted and the pro-
motoring bias removed once and for all.


Why do you only consider cyclist hurting motorists & never cyclists
hurting pedestrians?

Why do you only consider cyclists hurting pedestrians and never
motorists hurting pedestrians?

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

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On Apr 12, 6:38*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:

See Janet in her car.
Janet has never paid "road tax" in her life.
Cyclist John is the owner/keeper of the car.
The cyclist John (owner/keeper of the car) pays "road tax", the driver
Janet does not.

Bingo - you've finally got it.

--
Simon Mason

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 12/04/2011 10:42, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon wrote:

snip

See Janet in her car.
Janet has never paid "road tax" in her life.
Cyclist John pays it all.
The cyclist John pays "road tax", the driver Janet does not.

Cyclist John is a ****wit. People call him Simple.

--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users.


I'll call an ambulance Judith. Simple Simon must have overdosed on the
stupidity pills again.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

Doug wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:41 pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote:



On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, wrote:
Should have been on the books years ago
You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on
here. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride
sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will
it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin...

You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death
statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by
cyclists whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles."

Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would
apply the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at
present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max
life, he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH,
motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft'
option.

Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists so the whole thing is
still a bit one sided. It would be much simpler if the same laws
applied to road users as they do elsewhere, i.e. manslaughter,
aggravated assault, where an offence under section 18 carries a
maximum penalty of life imprisonment, etc.

Why on earth are road users singled out for special treatment when
it comes to killing or injuring people? Alternatively road laws
could be applied everywhere so that, for example, causing death by
dangerous knifing would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years instead
of life.

Its long overdue time that these anomalies were sorted and the pro-
motoring bias removed once and for all.


Why do you only consider cyclist hurting motorists & never cyclists
hurting pedestrians?

Why do you only consider cyclists hurting pedestrians and never
motorists hurting pedestrians?

maybe because most cycle v pedestrian injury accidents are because of
cyclist selfishness/illegal manouevres.

I walked the dogs this morning, I saw hundreds of cars, none of them
committed any noticeable lawbreaking and none of them drove along the
pavement in any way. I saw one cyclist, he was riding along the pavement
causing pedestrians to cower out of his way into the bushes. 100 per cent
of the cyclists I saw this morning were selfish and law breaking. Zero per
cent of the cars were doing anything other than driving normally and
sensibly.

This is why the general public dislike cyclists, because they are selfish
and ignorant in general.

I am sure there are some good cyclists, but I very, very rarely see one.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, wrote:
Should have been on the books years ago
You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here.
What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and
don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin...

You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death
statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists
whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles."

Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply
the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at
present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max
life, he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH,
motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft'
option.

Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists

Whoops! Seems THEY CAN
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966 and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On Apr 12, 7:29*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists

Whoops! *Seems THEY CANhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966andhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, he was the numpty who nearly doored a cyclist by opening his car
door without looking.
The cyclist then decked him with a single punch.

--
Simon Mason

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, wrote:
Should have been on the books years ago
You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on
here. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride
sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will
it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin...

You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death
statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists
whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles."

Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply
the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at
present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max
life, he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH,
motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft'
option.

Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists

Whoops! Seems THEY CAN
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966 and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390

you don't understand cyclist logic at all, Tony Magdi was no longer a
motorist since his car was stopped. The cyclist had also dismounted and so
was no longer a cyclist, therefore this was a pedestrian attacking and
killing another pedestrian, nothing to do with cars or bicycles at all.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On Apr 12, 7:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, *wrote:
Should have been on the books years ago
You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on
here. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride
sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will
it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin....

You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death
statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists
whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles."

Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply
the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at
present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max
life, *he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH,
motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft'
option.

Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists

Whoops! *Seems THEY CAN
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390

you don't understand cyclist logic at all, Tony Magdi was no longer a
motorist since his car was stopped. *The cyclist had also dismounted and so
was no longer a cyclist, therefore this was a pedestrian attacking and
killing another pedestrian, nothing to do with cars or bicycles at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Both had been seen driving and cycling prior to the incident, so can
be called drivers and cyclists.

The pedestrian in the other story at no point was seen cycling, so
cannot be called a cyclist as it may not have even been his bike.

--
Simon Mason

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 12/04/2011 18:51, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:38 pm, Tony wrote:

See Janet in her car.
Janet has never paid "road tax" in her life.
Cyclist John is the owner/keeper of the car.
The cyclist John (owner/keeper of the car) pays "road tax", the driver
Janet does not.

Bingo - you've finally got it.

--
Simon Mason

I got that years ago, you should check my posts before making such
comments, but at least you agree that the owner/keeper of a motor
vehicle has to pay a specific tax/duty to enable the vehicle to be used
on the public roads. And yes I know that there certain exemptions.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 12/04/2011 18:45, Doug wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:41 pm, Tony wrote:
On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote:



On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, wrote:
Should have been on the books years ago
You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here.
What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and
don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin...

You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death
statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists
whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles."

Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply
the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at
present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max
life, he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH,
motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft'
option.

Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists so the whole thing is
still a bit one sided. It would be much simpler if the same laws
applied to road users as they do elsewhere, i.e. manslaughter,
aggravated assault, where an offence under section 18 carries a
maximum penalty of life imprisonment, etc.

Why on earth are road users singled out for special treatment when it
comes to killing or injuring people? Alternatively road laws could be
applied everywhere so that, for example, causing death by dangerous
knifing would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years instead of life.

Its long overdue time that these anomalies were sorted and the pro-
motoring bias removed once and for all.


Why do you only consider cyclist hurting motorists& never cyclists
hurting pedestrians?

Why do you only consider cyclists hurting pedestrians and never
motorists hurting pedestrians?

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

Yet more lies about what I have posted.