Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 12/04/2011 19:35, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:29 pm, The Medway
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.

You mean the idiot cyclist failed to use sufficient observation & didn't
anticipate that the driver would open the door, and that he was passing
too close.

It amazes me that cyclist ****s always complain that motorists pass them
too closely & then complain when they pass cars too closely.

Equally amazing is that cars rarely get 'doored' when passing stationary
cars. Perhaps they use sufficient observation & anticipation?


The cyclist then decked him with a single punch.

The cyclist assaulted the inocent driver resulting in his death. You
seem to condone that.



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

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.


Oh look **** for brains - you sniped the point you couldn't answer -
because you are to ****ing thick;

"See Janet in her car.
Janet owns the car.
Janet as the owner/keeper has to pay 'road tax'
Cyclist John gives the money to Janet
The cyclist John does not pay "road tax", the driver/owner/keeper Janet
does".

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

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On Apr 12, 8:27*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
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?

Yet more lies about what I have posted.

That is what happens when you post lies.

-- .
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, 7:29*pm, 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 CANhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966andhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390

Duh! You seem to have missed the point by a mile. This is about
traffic on roads..

It is virtually impossible for a cyclist to kill a motorist in his car
by colliding with it but it is all too easy for a motorist to kill a
cyclist by colliding with his cycle. Therein lies the inequality.
Obviously, in this context, a motorist is infinitely more dangerous
and lethal than a cyclist.

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

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 13/04/2011 06:49, Doug wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:27 pm, Tony wrote:
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?

Yet more lies about what I have posted.

That is what happens when you post lies.

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

Feel free to post my lies & I will reply, will you do the same when I
post yours?

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

Doug wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:29 pm, 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
CANhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966andhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390

Duh! You seem to have missed the point by a mile. This is about
traffic on roads..

It is virtually impossible for a cyclist to kill a motorist in his car
by colliding with it but it is all too easy for a motorist to kill a
cyclist by colliding with his cycle. Therein lies the inequality.
Obviously, in this context, a motorist is infinitely more dangerous
and lethal than a cyclist.

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

an elephant can squash a human by sitting on it, yet a human cannot squash
an elephant by sitting on it. The answer to this is that the human avoids
getting into a situation where the elephant may accidentally or deliberately
sit on the human.

If cyclists took the same care to avoid being sat upon by motor vehicles
then there would be far fewer deaths and injuries of cyclists.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 12/04/2011 19:35, Simon Mason wrote:

The Medway 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

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.

The biggest "numpty" in all of this is, of course, anyone who can refer to a
murder victim as a "numpty" in an attempt to imply that the victim deserved
everything he got at the hands of his brutal cyclist attacker(s).

The mindset that a citizen deserves to be attacked and killed for having the
effrontery to get out of his car is deeply disturbing. Are you sure you are
fit to be out on the streets mixing with normal people? The attackers
certainly weren't.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 12/04/2011 20:19, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:57 pm, 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.

That's right. Pedestrians pushing bikes they never ever ride are such a
common sight on the streets of the UK that it isn't safe to call any of them
a cyclist.

Or something.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 12/04/2011 23:53, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 12/04/2011 19:35, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:29 pm, The Medway
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.

You mean the idiot cyclist failed to use sufficient observation & didn't
anticipate that the driver would open the door, and that he was passing too
close.

It amazes me that cyclist ****s always complain that motorists pass them too
closely & then complain when they pass cars too closely.

Equally amazing is that cars rarely get 'doored' when passing stationary
cars. Perhaps they use sufficient observation & anticipation?


The cyclist then decked him with a single punch.

The cyclist assaulted the inocent driver resulting in his death. You seem to
condone that.

"Condone " It?

He *exults* in it.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:15:26 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



Oh look **** for brains - you sniped the point you couldn't answer -
because you are to ****ing thick;

Those are indeed great compliments and honours coming from the great
bestower.

Next in line are the honours of waste of flesh. no rhythm, and ridiculous
and obnoxious.




--
67.4% of statistics are made up.