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?

-- .
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't worry, you will soon get an evasive reply.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On Apr 13, 6:49*am, Doug wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And there it is, the evasive reply.

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 13/04/2011 18:54, Squashme wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:00 pm, The Medway
wrote:
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.

Call an ambulance while you still can.

"LONDON Ambulance Service has announced plans to cut 890 jobs over the
next five years to save money.

The service is aiming to cut £53m in spending between now and 2015,
including axing 560 frontline jobs dealing directly with patients."

I hope that your daughter will be OK. I shall doubtless need her help
some day.

I'm sure she will be OK. She has just been appointed staff officer to
the big cheese running the team looking after the 2012 Olympics.

I'll tell her to look out for cyclists who seem more comfused than usual.

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

Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
 

On 13/04/2011 06:59, Doug wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:29 pm, The Medway
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..

The motorist was on the road when the cyclist punched him. He was
literally on the road afterwards.


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.

Then its a jolly good job it rarely happens then. 1 fatality in
3,443,478,261 miles driven isn't statistically relevant. Thats about 18
journeys to the sun & back.





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