JNugent wrote:

On 25/05/2019 14:32, Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 11:35:41 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2019 22:45, Simon Jester wrote:

You did not make any point. All you did was cite an article. In your
sad, lonely world you think this means all cyclists are burglars.

...and that one "passing motorist" being a good samaritan means all must be.

Or trying to suggest that burglars would find a car makes a more
practical getaway vehicle. A policeman wouldn't think about running
after you when you can do 85mph in a 30 limit. Besides, breaking a speed
limit is not really law breaking whereas riding a bicycle on the
pavement is the epitomy of evil.

This driver only got 3 points for driving over a child, then attempting to scarper afterwards!

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...riving-2905907

QUOTE:
A woman who ran over a seven-year-old boy did not have a driving licence.
ENDQUOTE

So other than being a pedestrian, she was only qualified to be a cyclist.

QUOTE:
Miss Weatherill said: "She was given a lift back to Hornsea by the
police and we've been told she only had three points put on her licence.
She only had a provisional.
ENDQUOTE

Ah... so it's the good old "a mate of mine down the pub reckons..."
school of "facts".

The reporter, and the publishers, of this story are really those who
should be held responsible for its content.

First of all, is it "no licence" or "just a provisional"? The two are
not the same.

In reality, for a provisional licence-holder, driving without L plates
(PL10), driving without an accompanying qualified driver (LC10) and
driving (perforce) without the benefit of an insurance policy - whether
one theoretically exists or not - are all separate offences with penalty
point counts of between three (the L plates) and a minimum of six (no
effective insurance). It gets worse... most insurers will (rightly)
repudiate a claim made by anyone driving without a licence or outside
the terms of any licence they hold, so "no insurance" becomes an
automatic charge and is punished by most courts with a period of
disqualification and an exemplary fine (there is no upper limit on that
power of a court). Even if the offender escapes a ban, there is a
mandatory six points minimum penalty in addition to a fine.

And that's not even counting the probability of a DWDCAA summons.

But hey... why bother with reality? It's more fun to pretend that
dangerous, careless and inconsiderate offenders escape without effective
penalty, isn't it?

The report was written by Sophie Corcoran, and it does her no credit.