"Brian Robertson" wrote in message ...

On 22/08/2013 11:52, Partac wrote:


"Brian Robertson" wrote in message ...

On 22/08/2013 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 23:38, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 22:43, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 21:45, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 11:38, JNugent wrote:
On 21/08/2013 08:55, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a
Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the
cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up
some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Which all goes to convince me even more that a camera on my crash
helmet
is an essential tool that every cyclist should have. Such
behaviour by
car drivers should lead, inevitably, to prosecution and a
substantial
ban.

A disqualification from driving for a physical assault with the
fists?

Would you extend it to all crimes, or just those alleged to have been
committed against cyclists?

Would you, for instance, impose a "substantial ban" (from driving)
for
criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a
cycle-lock?
Or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet?

And if not, why not?

Probably just those where a motorist has used his vehicle as a deadly
weapon in a deliberate manner.

Thank you for confirming that you would impose a "substantial ban"
(from
driving) for criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a
cycle-lock or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet, as long as
the criminal cyclist had a driving licence.

Of course, a disqualification would have little effect on someone
without a licence.


Plenty are handed out to people who don't have licences. And your
point is?

I was thanking you for clarifying your own point.

Have you forgotten *already*?

Forgotten what? I genuinely don't know what you are going on about.

Once again, it'll be the booze.

Well, if you can't explain your point then the debate doesn't really
serve much purpose, does it?

No. There's no point explaining something to someone who cannot and will not
understand.