Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrong sideof road is jailed - LONG

On 16/09/2020 20:47, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:39, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 00:22, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 20:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 12:09, JNugent wrote:

Do traffic lights apply to cyclists (must cyclists comply with
them)?

Yes, or no?

Which is it?

It is in the rules.

Is that a "Yes" or a "No"?

Sigh.

Why are you so frightened to answer the question?

Why are you so obsessed with the minutiae of traffic law, rather than
using thought and intelligence?

The detail of the law in important because if you are prepared to let
anyone just disobey the law as a result of their own assessment of what
is dangerous, hazardous, risky or "sensible", you have to let *everyone*
do so.

I am not prepared to accept that in respect of scofflaw chavs such as
drunken drivers or footway cyclists.

What is the end benefit expected by the rule?

Safety.

For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a
junction on "green".

Then you're assuming the intention of the law. There is nothing
special about you so stop trying to tell others that they should not.

The law with respect to traffic lights, give-way markings and
signage, etc, etc, is *clearly* related to the maintenance of safety
and the prevention of conflict between vehicle trajectories. It could
have no other purpose.

Yes, a driver taking 1.5 - 44 tonnes through at 30mph is dangerous.
It is easy for any observer to see that without any knowledge of the
written rules.

Rephrase. What is the expected benefit of applying the rule to
cyclists?

Safety.

Yesterday I cycled 37km. I went through one set of traffic lights -
twice. I passed something like 100 other junctions (I lost count
before I was a quarter of the way through the gps track), either at
t-junctions or passing the mouth of t-junctions, plus a few roundabouts.

In one direction at the lights, had I ignored a red light, any
objective observer would have seen that there was no safety issue for
anybody.

That's *NOT* your judgment to make. What you are doing there is called
arrogation.

It requires my judgement to deal with at least 99% of junctions.

Arrogant people do it.

Going in the other direction it would have been very dangerous - for
me. This traffic light has only been in place for about three years so
I have successfully navigated the junction several hundred times
previously, purely under my own wits.

Passing through red traffic lights?

Which bit of "three years" did you fail to understand?

Seriously?

You're self-obsessed and do not have a thought for others.

Don't even imagine that you can instruct me about safety.

In the circumstances, my neighbour's hamster could usefully instruct you
on safety.

When did your carers last allow you out on your own?

For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction
on "green".
Â*
Do you wish to try to assert that it is lawful for a cyclist to pass
through (what is, for him) a red traffic light, despite the priority
being accorded to others (including other cyclists and pedestrians)
at that moment?

I couldn't care less if a cyclist uses a red light as a give way. In
my years as pedestrian, cyclist, driver I have never had to make
allowances for a cyclist.

But when cycling, I have dealt with pedestrians wandering across my
path against a red man and had to wait after my light has gone green
for drivers to go past at speed.

Is your criminal behaviour excused because a few bigger boys did it?

What criminal offence have I committed?

On 16/09/2020 20:50, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/09/2020 20:41, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:

You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words
about and start understanding the law and the issues.

This is not a cycling group,

No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either.

not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words to
legal definitions.

If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need to
realise that that is a legal matter.

I vote for this to be entered for stupid comment of the year.

Hardly.

You didn't even *know* that "dangerous driving" is a legal construct,
hence your disinclination to think of it in a legal context.

And you (and certain others) seem to "think" that a cyclist should be
able to find a driver guilty of dangerous driving simply by watching an
edited road.cc video.

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 8:09:13 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

I couldn't care less if a cyclist uses a red light as a give way. In my
years as pedestrian, cyclist, driver I have never had to make allowances
for a cyclist.

If the detector at the lights fails to pick up my carbon bike then they are deemed to be faulty and you can legally cross the junction.

On 16/09/2020 21:00, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:41, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:

You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words
about and start understanding the law and the issues.

This is not a cycling group,

No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either.

not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words to
legal definitions.

If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need to
realise that that is a legal matter.

I vote for this to be entered for stupid comment of the year.

Hardly.

Oh yes.

You didn't even *know* that "dangerous driving" is a legal construct,
hence your disinclination to think of it in a legal context.

The law does not have a monopoly on particular words.

On 16/09/2020 22:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:00, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:41, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:

You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words
about and start understanding the law and the issues.

This is not a cycling group,

No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either.

not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words to
legal definitions.

If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need
to realise that that is a legal matter.

I vote for this to be entered for stupid comment of the year.

Hardly.

Oh yes.

You didn't even *know* that "dangerous driving" is a legal construct,
hence your disinclination to think of it in a legal context.

The law does not have a monopoly on particular words.

You complained of there being few convictions for dangerous driving.

Then you try to say that you didn't mean that in a legal sense.

What, pray, is a non-legal conviction of a crime?

On 16/09/2020 21:32, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 8:09:13 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

I couldn't care less if a cyclist uses a red light as a give way. In my
years as pedestrian, cyclist, driver I have never had to make allowances
for a cyclist.

If the detector at the lights fails to pick up my carbon bike then they are deemed to be faulty and you can legally cross the junction.

Road Traffic Act Section and subsection, plus Statutory Instrument (name
and number) and Regulation number, please.

On 17/09/2020 01:09, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 22:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:00, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:41, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:

You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words
about and start understanding the law and the issues.

This is not a cycling group,

No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either.

not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words
to legal definitions.

If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need
to realise that that is a legal matter.

I vote for this to be entered for stupid comment of the year.

Hardly.

Oh yes.

You didn't even *know* that "dangerous driving" is a legal construct,
hence your disinclination to think of it in a legal context.

The law does not have a monopoly on particular words.

You complained of there being few convictions for dangerous driving.

Then you try to say that you didn't mean that in a legal sense.

My precise phrase was -

"Though as we know, it is almost impossible to be convicted of dangerous
driving."

You started wittering on about there being no such thing as dangerous
driving unless the law finds culprit to be guilty.

You're claiming that the law has a monopoly on words.

What, pray, is a non-legal conviction of a crime?

You have just added a question mark after a string of random words.

On 17/09/2020 01:10, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:32, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 8:09:13 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

I couldn't care less if a cyclist uses a red light as a give way. In my
years as pedestrian, cyclist, driver I have never had to make allowances
for a cyclist.

If the detector at the lights fails to pick up my carbon bike then
they are deemed to be faulty and you can legally cross the junction.

Road Traffic Act Section and subsection, plus Statutory Instrument (name
and number) and Regulation number, please.

With your inability to think for yourself, you must be a terrible driver.

On 17/09/2020 10:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 01:09, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 22:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:00, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:41, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:

You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words
about and start understanding the law and the issues.

This is not a cycling group,

No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either.

not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words
to legal definitions.

If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need
to realise that that is a legal matter.

I vote for this to be entered for stupid comment of the year.

Hardly.

Oh yes.

You didn't even *know* that "dangerous driving" is a legal
construct, hence your disinclination to think of it in a legal context.

The law does not have a monopoly on particular words.

You complained of there being few convictions for dangerous driving.

Then you try to say that you didn't mean that in a legal sense.

My precise phrase was -

"Though as we know, it is almost impossible to be convicted of dangerous
driving."

You started wittering on about there being no such thing as dangerous
driving unless the law finds culprit to be guilty.

"Dangerous driving" is a legal construct and is defined (at present*)
within Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

[* It was defined in a different Act or series of Acts before that. I
say that because we know that you have a default setting where you
believe that anything illegal under a relatively recent Act was not
illegal before that recent Act came into force.]

Your terminology - apparently you need to be reminded of this because
you've forgotten it already - was:

QUOTE:
....it is almost impossible to be convicted of dangerous driving...
ENDQUOTE

That is purely a reference to the offence of "dangerous driving" under
Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is *only* within that context
that the concept of being "convicted of dangerous driving" exists.

It is therefore disingenuous and dishonest of you to try now to insist
that you were not really trying to make a point about dangerous driving
within the meaning of the Act. You *were* doing *exactly* that and are
now trying to wriggle out of having said some silly things.

You're claiming that the law has a monopoly on words.

In the interpretation of law, it has!

And *law* determines how and whether anyone may be "convicted of
dangerous driving".

Not passing or armchair-bound cyclist would-be pundits such as yourself.

What, pray, is a non-legal conviction of a crime?

You have just added a question mark after a string of random words.

That is rubbish, as the above now shows you (again).

If you didn't mean to refer to the subject convictions under Section 2
of the 1988 Act, you shouldn't have written:

QUOTE:
it is almost impossible to be convicted of dangerous driving
ENDQUOTE

....because that is the only context in which your string of words could
ever make the slightest sense.

On 17/09/2020 10:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 01:10, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:32, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 8:09:13 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

I couldn't care less if a cyclist uses a red light as a give way. In my
years as pedestrian, cyclist, driver I have never had to make
allowances
for a cyclist.

If the detector at the lights fails to pick up my carbon bike then
they are deemed to be faulty and you can legally cross the junction.

Road Traffic Act Section and subsection, plus Statutory Instrument
(name and number) and Regulation number, please.

With your inability to think for yourself, you must be a terrible driver.

Please provide the title of the Act, the Section and subsection of that
Act, and/or the name and number of the claimed Statutory Instrument and
the Regulation number which allows or allow cyclists not to wait at a
red traffic light.

My advice: don't waste too much time on research. If none of them exist
(and they don't), please be honest enough to admit it.

[Yes, that last bit was a forlorn hope if ever there was one.]