Yesterday's 'Bikes Alive' action against TfL was a success.

On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to get
away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow proving it
was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it" usually
with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of licence
confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they can be proved to
have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill and get
away with it.

Doug.



A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.



If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to get
away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow proving
it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it" usually
with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of licence
confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they can be proved
to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill and
get away with it.

Doug.



A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.



If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Jan 16, 10:45*pm, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter *wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter *wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to get
away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow proving
it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a licence to kill..

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. *They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it" usually
with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of licence
confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they can be proved
to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill and
get away with it.

Doug.

A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

That is why...

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 17/01/2012 06:27, Doug wrote:


If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

Not only can a cyclist kill a driver, they have;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-door-him.html


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 17/01/2012 19:48, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 17/01/2012 06:27, Doug wrote:

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

Not only can a cyclist kill a driver, they have;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-door-him.html

FX: low whistle...

I remember the crime reports at the time, but missed this report when the
case was heard.

Only 18 months for "manslaughter" occasioned by a *deliberate* *attack*?

And just look at that killer's mugshot. Would you want to encounter *him* in
an alley on a dark night?

The reader comments say a lot. Hear are the first page's ten comments in order:

[1] Only 18 months? should have been 10 years at least, he will be out in 9.

[2] (This comment is relatively apologetic for the cyclist killer. Not
supportive of him exactly, and "sending conolences to his family", but not
sufficiently critical of his appalling behaviour. Still, it does describe his
crime as "horrendous".)

[3] 18 months !!!!! For gods sake he killed a man !!!! I could get longer for
not paying my local bloody tax !!!!!

[4] 18 months!!!! From the report this a man with very serious anger
management problems. He is a dangerous man.

[5] 18 months what a joke, this maniac should have got 18 years... judge
needs locking up as well

[6] Only 18 months? For manslaughter? Unless society treats these attacks
seriously, with serious punishment, then we cannot complain when it happens
to someone we know as we have accepted it.

[7] (Another post which tries to blame the assault victim, however larded
with faint criticism of the killer.)

[8] Eighteen months for taking a life? This country really needs to get its
priorities right. It was obviously a mistake or accident that the driver
regretted, and Paul Lambert should have been put away for at least five
years. He is a very dangerous man, with a short fuse.

[9] No sympathy for the defendant. People have lost all ability to control
their tempers and actions these days and this is what happens. I think 18
months is too short for him. We all make mistakes, how we deal with them sets
us apart from animals. Or not.

[10] I was abused and threatened on an otherwise deserted country lane by one
of these lycra louts, in front of my kids, for not getting out of the way
fast enough. This is far from the first cyclist-on-other-road-user fatality -
many of them like this idiot, pumped up on testosterone, seem to think they
are above the law.

[A couple of others from the "oldest posts" page:]

(i) The killer is a coward - and so are his cyclist friends who fled the
scene, leaving the victim unconscious on the ground. Shame on ALL of them!

(ii) the sentence is not nearly enough it was an assault.....and though he
didnt intend to kill he did so he should be inside 18 months for a killing is
yet another joke...but who is laughing

[And the most appropriate and accurate of the lot:]

(iii) 18 months for murder? It was murder. He clearly intended to inflict
physical harm and the man died. That is murder, pure and simple.

On Jan 17, 6:27*am, Doug wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:45*pm, Peter Keller wrote:



On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter *wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter *wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to get
away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow proving
it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. *They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it" usually
with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of licence
confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they can be proved
to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill and
get away with it.

Doug.

A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

That is why...

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Amen to that, Brother.

--

Simon Mason

On 17/01/2012 06:27, Doug wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:45 pm, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to get
away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow proving
it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it" usually
with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of licence
confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they can be proved
to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill and
get away with it.

Doug.

A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

That is why...


A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.


Well Doug-Weapon.

If (as happened near me the other day) somebody jumps in front of a
train, then the driver, as he was in charge of the train has killed the
other person, but it is not his fault.

Change that to cyclist riding in front of a bus, the result is the same.

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...

On Jan 17, 6:27 am, Doug wrote:

A driving licence is a licence to kill

Amen to that, Brother.
================================================== ===

Brother? You consider Doug to be your "brother", you worthless alcoholic
piece of ****.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:27:11 -0800, Doug wrote:

On Jan 16, 10:45Â*pm, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter Â*wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter Â*wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to
get away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow
proving it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a
licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. Â*They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it"
usually with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of
licence confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they
can be proved to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill
and get away with it.

Doug.

A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's fault?
Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might kill someone
or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and therefore should
never be to blame.

That is why...

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


No it isn't.
Because a driver might kill someone does not mean
s/he has a licence to kill someone.
PS I can imagine scenarios where a bicyclist CAN kill a driver.


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Jan 17, 7:48*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 17/01/2012 06:27, Doug wrote:



If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

Not only can a cyclist kill a driver, they have;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-killed-motori...

Duh! This is about collisions. Do try to keep up.

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.