Plan to make our roads safer.

On 12/05/2011 07:04, Doug wrote:

Blaming vulnerable road users is a common ploy anyway.

No **** Sherlock…

You have been reading too many TMH/MrC/JMS posts. Your perspective is
now skewed.

On May 12, 7:21*am, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 12/05/2011 07:04, Doug wrote:

Blaming vulnerable road users is a common ploy anyway.

No **** Sherlock…

You have been reading too many TMH/MrC/JMS posts. Your perspective is
now skewed.

No its a common practice which suits insurance companies and drivers
and which I have experienced personally.

Doug

Doug wrote:
On May 11, 5:41 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On May 11, 8:39 am, Derek C wrote:
On May 11, 8:00 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Given that motorists can kill cyclists but cyclists cannot kill
motorists,

Cyclists certainly can demonstrably kill pedestrians, so similar
penalties should apply.

Jeff

and cause the death of drivers: this one died avoiding an unlit
cyclist:http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...7112/driver_ki...

Any comments Doug?

The link doesn't work. I assume the cyclist didn't collide with the
driver so the driver killed himself by loosing control of his car
when presented by the unexpected. Incidentally, I wonder why the
motorist's headlights weren't working properly or maybe he wasn't
paying proper attention to the road ahead?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...7112/driver_ki...

It is a legal requirement that vehicles carry lights at night, the
cyclist had none. in order to avoid the cyclist the motorist crashed
into another vehicle, the cyclist was unhurt.

So what about the motorist's headlamps?

"...Ithe teenager admitted riding his bicycle without lights, but said
he had reflectors on his wheels and pedals..."

Maybe the motorist shouldn't have been overtaking in the first place.

if the cyclist had stayed at home (as he should with no lights) the accident
would not have happened.

Doug wrote:
On May 11, 5:43 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On May 11, 6:15 am, Derek C wrote:
On May 11, 5:41 am, Doug wrote:

Cyclists must welcome this as it is admitted that dangerous
motorists often remain unpunished.

"Police will get powers to fine careless drivers on the spot,
rather than taking them to court, as part of a government
strategy to make Britain's roads safer.

Ministers say motorists who tail-gate, undertake or cut others up
often go unpunished and that introducing instant penalties would
be more efficient.

Offenders would get a fine of at least £80 and three points on
their licence.

Critics say the approach - likely to be introduced in 2012 - is
too simplistic as careless driving is not clear cut.

Currently motorists who have driven in a careless manner have to
be prosecuted through the courts..."

"...Ministers insist the new approach will try to target genuinely
reckless motorists rather than those who normally follow the rules
but make an inadvertent mistake..."

Eh? Aren't they forgetting that an inadvertent mistake can
sometimes kill a vulnerable road user? It is this sort of
official laxity that also needs correcting. But then if most
Ministers are also motorists what else can you expect?

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13356057

I hope the same level of fines will apply to all road users,
including the riders of illegal electric bikes!

Do you have any evidence that anyone has been prosecuted for using
such a bike?

Doug.

none what so ever. Does that make your one legal somehow?

It certainly suggests that the matter is trivial, which it is. There
are loads of laws that are never enforced for good reasons, so what?
Also, as an amateur, who are you to try to interpret this particular
law?

What about the
surmise that cyclists will be prosecuted with on the spot fines just
like motorists ?(whether their ebike is legal or not)

Fair enough provided the size of the fine is proportionate. It would
be an outrage if cyclists had to pay as much as motorists, given the
difference in danger level.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

so lorry drivers should pay more, coach drivers a bit less? What shall the
divisions be based upon?

On May 12, 7:37*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On May 11, 5:41 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On May 11, 8:39 am, Derek C wrote:
On May 11, 8:00 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Given that motorists can kill cyclists but cyclists cannot kill
motorists,

Cyclists certainly can demonstrably kill pedestrians, so similar
penalties should apply.

Jeff

and cause the death of drivers: this one died avoiding an unlit
cyclist:http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...7112/driver_ki...

Any comments Doug?

The link doesn't work. I assume the cyclist didn't collide with the
driver so the driver killed himself by loosing control of his car
when presented by the unexpected. Incidentally, I wonder why the
motorist's headlights weren't working properly or maybe he wasn't
paying proper attention to the road ahead?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...7112/driver_ki....

It is a legal requirement that vehicles carry lights at night, the
cyclist had none. in order to avoid the cyclist the motorist crashed
into another vehicle, the cyclist was unhurt.

So what about the motorist's headlamps?

"...Ithe teenager admitted riding his bicycle without lights, but said
he had reflectors on his wheels and pedals..."

Maybe the motorist shouldn't have been overtaking in the first place.

if the cyclist had stayed at home (as he should with no lights) the accident
would not have happened.

The same could be said of the motorist.

Doug.

Doug wrote:
On May 12, 7:37 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On May 11, 5:41 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On May 11, 8:39 am, Derek C wrote:
On May 11, 8:00 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Given that motorists can kill cyclists but cyclists cannot
kill motorists,

Cyclists certainly can demonstrably kill pedestrians, so
similar penalties should apply.

Jeff

and cause the death of drivers: this one died avoiding an unlit
cyclist:http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...7112/driver_ki...

Any comments Doug?

The link doesn't work. I assume the cyclist didn't collide with
the driver so the driver killed himself by loosing control of his
car when presented by the unexpected. Incidentally, I wonder why
the motorist's headlights weren't working properly or maybe he
wasn't paying proper attention to the road ahead?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...7112/driver_ki...

It is a legal requirement that vehicles carry lights at night, the
cyclist had none. in order to avoid the cyclist the motorist
crashed into another vehicle, the cyclist was unhurt.

So what about the motorist's headlamps?

"...Ithe teenager admitted riding his bicycle without lights, but
said he had reflectors on his wheels and pedals..."

Maybe the motorist shouldn't have been overtaking in the first
place.

if the cyclist had stayed at home (as he should with no lights) the
accident would not have happened.

The same could be said of the motorist.

Doug.

the cyclist was deliberately flouting the law and the motorist paid with his
life.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 11/05/2011 05:41, Doug wrote:

Yup. Good news. Raising the speed limit on motorways to 80 mph is a
great idea.

And of course there are no cyclist ******s allowed.

It is amazing how people can get on with their lives at a reasonable rate
whenever there are no cyclists around, isn't it?

On Thu, 12 May 2011 00:08:15 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 11/05/2011 05:41, Doug wrote:

Yup. Good news. Raising the speed limit on motorways to 80 mph is a
great idea.

And of course there are no cyclist ******s allowed.

I haven't tried that yet.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On Thu, 12 May 2011 00:22:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



The fine should be proportional to the party at fault.

For example. Someone thick enough to use a push bike as a form of
transport on modern roads is asking for trouble.

I am really glad I am thick. What a great honour and achievement!




--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On 12/05/2011 06:49, Doug wrote:
On May 11, 5:41 pm, wrote:
Doug wrote:
On May 11, 8:39 am, Derek wrote:
On May 11, 8:00 am, wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Given that motorists can kill cyclists but cyclists cannot kill
motorists,

Cyclists certainly can demonstrably kill pedestrians, so similar
penalties should apply.

Jeff

and cause the death of drivers: this one died avoiding an unlit
cyclist:http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...7112/driver_ki...

Any comments Doug?

The link doesn't work. I assume the cyclist didn't collide with the
driver so the driver killed himself by loosing control of his car when
presented by the unexpected. Incidentally, I wonder why the motorist's
headlights weren't working properly or maybe he wasn't paying proper
attention to the road ahead?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/n...7112/driver_ki...

It is a legal requirement that vehicles carry lights at night, the cyclist
had none. in order to avoid the cyclist the motorist crashed into another
vehicle, the cyclist was unhurt.

So what about the motorist's headlamps?

"...Ithe teenager admitted riding his bicycle without lights, but said
he had reflectors on his wheels and pedals..."

Maybe the motorist shouldn't have been overtaking in the first place.

Why not?

Ovwertaking a slower vehicle is entirely legitimate. If it were not, cyclists
would have to wait at the back of every queue.