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

On 17/09/2020 12:27, JNugent wrote:

Please provide the title of the Act, the Section and subsection of that
Act,

Please provide evidence to support your belief that a red light makes it
unsafe to proceed.

On 17/09/2020 12:25, JNugent wrote:

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

Irrelevant. Dangerous driving happens whether or not a law exists. A law
only exists so that a court can find the culprit guilty.

You're being obtuse in claiming that dangerous driving only happens if
the culprit is guilty.

On 17/09/2020 13:39, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/09/2020 12:25, JNugent wrote:

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

Irrelevant. Dangerous driving happens whether or not a law exists. A law
only exists so that a court can find the culprit guilty.

You're being obtuse in claiming that dangerous driving only happens if
the culprit is guilty.

You seem to think that you can conjure a situation into being simply by
wishing, or perhaps by magical incantation.

An occurrence on the road is not "dangerous driving" simply because you
wish it to be.

"Dangerous driving" is purely a legal construct and only a court can
define an action as being an example of "dangerous driving". Your
preferences are totally irrelevant.

Stop and have a think about the potential consequences if mere lay
observers were able to classify things as "dangerous" (or perhaps.
"furious") just like that.

On 17/09/2020 13:39, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/09/2020 12:27, JNugent wrote:

Please provide the title of the Act, the Section and subsection of
that Act,

Please provide evidence to support your belief that a red light makes it
unsafe to proceed.

I take it that nether you now mason can find the legislation which you
say allows cyclists to pass red traffic lights lawfully, because had to
been able to cite it, you'd have done so.

Good, you've taken my advice and not wasted too much time looking
something we all know doesn't exist. Instead, you're trying to wriggle
out of the claim.

Wriggle, wriggle.

On 17/09/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 13:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 12:27, JNugent wrote:

Please provide the title of the Act, the Section and subsection
of that Act,

Please provide evidence to support your belief that a red light
makes it unsafe to proceed.

I take it that nether you now mason can find the legislation which
you say allows cyclists to pass red traffic lights lawfully, because
had to been able to cite it, you'd have done so.

Nobody has ever claimed such a thing exists. On the other hand, you are
unable to prove your assertion that law can magically conjure things
from nothing or switch something from safe to unsafe or unsafe to safe.

On 17/09/2020 15:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 13:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 12:27, JNugent wrote:

Please provide the title of the Act, the Section and subsection
of that Act,

Please provide evidence to support your belief that a red light
makes it unsafe to proceed.

I take it that nether you now mason can find the legislation which
you say allows cyclists to pass red traffic lights lawfully, because
had to been able to cite it, you'd have done so.

Nobody has ever claimed such a thing exists.

Mason did.

Have another read of his ramblings on the subject.

On the other hand, you are
unable to prove your assertion that law can magically conjure things
from nothing or switch something from safe to unsafe or unsafe to safe.

You are lying (yet again).

I have made no such assertion.

It simply *isn't* up to you to judge that you are free to break the law
because you don't care about the danger which may be caused by it. You
are not qualified to make such decisions.

On 17/09/2020 16:55, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 15:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 13:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 12:27, JNugent wrote:

Please provide the title of the Act, the Section and subsection
of that Act,

Please provide evidence to support your belief that a red light
makes it unsafe to proceed.

I take it that nether you now mason can find the legislation which
you say allows cyclists to pass red traffic lights lawfully, because
had to been able to cite it, you'd have done so.

Nobody has ever claimed such a thing exists.

Mason did.

Have another read of his ramblings on the subject.

I daresay Mason's hamster has more common sense than you.

On the other hand, you are unable to prove your assertion that law can
magically conjure things from nothing or switch something from safe to
unsafe or unsafe to safe.

You are lying (yet again).

I have made no such assertion.

It simply *isn't* up to you to judge that you are free to break the law
because you don't care about the danger which may be caused by it. You
are not qualified to make such decisions.

Oh look, you have just made the assertion again.

On 17/09/2020 19:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 16:55, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 15:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 13:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 12:27, JNugent wrote:

Please provide the title of the Act, the Section and subsection
of that Act,

Please provide evidence to support your belief that a red light
makes it unsafe to proceed.

I take it that nether you now mason can find the legislation which
you say allows cyclists to pass red traffic lights lawfully, because
had to been able to cite it, you'd have done so.

Nobody has ever claimed such a thing exists.

Mason did.

Have another read of his ramblings on the subject.

I daresay Mason's hamster has more common sense than you.

You're still smarting over that one, aren't you?

A raw nerve touched, obviously.

On the other hand, you are unable to prove your assertion that law
can magically conjure things from nothing or switch something from
safe to unsafe or unsafe to safe.

You are lying (yet again).

I have made no such assertion.

It simply *isn't* up to you to judge that you are free to break the
law because you don't care about the danger which may be caused by it.
You are not qualified to make such decisions.

Oh look, you have just made the assertion again.

Nonsense (though that is your default output format).

If you "think" it IS up to you to judge other people (especially people
of whom you know nothing other than a few semi-literate scribblings by a
road.cc "journalist") and if you "think" that you have the
qualifications for doing so, please explain your reasons for "thinking" it.

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 7:01:47 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:


I daresay Mason's hamster has more common sense than you.

"If you've been sitting there for a good few minutes and it’s fairly obvious the lights aren’t going to change any time soon, you’ll have to make sure it’s safe to proceed.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/u...affic-17543286

On 17/09/2020 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 19:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 16:55, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 15:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 17/09/2020 13:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 12:27, JNugent wrote:

Please provide the title of the Act, the Section and subsection
of that Act,

Please provide evidence to support your belief that a red light
makes it unsafe to proceed.

I take it that nether you now mason can find the legislation which
you say allows cyclists to pass red traffic lights lawfully, because
had to been able to cite it, you'd have done so.

Nobody has ever claimed such a thing exists.

Mason did.

Have another read of his ramblings on the subject.

I daresay Mason's hamster has more common sense than you.

You're still smarting over that one, aren't you?

A raw nerve touched, obviously.

On the other hand, you are unable to prove your assertion that law
can magically conjure things from nothing or switch something from
safe to unsafe or unsafe to safe.

You are lying (yet again).

I have made no such assertion.

It simply *isn't* up to you to judge that you are free to break the
law because you don't care about the danger which may be caused by
it. You are not qualified to make such decisions.

Oh look, you have just made the assertion again.

Nonsense (though that is your default output format).

If you "think" it IS up to you to judge other people (especially people
of whom you know nothing other than a few semi-literate scribblings by a
road.cc "journalist") and if you "think" that you have the
qualifications for doing so, please explain your reasons for "thinking" it.

Bloody hell ! This is rich - coming from you.