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

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:47:16 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 15:31:50 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:26:53 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

And yet you are 200 times more likely to be killed on a footway by a motor vehicle rather than a pedal cycle even though motorists never drive on footways.

If that is the case, why are the government about to fine drivers for driving and parking on pavements?

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...ements-4471278

Waste of public money, motorists never break the law. Although the 2 million+ drivers caught speeding last year might disagree., and thats just the ones who were caught. No doubt they were swerving to avoid an unlit cyclist.

The new law on pavement driving and parking is designed to be cash positive and bring money into the government by fining the criminals that transgress.

On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 17:03:56 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 15:26, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 15:01:08 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 14:52, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 14:30:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 09:08, TMS320 wrote:

Whereas you obviously have no instinct how to lead your life without
reference to a set of instructions.

A set of instructions is a necessary founding principle of any
civilisation or society. We cannot allow a situation where individuals
"think" that they are free to do just as they like without having to
consider others, though observation does suggest that such individuals
exist among us. It seems that they often ride bicycles.

I assume you , unlike the vast majority of motorists, have never driven above the speed limit.

What difference would that make (either way)?

The difference is cyclists only criticise subsidised road users when they put life in danger but motorists tar all paying road users with the same brush if they see one going through a red light after 0.0001 seconds

Even if that were true (which it certainly is not), it would not be
relevant.

The whole point is that the validity of a moral or legal code does not
rest upon the behaviour, or even the attitude, of any one person.

As an example, it's illegal and immoral to cycle along a footway even if
the Prime Minister sometimes does it.

And yet you are 200 times more likely to br killed on a footway by a motor vehicle rather than a pedal cycle even though motorists never drive on footways.

You seem not to have understood, so I shall repeat it (concentrate!).

The whole point is that the validity of a moral or legal code does not
rest upon the behaviour, or even the attitude, of any one person. As an
example, it's illegal and immoral to cycle along a footway even if the
Prime Minister sometimes does it.

The fact that accidents happen (and that some even try to harm others
deliberately) does not undermine that in the slightest, though it is
easy to see that at your kindergarten level of "thinking", you can't
easily understand that.

The old "The big boys do it too" excuse does not work.

So motorists only drive on the footway by accident?

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 5:48:47 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

So motorists only drive on the footway by accident?

That's an awful lot of "accidents" right there.
Double yellows as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg2C1_3W...jpg&name=small

On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 17:56:27 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 5:48:47 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

So motorists only drive on the footway by accident?

That's an awful lot of "accidents" right there.
Double yellows as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg2C1_3W...jpg&name=small

They were all forced to swerve to avoid an unlit cyclist.

On 01/09/2020 17:13, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 16:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/09/2020 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 09:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/09/2020 02:11, JNugent wrote:
On 31/08/2020 21:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/08/2020 20:28, JNugent wrote:
On 31/08/2020 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/08/2020 18:28, JNugent wrote:
On 31/08/2020 18:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/08/2020 16:57, JNugent wrote:
On 31/08/2020 07:37, Mike Collins wrote:
On Sunday, 30 August 2020 20:45:39 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:

We are all familiar with The Ten Commandments. None of them
become irrelevant on the basis that "Moses did it too".

Some of us stopped believing in Fairy Tales when we became
adults. I assume you do not eat shellfish.

Why does it not surprise me that you don't believe in "Thou
shalt
not steal"?

The idea was to get people to believe that the instruction came
from a sky fairy and that their mortal behaviour determined
whether
they would go to heaven or hell. Perhaps you still think this is
how things work?

None of that attempt at diversion matters.

Oh, so you still believe in heaven and hell. It must be your
Catholic upbringing.

It seems that you and Collins "think" that it's acceptable to
steal
(or even commit murder).

Are you trying for the long jump record in leap of logic...

If you didn't, you'd have to show a degree of acceptance of,
and deference to, some relevant moral code or other, which would
necessarily be thousands of years old.

...and goal post shifting?

Please identify a moral code with which you *are* prepared to
identify and say who devised it.

My parents would have had something to do with it. And they from
their parents. I don't know the name of the leader of the first
viable group of homo sapiens but I assume they worked things out
as they went along and whatever made them successful has been
passed up and developed through generations.

TRANSLATION:

"I have no idea, whether about this or anything else".

Well, I did say I don't know how moral codes originated. No
translation is required.

But you *do* know how this one - so central to Judaism, Christianity
and Islam, originated. Or, at least, how it was codified.

Homo sapiens was long established before anything was codified so
nothing was invented by anybody known today. Formal religion added the
idea of heaven and hell to try to keep the masses under control: it's
hardly a coincidence that it grew to amass and control so much wealth.

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of any of that?

Err... it follows from your sentence above it. Try and get an adult to
explain some prehistory to you. (Although it's possible you are a closed
minded creationist.)

Many thanks.

Whereas you obviously have no instinct how to lead your life without
reference to a set of instructions.

A set of instructions is a necessary founding principle of any
civilisation or society. We cannot allow a situation where
individuals "think" that they are free to do just as they like
without having to consider others, though observation does suggest
that such individuals exist among us. It seems that they often ride
bicycles.

In modern society rules don't work unless they are easy to adhere to.

"Don't ride your bike along the pavement" is sublimely easy to "adhere to".

Except where it is permitted. But it's not a rule that underpins society
and realistically serves little purpose. If it was removed, the rule "do
not kill" is still overarching.

Only an idiot could fail to understand it or its purposes. Which bits
don't you understand?

Thus drivers have been given rules that provide them with a great deal
of immunity from death dealing. Perhaps cyclists should be allowed
similar leeway.

That's gibberish.

It's a true summary, whether you like it or not.

Once upon a time most people went to church on Sunday so there were
laws about shopping. 40 years ago people started to prefer to go to
B&Q on Sunday so the laws about shopping had to be torn up.

Those laws were far more recent than you appear to think (they didn't
exist a hundred and fifty years ago) and they had a purpose the need for
which had faded.

"Shopping" was hardly a common pastime until 150 years ago so there was
no need for rules about it. In other words, some rules just follow what
most people do and are devised to make a minority "behave". The basic
rules of do not kill or steal are rather more long standing.

The Shops Acts 1911 and 1950 were practical law with a practical
purpose, nothing to do with a religious code despite the fact that it
was Sunday which was affected. But to someone who can't see the
difference between such things, confusion of them is more or less
inevitable.

On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 18:03:00 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/09/2020 17:13, JNugent wrote:

"Don't ride your bike along the pavement" is sublimely easy to "adhere to".

Except where it is permitted. But it's not a rule that underpins society
and realistically serves little purpose. If it was removed, the rule "do
not kill" is still overarching.


I think Nugents meant to say "Don't ride you bike along the pavement unless the council have used their pot of Magic White Paint after which you MUST ride your bike along the pavement and drivers may use lethal force against any cyclist failing to to so".

On 01/09/2020 15:31, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 3:26:53 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

And yet you are 200 times more likely to be killed on a footway by a motor vehicle rather than a pedal cycle even though motorists never drive on footways.

If that is the case, why are the government about to fine drivers for driving and parking on pavements?

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...ements-4471278


The interesting point is that a motorist driving and blocking the
pavement is facing a £ 70.00 fine, whereas a cyclist could be presented
with a hefty bill of up to £ 500.00 for cycling on a pavement. Just
proves , I suppose, cyclists are richer and instead of people whinging
about cyclists, they should ask their MP to ensure law enforcement.

On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 17:56:27 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 5:48:47 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

So motorists only drive on the footway by accident?

That's an awful lot of "accidents" right there.
Double yellows as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg2C1_3W...jpg&name=small

Isn't it amazing how many cars 'accidentally' park themselves so neatly on a footway.

On 01/09/2020 18:12, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 18:03:00 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/09/2020 17:13, JNugent wrote:

"Don't ride your bike along the pavement" is sublimely easy to "adhere to".

Except where it is permitted. But it's not a rule that underpins society
and realistically serves little purpose. If it was removed, the rule "do
not kill" is still overarching.


I think Nugents meant to say "Don't ride you bike along the pavement unless the council have used their pot of Magic White Paint after which you MUST ride your bike along the pavement and drivers may use lethal force against any cyclist failing to to so".

No, not at all.

"Stay off the pavement whilst riding your fairy-cycle", followed by a
full stop, is another way of putting it.

Ride your bike on the carriageway and take your own chances. Don't
endanger others. The footway was built and is distinctively different
from a carriageway for a good reason.

On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 12:19:51 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 17:56:27 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 5:48:47 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

So motorists only drive on the footway by accident?

That's an awful lot of "accidents" right there.
Double yellows as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg2C1_3W...jpg&name=small

Isn't it amazing how many cars 'accidentally' park themselves so neatly on a footway.

All without ever driving along the pavement.
Amazing, isn't it?