Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

Phil W Lee wrote:
francis considered Wed, 4 Feb 2009
08:41:05 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Feb 4, 3:43 pm, Martin wrote:
bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:
So it goes.
http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc
Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?
Many thanks for posting that.
It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.
I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.
Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover
through an area where lots of pedestrians congregate.
Surely if you have a collision such his one, and you are driving an SUV,
this should be taken into account and you should be held even more
liable than if you had been driving a small car.

Do we have SUV's in the UK?

Why should it not be acceptable for the MP concerned to drive a Land
Rover?
It could be argued that because of a higher driving position he would
be able to see better.

An argument that the MP in question has rendered completely moot,
since he failed to see at all.

His lack of judgement in selecting a cross-coutry vehicle for driving
in the city should be remembered in light of the fact that the only
real job he has in parliament is to exercise good judgement.

Having proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he's incapable of
discharging his mandatory responsibilities as a driver, he should have
been relieved of his licence.
Unfortunately the courts place the right to drive ahead of the right
to life.

First let me say I agree that he should have been looking what he was doing.

Next let me thank you for your comments, that in no way answered the
questions I asked.



--
Tony the Dragon

OG wrote:

... You must surely be aware that
compusory wearing of helmets has no effect on head injury rates.

When was that tried?

On Feb 4, 7:22*am, JNugent wrote:
OG wrote:
... You must surely be aware that
compusory wearing of helmets has no effect on head injury rates.

When was that tried?


Australia, in the link above.

Tony Dragon wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
francis considered Wed, 4 Feb 2009
08:41:05 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Feb 4, 3:43 pm, Martin wrote:
bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme

wrote:
So it goes.
http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc
Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?
Many thanks for posting that.
It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.
I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.
Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an
average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover
through an area where lots of pedestrians congregate.
Surely if you have a collision such his one, and you are driving an
SUV,
this should be taken into account and you should be held even more
liable than if you had been driving a small car.

Do we have SUV's in the UK?

Why should it not be acceptable for the MP concerned to drive a Land
Rover?
It could be argued that because of a higher driving position he would
be able to see better.

An argument that the MP in question has rendered completely moot,
since he failed to see at all.

His lack of judgement in selecting a cross-coutry vehicle for driving
in the city should be remembered in light of the fact that the only
real job he has in parliament is to exercise good judgement.

Having proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he's incapable of
discharging his mandatory responsibilities as a driver, he should have
been relieved of his licence.
Unfortunately the courts place the right to drive ahead of the right
to life.

First let me say I agree that he should have been looking what he was
doing.

Next let me thank you for your comments, that in no way answered the
questions I asked.

Nope, you've not asked any questions in this thread? Why do you lie?

Martin wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:43:33 +0000, Martin
wrote:

bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?
Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.
I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.
Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover

Accuracy not your strong point : "Range Rover"

The Daily Mail claims it was a Ranger Rover, however the BBC, The Times,
The Telegraph (amongst others) all say "Land Rover". I don't know about
you, but as far as reputable news sources go, I would trust the last
three far more than the Mail, and I checked them before replying to bugbear.

Range Rover is a model range sold by Land Rover, so they could BOTH be
right - just like if one paper said he was driving a Mondeo and another
said it was a Ford. The odds are good then that it was actually a
LandRover Range Rover (especially since MP's are unlikely to find the
'classic' LandRover - the Defender - quite suitable for their transport!

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:58:15 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

francis considered Wed, 4 Feb 2009
08:41:05 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Feb 4, 3:43*pm, Martin wrote:
bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?

Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.

Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover
through an area where lots of pedestrians congregate.
Surely if you have a collision such his one, and you are driving an SUV,
this should be taken into account and you should be held even more
liable than if you had been driving a small car.


Do we have SUV's in the UK?

Why should it not be acceptable for the MP concerned to drive a Land
Rover?
It could be argued that because of a higher driving position he would
be able to see better.

An argument that the MP in question has rendered completely moot,
since he failed to see at all.

His lack of judgement in selecting a cross-coutry vehicle for driving
in the city should be remembered in light of the fact that the only
real job he has in parliament is to exercise good judgement.


A Range Rover is not a "cross-country" vehicle.



judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:27:02 +0000, Martin
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:43:33 +0000, Martin
wrote:

bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?

Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.
I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.
Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover


Accuracy not your strong point : "Range Rover"

The Daily Mail claims it was a Ranger Rover, however the BBC, The Times,
The Telegraph (amongst others) all say "Land Rover". I don't know about
you, but as far as reputable news sources go, I would trust the last
three far more than the Mail, and I checked them before replying to bugbear.

Apologies - I read the linked article only.

I too would trust the others over the Mail.

"Martin" wrote in message
...



Any particular reason why folk keep feeding the troll?

Martin wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:43:33 +0000, Martin
wrote:

bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?
Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.
I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.
Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover

Accuracy not your strong point : "Range Rover"

The Daily Mail claims it was a Ranger Rover, however the BBC, The Times,
The Telegraph (amongst others) all say "Land Rover". I don't know about
you, but as far as reputable news sources go, I would trust the last
three far more than the Mail, and I checked them before replying to bugbear.


The last time I looked a Range Rover was a trade mark of Land Rover,
therefore all Range Rovers are Land Rovers, but all Land Rovers and not
Range Rovers.

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:34:03 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message
...

Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an average
car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive a Land Rover

Accuracy not your strong point : "Range Rover"

The Daily Mail claims it was a Ranger Rover, however the BBC, The Times,
The Telegraph (amongst others) all say "Land Rover". I don't know about
you, but as far as reputable news sources go, I would trust the last
three far more than the Mail, and I checked them before replying to
bugbear.

Doesn't matter - Range Rover is a Land Rover, coz it's built by them.

(why you're feeding Judith is a different question...)



Of course it matters - a Land Rover is not a vehicle for central
London - but there is nothing wrong with a Range Rover.

Shows you know **** all about cars as well as any other subject.

(wtf does it have to do with you who answer my posts? - Oh sorry I
forgot - I invariably make you look a ****wit - I apologise - but it
really is easy ;-)



judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.