Pavement motorist who used car as a 'Fearsome Weapon' jailed indefinitely.

On May 22, 6:25*am, Doug wrote:
On May 21, 8:57*am, "Norman Wells" wrote: Doug wrote:
Seems the justice system got it about right for a change.

So you were wrong as usual then.

How so?

Instead of
the more usual slap on the wrist for 'dangerous driving' this motorist
was given a lifetime driving ban, an indefinite jail sentence and the
judge acknowledge that a car can be used as a weapon.

Anything can be used as a weapon in the hands of someone intent on using it
as such.

In view of the fact that a car can be a 'fearsome weapon' why aren't
they licenced as such? Or is this just one thing among many that is
supposed to be covered by the derisory VED amount?

Hey, Doug, I note that the piece of **** who did this had previous:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...d-indefinitely

His first victim was "repeatedly kicked and punched and had part of an
ear bitten off. Mr Fenton never regained consciousness and died in
hospital 23 days later".

In view of the fact that fists, feet and teeth can be a 'fearsome
weapon' why aren't they licenced as such?

On May 22, 7:13*am, Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 22:25:58 -0700, Doug wrote:
On May 21, 8:57*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
Seems the justice system got it about right for a change.

So you were wrong as usual then.

How so?

Instead of
the more usual slap on the wrist for 'dangerous driving' this
motorist was given a lifetime driving ban, an indefinite jail
sentence and the judge acknowledge that a car can be used as a
weapon.

Anything can be used as a weapon in the hands of someone intent on
using it as such.

In view of the fact that a car can be a 'fearsome weapon' why aren't
they licenced as such?

Pretty much anything can be used as a weapon. I could kill you with my TV
for example. Should it be licenced as a weapon? What about my fist or feet?

Ironically, the very same sack of **** who used a car as a weapon in
this instance has previously used his fists and feet as a deadly
weapon:

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...d-indefinitely

Once again, even where Duhg appears to have got something right, he
shoots himself right in the foot. Or, perhaps, in the "dangerous
weapon". How *does* he do it?

On May 23, 7:43*pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 07:37, Doug wrote:









On May 23, 7:26 am, Tony *wrote:
On 23/05/2011 06:59, Doug wrote:

On May 22, 10:25 am, * *wrote:
On 22/05/2011 06:25, Doug wrote:

On May 21, 8:57 am, "Norman * * *wrote:
Doug wrote:
Seems the justice system got it about right for a change.

So you were wrong as usual then.

How so?

Instead of
the more usual slap on the wrist for 'dangerous driving' this motorist
was given a lifetime driving ban, an indefinite jail sentence and the
judge acknowledge that a car can be used as a weapon.

Anything can be used as a weapon in the hands of someone intent on using it
as such.

In view of the fact that a car can be a 'fearsome weapon' why aren't
they licenced as such? Or is this just one thing among many that is
supposed to be covered by the derisory VED amount?

I wonder if a
bicycle on a pavement could injure as many people? Oh, and his car was
also 'driven along' the pavement, for those who argue that this never
ever happens.

Well, there's a revelation! *Cars can be driven along pavements if someone
is determined to do so. *I'm astonished.

But some motorists here are in denial about it. They seem to think
that cyclists on pavements are a problem but motorists on pavements
are not.

"A man who ploughed into a crowd of revellers outside a bar in
Rochdale has been jailed indefinitely.

Good. *Anyone disagree?

No? *Didn't think so.

Glad you agree for a change.

Lee Anthony Bradley, 26, drove along the pavement next to the Dali bar
in a stolen Saab 93 in the early hours of 17 October, after being
thrown out.

He knocked down bystanders "like skittles", police have said. Fourteen
people were taken to hospital.

Bradley, of no fixed abode, pleaded guilty to a string of offences at
an earlier hearing at Bolton Crown Court.

Yes. *There ought to be a law against it.

And look! *There is.

But it clearly shows that motorists on pavements are much more
dangerous than cyclists on pavements but there is not always a law
against pavement motoring.

Don't you think there ought to be a law against motorists on
pavements, especially in view of the serious danger they present?

Don't be daft.

How would I get my car onto my driveway and/or into the garage?

Perhaps the bit between my property and the carriageway should not be
officially classified as footway. That might work.

Interesting point. Because of the domination by the massive car
culture pedestrians have lost some of their rights and their footways
have been partly given over to cars and are no longer continuous but
have numerous dropped kerbs

How does a dropped kerb at a crossover affect a pedestrian?
For many people with mobility problems it might makr life easier.

No it means that the surface is not continuous and level, as it should
be. In some cases the sides are relatively steep, particularly close
to the road, and poses a problem to people in wheelchairs or the blind
or people using prams with small wheels.

But dropped kerbs are a positive benefit to people in wheelchairs & mums
with prams when crossing roads.

True but they don't need so many, i.e. one at every house. Usually
those at every road junction, paid for by the Council, is sufficient,
as long as they are not blocked by parked cars.

So motorists have paid for something that benefits others yet again.

Motorists only have to pay if they want a dropped kerb where there
isn't one already. Others just drive over the raised kerb, sometimes
causing pavement damage which everyone has to pay for.

Doug.

Doug

On 24/05/2011 06:19, Doug wrote:
On May 23, 7:43 pm, wrote:
On 23/05/2011 07:37, Doug wrote:









On May 23, 7:26 am, Tony wrote:
On 23/05/2011 06:59, Doug wrote:

On May 22, 10:25 am, wrote:
On 22/05/2011 06:25, Doug wrote:

On May 21, 8:57 am, "Norman wrote:
Doug wrote:
Seems the justice system got it about right for a change.

So you were wrong as usual then.

How so?

Instead of
the more usual slap on the wrist for 'dangerous driving' this motorist
was given a lifetime driving ban, an indefinite jail sentence and the
judge acknowledge that a car can be used as a weapon.

Anything can be used as a weapon in the hands of someone intent on using it
as such.

In view of the fact that a car can be a 'fearsome weapon' why aren't
they licenced as such? Or is this just one thing among many that is
supposed to be covered by the derisory VED amount?

I wonder if a
bicycle on a pavement could injure as many people? Oh, and his car was
also 'driven along' the pavement, for those who argue that this never
ever happens.

Well, there's a revelation! Cars can be driven along pavements if someone
is determined to do so. I'm astonished.

But some motorists here are in denial about it. They seem to think
that cyclists on pavements are a problem but motorists on pavements
are not.

"A man who ploughed into a crowd of revellers outside a bar in
Rochdale has been jailed indefinitely.

Good. Anyone disagree?

No? Didn't think so.

Glad you agree for a change.

Lee Anthony Bradley, 26, drove along the pavement next to the Dali bar
in a stolen Saab 93 in the early hours of 17 October, after being
thrown out.

He knocked down bystanders "like skittles", police have said. Fourteen
people were taken to hospital.

Bradley, of no fixed abode, pleaded guilty to a string of offences at
an earlier hearing at Bolton Crown Court.

Yes. There ought to be a law against it.

And look! There is.

But it clearly shows that motorists on pavements are much more
dangerous than cyclists on pavements but there is not always a law
against pavement motoring.

Don't you think there ought to be a law against motorists on
pavements, especially in view of the serious danger they present?

Don't be daft.

How would I get my car onto my driveway and/or into the garage?

Perhaps the bit between my property and the carriageway should not be
officially classified as footway. That might work.

Interesting point. Because of the domination by the massive car
culture pedestrians have lost some of their rights and their footways
have been partly given over to cars and are no longer continuous but
have numerous dropped kerbs

How does a dropped kerb at a crossover affect a pedestrian?
For many people with mobility problems it might makr life easier.

No it means that the surface is not continuous and level, as it should
be. In some cases the sides are relatively steep, particularly close
to the road, and poses a problem to people in wheelchairs or the blind
or people using prams with small wheels.

But dropped kerbs are a positive benefit to people in wheelchairs& mums
with prams when crossing roads.

True but they don't need so many, i.e. one at every house. Usually
those at every road junction, paid for by the Council, is sufficient,
as long as they are not blocked by parked cars.

So motorists have paid for something that benefits others yet again.

Motorists only have to pay if they want a dropped kerb where there
isn't one already. Others just drive over the raised kerb, sometimes
causing pavement damage which everyone has to pay for.

Doug.

STOP THE PRESS!

SHOCK DISCLOSU You only have to pay to get something if you haven't
already got it.

On 24/05/2011 06:19, Doug wrote:
Others just drive over the raised kerb, sometimes
causing pavement damage which everyone has to pay for.

Evidence?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.