Interesting viewpoint on death by cycling ..

On Apr 14, 9:45*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
Doug wrote:
The same applies to pedestrian road users and that is why measures
should be taken to reduce the danger from motorised vehicles.

There are many such measures and laws in force to do just what you're
asking for.

Given the dangers to vulnerable cyclists the laws are obviously not
sufficient. Many of them are designed to restrain cyclists instead of
their killers, while overlooking the fact that cyclists cannot kill
drivers.

You
cannot expect pedestrians and cyclists to move around in full body
armour just because certain people are allowed to enjoy the
unrestrained use of lethal machinery in public places.

There is no unrestrained use .... there are many restraints and laws to
prohibit unrestrained use.

But the laws are insufficient. For example, the penalties for killing
people with a vehicle on roads and pavements are derisory and why are
HGVs allowed to have blind-spots? Why are cars allowed to park in
cycle lanes and on pavements, etc?

It is openly admitted that roads are dangerous but little is done
about it. Cars are still allowed to hurtle around at 30mph past
schools and do 60mph in winding country lanes. Also, no account is
taken in law that cyclists can't kill drivers but they can be killed
by drivers, which obviously points to the need in law of greater
protection from drivers instead of more precautions by cyclists.

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

Doug wrote:

On Apr 14, 9:45*am, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
Doug wrote:
The same applies to pedestrian road users and that is why measures
should be taken to reduce the danger from motorised vehicles.

There are many such measures and laws in force to do just what
you're asking for.

Given the dangers to vulnerable cyclists the laws are obviously not
sufficient. Many of them are designed to restrain cyclists instead of
their killers, while overlooking the fact that cyclists cannot kill
drivers.

As a cyclist and knowing I'm vulnerable I also know where and how to
position myself to minimise risk on the roads. I haven't had a
significant accident in my life due to cars hitting me.

You
cannot expect pedestrians and cyclists to move around in full body
armour just because certain people are allowed to enjoy the
unrestrained use of lethal machinery in public places.

There is no unrestrained use .... there are many restraints and
laws to prohibit unrestrained use.

But the laws are insufficient. For example, the penalties for killing
people with a vehicle on roads and pavements are derisory and why are
HGVs allowed to have blind-spots? Why are cars allowed to park in
cycle lanes and on pavements, etc?

They aren't .. they do, but they shouldn't.

It is openly admitted that roads are dangerous but little is done
about it. Cars are still allowed to hurtle around at 30mph past
schools and do 60mph in winding country lanes. Also, no account is
taken in law that cyclists can't kill drivers but they can be killed
by drivers, which obviously points to the need in law of greater
protection from drivers instead of more precautions by cyclists.

Quite rightly, there are already far more laws applied to driving and
drivers than there are to cyclists and cycling .. that people break
laws is a matter for better policing and giving cps more balls to
prosecute harder ..

If laws are being broken, more laws won't solve anything .. all that
will happen is that the 'normal' law-abding driver/cyclist will go
about their business with a little more eroded freedom and the feckwits
will carry on breaking them.


--
Paul - xxx

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

But the laws are insufficient. For example, the penalties for killing
people with a vehicle on roads and pavements are derisory

14 years maximum imprisonment.

And that's assuming there's not sufficient negligence to make
manslaughter a possibility - or sufficient intent for murder - in which
case, life.

and why are HGVs allowed to have blind-spots?

Because basic laws of physics apply to them.

Why are cars allowed to park in cycle lanes and on pavements, etc?

They aren't.

On 16/04/2011 08:17, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

But the laws are insufficient. For example, the penalties for killing
people with a vehicle on roads and pavements are derisory

14 years maximum imprisonment.

And that's assuming there's not sufficient negligence to make
manslaughter a possibility - or sufficient intent for murder - in which
case, life.

and why are HGVs allowed to have blind-spots?

Because basic laws of physics apply to them.

Why are cars allowed to park in cycle lanes and on pavements, etc?

They aren't.



In designated areas, a car 'can' park with two wheels on the pavement.

--
Bod

"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...


Very few people die because they are murdered. Maybe the law against
murder is also not needed. Just a thought.

Any death resulting from a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian
would be a freak accident.

Not, normally, a deliberate, premeditated, cold-blooded murder with a
dangerous weapon. But if is, then as you imply, there are already laws in
place to deal with that.

--
Bartc

"bod" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2011 08:17, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

But the laws are insufficient. For example, the penalties for killing
people with a vehicle on roads and pavements are derisory

14 years maximum imprisonment.

And that's assuming there's not sufficient negligence to make
manslaughter a possibility - or sufficient intent for murder - in which
case, life.

and why are HGVs allowed to have blind-spots?

Because basic laws of physics apply to them.

Why are cars allowed to park in cycle lanes and on pavements, etc?

They aren't.



In designated areas, a car 'can' park with two wheels on the pavement.

--
Bod

Where?

On 16/04/2011 18:06, Mr Pounder wrote:

wrote in message
On 16/04/2011 08:17, Adrian wrote:
:

But the laws are insufficient. For example, the penalties for killing
people with a vehicle on roads and pavements are derisory

14 years maximum imprisonment.
And that's assuming there's not sufficient negligence to make
manslaughter a possibility - or sufficient intent for murder - in which
case, life.

and why are HGVs allowed to have blind-spots?

Because basic laws of physics apply to them.

Why are cars allowed to park in cycle lanes and on pavements, etc?

They aren't.

In designated areas, a car 'can' park with two wheels on the pavement.

Where?

Certainly in some parts of London (but only where the footway is
significantly wider than the passage of pedestrians actually requires).

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 15/04/2011 21:24, alan.holmes wrote:
"The Medway wrote in message
...
On 13/04/2011 18:19, alan.holmes wrote:
"Tom wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:21:59 +0100,
wrote:

Put it into the police pension funds, perhaps.

There is no police pension fund.

Police pensions are paid by current police pension contributions and
topped up by the taxpayer. Any money raised from fines and fixed
penalties used to pay police pensions would, in effect, assist the
taxpayer, not the police.

And it would encourage the police to prosecute more people whether they
have
commited an offence or not, I don't trust the police on many matters.

Probably because you are a serial law breaking cyclist.

How did you guess?

Its not rocket science. All cyclists are serial law breakers.

I never knew that!

Alan





--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2011 18:06, Mr Pounder wrote:

wrote in message
On 16/04/2011 08:17, Adrian wrote:
:

But the laws are insufficient. For example, the penalties for killing
people with a vehicle on roads and pavements are derisory

14 years maximum imprisonment.
And that's assuming there's not sufficient negligence to make
manslaughter a possibility - or sufficient intent for murder - in which
case, life.

and why are HGVs allowed to have blind-spots?

Because basic laws of physics apply to them.

Why are cars allowed to park in cycle lanes and on pavements, etc?

They aren't.

In designated areas, a car 'can' park with two wheels on the pavement.

Where?

Certainly in some parts of London (but only where the footway is
significantly wider than the passage of pedestrians actually requires).

In the superior north jumping the curb is an offence as it should be.
Why on earth do people live in the south?

On 17/04/2011 17:27, Mr Pounder wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2011 18:06, Mr Pounder wrote:

wrote in message
On 16/04/2011 08:17, Adrian wrote:
:

But the laws are insufficient. For example, the penalties for killing
people with a vehicle on roads and pavements are derisory

14 years maximum imprisonment.
And that's assuming there's not sufficient negligence to make
manslaughter a possibility - or sufficient intent for murder - in which
case, life.

and why are HGVs allowed to have blind-spots?

Because basic laws of physics apply to them.

Why are cars allowed to park in cycle lanes and on pavements, etc?

They aren't.

In designated areas, a car 'can' park with two wheels on the pavement.

Where?

Certainly in some parts of London (but only where the footway is
significantly wider than the passage of pedestrians actually requires).

In the superior north jumping the curb is an offence as it should be.
Why on earth do people live in the south?

The footways concerned are usually very wide - *much* wider than normal, and
usually laid out with two distinct surface treatments. Some London boroughs
effectively ban outsider visits by car in favour of pre-emptive allocation of
"residents parking" to kerbsides throughout large areas. The "park on the
pavement" policy seems to be an extension of that (or related to it at least).

Mind you, they're not the only ones: there are quite wide areas of Brighton
where you cannot park at all - not even in a non-existent public car-park or
car parking space - without cultivating the permission and co-operation of a
resident. That's because the council is prepared to sell/issue parking
permits to residents even if they haven't got a car. But not to anyone else.