Another car hits wall. Nowhere is safe from these insane drivers.

Doug wrote:
On 1 July, 07:29, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 June, 09:23, Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 28 June, 09:50, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 27 June, 10:07, Tony Dragon
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 17:04, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 09:00, Bod wrote:
Question for Doug: A child runs into the road and Doug
cannot avoid
the child and as a result the child dies under Doug's
bicycle. Using 'Doug's Law', the child was killed
unlawfully because the cyclist failed to stop in time.
You obviously agree with this then Doug?
Yes but the risk is vanishingly small compared to that of a
car hitting the child, especially as I always cycle slowly.
If you always cycle sufficiently slowly to avoind anything in
your path how
come you couldn't stop in time to avoid colliding with the
car?
Again, the car collided with me and drove into my side while I
was proceeding along a main road.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
So you were proceeding at a speed that you were unable to stop
if something unforeseen happened, you tell us that this is
wrong & reckless.
You still don't get it do you. I was the victim not the driver.
My actions were such as to cause harm to no one, the driver's
actions caused harm to me.
Is anybody saying otherwise?
If the accident happened as you say, the driver was to blame &
you were the victim.
It wasn't an 'accident' it was a crash.
Indeed it was a crash, but unless the driver intended hitting you,
then it was an accident as well.
The problem is, you have been telling everybody for ages that a
motorist should be able to stop if something unexpected happens.
Yes, if they are endangering someone else.
No, not just if they were endangering somebody else, if anything
untoward happens.
Well you were a road user, something unexpected happened, why
were you not able to stop?
It doesn't apply to vulnerable victims, obviously.
So before you take action, you must know if you are a to be a
victim or not.
You are either wrong in your assumption that road users should be
able to stop in time,
or,
you do not adopt the same standards that you expect of others.
The vehicle(s) used make no difference, so do not bring speed,
momentum, mass etc. into the thread.
You should try comparing like with like. If I was about to run
down a ped on my bicycle it WOULD apply to me.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
See above.
A victim should never take avoiding action, ok got it.
Yup! just think of all that insurance compensation. :-)
Except that Doug took cash in hand and allowed the "perpetrator" to
get away with not having to report the matter to his insurance
company and not being prosecuted.
Ok,that was his choice but he was still compensated.
But Doug tells us that all "perpetrators" should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. Why did he allow this "killer motorist" to walk
free? Is there something about Doug's behaviour that he isn't telling us?
Hmm, in that case there is more than a smell of hypocrisy.
No, as usual Brimstone is deliberately being misleading.

So Doug,are you saying that Brimstone is not quoting your words correctly?
Did you or did you not say:"perpetrators should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law"?

Not only is it not a direct quote but it is entirely misleading. My
position is that all deaths of vulnerable road users cause by a
vehicle should be treated as manslaughter, with the matter being
properly resolved in a jury court not dominated by motorists, instead
of such deaths being treated casually if at all, often by motorist
Magistrates.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


How on earth can you assume 'manslaughter' in every case?


Bod

On 1 July, 07:51, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 1 July, 07:29, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 June, 09:23, Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 28 June, 09:50, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 27 June, 10:07, Tony Dragon
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 17:04, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 09:00, Bod wrote:
Question for Doug: A child runs into the road and Doug
cannot avoid
the child and as a result the child dies under Doug's
bicycle. Using 'Doug's Law', the child was killed
unlawfully because the cyclist failed to stop in time.
You obviously agree with this then Doug?
Yes but the risk is vanishingly small compared to that of a
car hitting the child, especially as I always cycle slowly.
If you always cycle sufficiently slowly to avoind anything in
your path how
come you couldn't stop in time to avoid colliding with the
car?
Again, the car collided with me and drove into my side while I
was proceeding along a main road.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
So you were proceeding at a speed that you were unable to stop
if something unforeseen happened, you tell us that this is
wrong & reckless.
You still don't get it do you. I was the victim not the driver.
My actions were such as to cause harm to no one, the driver's
actions caused harm to me.
Is anybody saying otherwise?
If the accident happened as you say, the driver was to blame &
you were the victim.
It wasn't an 'accident' it was a crash.
Indeed it was a crash, but unless the driver intended hitting you,
then it was an accident as well.
The problem is, you have been telling everybody for ages that a
motorist should be able to stop if something unexpected happens.
Yes, if they are endangering someone else.
No, not just if they were endangering somebody else, if anything
untoward happens.
Well you were a road user, something unexpected happened, why
were you not able to stop?
It doesn't apply to vulnerable victims, obviously.
So before you take action, you must know if you are a to be a
victim or not.
You are either wrong in your assumption that road users should be
able to stop in time,
or,
you do not adopt the same standards that you expect of others..
The vehicle(s) used make no difference, so do not bring speed,
momentum, mass etc. into the thread.
You should try comparing like with like. If I was about to run
down a ped on my bicycle it WOULD apply to me.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
See above.
A victim should never take avoiding action, ok got it.
Yup! *just think of all that insurance compensation. * :-)
Except that Doug took cash in hand and allowed the "perpetrator" to
get away with not having to report the matter to his insurance
company and not being prosecuted.
Ok,that was his choice but he was still compensated.
But Doug tells us that all "perpetrators" should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. Why did he allow this "killer motorist" to walk
free? Is there something about Doug's behaviour that he isn't telling us?
Hmm, in that case there is more than a smell of hypocrisy.
No, as usual Brimstone is deliberately being misleading.

So Doug,are you saying that Brimstone is not quoting your words correctly?
Did you or did you not say:"perpetrators should be prosecuted to the
* fullest extent of the law"?

Not only is it not a direct quote but it is entirely misleading. My
position is that all deaths of vulnerable road users cause by a
vehicle should be treated as manslaughter, with the matter being
properly resolved in a jury court not dominated by motorists, instead
of such deaths being treated casually if at all, often by motorist
Magistrates.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

How on earth can you assume 'manslaughter' in every case?

Someone is killed by someone. If its not deliberate murder it must be
manslaughter, unless a court finds otherwise. Why should it be assumed
otherwise without a proper court hearing? Killing people is serious
stuff.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On 1 July, 07:51, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 1 July, 07:29, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 June, 09:23, Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 28 June, 09:50, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 27 June, 10:07, Tony Dragon
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 17:04, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 09:00, Bod wrote:
Question for Doug: A child runs into the road and Doug
cannot avoid
the child and as a result the child dies under Doug's
bicycle. Using 'Doug's Law', the child was killed
unlawfully because the cyclist failed to stop in time.
You obviously agree with this then Doug?
Yes but the risk is vanishingly small compared to that of a
car hitting the child, especially as I always cycle slowly.
If you always cycle sufficiently slowly to avoind anything in
your path how
come you couldn't stop in time to avoid colliding with the
car?
Again, the car collided with me and drove into my side while I
was proceeding along a main road.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
So you were proceeding at a speed that you were unable to stop
if something unforeseen happened, you tell us that this is
wrong & reckless.
You still don't get it do you. I was the victim not the driver.
My actions were such as to cause harm to no one, the driver's
actions caused harm to me.
Is anybody saying otherwise?
If the accident happened as you say, the driver was to blame &
you were the victim.
It wasn't an 'accident' it was a crash.
Indeed it was a crash, but unless the driver intended hitting you,
then it was an accident as well.
The problem is, you have been telling everybody for ages that a
motorist should be able to stop if something unexpected happens.
Yes, if they are endangering someone else.
No, not just if they were endangering somebody else, if anything
untoward happens.
Well you were a road user, something unexpected happened, why
were you not able to stop?
It doesn't apply to vulnerable victims, obviously.
So before you take action, you must know if you are a to be a
victim or not.
You are either wrong in your assumption that road users should be
able to stop in time,
or,
you do not adopt the same standards that you expect of others.
The vehicle(s) used make no difference, so do not bring speed,
momentum, mass etc. into the thread.
You should try comparing like with like. If I was about to run
down a ped on my bicycle it WOULD apply to me.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
See above.
A victim should never take avoiding action, ok got it.
Yup! just think of all that insurance compensation. :-)
Except that Doug took cash in hand and allowed the "perpetrator" to
get away with not having to report the matter to his insurance
company and not being prosecuted.
Ok,that was his choice but he was still compensated.
But Doug tells us that all "perpetrators" should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. Why did he allow this "killer motorist" to walk
free? Is there something about Doug's behaviour that he isn't telling us?
Hmm, in that case there is more than a smell of hypocrisy.
No, as usual Brimstone is deliberately being misleading.
So Doug,are you saying that Brimstone is not quoting your words correctly?
Did you or did you not say:"perpetrators should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law"?
Not only is it not a direct quote but it is entirely misleading. My
position is that all deaths of vulnerable road users cause by a
vehicle should be treated as manslaughter, with the matter being
properly resolved in a jury court not dominated by motorists, instead
of such deaths being treated casually if at all, often by motorist
Magistrates.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
How on earth can you assume 'manslaughter' in every case?

Someone is killed by someone. If its not deliberate murder it must be
manslaughter, unless a court finds otherwise. Why should it be assumed
otherwise without a proper court hearing? Killing people is serious
stuff.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug the anarchist want to change the laws of the land.

--

Tony Dragon

Doug wrote:
On 1 July, 07:51, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 1 July, 07:29, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 June, 09:23, Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 28 June, 09:50, Tony Dragon
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 27 June, 10:07, Tony Dragon
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 17:04, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 09:00, Bod
wrote:
Question for Doug: A child runs into the road and
Doug cannot avoid
the child and as a result the child dies under
Doug's bicycle. Using 'Doug's Law', the child was
killed unlawfully because the cyclist failed to
stop in time. You obviously agree with this then
Doug?
Yes but the risk is vanishingly small compared to
that of a car hitting the child, especially as I
always cycle slowly.
If you always cycle sufficiently slowly to avoind
anything in your path how
come you couldn't stop in time to avoid colliding
with the car?
Again, the car collided with me and drove into my side
while I was proceeding along a main road.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
So you were proceeding at a speed that you were unable
to stop if something unforeseen happened, you tell us
that this is wrong & reckless.
You still don't get it do you. I was the victim not the
driver. My actions were such as to cause harm to no one,
the driver's actions caused harm to me.
Is anybody saying otherwise?
If the accident happened as you say, the driver was to
blame & you were the victim.
It wasn't an 'accident' it was a crash.
Indeed it was a crash, but unless the driver intended
hitting you, then it was an accident as well.
The problem is, you have been telling everybody for ages
that a motorist should be able to stop if something
unexpected happens.
Yes, if they are endangering someone else.
No, not just if they were endangering somebody else, if
anything untoward happens.
Well you were a road user, something unexpected happened,
why were you not able to stop?
It doesn't apply to vulnerable victims, obviously.
So before you take action, you must know if you are a to be
a victim or not.
You are either wrong in your assumption that road users
should be able to stop in time,
or,
you do not adopt the same standards that you expect of
others. The vehicle(s) used make no difference, so do not
bring speed, momentum, mass etc. into the thread.
You should try comparing like with like. If I was about to
run down a ped on my bicycle it WOULD apply to me.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
See above.
A victim should never take avoiding action, ok got it.
Yup! just think of all that insurance compensation. :-)
Except that Doug took cash in hand and allowed the
"perpetrator" to get away with not having to report the
matter to his insurance company and not being prosecuted.
Ok,that was his choice but he was still compensated.
But Doug tells us that all "perpetrators" should be prosecuted
to the fullest extent of the law. Why did he allow this "killer
motorist" to walk free? Is there something about Doug's
behaviour that he isn't telling us?
Hmm, in that case there is more than a smell of hypocrisy.
No, as usual Brimstone is deliberately being misleading.

So Doug,are you saying that Brimstone is not quoting your words
correctly? Did you or did you not say:"perpetrators should be
prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law"?

Not only is it not a direct quote but it is entirely misleading. My
position is that all deaths of vulnerable road users cause by a
vehicle should be treated as manslaughter, with the matter being
properly resolved in a jury court not dominated by motorists,
instead of such deaths being treated casually if at all, often by
motorist Magistrates.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

How on earth can you assume 'manslaughter' in every case?

Someone is killed by someone. If its not deliberate murder it must be
manslaughter, unless a court finds otherwise. Why should it be assumed
otherwise without a proper court hearing? Killing people is serious
stuff.

Indeed it is Doug. It's a pity that you can't seem to treat it as such.

Doug wrote:

Someone is killed by someone. If its not deliberate murder it must be
manslaughter, unless a court finds otherwise.

I have here a billiard ball. If it's not red, it must be yellow, unless it's
one of the other colours.

Doug wrote:
On 1 July, 07:51, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 1 July, 07:29, Bod wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 29 June, 09:23, Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Bod wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 28 June, 09:50, Tony Dragon
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 27 June, 10:07, Tony Dragon
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 17:04, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 26 June, 09:00, Bod
wrote:
Question for Doug: A child runs into the road and
Doug cannot avoid
the child and as a result the child dies under
Doug's bicycle. Using 'Doug's Law', the child was
killed unlawfully because the cyclist failed to
stop in time. You obviously agree with this then
Doug?
Yes but the risk is vanishingly small compared to
that of a car hitting the child, especially as I
always cycle slowly.
If you always cycle sufficiently slowly to avoind
anything in your path how
come you couldn't stop in time to avoid colliding
with the car?
Again, the car collided with me and drove into my side
while I was proceeding along a main road.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
So you were proceeding at a speed that you were unable
to stop if something unforeseen happened, you tell us
that this is wrong & reckless.
You still don't get it do you. I was the victim not the
driver. My actions were such as to cause harm to no one,
the driver's actions caused harm to me.
Is anybody saying otherwise?
If the accident happened as you say, the driver was to
blame & you were the victim.
It wasn't an 'accident' it was a crash.
Indeed it was a crash, but unless the driver intended
hitting you, then it was an accident as well.
The problem is, you have been telling everybody for ages
that a motorist should be able to stop if something
unexpected happens.
Yes, if they are endangering someone else.
No, not just if they were endangering somebody else, if
anything untoward happens.
Well you were a road user, something unexpected happened,
why were you not able to stop?
It doesn't apply to vulnerable victims, obviously.
So before you take action, you must know if you are a to be
a victim or not.
You are either wrong in your assumption that road users
should be able to stop in time,
or,
you do not adopt the same standards that you expect of
others. The vehicle(s) used make no difference, so do not
bring speed, momentum, mass etc. into the thread.
You should try comparing like with like. If I was about to
run down a ped on my bicycle it WOULD apply to me.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
See above.
A victim should never take avoiding action, ok got it.
Yup! just think of all that insurance compensation. :-)
Except that Doug took cash in hand and allowed the
"perpetrator" to get away with not having to report the
matter to his insurance company and not being prosecuted.
Ok,that was his choice but he was still compensated.
But Doug tells us that all "perpetrators" should be prosecuted
to the fullest extent of the law. Why did he allow this "killer
motorist" to walk free? Is there something about Doug's
behaviour that he isn't telling us?
Hmm, in that case there is more than a smell of hypocrisy.
No, as usual Brimstone is deliberately being misleading.

So Doug,are you saying that Brimstone is not quoting your words
correctly? Did you or did you not say:"perpetrators should be
prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law"?

Not only is it not a direct quote but it is entirely misleading. My
position is that all deaths of vulnerable road users cause by a
vehicle should be treated as manslaughter, with the matter being
properly resolved in a jury court not dominated by motorists,
instead of such deaths being treated casually if at all, often by
motorist Magistrates.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

How on earth can you assume 'manslaughter' in every case?

Someone is killed by someone. If its not deliberate murder it must be
manslaughter, unless a court finds otherwise. Why should it be assumed
otherwise without a proper court hearing? Killing people is serious
stuff.

Is it ever "assumed" otherwise? If several witnesses see someone jump in
front of a moving vehicle, why would the motorist need to be taken to court?

JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:

Someone is killed by someone. If its not deliberate murder it must be
manslaughter, unless a court finds otherwise.

I have here a billiard ball. If it's not red, it must be yellow, unless
it's one of the other colours.


Erm, pedant mode on
Billiards doesn't have yellow balls, just the red and white.

"But for those of you watching in black and white the green ball is
behind the brown"

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Keitht wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:

Someone is killed by someone. If its not deliberate murder it must be
manslaughter, unless a court finds otherwise.

I have here a billiard ball. If it's not red, it must be yellow,
unless it's one of the other colours.

Erm, pedant mode on
Billiards doesn't have yellow balls, just the red and white.

"But for those of you watching in black and white the green ball is
behind the brown"

Amendment accepted without demur, chairman.

I am always prepared to immediately defer to those who had an even more
misspent youth than I did.