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

On 15/09/2020 16:13, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 15:19:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 13:53, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 12:09:50 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 11:30, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 10:53:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:58, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 00:18:04 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

After the council has been along with the Magic White Paint most motorists think it is compulsory.

Not this one.


Which one?


I have told you before and now you prove it; for your own good, you need:

https://tinyurl.com/y6nr5wbw

So no answer as usual.

Ask a silly question (something I have to admit you are pretty good at)
and you will sometimes get a helpful answer.

My recommendation that you buy yourself a copy of "English Grammar For
Dummies" was well-meant.

You *do need* it.

If I am unable to understand English, as you claim, how can I buy a book from an English website?

I don't say you are unable to understand English at a non-functioning level.

You clearly aren't completely illiterate. But there's a lot of room for
improvement. Perhaps you get your reading and comprehension age up to...
say.... 14?

On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 17:17:54 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 16:13, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 15:19:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 13:53, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 12:09:50 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 11:30, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 10:53:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:58, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 00:18:04 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

After the council has been along with the Magic White Paint most motorists think it is compulsory.

Not this one.


Which one?


I have told you before and now you prove it; for your own good, you need:

https://tinyurl.com/y6nr5wbw

So no answer as usual.

Ask a silly question (something I have to admit you are pretty good at)
and you will sometimes get a helpful answer.

My recommendation that you buy yourself a copy of "English Grammar For
Dummies" was well-meant.

You *do need* it.

If I am unable to understand English, as you claim, how can I buy a book from an English website?

I don't say you are unable to understand English at a non-functioning level.

You clearly aren't completely illiterate. But there's a lot of room for
improvement. Perhaps you get your reading and comprehension age up to...
say.... 14?

I am not from Liverpool.

On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 15:19:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 13:53, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 12:09:50 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 11:30, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 10:53:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:58, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 00:18:04 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

After the council has been along with the Magic White Paint most motorists think it is compulsory.

Not this one.


Which one?


I have told you before and now you prove it; for your own good, you need:

https://tinyurl.com/y6nr5wbw

So no answer as usual.

Ask a silly question (something I have to admit you are pretty good at)
and you will sometimes get a helpful answer.

My recommendation that you buy yourself a copy of "English Grammar For
Dummies" was well-meant.

You *do need* it.

Both of my 'Grammars' died over 40 years ago.

On 15/09/2020 10:54, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 00:19, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 16:17, JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

All court does is to decide whether Her Majesty gives the driver a
smacked botty.

So you "think" that passing cyclists (or perhaps even keyboard warrior
cyclists such as yourself) should be able to decide on whether drivers
have committed an offence.

Obviously. The difference is that when a "decision" is made, unlike Her
Majesty, your "keyboard warrior" has no power or means to give the
culprit a smacked botty.

Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect.

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same
category. Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of the
many places where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the rolling
review, amendment and consolidation of statute law?

Pavement cycling has been mentioned by you in this thread.

But not within this topic.

If you were to read your posts back you would notice how the matter
frequently and randomly pops up.

Irrelevant.

It is not.

Oh, you mean just because one person does something, it doesn't
"justify" another doing it.

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

To remind you, the topic had moved into intention of law and issues of
safety.

On the topic of law and safety, do you wish to try to state that cycling
along pedestrian footways (which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

Some places it is, some places it is not.

On 15/09/2020 12:09, JNugent wrote:

Do traffic lights apply to cyclists (must cyclists comply with them)?

Yes, or no?

Which is it?

It is in the rules. What is the end benefit expected by the rule?

On 15/09/2020 17:48, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 17:17:54 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 16:13, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 15:19:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 13:53, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 12:09:50 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 11:30, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 10:53:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:58, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 00:18:04 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

After the council has been along with the Magic White Paint most motorists think it is compulsory.

Not this one.


Which one?


I have told you before and now you prove it; for your own good, you need:

https://tinyurl.com/y6nr5wbw

So no answer as usual.

Ask a silly question (something I have to admit you are pretty good at)
and you will sometimes get a helpful answer.

My recommendation that you buy yourself a copy of "English Grammar For
Dummies" was well-meant.

You *do need* it.

If I am unable to understand English, as you claim, how can I buy a book from an English website?

I don't say you are unable to understand English at a non-functioning level.

You clearly aren't completely illiterate. But there's a lot of room for
improvement. Perhaps you get your reading and comprehension age up to...
say.... 14?

I am not from Liverpool.

That's your problem.

Liverpool English is one of the purest forms of the mother tongue.

On 15/09/2020 17:50, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 15:19:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 13:53, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 12:09:50 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 11:30, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 10:53:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:58, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 September 2020 00:18:04 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

After the council has been along with the Magic White Paint most motorists think it is compulsory.

Not this one.


Which one?


I have told you before and now you prove it; for your own good, you need:

https://tinyurl.com/y6nr5wbw

So no answer as usual.

Ask a silly question (something I have to admit you are pretty good at)
and you will sometimes get a helpful answer.

My recommendation that you buy yourself a copy of "English Grammar For
Dummies" was well-meant.

You *do need* it.

Both of my 'Grammars' died over 40 years ago.

(c) Jimmy Clitheroe; 1956.

I heard him make the very same "joke" in pantomime that year.

On 15/09/2020 20:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:54, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 00:19, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 16:17, JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

All court does is to decide whether Her Majesty gives the driver a
smacked botty.

So you "think" that passing cyclists (or perhaps even keyboard warrior
cyclists such as yourself) should be able to decide on whether drivers
have committed an offence.

Obviously. The difference is that when a "decision" is made, unlike Her
Majesty, your "keyboard warrior" has no power or means to give the
culprit a smacked botty.

Er... exactly.

Should it be otherwise?

And if it were, would it be equally acceptable for a normal citizen to
peremptorily find cyclists guilty of causing danger to pedestrians whose
only crime was to be walking along a footway?

Take your time.

Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect.

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same
category. Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of the
many places where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the rolling
review, amendment and consolidation of statute law?

Pavement cycling has been mentioned by you in this thread.

But not within this topic.

If you were to read your posts back you would notice how the matter
frequently and randomly pops up.

Irrelevant.

It is not.

Oh, you mean just because one person does something, it doesn't
"justify" another doing it.

That is a well-established principle.

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

To remind you, the topic had moved into intention of law and issues
of safety.

On the topic of law and safety, do you wish to try to state that
cycling along pedestrian footways (which you call "pavement cycling")
is lawful?

Some places it is, some places it is not.

I am speaking of *footways* where only walking is allowed in a linear
direction (like the one that runs past my house).

Do you wish to try to claim that cycling along such a footway, some 4'
wide, is lawful or acceptable?

On 15/09/2020 20:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 12:09, JNugent wrote:

Do traffic lights apply to cyclists (must cyclists comply with them)?

Yes, or no?

Which is it?

It is in the rules.

Is that a "Yes" or a "No"?

What is the end benefit expected by the rule?

Safety.

For all, including for those passing lawfully through such a junction on
"green".

On 16/09/2020 00:21, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 20:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:54, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 00:19, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 16:17, JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

All court does is to decide whether Her Majesty gives the driver a
smacked botty.

So you "think" that passing cyclists (or perhaps even keyboard
warrior cyclists such as yourself) should be able to decide on
whether drivers have committed an offence.

Obviously. The difference is that when a "decision" is made, unlike
Her Majesty, your "keyboard warrior" has no power or means to give the
culprit a smacked botty.

Er... exactly.

Should it be otherwise?

And if it were, would it be equally acceptable for a normal citizen to
peremptorily find cyclists guilty of causing danger to pedestrians whose
only crime was to be walking along a footway?

Take your time.

Expressing an opinion is the not the same thing as finding guilty.

You still have the problem that the difference between drivers causing
danger and cyclists causing danger is the difference between statistics
and perception.

Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect.

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same
category. Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of
the many places where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the
rolling review, amendment and consolidation of statute law?

Pavement cycling has been mentioned by you in this thread.

But not within this topic.

If you were to read your posts back you would notice how the matter
frequently and randomly pops up.

Irrelevant.

It is not.

Oh, you mean just because one person does something, it doesn't
"justify" another doing it.

That is a well-established principle.

Well, it is also an established principle that when a cyclist recounts
the occasion of having to dodge actual mortal danger caused by a driver,
trying to counter it by recalling an occasion of seeing a cyclist
breaking the law is rather pathetic.

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

To remind you, the topic had moved into intention of law and issues
of safety.

On the topic of law and safety, do you wish to try to state that
cycling along pedestrian footways (which you call "pavement cycling")
is lawful?

Some places it is, some places it is not.

I am speaking of *footways* where only walking is allowed in a linear
direction (like the one that runs past my house).

Do you wish to try to claim that cycling along such a footway, some 4'
wide, is lawful or acceptable?

If you tell us where your house is it might be be possible to find out
for you.