Yesterday's 'Bikes Alive' action against TfL was a success.

On Jan 17, 9:51*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 17/01/2012 06:27, Doug wrote:









On Jan 16, 10:45 pm, Peter *wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter * *wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter * *wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to get
away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow proving
it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. *They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it" usually
with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of licence
confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they can be proved
to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill and
get away with it.

Doug.

A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

That is why...

A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Well Doug-Weapon.

If (as happened near me the other day) somebody jumps in front of a
train, then the driver, as he was in charge of the train has killed the
other person, but it is not his fault.

Change that to cyclist riding in front of a bus, the result is the same.

Nope. The difference being that the train driver not only cannot steer
but requires a very long stopping distance and the victim shouldn't be
on the track anyway.

So...

-- .
A driving licence is still a licence to kill.

On Jan 17, 11:55*pm, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:27:11 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:45*pm, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter *wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter *wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to
get away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow
proving it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a
licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. *They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it"
usually with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of
licence confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they
can be proved to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill
and get away with it.

Doug.

A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's fault?
Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might kill someone
or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and therefore should
never be to blame.

That is why...

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it isn't.
Because a driver might kill someone does not mean
s/he has a licence to kill someone.
PS I can imagine scenarios where a bicyclist CAN kill a driver.

Such as? Drivers are well protected by metal shells and bicycles are
very light and unprotected by comparison.

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug writes:

An estimated 100 cyclists, people on foot and the disabled. Better
than I expected in Winter. Maybe they should be called 'Bikes Alive -
Cars Dead' instead?

"'bikes alive' is a new direct action campaigning group to counter the
lethargy of transport for london, and its prioritising of london
traffic flow over the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. tonight saw
the first of a series of direct action traffic calming gatherings at
king's cross designed to pressure TfL into more urgent action over the
deadly junction..."

Before the start, it was quite comical to listen to the LCC `outer
circle' types telling all their war stories about how `defiant' they
were being to show up in the face of `the official position' from their
`hierarchy' :-). One of them was even arguing with me that it would be
constructive to spend the whole hour standing on the pavement!

Once it got going, it was also quite instructive to see the group
working out how to conduct a leaderless walk/ ride from first principles
and how similar to the London Critical Mass that ended up being.

p.s. The next one has been announced for 23rd January 2012 at
URL:http://bikesalive.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/we-ride-again/.

--
Mark

On 18/01/2012 07:15, Doug wrote:
On Jan 17, 7:48 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 17/01/2012 06:27, Doug wrote:



If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

Not only can a cyclist kill a driver, they have;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-killed-motori...

Duh! This is about collisions. Do try to keep up.


A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

Thank you for your input Doug-Weapon

On 18/01/2012 07:18, Doug wrote:
On Jan 17, 9:51 pm, Tony wrote:
On 17/01/2012 06:27, Doug wrote:









On Jan 16, 10:45 pm, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to get
away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow proving
it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it" usually
with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of licence
confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they can be proved
to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill and
get away with it.

Doug.

A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's
fault? Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might
kill someone or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and
therefore should never be to blame.

That is why...

A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Well Doug-Weapon.

If (as happened near me the other day) somebody jumps in front of a
train, then the driver, as he was in charge of the train has killed the
other person, but it is not his fault.

Change that to cyclist riding in front of a bus, the result is the same.

Nope. The difference being that the train driver not only cannot steer
but requires a very long stopping distance and the victim shouldn't be
on the track anyway.

So...


A driving licence is still not a licence to kill, never has been.


And the cyclist should not be riding in front of a bus.

On 18/01/2012 07:19, Doug wrote:
On Jan 17, 11:55 pm, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:27:11 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:45 pm, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:44:11 +0000, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/01/2012 06:26, Doug wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:00 am, Peter wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:39:12 -0800, Doug wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:31 am, Peter wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:00:39 -0800, Doug wrote:

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it issn't

People who kill with a vehicle on our roads are often allowed to
get away with it, by blaming the vulnerable victim, or by somehow
proving it was an unavoidable 'accident', which amounts to a
licence to kill.

no it does NOT amount to a licence to kill. They still have to go
through a process before beeing "allowed to get away with it"
usually with a stiff fine, term of imprisonment, withdrawal of
licence confiscation off vehicle, or all of these things if they
can be proved to have broken a law.

How many more times? What about the drivers where it is unproven
because the vulnerable victim is blamed instead?

OTOH people driving without a licence are seldom allowed to kill
and get away with it.

Doug.

A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

If the 'victim' is to blame then it is his fault.

and thus does NOT prove that "a driving licence is a licence to kill"

If somebody is killed by somebody else how can it be the victim's fault?
Every driver sets off in the full knowledge that they might kill someone
or be killed but a cyclist cannot kill a driver and therefore should
never be to blame.

That is why...

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

No it isn't.
Because a driver might kill someone does not mean
s/he has a licence to kill someone.
PS I can imagine scenarios where a bicyclist CAN kill a driver.

Such as? Drivers are well protected by metal shells and bicycles are
very light and unprotected by comparison.


A driving licence is not a licence to kill, never has been.

Thank you for your input Doug-Weapon

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:19:56 -0800, Doug wrote:



Such as? Drivers are well protected by metal shells and bicycles are
very light and unprotected by comparison.

That does not give the holder of a driving licence a licence to kill.

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Bull****.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Jan 18, 7:18*pm, Mark Williams ] wrote:


Before the start, it was quite comical to listen to the LCC `outer
circle' types telling all their war stories about how `defiant' they
were being to show up in the face of `the official position' from their
`hierarchy' :-). *One of them was even arguing with me that it would be
constructive to spend the whole hour standing on the pavement!

Once it got going, it was also quite instructive to see the group
working out how to conduct a leaderless walk/ ride from first principles
and how similar to the London Critical Mass that ended up being.

Well done for attending, Mark.


--
Simon Mason

On Jan 18, 10:32*pm, Peter Keller wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:19:56 -0800, Doug wrote:

Such as? Drivers are well protected by metal shells and bicycles are
very light and unprotected by comparison.

That does not give the holder of a driving licence a licence to kill.

I thought I had explained it to you. Do try to keep up. It is a
licence to kill when drivers are allowed to get way with killings on
some excuse or other. An unlicenced driver would never be allowed to
get away with it.


-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Bull****.

Rubbish.

On 18/01/2012 23:50, Doug wrote:
On Jan 18, 10:32 pm, Peter wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:19:56 -0800, Doug wrote:

Such as? Drivers are well protected by metal shells and bicycles are
very light and unprotected by comparison.

That does not give the holder of a driving licence a licence to kill.

I thought I had explained it to you. Do try to keep up. It is a
licence to kill when drivers are allowed to get way with killings on
some excuse or other. An unlicenced driver would never be allowed to
get away with it.

An unlicensed driver involved in a fatal accident would indeed not be
able to "get away" with the offence of causing death whilst driving
without a licence.

See if you can work out why that's so.