|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
On Apr 12, 6:41*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, *wrote: Should have been on the books years ago You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here.. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin.... You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles." Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max life, *he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH, motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft' option. Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists so the whole thing is still a bit one sided. It would be much simpler if the same laws applied to road users as they do elsewhere, i.e. manslaughter, aggravated assault, where an offence under section 18 carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, etc. Why on earth are road users singled out for special treatment when it comes to killing or injuring people? Alternatively road laws could be applied everywhere so that, for example, causing death by dangerous knifing would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years instead of life. Its long overdue time that these anomalies were sorted and the pro- motoring bias removed once and for all. Why do you only consider cyclist hurting motorists & never cyclists hurting pedestrians? Why do you only consider cyclists hurting pedestrians and never motorists hurting pedestrians? -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
On Apr 12, 6:38*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
See Janet in her car. Janet has never paid "road tax" in her life. Cyclist John is the owner/keeper of the car. The cyclist John (owner/keeper of the car) pays "road tax", the driver Janet does not. Bingo - you've finally got it. -- Simon Mason |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
On 12/04/2011 10:42, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 01:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon wrote: snip See Janet in her car. Janet has never paid "road tax" in her life. Cyclist John pays it all. The cyclist John pays "road tax", the driver Janet does not. Cyclist John is a ****wit. People call him Simple. -- Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists. A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users. I'll call an ambulance Judith. Simple Simon must have overdosed on the stupidity pills again. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
Doug wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:41 pm, Tony Dragon wrote: On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, wrote: Should have been on the books years ago You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin... You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles." Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max life, he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH, motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft' option. Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists so the whole thing is still a bit one sided. It would be much simpler if the same laws applied to road users as they do elsewhere, i.e. manslaughter, aggravated assault, where an offence under section 18 carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, etc. Why on earth are road users singled out for special treatment when it comes to killing or injuring people? Alternatively road laws could be applied everywhere so that, for example, causing death by dangerous knifing would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years instead of life. Its long overdue time that these anomalies were sorted and the pro- motoring bias removed once and for all. Why do you only consider cyclist hurting motorists & never cyclists hurting pedestrians? Why do you only consider cyclists hurting pedestrians and never motorists hurting pedestrians? maybe because most cycle v pedestrian injury accidents are because of cyclist selfishness/illegal manouevres. I walked the dogs this morning, I saw hundreds of cars, none of them committed any noticeable lawbreaking and none of them drove along the pavement in any way. I saw one cyclist, he was riding along the pavement causing pedestrians to cower out of his way into the bushes. 100 per cent of the cyclists I saw this morning were selfish and law breaking. Zero per cent of the cars were doing anything other than driving normally and sensibly. This is why the general public dislike cyclists, because they are selfish and ignorant in general. I am sure there are some good cyclists, but I very, very rarely see one. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, wrote: Should have been on the books years ago You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin... You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles." Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max life, he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH, motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft' option. Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists Whoops! Seems THEY CAN http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390 -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
On Apr 12, 7:29*pm, The Medway Handyman
wrote: Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists Whoops! *Seems THEY CANhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966andhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390 -- Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, he was the numpty who nearly doored a cyclist by opening his car door without looking. The cyclist then decked him with a single punch. -- Simon Mason |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, wrote: Should have been on the books years ago You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin... You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles." Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max life, he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH, motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft' option. Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists Whoops! Seems THEY CAN http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390 you don't understand cyclist logic at all, Tony Magdi was no longer a motorist since his car was stopped. The cyclist had also dismounted and so was no longer a cyclist, therefore this was a pedestrian attacking and killing another pedestrian, nothing to do with cars or bicycles at all. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
On Apr 12, 7:57*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote: On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, *wrote: Should have been on the books years ago You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin.... You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles." Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max life, *he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH, motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft' option. Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists Whoops! *Seems THEY CAN http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11746966and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-11865390 you don't understand cyclist logic at all, Tony Magdi was no longer a motorist since his car was stopped. *The cyclist had also dismounted and so was no longer a cyclist, therefore this was a pedestrian attacking and killing another pedestrian, nothing to do with cars or bicycles at all.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Both had been seen driving and cycling prior to the incident, so can be called drivers and cyclists. The pedestrian in the other story at no point was seen cycling, so cannot be called a cyclist as it may not have even been his bike. -- Simon Mason |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
On 12/04/2011 18:51, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:38 pm, Tony wrote: See Janet in her car. Janet has never paid "road tax" in her life. Cyclist John is the owner/keeper of the car. The cyclist John (owner/keeper of the car) pays "road tax", the driver Janet does not. Bingo - you've finally got it. -- Simon Mason I got that years ago, you should check my posts before making such comments, but at least you agree that the owner/keeper of a motor vehicle has to pay a specific tax/duty to enable the vehicle to be used on the public roads. And yes I know that there certain exemptions. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval
On 12/04/2011 18:45, Doug wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:41 pm, Tony wrote: On 12/04/2011 11:55, Doug wrote: On Apr 10, 6:26 pm, wrote: Should have been on the books years ago You should read the wriggling by the cyclist groups, just like on here. What is the matter with them?, stay off the pavements, ride sensibly and don't run into people and the law won't be used, will it? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ngerous-cyclin... You source says... "In 2009, the last year for which road death statistics have been collated, no pedestrians were killed by cyclists whereas 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles." Actually I think the new legislation is a good idea as it would apply the same 'soft' laws to cyclists as there are for motorists at present. So, instead of the cyclist being done for manslaughter, max life, he will get dangerous cycling instead, max 14 years. OTOH, motorists who kill cyclists will still be given the same 'soft' option. Also note that cyclists CAN NOT kill motorists so the whole thing is still a bit one sided. It would be much simpler if the same laws applied to road users as they do elsewhere, i.e. manslaughter, aggravated assault, where an offence under section 18 carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, etc. Why on earth are road users singled out for special treatment when it comes to killing or injuring people? Alternatively road laws could be applied everywhere so that, for example, causing death by dangerous knifing would carry a maximum penalty of 14 years instead of life. Its long overdue time that these anomalies were sorted and the pro- motoring bias removed once and for all. Why do you only consider cyclist hurting motorists& never cyclists hurting pedestrians? Why do you only consider cyclists hurting pedestrians and never motorists hurting pedestrians? -- . UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated). http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. Yet more lies about what I have posted. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
dangerous cyclist causes death of OAP | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 89 | June 1st 10 10:42 AM |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous." | Doug[_3_] | UK | 56 | September 14th 09 05:57 PM |
New offence created for causing death via carless driving | Duncan Smith | UK | 8 | January 10th 08 12:00 PM |
Walking is DANGEROUS! -- Third pedestrian death prompts | serge | Mountain Biking | 0 | February 9th 05 03:44 PM |
Sunday Times: Death row: Britain's most dangerous road | Sufaud | UK | 45 | September 28th 04 09:06 PM |