Re: More pavement killers escape justice
Marie
> What about this lot, Doug?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8436558.stm
>
> "There have even been injuries to pedestrians. Last year two-year-old Madison
> McNair was knocked down by a 70-year-old woman driving a mobility scooter on a
> pedestrianised street in Doncaster.
>
> Caught in the wheels of the machine, the toddler was dragged down the road as
> the driver carried on apparently unaware of what had happened. Since mobility
> scooters are exempt from the Road Traffic Act the police were powerless to act
> against the driver.
>
> The death of 90-year-old Lilian Macey in September led to no action by police
> against the scooter driver allegedly responsible"
>
> I somehow doubt that being exempt from RTA means that they're exempt from the
> *law*! Surely prosecutions could be mounted for various offences up to and
> including manslaughter? I don't accept 'powerless to act'.
>
> Mike
> --http://www.corestore.org
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'
Doug, please answer.
BrianW
<tumbleweed>
Mentalguy2k8
"BrianW" <brianwh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aba31197-e822-4b33...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
<tumbleweed>
Like the inside of Doug's head
BrianW
> "BrianW" <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
That's grossly insulting and offensive. Some tumbleweeds are quite
intelligent.
webreader
Itz obvious init why he wernt charged, the police & the CPS are users
of mobility scooters, so they would not prosucute one of their own.
As Doug uses on of those things he will not condemn the scooter rider
for the same reason.
WSR
Doug
who causes death or injury to the vulnerable, preferably with a
lifetime ban. I am not sure though what the consequences would be of a
ban on, say, a wheelchair or mobility buggy user. Maybe the State
should provide alternative, free transport instead for such disabled
people?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Mrcheerful
How?
Adrian
saying:
> Of course, they should be treated the same as any other vehicle user who
> causes death or injury to the vulnerable, preferably with a lifetime
> ban. I am not sure though what the consequences would be of a ban on,
> say, a wheelchair or mobility buggy user. Maybe the State should provide
> alternative, free transport instead for such disabled people?
And what form would you suggest that transport would take?
After all, in your utopia, there would be no motor vehicles and nobody
with the skills to drive one.
Vicko Zoomba
An old family friend was knocked down a few years ago by an old woman
in a mobility scooter inside the local town shopping centre. She broke
my friends ankle. The driver just kept on going not giving a shit.
McKevvy
martin
> Doug<jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> Of course, they should be treated the same as any other vehicle user who
>> causes death or injury to the vulnerable, preferably with a lifetime
>> ban. I am not sure though what the consequences would be of a ban on,
>> say, a wheelchair or mobility buggy user. Maybe the State should provide
>> alternative, free transport instead for such disabled people?
>
> And what form would you suggest that transport would take?
Sedan chair.
Mrcheerful
and how many teams of able bodied to carry it?
martin
two to three per chair depending on how far they needed to carry the
person. For a 10 minute walk into town and back you might get away with
one. You'd also need a minibus to transport the teams so that they could
do the relay changeovers at prearranged places.
In addition soup replenishing stations across town to keep the teams
going, especially on these cold days.
I can see an entire industry being built on this idea.
>
>
Mrcheerful
I say put em back in their homes. 9 out of 10 of the ones I see on
'mobility' scooters are such fat lumps that it is no wonder they have a job
to get around, some walking might encourage them to lose a bit of weight and
get fitter.
BrianW
> Maybe the State
> should provide alternative, free transport instead for such disabled
> people?
In your State-free, anarchist paradise? How would that happen, Doug?
Vicko Zoomba
That's a circular argument. Cant walk so they need mobility. Get fat
and the chances of them walking is even more remote and their
dependability upon scooters increases - just like their weight.
McKevvy
Mrcheerful
the fatness precedes the inability to walk that comes with worn out joints
and older age. take away their mobility scooters, make them walk to the
shops or go hungry, they would soon decrease in weight and their fitness
will improve.
Bollen
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:3e51217d-aa16-45d7...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> Of course, they should be treated the same as any other vehicle user
> who causes death or injury to the vulnerable, preferably with a
> lifetime ban. I am not sure though what the consequences would be of a
> ban on, say, a wheelchair or mobility buggy user.
Why should it make a difference if someone is using a fatty buggy, most
people who use these do so out of lifestyle choices, (being to fat to walk,
bad diet etc). Only people with a genuine need should be allowed to drive
them on the footpath.
> Maybe the State
> should provide alternative, free transport instead for such disabled
> people?
So you want the State (which you dispise) to provide it, and the tax payer
to pay for your perks. You want hard working people like me to provide a
leech like yourself with a "free" hypermobile. How many extra days a year
would I have to work to keep you? Do the taxpayers get a say in subsidising
your hypocritical lifestyle, when a lot of your health problems are your own
fault for having a deliberatly shitty diet.
Nick Finnigan
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
> news:3e51217d-aa16-45d7...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Of course, they should be treated the same as any other vehicle user
>> who causes death or injury to the vulnerable, preferably with a
>> lifetime ban. I am not sure though what the consequences would be of a
>> ban on, say, a wheelchair or mobility buggy user.
>
> Why should it make a difference if someone is using a fatty buggy, most
> people who use these do so out of lifestyle choices, (being to fat to walk,
> bad diet etc). Only people with a genuine need should be allowed to drive
> them on the footpath.
Only people with a genuine need are allowed to drive them on a footpath.
4. (a) (i) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/uksi_19882268_en_1.htm
Mike Sales
"Vicko Zoomba" wrote in message
>That's a circular argument. Cant walk so they need mobility. Get fat
>and the chances of them walking is even more remote and their
>dependability upon scooters increases - just like their weight.
Bit like motorists really.
Mike Sales
Doug
> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > Of course, they should be treated the same as any other vehicle user who
> > causes death or injury to the vulnerable, preferably with a lifetime
> > ban. I am not sure though what the consequences would be of a ban on,
> > say, a wheelchair or mobility buggy user. Maybe the State should provide
> > alternative, free transport instead for such disabled people?
>
> And what form would you suggest that transport would take?
>
>
> After all, in your utopia, there would be no motor vehicles and nobody
> with the skills to drive one.
>
the sick or disabled for example.
Doug
Doug.
Norman Wells
> On 5 Jan, 11:17, martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 05/01/2010 09:54, Adrian wrote:
>>
>>> Doug<jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>> were saying:
>>>> Maybe the State should provide alternative, free transport instead for
>>>> such disabled people?
>>
>>> And what form would you suggest that transport would take?
>>
>> Sedan chair.
>>
> Not a bad idea! ;) Good exercise too.
Wouldn't an electric chair be more eco-friendly, Doug?
Tony Dragon
How many volts?
--
Tony Dragon
Brimstone
"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4YqdnX2cvsqDxtnW...@bt.com...
Start with "lots" and work upwards from there. The same with current, make
sure there's plenty available.
Derek Geldard
wrote:
>On 5 Jan, 09:54, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>> > Of course, they should be treated the same as any other vehicle user who
>> > causes death or injury to the vulnerable, preferably with a lifetime
>> > ban. I am not sure though what the consequences would be of a ban on,
>> > say, a wheelchair or mobility buggy user. Maybe the State should provide
>> > alternative, free transport instead for such disabled people?
>>
>> And what form would you suggest that transport would take?
>>
>Electric taxi service?
Electric hobby horses ?
>There would still be some used for essential services, like helping
>the sick or disabled for example.
... and the collecting of dead bodies for communal burial once per
month.
Let's face it, do we *Really Need* barmy old OAP's. ?
Derek.
Bod
Bod
Adrian
saying:
> On 5 Jan, 09:54, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>> > Of course, they should be treated the same as any other vehicle user
>> > who causes death or injury to the vulnerable, preferably with a
>> > lifetime ban. I am not sure though what the consequences would be of
>> > a ban on, say, a wheelchair or mobility buggy user. Maybe the State
>> > should provide alternative, free transport instead for such disabled
>> > people?
>> And what form would you suggest that transport would take?
> Electric taxi service?
So the only difference is the motive power for this motor vehicle -
electricity rather than internal combustion?
Sorry - I thought you wanted LESS electricity generation and usage, not
vastly more...?
>> After all, in your utopia, there would be no motor vehicles and nobody
>> with the skills to drive one.
> There would still be some used for essential services, like helping
Doug Bollen
> for example.
Yeh, we know.
Except, of course, you forget a couple of essential details. You don't
want roads to be built. You don't want people to have driving skills. You
don't want vehicles to be built in any kind of quantity so as to allow
economies of scale.
These electric taxis will pollute, quite probably, worse than current
internal combustion vehicles (all factors included), and will be utterly
unaffordable to use.
But let's not let reality and facts intrude, eh?
Brimstone
"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:THM0n.22392$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Evidence?
I presume that someone suffering from arthritis at a young age leading to a
reducing ability to walk and take exercise leading to weight gain would have
no bearing on your line of argument?
Notice I did not suggest that you had thought about this, unlike you, I
prefer not to insult the afflicted.
Doug
elderly and infirm to be as independent as possible as this is much
cheaper for the taxpayer than either a carer or a care home. It
follows therefore that if a pensioner, say, is deprived by law of
their mobility buggy then the State must step in to provide an
alternative or else pay more.
The problem is that if the State just left loads of afflicted people
to die from neglect then this would increase unrest and might
eventually lead to some sort of a revolution in which those in power
were deposed. A fine balance of minimum care and expenditure must be
struck so as not to displease the relatively rich and healthy while
keeping the afflicted provided for.
Given the present economic downturn and plight of the elderly and
disabled, I expect mobility buggies to proliferate on our pavements
while, unfortunately, disabled cyclists will remain neglected. At the
same time, the rush to provide step-free access at railway stations
and elsewhere will slow down or peter out completely.
Doug..
Mrcheerful
certainly some of them are genuine cases, but many are just fat gits and
have put themselves in to the state they are now in, and with a mobility
allowance to support them they have no impetus to improve their lot and
become a massive drain on the public purse, and a nuisance on the pavements.
Brimstone
"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1em1n.23112$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Evidence?
Mrcheerful
you know as well as I that any written evidence would be so politically
incorrect that no-one would dare collect or disseminate it. My evidence is
both personal knowledge and observation.
Brimstone
"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TFp1n.23233$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Which, accurately translated, means "Fuck all".
Mrcheerful
YAAPAICMFP
The Medway Handyman
> "Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> certainly some of them are genuine cases, but many are just fat
>>>> gits and have put themselves in to the state they are now in, and
>>>> with a mobility allowance to support them they have no impetus to
>>>> improve their lot and become a massive drain on the public purse,
>>>> and a nuisance on the pavements.
>>>>
>>> Evidence?
>>
>> you know as well as I that any written evidence would be so
>> politically incorrect that no-one would dare collect or disseminate
>> it. My evidence is both personal knowledge and observation.
>>
> Which, accurately translated, means "Fuck all".
Which translated means exactly that any written evidence would be so
politically incorrect that no-one would dare collect or disseminate it.
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.