Re: Who decided that all motorists were criminals?
John Hearns
>
> Chapman has herpes, Spindrift is made of slime
Really? Spindrift, if you could spare some could you blow my tyres up
sometime?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<derderd...@hotmail.com> said in
<5d93d769-e12d-47f2...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>Yet another person who has this crazy idea, for which there is no
>evidence whatsoever (except in pretty much every large town and city
>centre), that motorists are being systematically persecuted by the
>authorities.
It's spelt "prosecuted". It's funny how you rail against
decriminalised parking enforcement, and rail again against
enforcement of the criminal law against motorists. No, not funny,
actually, since it's obvious that you are a loon who thinks that the
law should not be enforced where it conflicts with the personal
convenience of one, and only one, class of road user. The class
that, interestingly, happens to bring most of the danger to the
roads. And then you wonder why people here think you are a troll.
Can I interest you in this box of critical faculties? Or perhaps a
slice or two of self-criticism?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Martin
Nuxx Bar wrote:
> I'm not going to back up those statements with any evidence,
Nothing new there.
If all motorists were criminals, then they would be locked up in cages,
and only allowed out in public on licence. ;-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
<derderd...@hotmail.com> said in
<8e1d2b6d-87d1-4c35...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>Yep. No-one's allowed to criticise any aspect of the law or its
>enforcement, because they're perfect in every way.
Please give the posting reference where any of us said that.
>Except when
>cyclists are fined for jumping red lights in Oxford, then the trolls
>whinge. They want to see what they regard as sensible, proportionate
>enforcement for cyclists, but they want to see motorists punished as
>much as possible. Whereas I just want sensible, proportionate, safety-
>led enforcement for all modes of transport.
So that's fine, then: speeding and parking are both blights on the
roadscape, and you clearly will have no problem with them being
tackled. I am quite happy to go along with your complaints about
decriminalised parking enforcement; I will go so far as to advocate
that it be reclassified as a criminal matter and pursued by traffic
wardens employed by the Police. Obviously excess speed has to be
tackled, because of the robust evidence linking both incidence and
severity of collisions to speed, for a given road type. And since
motor drivers are responsible for virtually all serious and fatal
injuries on the roads, any "sensible, proportionate, safety-led"
policy will necessarily apply harsher penalties to those who pose
more danger. And guess what? That's exactly what happens right
now! Imperfectly, yes, and not uniformly applied, but at least in
spirit.
>Why do the trolls discriminate against motorists?
Assuming that by trolls you mean people who disagree with you, i.e.
just about everybody in this newsgroup, most of them don't
discriminate against motorists. Most of us simply recognise what is
obvious to all but the most die-hard Mr. Toad wannabe: that with the
privilege of driving, and the greater danger that brings with it,
comes responsibility and the acceptance that the privilege is
withdrawn if abused. This is scarcely a novel or even controversial
idea.
>Crapman applauds parking enforcement which is conducted to raise
>revenue rather than keep traffic moving
Bzzt! Wrong. I applaud parking enforcement which is conducted to
keep traffic moving. I don't care about any other kind of parking
enforcement - i.e. I neither applaud it nor denigrate it - because
it's not relevant to me. When I park, I do so legally. If I were
to park on someone's private property and not pay for the privilege,
I would I suppose be prepared to risk a civil penalty for doing so.
But as it happens, I don't do that - I pay, or I take some other
mode that does not involve parking.
I suppose being prepared to countenance some mode other than the
private car makes one a rabid anti-car zealot, in Nuxxworld, but
most of us are rather less blinkered than that.
Tim Dunne
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:05f744tp8r3u6g9dv...@4ax.com...
Guy, please stop feeding the pond life.
Tim
--
We got a thousand points of light | Greetings from Birmingham, UK
For the homeless man | All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
We got a kinder, gentler, | Is your ISP pimping your data?
Machine gun hand Neil Young | www.badphorm.co.uk
A.C.P.Crawshaw
whining into context.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<derderd...@hotmail.com> said in
<cd4d8d65-7139-49f4...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
The vast majority of motorists freely admit to breaking the law but
only a minority are criminals, since to be a criminal one must be
prosecuted and convicted. Most of them get away with it.
I am not surprised you are in denial about this, you are in denial
about most things, including the fact that Paul Smith was a
delusional crank. But at least he had the courage to put his name
to his words, and he had the wit to think of them himself. You are
a spineless brainwashed turd, but there is some minor entertainment
value in your characterising someone as a mass murderer just because
they were able to identify the flaws in an incredibly flawed piece
of arse-about policy based evidence making.
himself
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:r2pl845q89tgam7tt...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <derderd...@hotmail.com> said in
> <cd4d8d65-7139-49f4...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
>
> The vast majority of motorists freely admit to breaking the law but
> only a minority are criminals, since to be a criminal one must be
> prosecuted and convicted. Most of them get away with it.
Tonight I rode my cycle with a flashing rear light.
I was passed by a police car and got away with it.
Does this even things up?
Come to think of it, no bell either.
Martin
himself wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
> news:r2pl845q89tgam7tt...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>> <derderd...@hotmail.com> said in
>> <cd4d8d65-7139-49f4...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> The vast majority of motorists freely admit to breaking the law but
>> only a minority are criminals, since to be a criminal one must be
>> prosecuted and convicted. Most of them get away with it.
>
> Tonight I rode my cycle with a flashing rear light.
> I was passed by a police car and got away with it.
Got away with what?
> Does this even things up?
Where do you think you were breaking the law?
> Come to think of it, no bell either.
You don't need a bell on a bike.
Martin
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
> news:r2pl845q89tgam7tt...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>> <derderd...@hotmail.com> said in
>> <cd4d8d65-7139-49f4...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> The vast majority of motorists freely admit to breaking the law but
>> only a minority are criminals, since to be a criminal one must be
>> prosecuted and convicted. Most of them get away with it.
>
> Tonight I rode my cycle with a flashing rear light.
> I was passed by a police car and got away with it.
Got away with what?
> Does this even things up?
Where do you think you are breaking the law?
> Come to think of it, no bell either.
You don't need a bell on a bike.
Martin
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
> news:r2pl845q89tgam7tt...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>> <derderd...@hotmail.com> said in
>> <cd4d8d65-7139-49f4...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> The vast majority of motorists freely admit to breaking the law but
>> only a minority are criminals, since to be a criminal one must be
>> prosecuted and convicted. Most of them get away with it.
>
> Tonight I rode my cycle with a flashing rear light.
> I was passed by a police car and got away with it.
Got away with what?
> Does this even things up?
Where do you think you are breaking the law?
> Come to think of it, no bell either.
You don't need a bell on a bike.
Martin
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
> news:r2pl845q89tgam7tt...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>> <derderd...@hotmail.com> said in
>> <cd4d8d65-7139-49f4...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> The vast majority of motorists freely admit to breaking the law but
>> only a minority are criminals, since to be a criminal one must be
>> prosecuted and convicted. Most of them get away with it.
>
> Tonight I rode my cycle with a flashing rear light.
> I was passed by a police car and got away with it.
Got away with what?
> Does this even things up?
Where do you think you are breaking the law?
> Come to think of it, no bell either.
You don't need a bell on a bike.
Just zis Guy, you know?
said in <g6gejp$31k0$1...@energise.enta.net>:
>Tonight I rode my cycle with a flashing rear light.
> I was passed by a police car and got away with it.
>Does this even things up?
>Come to think of it, no bell either.
Both perfectly legal. The RVLR was amended to allow flashing
lights, and the law does not require that a bell is fitted other
than at point of sale.
Ian Smith
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
> news:r2pl845q89tgam7tt...@4ax.com...
> >
> > only a minority are criminals, since to be a criminal one must be
> > prosecuted and convicted. Most of them get away with it.
>
> Tonight I rode my cycle with a flashing rear light.
> I was passed by a police car and got away with it.
> Does this even things up?
Even what up? Flashing lights are legal on a bicycle.
> Come to think of it, no bell either.
And the relevance of that is? I recently walked past a police car and
I wasn't carrying a bell. They also regularly drive past my house,
but that does have a bell.
regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Ian Smith
> On 27 Jul 2008 09:45:27 GMT, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:14:39 +0100, himself <ber...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
> >> news:r2pl845q89tgam7tt...@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> > The vast majority of motorists freely admit to breaking the law but
> >> > only a minority are criminals, since to be a criminal one must be
> >> > prosecuted and convicted. Most of them get away with it.
> >>
> >> Tonight I rode my cycle with a flashing rear light.
> >> I was passed by a police car and got away with it.
> >> Does this even things up?
> >
> >Even what up? Flashing lights are legal on a bicycle.
>
Non.
Bon seul.
regards, Ian SMith
Ian Smith
>
> <Checks HC>
> Crikey, that never used to be the case, I'm sure.
No, it's only a couple of years old (from memory).
The law is actually a bit of a dogs breakfast. If you read it
strictly, if the light can only flash (ie, it does not have a steady
mode), about the only requirement is that it is red. However, if the
light in question is capable of emitting a steady light (ie, every red
LED light I have ever seen) then it needs to satisfy loads of other
requirements and satisfy the BS, even if you don't use it in steady
mode.
So that means that a hypothetical crappy flashing-only light would be
perfectly legal, but a very good light that meets all the performance
requirements, but hasn't actually passed the BS would be illegal, even
though it were superior in every respect to the legal one.
It is yet another evidence of the fact that the powers that be in
charge of the highways are completely ignorant of cyclists needs. (At
least that's the charitable interpretation - the alternative is that
it is an active policy of disadvantaging and endangering cyclists.)