Move to change law

[Ian Smith]

I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.

Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.

These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
hell should they be treated like little demigods?

Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
even more privileges.

What do others think?

 

[Paul Boyd]

Ian Smith said the following on 12/03/2007 12:36:
> I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
> it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.

Sounds good - just like it is in developed countries such as Holland.

> These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
> are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
> hell should they be treated like little demigods?
>
> Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
> nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
> even more privileges.

Yaaawwwwnnnnnnn.................

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[cupra]

Ian Smith wrote:
> I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood
> boil.
> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
> it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>
> These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't
> tracable, are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights
> so why the hell should they be treated like little demigods?
>
> Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
> nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
> even more privileges.
>
> What do others think?

I think this'll just rehash the usual arguments between ukt and urc....

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Ian Smith <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> What do others think?

I think you are a particularly rubbish troll.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
There's a village in Texas that's missing its idiot.

 

[Nigel Wade]

Ian Smith wrote:

a load of flame bait

>
> What do others think?

That you are a troll, and by x-posting your drivel to the newsgroups you
selected are deliberately attempting to provoke a flame-war.

Now, there's a nice dark rock over there, kindly crawl back under it...

--
Nigel Wade

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=]

Ian Smith wrote:
> I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
> it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>
> These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
> are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
> hell should they be treated like little demigods?
>
> Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
> nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
> even more privileges.
>
> What do others think?

What do you mean by "change the law". I think you'll find that this has
been the situation for some considerable time. "Police Question Motorist
After Collision With Cyclist" is the headline norm. I've never yet seen
it reported that police have questioned the cyclist. Perhaps those
cyclists who bother to use the roads are perfect, so it must be the
motorist's fault.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Præthön]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that it
> is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>
> These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
> are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the hell
> should they be treated like little demigods?
>
> Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
> nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given even
> more privileges.
>
> What do others think?

I think you need to post on the correct forum. You wont get any sympathy
here!

 

[JNugent]

cupra wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
>>I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood
>>boil.
>>Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
>>it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>>
>>These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't
>>tracable, are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights
>>so why the hell should they be treated like little demigods?
>>
>>Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
>>nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
>>even more privileges.
>>
>>What do others think?
>
>
> I think this'll just rehash the usual arguments between ukt and urc....

Not really.

The insurance companies will see it off.

And quite right too.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:36:17 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
>Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
>it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>
>These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
>are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
>hell should they be treated like little demigods?
>
>Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
>nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
>even more privileges.
>
>What do others think?

I think you are TrollB AICMFP.

 

[The Caretaker]

Ian Smith wrote:

> What do others think?

That you're a troll, re-hashing an argument for arguments sake, hence
the obvious cross-post. (Left intentionally)

--
The Caretaker ........

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:36:17 +0000 someone who may be Ian Smith
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.

Yawn.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that it
> is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>
> These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
> are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the hell
> should they be treated like little demigods?
>
> Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
> nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given even
> more privileges.
>
> What do others think?

I gave up thinking a long time ago!

 

[NM]

On 12 Mar, 12:44, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:

>
> Sounds good - just like it is in developed countries such as Holland.

Where it was recently successfully contested.

 

[Jim Bird]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:36:17 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
>Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
>it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>
>These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
>are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
>hell should they be treated like little demigods?
>
>Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
>nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
>even more privileges.
>
>What do others think?

Round our way there are loads of people riding on the pavements. At night they
don't bother with nicities such as lights. So if they cycle out in front of a
car at a junction, it's assumed to be the car drivers fault? Bloody great! No
wonder this country's going to the dogs.

Jim

 

[Jim Bird]

On 12 Mar 2007 06:31:30 -0700, "NM" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12 Mar, 12:44, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds good - just like it is in developed countries such as Holland.
>
>Where it was recently successfully contested.

Well thank God for one bit of decent news.

Jim

 

[elyob]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
> What do others think?

I'm hoping that blood boiling is something that may end up with an early
demise.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, [email protected] <> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:36:17 +0000, Ian Smith <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
> >
> >Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
> >it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
> >
> >These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
> >are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
> >hell should they be treated like little demigods?
> >
> >Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
> >nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
> >even more privileges.
> >
> >What do others think?
>
> I think you are TrollB AICMFP.

I don't think so - it's even more rubbish than the spew he normally
comes out with.

It is an email address that has apparently never before been used in a
usenet posting, however. I'm sure it's completely coincidental that
the last one of them we saw here was [email protected] who appeared
out of nowhere to criticise me after Ewan (who quite by chance also
chose to munge his address with nospam.com) didn't get the resounding
groundswell of support he clearly believed he was owed. Spiro paid
for an individual.net account especially for that one thread, just
like ijsmith has. Spiro decided to start his newsgroups career with a
crosspost to uk.tosspot, just like ijsmith has.

I find such coincidences fascinating.

If I'm knocked off my bike by a frenchman on a moped this evening and
there's no CCTV footage of the event, I hope you lot will have a
whip-round and sue the Duke of Edinburgh for me.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[longwayround]

On 12 Mar, 12:36, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> I saw something in my local paper today that really made my blood boil.
>
> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
> it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.
>
> These bikers don't contribute to the cost of the roads, aren't tracable,
> are forever riding on the pavements and jumping red lights so why the
> hell should they be treated like little demigods?
>
> Until they start contributing to the costs of the roads they use for
> nothing and obeying the traffic laws, surely they shouldn't be given
> even more privileges.
>
> What do others think?

Google it. And, by the way, I pay quite a lot of road tax, thanks.

Luke

 

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-03-12 13:36:17 skrev Ian Smith <[email protected]>:
>
> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume that
> it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a bike.


I expect this is a slight misinterpretation. The motorist can easily kill
or injure the cyclist, whereas the cyclist can hardly inflict bodily harm
on the motorist. The plans you read about are probably meant to take this
into account. So strictly speaking it's not likely the law will say
"driver is always guilty" but something along the lines of "driver must
prove it was the cyclist's fault".

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

 

[JNugent]

Erik Sandblom wrote:
> Den 2007-03-12 13:36:17 skrev Ian Smith <[email protected]>:
>
>>
>> Apparantly there are moves afoot to make the police always assume
>> that it is the car driver who is guilty in any accident involving a
>> bike.
>
>
>
> I expect this is a slight misinterpretation. The motorist can easily
> kill or injure the cyclist, whereas the cyclist can hardly inflict
> bodily harm on the motorist. The plans you read about are probably
> meant to take this into account. So strictly speaking it's not likely
> the law will say "driver is always guilty" but something along the
> lines of "driver must prove it was the cyclist's fault".

"[D]river must prove it was the cyclist's fault"
(assuming it to BE the cyclist's fault - it works
just as well vice-versa) is the pre-existing legal
position and (of course) requires no change in the
law.