Brutal driver walks
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Brutal driver walks
 

On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 23:48:29 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

That case is far from over.

http://road.cc/content/news/177630-p...%C2%A3150-fine

Brutal driver walks
 

On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Well, here is the cyclists solution to the identity problem =
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0z-ROYYcdc

Brutal driver walks
 

On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..


Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Brutal driver walks
 

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:06:06 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..


Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

So the case went through due process and the guilty party brought to account for himself in court?

Brutal driver walks
 

On 04/02/2016 11:04, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:06:06 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..


Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

So the case went through due process and the guilty party brought to account for himself in court?


Just a £2,200 fine for Jason Howard, described as a 'vile little man' by
the deceased's father.

Brutal driver walks
 

On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Forget the offence for a moment - it could be anything from picking the
council's flowers to bank robbery - would you impose a draconian (not to
say vindictive) penalty on somebody against whom there is no evidence,
merely on the basis that there is no evidence against him and that you
"think" that he should have confessed to something you suspect him of
committing even though there is no evidence to support that belief to an
acceptable standard of proof?

Is that really what you mean?

Brutal driver walks
 

On Thursday, 4 February 2016 07:24:35 UTC, Alycidon wrote:

Good first step.

QUOTE:
"Sam Jones, CTC Campaign Coordinator, said the case was being looked at by the organisation's Cyclists' Defence Fund, which works to raise awareness of the law relating to cycling and offers help with legal cases.

"We're now aware of the Police's reporting of their investigation, and will follow up accordingly. CTC's Cyclist Defence Fund has been in touch with Reginald Scot and we are now looking into how we can help him find justice for this awful incident.

"Considering the seriousness of the injury and how blatant the offence, this is very weak from the court not to have imposed the maximum penalty on the unnamed Nottingham man who failed to provide the driver's details."

- See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/177630-p....UjxA8UyH.dpuf

Brutal driver walks
 

Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime
driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed
to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we
have never heard of such a case..

Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Contract cancer, filth.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Brutal driver walks
 

On 04/02/2016 20:43, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime
driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed
to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we
have never heard of such a case..

Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Contract cancer, filth.

That's another example of something you never say.

Brutal driver walks
 

JNugent wrote:
On 04/02/2016 20:43, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a
lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was
allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I
wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed
to get away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it
every way.

Contract cancer, filth.

That's another example of something you never say.

He cocked up there.
What a piece of **** this person is. I won't call it a man.

Brutal driver walks
 

On Thursday, 4 February 2016 20:44:04 UTC, John Smith wrote:


Contract cancer, filth.

One at a time, please.

https://twitter.com/BogTrotter1/stat...52652382916608

Brutal driver walks
 

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 04/02/2016 11:04, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:06:06 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime
driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed
to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why
we have never heard of such a case..


Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Philip Benwell didn't appear to "get away with it" when he got a 12 month
sentence.

So the case went through due process and the guilty party brought to
account for himself in court?

Just a £2,200 fine for Jason Howard, described as a 'vile little man' by
the deceased's father.

You said "Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children". Since
'cyclists' and 'children' are both plural words you're not doing very well
by having to cite an example from 8 years ago.

You could could also tell us the proportion of motorists that have received
more than a £2,200 fine after mowing a child down. You should have plenty of
examples because there will have been about 260 in those 8 years.

Brutal driver walks
 

On 05/02/2016 08:31, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 04/02/2016 11:04, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:06:06 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime
driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed
to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why
we have never heard of such a case..


Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Philip Benwell didn't appear to "get away with it" when he got a 12 month
sentence.

So the case went through due process and the guilty party brought to
account for himself in court?

Just a £2,200 fine for Jason Howard, described as a 'vile little man' by
the deceased's father.

You said "Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children". Since
'cyclists' and 'children' are both plural words you're not doing very well
by having to cite an example from 8 years ago.

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term) a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

"This has ruined my life...", he whinged, when caught and facing
prosecution... "I didn't know it was an offence...", he wriggled.

But even citing that case isn't necessary. Stating case-types in the
plural is normal discourse in conversational English.

You could could also tell us the proportion of motorists that have received
more than a £2,200 fine after mowing a child down. You should have plenty of
examples because there will have been about 260 in those 8 years.

What?

*Deliberately* mowing down a child (which is the situation under
discussion)?

I'd say that that number was a huge... NIL.

Wouldn't you?

Brutal driver walks
 

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:48:28 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Let us assume you were out on one of your "training" rides and fell
off when the first of the group fell off taking others with him, not
an uncommon event. Your leg was injured and an ambulance summoned.
Before being taken away you ask the group to take your car, left at
the clubhouse, home for you. When you get home you find your car in
your drive.

Later the police visit to tell you your car has been involved in an
accident and someone has died. They want to know who was driving. When
you ask you are told Bill and Fred took your car home. When
interviewed by the police Bill says Fred was driving, Fred says Bill
was driving.

You think it fair you should have a mandatory lifetime driving ban for
failing to give driver details?

Brutal driver walks
 

Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:48:28 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Let us assume you were out on one of your "training" rides and fell
off when the first of the group fell off taking others with him, not
an uncommon event. Your leg was injured and an ambulance summoned.
Before being taken away you ask the group to take your car, left at
the clubhouse, home for you. When you get home you find your car in
your drive.

Later the police visit to tell you your car has been involved in an
accident and someone has died. They want to know who was driving. When
you ask you are told Bill and Fred took your car home. When
interviewed by the police Bill says Fred was driving, Fred says Bill
was driving.

You think it fair you should have a mandatory lifetime driving ban for
failing to give driver details?

Well, no. Because you _have_ provided the details of the driver. But any
ambiguity could be prevented by not asking 'the group' to take your car
home. You ask one person, ensuring that he or she is insured and qualified
to drive your car.

And if neither Bill nor Fred want to admit to driving the car, then they
are both charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Brutal driver walks
 

JNugent wrote:
On 04/02/2016 20:43, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime
driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed
to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we
have never heard of such a case..

Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Contract cancer, filth.

That's another example of something you never say.

Wrong yet again, thicko.

'says the depraved troll who wishes cancer on other peoples' children'
(Nugent, 02 February 2016)

When have I wished cancer on others' children?

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Brutal driver walks
 

On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:05:39 +0000, John Smith
wrote:

Well, no. Because you _have_ provided the details of the driver.

You have provided details of a number of people, only one of whom
could have been driving. You have not identified the driver any more
than if you had provided the membership list of the club or the
electoral roll of the town.

Brutal driver walks
 

On 05/02/2016 11:53, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:48:28 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Let us assume you were out on one of your "training" rides and fell
off when the first of the group fell off taking others with him, not
an uncommon event. Your leg was injured and an ambulance summoned.
Before being taken away you ask the group to take your car, left at
the clubhouse, home for you. When you get home you find your car in
your drive.

Later the police visit to tell you your car has been involved in an
accident and someone has died. They want to know who was driving. When
you ask you are told Bill and Fred took your car home. When
interviewed by the police Bill says Fred was driving, Fred says Bill
was driving.

You think it fair you should have a mandatory lifetime driving ban for
failing to give driver details?

Of course.

That's what he said, isn't it?

Brutal driver walks
 

On 05/02/2016 12:05, John Smith wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 15:48:28 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Let us assume you were out on one of your "training" rides and fell
off when the first of the group fell off taking others with him, not
an uncommon event. Your leg was injured and an ambulance summoned.
Before being taken away you ask the group to take your car, left at
the clubhouse, home for you. When you get home you find your car in
your drive.

Later the police visit to tell you your car has been involved in an
accident and someone has died. They want to know who was driving. When
you ask you are told Bill and Fred took your car home. When
interviewed by the police Bill says Fred was driving, Fred says Bill
was driving.

You think it fair you should have a mandatory lifetime driving ban for
failing to give driver details?

Well, no. Because you _have_ provided the details of the driver. But any
ambiguity could be prevented by not asking 'the group' to take your car
home. You ask one person, ensuring that he or she is insured and qualified
to drive your car.

And if neither Bill nor Fred want to admit to driving the car, then they
are both charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Even though there is neither evidence nor even the slightest suggestion
of a conspiracy?

One of them is telling the truth, the other is not and neither of them
has entered into any conspiracy.

Fancy a lawyer with three law degrees not spotting that.

Brutal driver walks
 

On 05/02/2016 12:14, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 04/02/2016 20:43, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime
driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed
to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we
have never heard of such a case..

Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Contract cancer, filth.

That's another example of something you never say.

Wrong yet again, thicko.

'says the depraved troll who wishes cancer on other peoples' children'
(Nugent, 02 February 2016)

When have I wished cancer on others' children?

Everybody is somebody's child. If they're not your child, they're
somebody else's child.

Fancy you not knowing that.

Brutal driver walks
 

JNugent wrote:

Fancy a lawyer with three law degrees not spotting that.

Wow, thicko is stacking up the lies today....

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Brutal driver walks
 

JNugent wrote:
On 05/02/2016 12:14, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 04/02/2016 20:43, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime
driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed
to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we
have never heard of such a case..

Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Contract cancer, filth.

That's another example of something you never say.

Wrong yet again, thicko.

'says the depraved troll who wishes cancer on other peoples' children'
(Nugent, 02 February 2016)

When have I wished cancer on others' children?

Everybody is somebody's child. If they're not your child, they're
somebody else's child.

Fancy you not knowing that.

QED.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Brutal driver walks
 

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/02/2016 08:31, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 04/02/2016 11:04, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:06:06 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a
lifetime
driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was
allowed
to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why
we have never heard of such a case..


Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to
get
away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Philip Benwell didn't appear to "get away with it" when he got a 12 month
sentence.

So the case went through due process and the guilty party brought to
account for himself in court?

Just a £2,200 fine for Jason Howard, described as a 'vile little man' by
the deceased's father.

You said "Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children". Since
'cyclists' and 'children' are both plural words you're not doing very
well
by having to cite an example from 8 years ago.

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term) a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.
And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?

"This has ruined my life...", he whinged, when caught and facing
prosecution... "I didn't know it was an offence...", he wriggled.

But even citing that case isn't necessary. Stating case-types in the
plural is normal discourse in conversational English.

You could could also tell us the proportion of motorists that have
received
more than a £2,200 fine after mowing a child down. You should have plenty
of
examples because there will have been about 260 in those 8 years.

What?

*Deliberately* mowing down a child (which is the situation under
discussion)?

I have not used the word "deliberate". Answer the question as written.

I'd say that that number was a huge... NIL.

Wouldn't you?

I don't know. Nor do you. The diffrence is that I know I don't know. You
don't.

Brutal driver walks
 

On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:


There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term) a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.
And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?



Are you suggesting that the cyclist did not know he was on the pavement,
or had been magically transported onto it, against his will?
The cyclist chose to, and therefore was, deliberately riding on the
pavement.
I have no doubt that he had no prior intention of running into anyone or
anything, but he deliberately chose a path (pun intended) that was very
likely to bring him into close proximity to people.

Brutal driver walks
 

MrCheerful wrote:
On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:


There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who
deliberately rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not
too strong a term) a small girl in front of her horrified parents.

That will be this stream of ****.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...r-cuts-6171717

Brutal driver walks
 

On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 05/02/2016 08:31, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 04/02/2016 11:04, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:06:06 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a
lifetime driving ban.
This loophole must be closed.
Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was
allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details?
I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to
get away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every way.

Philip Benwell didn't appear to "get away with it" when he got a 12 month
sentence.

So the case went through due process and the guilty party brought to
account for himself in court?

Just a £2,200 fine for Jason Howard, described as a 'vile little man' by
the deceased's father.

You said "Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children". Since
'cyclists' and 'children' are both plural words you're not doing very
well by having to cite an example from 8 years ago.

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term) a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.

The circumstances do. He was cycling along a pedestrian footway between
the boundaries marked by garden walls and gates and a line of motor
vehicles parked at the kerb.

It is not - and has not been suggested as - credible that this was
anything other than a deliberate action. He could not have been hurtling
along the footway (as clearly seen on video evidence) by accident.

And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?

Does it need to?

"This has ruined my life...", he whinged, when caught and facing
prosecution... "I didn't know it was an offence...", he wriggled.

But even citing that case isn't necessary. Stating case-types in the
plural is normal discourse in conversational English.

You could could also tell us the proportion of motorists that have
received more than a £2,200 fine after mowing a child down. You
should have plenty of examples because there will have been about
260 in those 8 years.

What?
*Deliberately* mowing down a child (which is the situation under
discussion)?

I have not used the word "deliberate".

Yes, you have. It was in the material you quoted.

Answer the question as written.

That's what I've done.

I'd say that that number was a huge... NIL.
Wouldn't you?

I don't know.

Oh.

Nor do you. The diffrence is that I know I don't know. You
don't.

If any driver had deliberately mown down a child during the last eight
years, we (and that includes you) would have heard about it.

I haven't.

Have you?

Brutal driver walks
 

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 06:26:39 -0800 (PST), Alycidon wrote:

On Thursday, 4 February 2016 07:24:35 UTC, Alycidon wrote:

Good first step.

QUOTE:
"Sam Jones, CTC Campaign Coordinator, said the case was being looked at by the organisation's Cyclists' Defence Fund, which works to raise awareness of the law relating to cycling and offers help with legal cases.

"We're now aware of the Police's reporting of their investigation, and will follow up accordingly. CTC's Cyclist Defence Fund has been in touch with Reginald Scot and we are now looking into how we can help him find justice for this awful incident.


Civil case and try and get some compo?

I guess that that will be the motive.

Brutal driver walks
 

"JNugent" wrote
On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 05/02/2016 08:31, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
On 04/02/2016 11:04, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 10:06:06 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a
lifetime driving ban.
This loophole must be closed.
Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose
vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was
allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details?
I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children are allowed to
get away with a fine, no ban, no jail time. You cannot have it every
way.

Philip Benwell didn't appear to "get away with it" when he got a 12
month
sentence.

So the case went through due process and the guilty party brought to
account for himself in court?

Just a £2,200 fine for Jason Howard, described as a 'vile little man'
by
the deceased's father.

You said "Cyclists that deliberately run into and kill children". Since
'cyclists' and 'children' are both plural words you're not doing very
well by having to cite an example from 8 years ago.

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term) a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.

The circumstances do. He was cycling along a pedestrian footway between
the boundaries marked by garden walls and gates and a line of motor
vehicles parked at the kerb.

It is not - and has not been suggested as - credible that this was
anything other than a deliberate action. He could not have been hurtling
along the footway (as clearly seen on video evidence) by accident.

And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?

Does it need to?

"This has ruined my life...", he whinged, when caught and facing
prosecution... "I didn't know it was an offence...", he wriggled.

But even citing that case isn't necessary. Stating case-types in the
plural is normal discourse in conversational English.

You could could also tell us the proportion of motorists that have
received more than a £2,200 fine after mowing a child down. You
should have plenty of examples because there will have been about
260 in those 8 years.

What?
*Deliberately* mowing down a child (which is the situation under
discussion)?

I have not used the word "deliberate".

Yes, you have. It was in the material you quoted.

Ah, the Nugent rule. Nugent adds some words to a somebody else's older post
then claims his added words were written by that person.

Answer the question as written.

That's what I've done.

Checks... I see no examples given of drivers getting fined more £2,200 after
mowing a child down.

I'd say that that number was a huge... NIL.
Wouldn't you?

I don't know.

Oh.

Nor do you. The diffrence is that I know I don't know. You
don't.

If any driver had deliberately mown down a child during the last eight
years, we (and that includes you) would have heard about it.

I haven't.

Have you?

Nugent ducks out again.

Brutal driver walks
 

"MrCheerful" wrote
On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term) a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.
And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?

Are you suggesting that the cyclist did not know he was on the pavement,
or had been magically transported onto it, against his will?
The cyclist chose to, and therefore was, deliberately riding on the
pavement.
I have no doubt that he had no prior intention of running into anyone or
anything, but he deliberately chose a path (pun intended) that was very
likely to bring him into close proximity to people.

Where are your cases of drivers getting worse punishment than cyclists?

Brutal driver walks
 

On 06/02/2016 11:10, TMS320 wrote:
"MrCheerful" wrote
On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term) a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.
And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?

Are you suggesting that the cyclist did not know he was on the pavement,
or had been magically transported onto it, against his will?
The cyclist chose to, and therefore was, deliberately riding on the
pavement.
I have no doubt that he had no prior intention of running into anyone or
anything, but he deliberately chose a path (pun intended) that was very
likely to bring him into close proximity to people.

Where are your cases of drivers getting worse punishment than cyclists?



This is a cycling group, but a driver doing a similar thing would be
heavily fined, possibly imprisoned , likely to be banned from further
driving forsome time, receive points on their licence, maybe be made to
take an enhanced driving test, and have their compulsory insurance
increased in price dramatically. None of those except the fine were
applied to the cyclist just a total bill of 829, despite his deliberate
actions leading to the injured child.

Brutal driver walks
 

"MrCheerful" wrote in message
...
On 06/02/2016 11:10, TMS320 wrote:
"MrCheerful" wrote
On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who
deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term)
a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.
And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?

Are you suggesting that the cyclist did not know he was on the pavement,
or had been magically transported onto it, against his will?
The cyclist chose to, and therefore was, deliberately riding on the
pavement.
I have no doubt that he had no prior intention of running into anyone or
anything, but he deliberately chose a path (pun intended) that was very
likely to bring him into close proximity to people.

Where are your cases of drivers getting worse punishment than cyclists?

This is a cycling group...

....and you made a comparison with driving.

but a driver doing a similar thing would be heavily fined, possibly
imprisoned , likely to be banned from further driving forsome time,
receive points on their licence, maybe be made to take an enhanced driving
test, and have their compulsory insurance increased in price dramatically.
None of those except the fine were applied to the cyclist just a total
bill of 829, despite his deliberate actions leading to the injured child.

Is that so? You made a claim. Now go away until you have something to
support it.

Brutal driver walks
 

On 06/02/2016 12:03, TMS320 wrote:
"MrCheerful" wrote in message
...
On 06/02/2016 11:10, TMS320 wrote:
"MrCheerful" wrote
On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who
deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term)
a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.
And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?

Are you suggesting that the cyclist did not know he was on the pavement,
or had been magically transported onto it, against his will?
The cyclist chose to, and therefore was, deliberately riding on the
pavement.
I have no doubt that he had no prior intention of running into anyone or
anything, but he deliberately chose a path (pun intended) that was very
likely to bring him into close proximity to people.

Where are your cases of drivers getting worse punishment than cyclists?

This is a cycling group...

...and you made a comparison with driving.

but a driver doing a similar thing would be heavily fined, possibly
imprisoned , likely to be banned from further driving forsome time,
receive points on their licence, maybe be made to take an enhanced driving
test, and have their compulsory insurance increased in price dramatically.
None of those except the fine were applied to the cyclist just a total
bill of 829, despite his deliberate actions leading to the injured child.

Is that so? You made a claim. Now go away until you have something to
support it.



Cyclists have very low punishments for incidents of pavement cycling,
whereas motor vehicle drivers suffer comparatively draconian punishments
for the same offence.

Compare the man that cycled on the pavement quite deliberately and ran
into that toddler: he got the highest punishment possible of 500 qui,
829 total fine, end of.

With:
Non deliberately drove on the pavement, injured no-one: 420 quid fine,
banned for a year and made to take an extended test, and no doubt his
compulsory insurance increased.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...ntral-30003418

Brutal driver walks
 

MrCheerful wrote:

Cyclists have very low punishments for incidents of pavement cycling,
whereas motor vehicle drivers suffer comparatively draconian punishments
for the same offence.

That's because it's not 'the same offence', you infantile spastic. Just as
shooting someone with a water pistol is not 'the same offence' as firing a
Glock 17 at their chest.

You ****ing arsehole.
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Brutal driver walks
 

On 06/02/2016 13:11, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

Cyclists have very low punishments for incidents of pavement cycling,
whereas motor vehicle drivers suffer comparatively draconian punishments
for the same offence.

That's because it's not 'the same offence', you infantile spastic. Just as
shooting someone with a water pistol is not 'the same offence' as firing a
Glock 17 at their chest.

You ****ing arsehole.


Driving or cycling on footways is illegal. So, yes, it is the same offence.

Brutal driver walks
 

On 06/02/2016 12:03, TMS320 wrote:
"MrCheerful" wrote in message
...
On 06/02/2016 11:10, TMS320 wrote:
"MrCheerful" wrote
On 05/02/2016 19:39, TMS320 wrote:

There was also the little turd in Lancashire (Preston?) who
deliberately
rode (at speed) along a footway and mowed down (not too strong a term)
a
small girl in front of her horrified parents.

Who says it was "deliberate"? Oh, it was you.
And does the word "deliberate" appear in the official records for Jason
Howard?

Are you suggesting that the cyclist did not know he was on the pavement,
or had been magically transported onto it, against his will?
The cyclist chose to, and therefore was, deliberately riding on the
pavement.
I have no doubt that he had no prior intention of running into anyone or
anything, but he deliberately chose a path (pun intended) that was very
likely to bring him into close proximity to people.

Where are your cases of drivers getting worse punishment than cyclists?

This is a cycling group...

...and you made a comparison with driving.

but a driver doing a similar thing would be heavily fined, possibly
imprisoned , likely to be banned from further driving forsome time,
receive points on their licence, maybe be made to take an enhanced driving
test, and have their compulsory insurance increased in price dramatically.
None of those except the fine were applied to the cyclist just a total
bill of 829, despite his deliberate actions leading to the injured child.

Is that so? You made a claim. Now go away until you have something to
support it.

STOP PRESS...

..... READ ALL ABOUT IT...

TMS320 says that he doesn't believe that a driver (or motorcyclist) can
be fined, receive points on his driving licence, be disqualified from
driving or even be imprisoned for a motoring offence. And he wants proof
of it before he will believe it.

Brutal driver walks
 

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:21:16 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Forget the offence for a moment - it could be anything from picking the
council's flowers to bank robbery - would you impose a draconian (not to
say vindictive) penalty on somebody against whom there is no evidence,
merely on the basis that there is no evidence against him and that you
"think" that he should have confessed to something you suspect him of
committing even though there is no evidence to support that belief to an
acceptable standard of proof?

Is that really what you mean?

No.

What I mean is that failing to give driver details should be treated the same way as perverting the course of justice.

Brutal driver walks
 

On 06/02/2016 17:31, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:21:16 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Forget the offence for a moment - it could be anything from picking the
council's flowers to bank robbery - would you impose a draconian (not to
say vindictive) penalty on somebody against whom there is no evidence,
merely on the basis that there is no evidence against him and that you
"think" that he should have confessed to something you suspect him of
committing even though there is no evidence to support that belief to an
acceptable standard of proof?

Is that really what you mean?

No.

What I mean is that failing to give driver details should be treated the same way as perverting the course of justice.


And in a case where quite genuinely the owner does not know?
Should he/she be liable to a max. sentence of life imprisonment?

Brutal driver walks
 

On 06/02/2016 18:47, Phil W Lee wrote:
MrCheerful considered Sat, 06 Feb 2016
13:22:08 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On 06/02/2016 13:11, John Smith wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

Cyclists have very low punishments for incidents of pavement cycling,
whereas motor vehicle drivers suffer comparatively draconian punishments
for the same offence.

That's because it's not 'the same offence', you infantile spastic. Just as
shooting someone with a water pistol is not 'the same offence' as firing a
Glock 17 at their chest.

You ****ing arsehole.


Driving or cycling on footways is illegal. So, yes, it is the same offence.

Dangerous driving (which he admitted) and failure to stop after a
collision )which they apparently didn't even bother to charge him
with) is hardly the same as cycling on a footway. Even a half-wit can
see that, but apparently you do not reach such lofty heights of
intellect.


So why did the driver receive a more severe punishment than the cyclist?
Bear in mind that the cyclist injured someone.

Brutal driver walks
 

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 5:37:13 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
On 06/02/2016 17:31, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 2:21:16 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 03/02/2016 23:48, Tom Crispin wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35472617

It is time that failing to provide driver details results in a lifetime driving ban.

This loophole must be closed.

Can you imagine the public outcry if the owner of a bicycle whose vehicle was used to deliberately harm an innocent bystander was allowed to get away with failing to provide the rider's details? I wonder why we have never heard of such a case..

Forget the offence for a moment - it could be anything from picking the
council's flowers to bank robbery - would you impose a draconian (not to
say vindictive) penalty on somebody against whom there is no evidence,
merely on the basis that there is no evidence against him and that you
"think" that he should have confessed to something you suspect him of
committing even though there is no evidence to support that belief to an
acceptable standard of proof?

Is that really what you mean?

No.

What I mean is that failing to give driver details should be treated the same way as perverting the course of justice.


And in a case where quite genuinely the owner does not know?
Should he/she be liable to a max. sentence of life imprisonment?

It would not be for me to predetermine the outcome of a trial for perverting the course of justice.