On 17/11/2010 16:13, Justin wrote:

On 17 nov, 15:51, wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:39 pm, wrote:
On 17 nov, 11:40, wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:25 am, wrote:
On 17 nov, 11:16, wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:37 am, wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:10 am, wrote:

Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_...

I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.
Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are
killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.

Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due
to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need
protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading
invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal
desire to cycle where they like.

The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European
countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal
responsibility nor even accountability.

Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
roads& pavements want others using these spaces around them to be
presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking
(including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which
you will produce. Thanks.

Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to
do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your
opinion) want is redundant.

How ridiculous
is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group
they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is
not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more!

Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position?
The right wish to see more dangerous roads?

The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other
political parties. As cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so
became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving.

That has nothing to do with the reversal of the burden of truth.

I do like that phrase.

If some cyclists were ever to get their way on that ridiculous demand for
innocent parties to be deemed to be at fault, the truth of any relevant
"incident" would indeed have become irrelevant. The law would simply
substitute a lie for the truth.