A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 17th 10, 04:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,275
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

francis wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:37 am, Doug wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:10 am, "Mrcheerful" 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.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


I think you mean, that the person who is blameworthy is to blame.


not in dougworld.


Ads
  #12  
Old November 17th 10, 07:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

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.

  #13  
Old November 17th 10, 09:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Justin[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,530
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

On 17 nov, 20:02, JNugent wrote:
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.


I apologise for my oversight: I meant to type "burden of proof".

That was completely unintentional, sorry.
  #14  
Old November 17th 10, 10:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 564
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

On 17/11/2010 10:40, ash 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.


-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
roads& pavements


Do you have figures to back this up?
  #15  
Old November 18th 10, 12:01 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Adam Lea[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

On 17/11/10 22:02, OG wrote:
On 17/11/2010 10:40, ash wrote: -

Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the
roads& pavements


Do you have figures to back this up?


Of course he does, it's called "I think, therefore I know".
  #16  
Old November 18th 10, 12:21 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

On 17/11/2010 21:28, Justin wrote:
On 17 nov, 20:02, wrote:
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.


I apologise for my oversight: I meant to type "burden of proof".

That was completely unintentional, sorry.


Don't apologise. You were right frst time.

  #17  
Old November 19th 10, 06:32 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

On Nov 17, 10:16*am, ash wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug wrote:

On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" 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.

I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more
dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements
should be banned completely.

The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements,
amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the
roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers.

So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.




  #18  
Old November 19th 10, 06:56 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

On 19/11/2010 06:32, Doug wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:16 am, 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.

I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more
dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements
should be banned completely.

The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements,
amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the
roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers.


We can't have the lawbreaking cyclist inconvenienced by those
pedestrians on the pavements, can we?


So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.






--
Tony Dragon
  #19  
Old November 19th 10, 09:28 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
ash[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"

On Nov 19, 6:32*am, Doug wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:16*am, ash wrote:



On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug wrote:


On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" 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.


I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more
dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements
should be banned completely.

The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements,
amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the
roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers.

So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers.



-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Don't forget idiot electric bike users blasting along on the
pavemements either because toddlers are softer to run into than cars
Doug !
  #20  
Old November 19th 10, 12:30 PM
mischastar mischastar is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by CycleBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 59
Default

The toddler is the innocent party in this, anyone selfish enough to ride in a pedestrian area should be punished.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
:jg%e Innocent or Gullable? :jg%eo" rogers General 0 July 1st 08 06:22 PM
"John "Cho" Gilmer keeps publishing his "Manifesto" over and over." Hoodini Racing 0 April 23rd 07 12:38 AM
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?" MMan Racing 16 August 18th 06 08:01 PM
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") spin156 Techniques 15 November 28th 05 07:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.