Bicyclist's toe, sometimes mistaken for gout.

Doug wrote:
On 19 Aug, 08:41, Derek C wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:38 am, Doug wrote:



But what you don't seem to realise is I started posting them in the
first place as a response to anti-cyclists threads on URC. You know
the usual 'Cycling on pavements' and 'Cycling through red lights'
and 'Cyclists should have number plates' drivel, not to mention all
those personal insults in responses from motorists.

If I didn't counter the anti-cyclist threads from motorists here who
else would take on the job? I would be happy to devolve. Any takers
who feel up to the job, bearing in mind the sheer volume of motorist
inundations?

Doug.-

So basically you lead a empty and boring little existance, so you
have nothing better to do with your time!

No, in common with many others world-wide I am pleased to be an anti-
car campaigner, on the basis that there are far too many of them and
their drivers are allowed to get away with far too much.


if you notice from the press the anti cyclist movement is gaining strength,
and they have the whip hand. it would be far better to campaign for an
improvement in cycling standards, that way you might avoid legislation to do
it for you.

On 25 Aug, 14:55, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Aug, 08:41, Derek C wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:38 am, Doug wrote:

But what you don't seem to realise is I started posting them in the
first place as a response to anti-cyclists threads on URC. You know
the usual 'Cycling on pavements' and 'Cycling through red lights'
and 'Cyclists should have number plates' drivel, not to mention all
those personal insults in responses from motorists.

If I didn't counter the anti-cyclist threads from motorists here who
else would take on the job? I would be happy to devolve. Any takers
who feel up to the job, bearing in mind the sheer volume of motorist
inundations?

Doug.-

So basically you lead a empty and boring little existance, so you
have nothing better to do with your time!

No, in common with many others world-wide I am pleased to be an anti-
car campaigner, on the basis that there are far too many of them and
their drivers are allowed to get away with far too much.

if you notice from the press the anti cyclist movement is gaining strength,
and they have the whip hand. *it would be far better to campaign for an
improvement in cycling standards, that way you might avoid legislation to do
it for you.

I am still waiting for the much discussed legislation which absolves
all vulnerable victims from blame and instead fully blames the killer/
injurer but it seems to be a long time coming so far.

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

Doug wrote:
On 25 Aug, 14:55, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Aug, 08:41, Derek C wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:38 am, Doug wrote:
But what you don't seem to realise is I started posting them in the
first place as a response to anti-cyclists threads on URC. You know
the usual 'Cycling on pavements' and 'Cycling through red lights'
and 'Cyclists should have number plates' drivel, not to mention all
those personal insults in responses from motorists.
If I didn't counter the anti-cyclist threads from motorists here who
else would take on the job? I would be happy to devolve. Any takers
who feel up to the job, bearing in mind the sheer volume of motorist
inundations?
Doug.-
So basically you lead a empty and boring little existance, so you
have nothing better to do with your time!
No, in common with many others world-wide I am pleased to be an anti-
car campaigner, on the basis that there are far too many of them and
their drivers are allowed to get away with far too much.
if you notice from the press the anti cyclist movement is gaining strength,
and they have the whip hand. it would be far better to campaign for an
improvement in cycling standards, that way you might avoid legislation to do
it for you.

I am still waiting for the much discussed legislation which absolves
all vulnerable victims from blame and instead fully blames the killer/
injurer but it seems to be a long time coming so far.

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

And hopefully never does, as the 'victim' might well be to blame, it
would then be unjust to blame the other party.

--
Tony Dragon

Doug wrote:


I am still waiting for the much discussed legislation which absolves
all vulnerable victims from blame and instead fully blames the killer/
injurer but it seems to be a long time coming so far.

So, if a cyclist (the killer/injurer) runs into a pedestrian (the vulnerable
victim), because the pedestrian suddenly jumped out in front of him, the
cyclist would be the guilty party?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Doug wrote:


I am still waiting for the much discussed legislation which absolves
all vulnerable victims from blame and instead fully blames the killer/
injurer but it seems to be a long time coming so far.

So, if a cyclist (the killer/injurer) runs into a pedestrian (the vulnerable
victim), because the pedestrian suddenly jumped out in front of him, the
cyclist would be the guilty party?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

On 26 Aug, 09:36, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 25 Aug, 14:55, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Aug, 08:41, Derek C wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:38 am, Doug wrote:
But what you don't seem to realise is I started posting them in the
first place as a response to anti-cyclists threads on URC. You know
the usual 'Cycling on pavements' and 'Cycling through red lights'
and 'Cyclists should have number plates' drivel, not to mention all
those personal insults in responses from motorists.
If I didn't counter the anti-cyclist threads from motorists here who
else would take on the job? I would be happy to devolve. Any takers
who feel up to the job, bearing in mind the sheer volume of motorist
inundations?
Doug.-
So basically you lead a empty and boring little existance, so you
have nothing better to do with your time!
No, in common with many others world-wide I am pleased to be an anti-
car campaigner, on the basis that there are far too many of them and
their drivers are allowed to get away with far too much.
if you notice from the press the anti cyclist movement is gaining strength,
and they have the whip hand. *it would be far better to campaign for an
improvement in cycling standards, that way you might avoid legislation to do
it for you.

I am still waiting for the much discussed *legislation which absolves
all vulnerable victims from blame and instead fully blames the killer/
injurer but it seems to be a long time coming so far.

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

And hopefully never does, as the 'victim' might well be to blame, it
would then be unjust to blame the other party.

How can it be unjust not to blame a killer? It is not the driver who
comes off worse. Usually they are untouched by the collision. The
vulnerable should be spared blame because firstly they are the ones
who are killed or injured and secondly because they are more
vulnerable than drivers.

The only reason this does not happen is pragmatic. With millions of
drivers bombing around our roads few governments are willing to take
on the task of properly allotting blame. A driver is in sole charge of
a dangerous machine in a public place and thus should be held fully
accountable for any death or injury they cause to the vulnerable who
do not cause such a harm to drivers.

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

Doug wrote:


How can it be unjust not to blame a killer? It is not the cyclists who
comes off worse. Usually they are untouched by the collision. The
vulnerable perestrian should be spared blame because firstly they are the
ones
who are killed or injured and secondly because they are more
vulnerable than cyclists.

The only reason this does not happen is pragmatic. With millions of
cyclists bombing around our roads few governments are willing to take
on the task of properly allotting blame. A cyclist is in sole charge of
a dangerous machine in a public place and thus should be held fully
accountable for any death or injury they cause to the vulnerable
pedestrian who
do not cause such a harm to cyclists.


IFYPFY


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

On 27/08/2010 07:56, Doug wrote:
On 26 Aug, 09:36, Tony wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 25 Aug, 14:55, wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Aug, 08:41, Derek wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:38 am, wrote:
But what you don't seem to realise is I started posting them in the
first place as a response to anti-cyclists threads on URC. You know
the usual 'Cycling on pavements' and 'Cycling through red lights'
and 'Cyclists should have number plates' drivel, not to mention all
those personal insults in responses from motorists.
If I didn't counter the anti-cyclist threads from motorists here who
else would take on the job? I would be happy to devolve. Any takers
who feel up to the job, bearing in mind the sheer volume of motorist
inundations?
Doug.-
So basically you lead a empty and boring little existance, so you
have nothing better to do with your time!
No, in common with many others world-wide I am pleased to be an anti-
car campaigner, on the basis that there are far too many of them and
their drivers are allowed to get away with far too much.
if you notice from the press the anti cyclist movement is gaining strength,
and they have the whip hand. it would be far better to campaign for an
improvement in cycling standards, that way you might avoid legislation to do
it for you.

I am still waiting for the much discussed legislation which absolves
all vulnerable victims from blame and instead fully blames the killer/
injurer but it seems to be a long time coming so far.

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

And hopefully never does, as the 'victim' might well be to blame, it
would then be unjust to blame the other party.

How can it be unjust not to blame a killer?

If the person who killed is not to blame.

It is not the driver who
comes off worse.

But he might not be to blame.

Usually they are untouched by the collision. The
vulnerable should be spared blame because firstly they are the ones
who are killed or injured

Even if they are to blame?

and secondly because they are more
vulnerable than drivers.

See above.


The only reason this does not happen is pragmatic. With millions of
drivers bombing around our roads few governments are willing to take
on the task of properly allotting blame.

As opposed to you who allways want the motorist to take the blame.

A driver is in sole charge of
a dangerous machine in a public place and thus should be held fully
accountable

So we forget about justice & his human right not to be blamed for
something that is not his fault.

for any death or injury they cause to the vulnerable who
do not cause such a harm to drivers.

See above.


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





--
Tony Dragon