texting motorist

On 07/09/2016 20:25, TMS320 wrote:

On 07/09/2016 17:00, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698

Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years
Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.
Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the time. If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a
pedestrian, would he get 9 years in jail? Or, do we both know the
answer to that one?

Fortunately you will not get the opportunity to find out.

I hope you are right.

But experience teaches sensible people to never say "never".

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:23:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 07/09/2016 19:49, James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:00:31 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698

Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years
Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.
Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get 9
years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We need to reintroduce the word accident back into the English
language. The driver did not mean to kill anyone.

The word "accident" is not necessarily appropriate in a situation where
a death occurs but was not intended.

The correct word in some circumstances would be "accident", but at the
other end of the scale, it might well be "manslaughter".

Consider a cyclist hurtling down a hill on the footway (not at all unusual).

An innocent pedestrian exits a garden gate to cross the footway to a
parked car. The cyclist hits and kills her.

(Involuntary) manslaughter (I don't like the word "involuntary" there -
it needs to be read as "unintended").

Certainly not accidental. The death was caused recklessly in the
commission of an illegal act (that is not the only test of manslaughter,
but it is one of them).

The death was caused by the idiot pedestrian not looking before crossing. As some do, they hear no engine so assume they can cross.

--
Mary had a little skirt
With slits right up the sides
And everytime she crossed her legs
The boys could see her thighs

Mary had another skirt
With a slit right up the front
She never wore that one...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 12:33:10 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 08/09/2016 11:17, MrCheerful wrote:
On 08/09/2016 08:27, Bod wrote:
On 07/09/2016 20:51, Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698






Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get
9 years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being
confirmed. What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I
wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who already
has six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of pedestrians that
they
are going to be hit and killed by a serial texting cyclists who have
already
been convicted several times for texting whilst cycling? Has any
pedestrian
ever lost their life to such a cyclist since mobile phones were
invented?

Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question that is far from
sensible itself. But I would have thought it was obvious that a
cyclist is
highly unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were to hit and
kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a history of cycling and
texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they hit and injure a
pedestrian walking along the pavement - a serial pavement riding
cyclist or
a serial pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver are
acting
illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted for doing so. But the driver
will get the greater punishment of the two and you don't think that is
how
it should be?

It's okay if you can't, I do understand the intellect of a cyclist.

Cyclists are individual differing people with individual differing
intellects, are they not?

Einstein was a cyclist.

Hitler was a cyclist.

Then that highlights that cyclists vary in intellect and personalities
just like any other human beings.

Both were very intelligent people.

--
Excuse me sir, are you playing the bagpipes or deflating your cat?

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:23:52 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 07/09/2016 19:49, James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:00:31 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698

Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years
Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.
Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get 9
years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We need to reintroduce the word accident back into the English
language. The driver did not mean to kill anyone.

The word "accident" is not necessarily appropriate in a situation where
a death occurs but was not intended.

The correct word in some circumstances would be "accident", but at the
other end of the scale, it might well be "manslaughter".

Consider a cyclist hurtling down a hill on the footway (not at all unusual).

An innocent pedestrian exits a garden gate to cross the footway to a
parked car. The cyclist hits and kills her.

(Involuntary) manslaughter (I don't like the word "involuntary" there -
it needs to be read as "unintended").

Certainly not accidental. The death was caused recklessly in the
commission of an illegal act (that is not the only test of manslaughter,
but it is one of them).

And when they walk straight into an old woman and knock her over, I suppose you blame the old woman? When exiting your gate onto the pavement, ****ing look where you're going! It's basically a give way line.

--
Mary had a little skirt
With slits right up the sides
And everytime she crossed her legs
The boys could see her thighs

Mary had another skirt
With a slit right up the front
She never wore that one...

On 09/09/2016 00:32, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:23:52 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/09/2016 19:49, James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:00:31 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698


Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years
Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.
Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get 9
years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We need to reintroduce the word accident back into the English
language. The driver did not mean to kill anyone.

The word "accident" is not necessarily appropriate in a situation where
a death occurs but was not intended.

The correct word in some circumstances would be "accident", but at the
other end of the scale, it might well be "manslaughter".

Consider a cyclist hurtling down a hill on the footway (not at all
unusual).

An innocent pedestrian exits a garden gate to cross the footway to a
parked car. The cyclist hits and kills her.

(Involuntary) manslaughter (I don't like the word "involuntary" there -
it needs to be read as "unintended").

Certainly not accidental. The death was caused recklessly in the
commission of an illegal act (that is not the only test of manslaughter,
but it is one of them).

And when they walk straight into an old woman and knock her over, I
suppose you blame the old woman?

Of course I do not.

When exiting your gate onto the
pavement, ****ing look where you're going! It's basically a give way line.

Rubbish. One hundred percent faecal waste.

There are no give-way lines, either real or imaginary, on
pedestrian-only routes and areas. Everyone is entitled to walk out of
their front gate (or front door) onto a footway without being mown down
by a chav on a bike.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:35:18 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 07/09/2016 22:07, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 21:57:26 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698





Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get
9 years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being
confirmed. What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I
wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who already
has six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of pedestrians
that they
are going to be hit and killed by a serial texting cyclists who have
already
been convicted several times for texting whilst cycling? Has any
pedestrian
ever lost their life to such a cyclist since mobile phones were
invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented, so you
didn't need to put in that requirement.

But that date is important because we can then know how long a time
scale we
are looking at.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question that is far from
sensible itself. But I would have thought it was obvious that a
cyclist is
highly unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were to hit
and
kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a history of cycling and
texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they hit and injure a
pedestrian walking along the pavement - a serial pavement riding
cyclist or
a serial pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver are
acting
illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted for doing so. But the
driver
will get the greater punishment of the two and you don't think that
is how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should there be a
difference?

The potential for the outcome to be fatal is much greater with a car
than a
bicycle. Come on it's obvious, which vehicle would you prefer to see
hurtling towards you as a pedestrian? Your responsibilities are far
greater
as a car driver than a cyclist, hence all the extra hassle to which
you are
subject to become a driver and then continue to be so.

If both ended up killing the pedestrian, you cannot say one was worse
than the other. Both resulted in precisely one death.

It's okay if you can't, I do understand the intellect of a cyclist.

Cyclists are individual differing people with individual differing
intellects, are they not?

No, they're all nutters dressing up like they're in the Tour de France.

Get away! Trying to look like your heroes doesn't make you a nutter.
Although I saw someone in town the other day wearing a Wayne Rooney
replica
shirt and I reckon he was about a hundred years old - I didn't think
he was
a nutter but it did make me smile.

A bicycle is a means from getting from A to B faster than walking. You
can wear normal clothes.

Why does what someone wears bother you? You sound just like a moaning
old woman.

Pretending you're in the Tour De France is pretentious.

--
Aisle oven ice bitters are chasm!

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:32:30 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 07/09/2016 21:16, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698





Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get
9 years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being
confirmed. What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I
wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who already
has six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of pedestrians that
they
are going to be hit and killed by a serial texting cyclists who have
already
been convicted several times for texting whilst cycling? Has any
pedestrian
ever lost their life to such a cyclist since mobile phones were invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented, so you didn't
need to put in that requirement.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question that is far from
sensible itself. But I would have thought it was obvious that a
cyclist is
highly unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were to hit and
kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a history of cycling and
texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they hit and injure a
pedestrian walking along the pavement - a serial pavement riding
cyclist or
a serial pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver are
acting
illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted for doing so. But the driver
will get the greater punishment of the two and you don't think that is
how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should there be a
difference?

It's okay if you can't, I do understand the intellect of a cyclist.

Cyclists are individual differing people with individual differing
intellects, are they not?

No, they're all nutters dressing up like they're in the Tour de France.

Erm, 99.9% of cyclists that I see, wear normal type clothes.

99.9% here do not. Only on council estates they dress normally, presumably they can't afford the stupid clothes.

--
He'll be coming in her crevice when he comes,
he'll be coming in her crevice when he comes,
when he's coming in her crevice, his pole's the size of Nevis,
he'll be coming in her crevice when he comes.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:39:24 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 09/09/2016 00:32, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:23:52 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/09/2016 19:49, James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:00:31 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698


Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years
Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.
Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get 9
years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We need to reintroduce the word accident back into the English
language. The driver did not mean to kill anyone.

The word "accident" is not necessarily appropriate in a situation where
a death occurs but was not intended.

The correct word in some circumstances would be "accident", but at the
other end of the scale, it might well be "manslaughter".

Consider a cyclist hurtling down a hill on the footway (not at all
unusual).

An innocent pedestrian exits a garden gate to cross the footway to a
parked car. The cyclist hits and kills her.

(Involuntary) manslaughter (I don't like the word "involuntary" there -
it needs to be read as "unintended").

Certainly not accidental. The death was caused recklessly in the
commission of an illegal act (that is not the only test of manslaughter,
but it is one of them).

And when they walk straight into an old woman and knock her over, I
suppose you blame the old woman?

Of course I do not.

When exiting your gate onto the
pavement, ****ing look where you're going! It's basically a give way line.

Rubbish. One hundred percent faecal waste.

There are no give-way lines, either real or imaginary, on
pedestrian-only routes and areas. Everyone is entitled to walk out of
their front gate (or front door) onto a footway without being mown down
by a chav on a bike.

What about someone running for a bus? You give way when passing onto a different route, it's common sense. Even in supermarket, you expect the people coming off the end of the aisle to give way to those walking along the ends.

--
Remember when you were kid and you used to blow bubbles?
Well, I saw him the other day and he says hello.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:49:46 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 21:57:26 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698




Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get
9 years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being
confirmed. What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I
wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who already
has six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of pedestrians that they
are going to be hit and killed by a serial texting cyclists who have already
been convicted several times for texting whilst cycling? Has any pedestrian
ever lost their life to such a cyclist since mobile phones were invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented, so you didn't need to put in that requirement.

But that date is important because we can then know how long a time scale we
are looking at.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question that is far from
sensible itself. But I would have thought it was obvious that a cyclist is
highly unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were to hit and
kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a history of cycling and texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they hit and injure a
pedestrian walking along the pavement - a serial pavement riding cyclist or
a serial pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver are acting
illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted for doing so. But the driver
will get the greater punishment of the two and you don't think that is how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should there be a difference?

The potential for the outcome to be fatal is much greater with a car than a
bicycle. Come on it's obvious, which vehicle would you prefer to see
hurtling towards you as a pedestrian? Your responsibilities are far greater
as a car driver than a cyclist, hence all the extra hassle to which you are
subject to become a driver and then continue to be so.

If both ended up killing the pedestrian, you cannot say one was worse than the other. Both resulted in precisely one death.

If both happened. But I was questioning if one of them has ever even
happened (i.e. has a convicted serial texting cyclist ever gone on to hit
and kill a pedestrian and, if not, over how long a period of time would that
be).

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone, then I drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us caused more harm.

If we both kill someone, we both caused identical harm.

In both cases we should receive precisely the same punishment.

It's okay if you can't, I do understand the intellect of a cyclist.

Cyclists are individual differing people with individual differing
intellects, are they not?

No, they're all nutters dressing up like they're in the Tour de France.

Get away! Trying to look like your heroes doesn't make you a nutter.
Although I saw someone in town the other day wearing a Wayne Rooney replica
shirt and I reckon he was about a hundred years old - I didn't think he was
a nutter but it did make me smile.

A bicycle is a means from getting from A to B faster than walking. You can wear normal clothes.

...or you can wear abnormal clothes. The choice is rightly up to the
individual concerned.

Only if they want to be seen as and treated as a ****ing imbecile.

--
Q. What's hairy on the outside, wet on the inside, begins with a "C" and ends with a "T"?
A. A coconut.

On Friday, 9 September 2016 01:18:56 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

No, they're all nutters dressing up like they're in the Tour de France.

Erm, 99.9% of cyclists that I see, wear normal type clothes.

99.9% here do not. Only on council estates they dress normally, presumably they can't afford the stupid clothes.

Last time I visited our village green, the cricket team could afford cricket whites. I did not see them as stupid.