Plan to make our roads safer.

On May 18, 10:41*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 18, 6:04*am, Doug wrote:

Depends how badly they break the law. You can hardly compare some
minor criminal damage to a car against, say, a serious physical
assault which leads to a person being in a life-threatening coma.

To some insecure people, banging a car's door is akin to a bodily
assault.
--
Simon Mason

Indeed it may even be considered assult, or threatening behaviour.

On May 18, 4:43*pm, francis wrote:
On May 18, 10:41*am, Simon Mason wrote:

On May 18, 6:04*am, Doug wrote:

Depends how badly they break the law. You can hardly compare some
minor criminal damage to a car against, say, a serious physical
assault which leads to a person being in a life-threatening coma.

To some insecure people, banging a car's door is akin to a bodily
assault.
--
Simon Mason

Indeed it may even be considered assult, or threatening behaviour.

To a certain type of weedy, cry baby driver, for sure.

--
Simon Mason

On 18/05/2011 16:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 18, 4:43 pm, wrote:
On May 18, 10:41 am, Simon wrote:

On May 18, 6:04 am, wrote:

Depends how badly they break the law. You can hardly compare some
minor criminal damage to a car against, say, a serious physical
assault which leads to a person being in a life-threatening coma.

To some insecure people, banging a car's door is akin to a bodily
assault.
--
Simon Mason

Indeed it may even be considered assult, or threatening behaviour.

To a certain type of weedy, cry baby driver, for sure.

Or to anyone to whom the cost of repairs is significant and for whom the
sheer hassle of repairs is significant (that's everyone, BTW, and only a
Doug- or Hansen-style commentator would think otherwise).

How would you like it if passer-by swung a heavy stick and dented the spokes
of your front wheel whilst it is "parked" on the footway?

On 18/05/2011 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2011 16:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 18, 4:43 pm, wrote:
On May 18, 10:41 am, Simon wrote:

On May 18, 6:04 am, wrote:

Depends how badly they break the law. You can hardly compare some
minor criminal damage to a car against, say, a serious physical
assault which leads to a person being in a life-threatening coma.

To some insecure people, banging a car's door is akin to a bodily
assault.
--
Simon Mason

Indeed it may even be considered assult, or threatening behaviour.

To a certain type of weedy, cry baby driver, for sure.

Or to anyone to whom the cost of repairs is significant and for whom the
sheer hassle of repairs is significant (that's everyone, BTW, and only a
Doug- or Hansen-style commentator would think otherwise).

How would you like it if passer-by swung a heavy stick and dented the
spokes of your front wheel whilst it is "parked" on the footway?

We are told that a car getting close to a cyclist is threatening
behaviour, so surely attacking a car is the same.

On May 18, 6:50*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 18/05/2011 17:23, JNugent wrote:









On 18/05/2011 16:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 18, 4:43 pm, wrote:
On May 18, 10:41 am, Simon wrote:

On May 18, 6:04 am, wrote:

Depends how badly they break the law. You can hardly compare some
minor criminal damage to a car against, say, a serious physical
assault which leads to a person being in a life-threatening coma.

To some insecure people, banging a car's door is akin to a bodily
assault.
--
Simon Mason

Indeed it may even be considered assult, or threatening behaviour.

To a certain type of weedy, cry baby driver, for sure.

Or to anyone to whom the cost of repairs is significant and for whom the
sheer hassle of repairs is significant (that's everyone, BTW, and only a
Doug- or Hansen-style commentator would think otherwise).

How would you like it if passer-by swung a heavy stick and dented the
spokes of your front wheel whilst it is "parked" on the footway?

We are told that a car getting close to a cyclist is threatening
behaviour, so surely attacking a car is the same.

No the difference is the car too close can kill the cyclist but the
cyclist scratching the car cannot kill the motorist. Hence the former
is much more serious and should be treated as such.

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 20/05/2011 06:13, Doug wrote:
On May 18, 6:50 pm, Tony wrote:
On 18/05/2011 17:23, JNugent wrote:









On 18/05/2011 16:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 18, 4:43 pm, wrote:
On May 18, 10:41 am, Simon wrote:

On May 18, 6:04 am, wrote:

Depends how badly they break the law. You can hardly compare some
minor criminal damage to a car against, say, a serious physical
assault which leads to a person being in a life-threatening coma.

To some insecure people, banging a car's door is akin to a bodily
assault.
--
Simon Mason

Indeed it may even be considered assult, or threatening behaviour.

To a certain type of weedy, cry baby driver, for sure.

Or to anyone to whom the cost of repairs is significant and for whom the
sheer hassle of repairs is significant (that's everyone, BTW, and only a
Doug- or Hansen-style commentator would think otherwise).

How would you like it if passer-by swung a heavy stick and dented the
spokes of your front wheel whilst it is "parked" on the footway?

We are told that a car getting close to a cyclist is threatening
behaviour, so surely attacking a car is the same.

No the difference is the car too close can kill the cyclist but the
cyclist scratching the car cannot kill the motorist. Hence the former
is much more serious and should be treated as such.

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.




Right, car driver=naughty, cyclist=good

On May 18, 6:50*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:

We are told that a car getting close to a cyclist is threatening
behaviour, so surely attacking a car is the same.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Attacking an inanimate object is "threatening behaviour?
Could John Cleese have been done for that by hitting his car with a
branch and would he then claim that someone else did it to avoid the
fine?

--
Simon Mason

On May 20, 11:30*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 18, 6:50*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:



We are told that a car getting close to a cyclist is threatening
behaviour, so surely attacking a car is the same.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Attacking an inanimate object is "threatening behaviour?

Well it would be the occupant that was threatened.

Could John Cleese have been done for that by hitting his car with a
branch and would he then claim that someone else did it to avoid the
fine?

--
Simon Mason

What exactly are you on?

On May 20, 11:47*am, francis wrote:
Could John Cleese have been done for that by hitting his car with a
branch and would he then claim that someone else did it to avoid the
fine?

What exactly are you on?

Never mind, some people will have got that gag.

--
Simon Mason

On 20/05/2011 11:30, Simon Mason wrote:

Tony wrote:

We are told that a car getting close to a cyclist is threatening
behaviour, so surely attacking a car is the same.

Attacking an inanimate object is "threatening behaviour?

In fact, it goes some way beyond mere threat. And it is deliberate, whereas
the so-called "threat" from being within twenty feet of the flank of a car is
totally imaginary. Funny how being close to the side of a car doesn't seem to
be so much of a "threat" when a cyclist is squeezing down the gutter at a set
of red traffic lights, isn't it?

Could John Cleese have been done for that by hitting his car with a
branch and would he then claim that someone else did it to avoid the
fine?

Cleese is another well-known advocate of the rejected PR, isn't he?