England considers law blaming driver in all car/bike crashes!!

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 11:55 am, Simon Lewis wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


Your argument distills down to this: You don't like what we've said.
But you can't give evidence disproving it. So you whine "That doesn't
count! That doesn't count!"

- Frank Krygowski

You make some hare brained claim and demand that for it not to be true
someone needs to disprove it. That's not the way it works buddy : YOU
made the claim. You need to prove it.
#
# Simon, since this is not mathematics, it's not possible to "prove it"
# to the indisputable satisfaction of everybody. In particular, it's
# flatly impossible to get an anonymous internet poster to accept proof
# that he's wrong.

Hell, you can't even prove it to a modicum of common sense

#
# But the number of incidents of motorist negligence are legion, as are
# the number where motorized perpetrators get negligible punishment. I
# can cite these all day - but the motorists who are terrified of
# responsibility can't seem to come up with anything.

Sure they are
After all since you said so, it must be true..

#
#Here's yet another tale of total irresponsibility, and lack of
# enforcement:

more nonsense

In talk.politics.guns Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Oct 11, 11:55*am, Simon Lewis wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


Your argument distills down to this: *You don't like what we've said.
But you can't give evidence disproving it. *So you whine "That doesn't
count! *That doesn't count!"

- Frank Krygowski

You make some hare brained claim and demand that for it not to be true
someone needs to disprove it. That's not the way it works buddy : YOU
made the claim. You need to prove it.

Simon, since this is not mathematics, it's not possible to "prove it"

Poor Frank, you're running out of excuses.

to the indisputable satisfaction of everybody.

You don't have to- you just have to prove it to me. If you can't, just
admit you were full of **** and move on.



You can read more at http://www.cars-suck.org/news/kbarelease.html

[chuckle] Oh yeah, there's a source of impartial, peer-reviewed
"proof" that the legal system assumes motorists are not negligent.

LOL

In talk.politics.guns Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:

Klaus Schadenfreude considered Sun, 11
Oct 2009 05:15:09 -0700 the perfect time to write:

In talk.politics.guns Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Oct 10, 6:50*pm, Klaus Schadenfreude
wrote:

Anecdotal evidence means nothing.

Show us where the "legal system" assumes the motorist is not at fault.

Or, to paraphrase your demands: "I will not accept that police

Police don't decide guilt or innocence. Try again, Frank.

You said enforcement was part of the system.
Are you admitting now that you lied about that part?

Enforcement is part of the system. You *DO* know the difference
between enforcement and deciding guilt or innocence, don't you?

Or have you been breathing exhaust fumes for too long?


You're using a fairly common tactic:

Yes, insisting that you prove your statement with verifiable facts,
which you seem to be unable to do. No WONDER nobody takes you
seriously.

Your argument distills down to this: You don't like what we've said.

My argument distills down to this: Your paranoia caused you to made a
statement you can't prove.

No paranoia. Just hard facts.

Anecdotal evidence which does nothing to prove the claim made.


You really do strain the limits of stupid, don't you.

Why, are you feeling strained?

In talk.politics.guns Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:

Klaus Schadenfreude considered Sun, 11
Oct 2009 12:23:24 -0700 the perfect time to write:

You don't have to- you just have to prove it to me.

That is clearly impossible

Since such proof doesn't exist, because Frank made it up. He's just
another paranoid, lying cyclist.

You can read more at http://www.cars-suck.org/news/kbarelease.html

[chuckle] Oh yeah, there's a source of impartial, peer-reviewed
"proof" that the legal system assumes motorists are not negligent.

I've reveiwed his proof, and found it adequate.

Who gives a **** what you think? You're just another cyclist asking to
be bumped into the guard rail.

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:

Klaus Schadenfreude considered Sun, 11
Oct 2009 12:23:24 -0700 the perfect time to write:

You don't have to- you just have to prove it to me.

That is clearly impossible, since you are impervious to reason, logic,
and every form of proof yet devised.
If you can't, just
admit you were full of **** and move on.

Why so, when it's clearly your own inability to reason that's the
problem?

Possibly you would like to point out the law which states that the car
driver is not at fault.

Sorry, but you're full of ****.




You can read more at http://www.cars-suck.org/news/kbarelease.html

[chuckle] Oh yeah, there's a source of impartial, peer-reviewed
"proof" that the legal system assumes motorists are not negligent.

I've reveiwed his proof, and found it adequate.
You are free to search for any counterexamples, but I doubt you'll
find any. If there was any evidence to your assertions, you'd have
posted it by now.

In talk.politics.guns Simon Lewis wrote:

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:

Klaus Schadenfreude considered Sun, 11
Oct 2009 12:23:24 -0700 the perfect time to write:

You don't have to- you just have to prove it to me.

That is clearly impossible, since you are impervious to reason, logic,
and every form of proof yet devised.
If you can't, just
admit you were full of **** and move on.

Why so, when it's clearly your own inability to reason that's the
problem?

Possibly you would like to point out the law which states that the car
driver is not at fault.

Sorry, but you're full of ****.

They've been sidestepping this for about a week now. Frank will come
back and say, "I didn't say law, I said legal system" and then
continue to produce his anecdotal evidence.

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:

Simon Lewis considered Sun, 11 Oct 2009
23:54:39 +0200 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:

Klaus Schadenfreude considered Sun, 11
Oct 2009 12:23:24 -0700 the perfect time to write:

You don't have to- you just have to prove it to me.

That is clearly impossible, since you are impervious to reason, logic,
and every form of proof yet devised.
If you can't, just
admit you were full of **** and move on.

Why so, when it's clearly your own inability to reason that's the
problem?

Possibly you would like to point out the law which states that the car
driver is not at fault.

The problem is largely one of police and prosecutors failing to
enforce existing laws. Note that both police and prosecutors are part
of the legal system.

The problem is that you are making this up as you go along.


Sorry, but you're full of ****.

Ah, abuse. The sign of the true logician.
I think you'd better join Klaus.



You can read more at http://www.cars-suck.org/news/kbarelease.html

[chuckle] Oh yeah, there's a source of impartial, peer-reviewed
"proof" that the legal system assumes motorists are not negligent.

I've reveiwed his proof, and found it adequate.
You are free to search for any counterexamples, but I doubt you'll
find any. If there was any evidence to your assertions, you'd have
posted it by now.