Traffic Cops

On May 13, 10:29*am, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:40:56 +0100, Judith
wrote:



Saw part of the program on BBC2 tonight.

The police were called to an accident on the A10 * - at night - *thought to be
involving a cyclist.

As the officer said - the A10 is an unlit dual carriage way with no street
lights and fast traffic *- it is not place for cyclists.

I quite agree.

Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists.

That would mean driver training, the use of headlights on roads over
30mph, good vision, soberness, and an instilled fear of hurting the
fellow man. Hmm, there's something wrong with motor insurance as it
removes the act of responsibility from the driver and any sense from
police officers.

Perhaps speed humps and a 20 mph limit would do the trick -
certainly a cheaper alternative to a segregated Dutch style cycle
track.

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
...

On 13/05/2012 10:29, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:40:56 +0100,
wrote:




Saw part of the program on BBC2 tonight.

The police were called to an accident on the A10 - at night - thought
to be
involving a cyclist.

As the officer said - the A10 is an unlit dual carriage way with no
street
lights and fast traffic - it is not place for cyclists.

I quite agree.

Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists.

Why waste public money on a small minority of road users?

Perhaps speed humps and a 20 mph limit would do the trick -
certainly a cheaper alternative to a segregated Dutch style cycle
track.

An even cheaper alternative would be to have a sign erected saying "Do
not use children's toys on this road - it was designed for viable forms
of transport."
============================================

How's the psycholist-busting going Dave? It's rather easy at the moment.

I think Numb Nuts is on an extended cycling proficiency course at the moment
after the police saw the video of his appalling cycling on Friday.

On May 13, 2:22*pm, thirty-six wrote:


Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists.

That would mean driver training, the use of headlights on roads over
30mph, good vision, soberness, and an instilled fear of hurting the
fellow man. *Hmm, there's something wrong with motor insurance as it
removes the act of responsibility from the driver and any sense from
police officers.

A look in our local rag gives cause for hope though.
There is a list as long as your arm of drivers who have been done for
all sorts of things on a daily basis.
Mainly, speeding, drink driving and mobile phone abuse it seems.

Although, a driver was moaning in the letters page about being done
for overtaking a police van which was within the zig zags of a zebra
crossing - I mean just how stupid do you have to be to pull a stunt
like that?

--
Simon Mason

On May 13, 5:57*pm, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 13, 2:22*pm, thirty-six wrote:



Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists.

That would mean driver training, the use of headlights on roads over
30mph, good vision, soberness, and an instilled fear of hurting the
fellow man. *Hmm, there's something wrong with motor insurance as it
removes the act of responsibility from the driver and any sense from
police officers.

A look in our local rag gives cause for hope though.
There is a list as long as your arm of drivers who have been done for
all sorts of things on a daily basis.
Mainly, speeding, drink driving and mobile phone abuse it seems.

Tax collecting for crown corporation.


Although, a driver was moaning in the letters page about being done
for overtaking a police van which was within the zig zags of a zebra
crossing - I mean just how stupid do you have to be to pull a stunt
like that?


DO NOT STEP OVER ZE LINE!

On May 13, 11:44*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie Wooster considered Sun, 13 May 2012
10:29:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:









On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:40:56 +0100, Judith
wrote:

Saw part of the program on BBC2 tonight.

The police were called to an accident on the A10 * - at night - *thought to be
involving a cyclist.

As the officer said - the A10 is an unlit dual carriage way with no street
lights and fast traffic *- it is not place for cyclists.

I quite agree.

Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists. Perhaps speed humps and a 20 mph limit would do the trick -
certainly a cheaper alternative to a segregated Dutch style cycle
track.

As always, the first approach to safety should be the removal of the
danger, not the endangered.
This would also align well with the right to use such roads, which is
enjoyed by cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians, but not by motor
vehicles - who only have a privilege, which can be withdrawn.

Maybe the police should consider that if it isn't safe for cyclists,
that may be at least partly because they have allowed it to become so.
Failing to prosecute dangerous criminals who pose a threat to those
with a legal right to use the road would be one major reason why they
persist.
As far as I can see, the police colluded in this crime, rather than
doing their duty and bringing the criminal to justice.
There were a number of serious crimes with which she could have been
charged, including manslaughter. *If she had reported the collision
promptly so that medical aid could have been dispatched immediately,
it is possible that her victim may have survived. *She alone was
responsible for the delay, and should therefore be held liable for the
consequences.

Should it not be the chief constable who is brought to court for these
repeated acts by crown officers in support of these evil deeds. In
the parlance of westminster, an accessory to murder. Do they not
swear an oath to uphold justice and yet they hide these all-too-common
crimes? Everyday it becomes more and more clear to me that
detection, arrest and prosecution comes after tax collecting for these
monkies.

On May 13, 6:44*pm, thirty-six wrote:
On May 13, 5:57*pm, Simon Mason wrote:





On May 13, 2:22*pm, thirty-six wrote:

Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists.

That would mean driver training, the use of headlights on roads over
30mph, good vision, soberness, and an instilled fear of hurting the
fellow man. *Hmm, there's something wrong with motor insurance as it
removes the act of responsibility from the driver and any sense from
police officers.

A look in our local rag gives cause for hope though.
There is a list as long as your arm of drivers who have been done for
all sorts of things on a daily basis.
Mainly, speeding, drink driving and mobile phone abuse it seems.

Tax collecting for crown corporation.

Indeed - but I pay enough taxes as it is without being so stupid as to
pay out even more in silly fines that can totally be avoided like some
mug drivers do.

--
Simon Mason

On 13/05/2012 23:44, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie considered Sun, 13 May 2012
10:29:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:40:56 +0100,
wrote:




Saw part of the program on BBC2 tonight.

The police were called to an accident on the A10 - at night - thought to be
involving a cyclist.

As the officer said - the A10 is an unlit dual carriage way with no street
lights and fast traffic - it is not place for cyclists.

I quite agree.

Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists. Perhaps speed humps and a 20 mph limit would do the trick -
certainly a cheaper alternative to a segregated Dutch style cycle
track.
As always, the first approach to safety should be the removal of the
danger, not the endangered.
This would also align well with the right to use such roads, which is
enjoyed by cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians, but not by motor
vehicles - who only have a privilege, which can be withdrawn.

Maybe the police should consider that if it isn't safe for cyclists,
that may be at least partly because they have allowed it to become so.
Failing to prosecute dangerous criminals who pose a threat to those
with a legal right to use the road would be one major reason why they
persist.
As far as I can see, the police colluded in this crime, rather than
doing their duty and bringing the criminal to justice.
There were a number of serious crimes with which she could have been
charged, including manslaughter. If she had reported the collision
promptly so that medical aid could have been dispatched immediately,
it is possible that her victim may have survived. She alone was
responsible for the delay, and should therefore be held liable for the
consequences.

I agree, we should remove the danger to road users.
We should stop ****ed cyclists, who have no lights, no reflectors, no
hi-vis clothing from using this road.

On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:52:42 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 13/05/2012 23:44, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie considered Sun, 13 May 2012
10:29:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:40:56 +0100,
wrote:




Saw part of the program on BBC2 tonight.

The police were called to an accident on the A10 - at night - thought to be
involving a cyclist.

As the officer said - the A10 is an unlit dual carriage way with no street
lights and fast traffic - it is not place for cyclists.

I quite agree.

Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists. Perhaps speed humps and a 20 mph limit would do the trick -
certainly a cheaper alternative to a segregated Dutch style cycle
track.
As always, the first approach to safety should be the removal of the
danger, not the endangered.
This would also align well with the right to use such roads, which is
enjoyed by cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians, but not by motor
vehicles - who only have a privilege, which can be withdrawn.

Maybe the police should consider that if it isn't safe for cyclists,
that may be at least partly because they have allowed it to become so.
Failing to prosecute dangerous criminals who pose a threat to those
with a legal right to use the road would be one major reason why they
persist.
As far as I can see, the police colluded in this crime, rather than
doing their duty and bringing the criminal to justice.
There were a number of serious crimes with which she could have been
charged, including manslaughter. If she had reported the collision
promptly so that medical aid could have been dispatched immediately,
it is possible that her victim may have survived. She alone was
responsible for the delay, and should therefore be held liable for the
consequences.

I agree, we should remove the danger to road users.
We should stop ****ed cyclists, who have no lights, no reflectors, no
hi-vis clothing from using this road.

Perhaps. And perhaps all motor vehicles should be painted fluorescent
green to reduce the regular occurrence of them driving into each
other.

On 14/05/2012 09:20, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:52:42 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 13/05/2012 23:44, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie considered Sun, 13 May 2012
10:29:07 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:40:56 +0100,
wrote:




Saw part of the program on BBC2 tonight.

The police were called to an accident on the A10 - at night - thought to be
involving a cyclist.

As the officer said - the A10 is an unlit dual carriage way with no street
lights and fast traffic - it is not place for cyclists.

I quite agree.

Perhaps, then, the authorities will think about making it safe for
cyclists. Perhaps speed humps and a 20 mph limit would do the trick -
certainly a cheaper alternative to a segregated Dutch style cycle
track.
As always, the first approach to safety should be the removal of the
danger, not the endangered.
This would also align well with the right to use such roads, which is
enjoyed by cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians, but not by motor
vehicles - who only have a privilege, which can be withdrawn.

Maybe the police should consider that if it isn't safe for cyclists,
that may be at least partly because they have allowed it to become so.
Failing to prosecute dangerous criminals who pose a threat to those
with a legal right to use the road would be one major reason why they
persist.
As far as I can see, the police colluded in this crime, rather than
doing their duty and bringing the criminal to justice.
There were a number of serious crimes with which she could have been
charged, including manslaughter. If she had reported the collision
promptly so that medical aid could have been dispatched immediately,
it is possible that her victim may have survived. She alone was
responsible for the delay, and should therefore be held liable for the
consequences.

I agree, we should remove the danger to road users.
We should stop ****ed cyclists, who have no lights, no reflectors, no
hi-vis clothing from using this road.

Perhaps. And perhaps all motor vehicles should be painted fluorescent
green to reduce the regular occurrence of them driving into each
other.

Can I have the paint concession?

On Sun, 13 May 2012 11:18:38 +0100, Judith wrote:

Tom Crispin

Like domestic violence, stalking is a crime of power and control.



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.