Police bias in favour of motorists.

I was watching one of the police traffic programs on TV, which never
cease to amaze me.

A child cyclist had been involved in a crash, not serious fortunately.
Two police petrolheads drove to the scene in one of their flashy cars
of which they are so proud. The kid was already in the ambulance and
the driver involved was an elderly bloke who openly admitted he had
hit the accelerator instead of the brake by mistake in the heat of the
moment. One of the cops actually said the mistake probably saved the
kid from more serious injury. Truly astonishing! They did check the
driver's eyesight and breathalised him and carried out a perfunctory
visual inspection of the car, and that seemed to be that.

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

Doug wrote:
I was watching one of the police traffic programs on TV, which never
cease to amaze me.

A child cyclist had been involved in a crash, not serious fortunately.
Two police petrolheads drove to the scene in one of their flashy cars
of which they are so proud. The kid was already in the ambulance and
the driver involved was an elderly bloke who openly admitted he had
hit the accelerator instead of the brake by mistake in the heat of the
moment. One of the cops actually said the mistake probably saved the
kid from more serious injury. Truly astonishing! They did check the
driver's eyesight and breathalised him and carried out a perfunctory
visual inspection of the car, and that seemed to be that.

That's the first time I have head *any* uk.legal poster claim that the
police are biased in *favour* of motorists! Usually they are complaining
that the police are taking the easy option of targeting motorists instead of
serious criminals.

I didn't watch the programme and so cannot comment - but the statement you
allege the officer made, just does not make sense - and nor can I understand
why no action was taken against the driver - assuming you are correct in
saying that it wasn't.

Ret.

"Ret." xxx gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Doug wrote:
the usual

That's the first time I have head *any* uk.legal poster claim that the
police are biased in *favour* of motorists!

You're new to Duhg, aren't you? He's got bored of wrecking uk.transport,
and shifted his allegiance to here.

It's all a conspiracy against him, and he should be allowed to cycle
wherever and whenever he pleases. Motorways, railway platforms,
pedestrianised areas etc etc. Anything else is blatant discrimination in
favour of motorists. He didn't always used to be like this. Just since he
lost his driving licence.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
I was watching one of the police traffic programs on TV, which never
cease to amaze me.

A child cyclist had been involved in a crash, not serious fortunately.
Two police petrolheads drove to the scene in one of their flashy cars
of which they are so proud. The kid was already in the ambulance and
the driver involved was an elderly bloke who openly admitted he had
hit the accelerator instead of the brake by mistake in the heat of the
moment. One of the cops actually said the mistake probably saved the
kid from more serious injury. Truly astonishing! They did check the
driver's eyesight and breathalised him and carried out a perfunctory
visual inspection of the car, and that seemed to be that.

I saw the programme too. What I found rather worrying was the police blaming
the child for the accident, saying things like "It was his own fault" and
"it should teach him a lesson".

What happened was a 9 year old child had ridden his bike (or BSO) out from
behind a parked car. Bearing in mind that he was 9 years old, I cannot see
how he should be entirely responsible for having traffic avoid hitting him.

I appreciate that something coming out between parked cars is difficult for
road users to see, until it is too late, but that is a good reason why *all*
traffic should leave plenty of width (primary position) when passing parked
cars and keep speed low.

It also seems to be entirely legal to pass a parked car at the posted speed
limit. This is another reason why a maximum limit of 20mph would be better
in all built up areas.

And lastly, it adds strength the argument that cars should *not* be allowed
to be parked at the side of the road unless in specified parking bays.

It goes to show that cars rule the public highway. I drive at a maximum of
20 mph passing parked cars, even in a 40 limit to enable the kids I might
plough into a fair chance of survival. I think that is only fair.

"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I saw the programme too. What I found rather worrying was the police
blaming the child for the accident, saying things like "It was his own
fault" and "it should teach him a lesson".

What happened was a 9 year old child had ridden his bike (or BSO) out
from behind a parked car. Bearing in mind that he was 9 years old, I
cannot see how he should be entirely responsible for having traffic
avoid hitting him.

Sorry, but that IS definitely the kid's fault. If the kid is too young or
immature to understand that you don't play on a bike in the road and you
don't cycle out from behind obstacles, then it's the parents' fault for
failing to supervise him properly.

It goes to show that cars rule the public highway. I drive at a maximum
of 20 mph passing parked cars, even in a 40 limit

You'd fail a driving test for doing so.

Would you even do that in a 70 limit?

"Ret." xxx wrote in message
...
Doug wrote:
I was watching one of the police traffic programs on TV, which never
cease to amaze me.

A child cyclist had been involved in a crash, not serious fortunately.
Two police petrolheads drove to the scene in one of their flashy cars
of which they are so proud. The kid was already in the ambulance and
the driver involved was an elderly bloke who openly admitted he had
hit the accelerator instead of the brake by mistake in the heat of the
moment. One of the cops actually said the mistake probably saved the
kid from more serious injury. Truly astonishing! They did check the
driver's eyesight and breathalised him and carried out a perfunctory
visual inspection of the car, and that seemed to be that.

That's the first time I have head *any* uk.legal poster claim that the
police are biased in *favour* of motorists!

But this is from Doug the anarchist who lives in a parallel world where
cyclists are persecuted by society and the car driver is king.

mileburner wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
I was watching one of the police traffic programs on TV, which never
cease to amaze me.

A child cyclist had been involved in a crash, not serious fortunately.
Two police petrolheads drove to the scene in one of their flashy cars
of which they are so proud. The kid was already in the ambulance and
the driver involved was an elderly bloke who openly admitted he had
hit the accelerator instead of the brake by mistake in the heat of the
moment. One of the cops actually said the mistake probably saved the
kid from more serious injury. Truly astonishing! They did check the
driver's eyesight and breathalised him and carried out a perfunctory
visual inspection of the car, and that seemed to be that.

I saw the programme too. What I found rather worrying was the police blaming the
child for the accident, saying things like "It was his own fault" and "it should
teach him a lesson".

What happened was a 9 year old child had ridden his bike (or BSO) out from behind
a parked car. Bearing in mind that he was 9 years old, I cannot see how he should
be entirely responsible for having traffic avoid hitting him.

I appreciate that something coming out between parked cars is difficult for road
users to see, until it is too late, but that is a good reason why all traffic
should leave plenty of width (primary position) when passing parked cars and keep
speed low.

It also seems to be entirely legal to pass a parked car at the posted speed limit.
This is another reason why a maximum limit of 20mph would be better in all built
up areas.

And lastly, it adds strength the argument that cars should not be allowed to be
parked at the side of the road unless in specified parking bays.

It goes to show that cars rule the public highway. I drive at a maximum of 20 mph
passing parked cars, even in a 40 limit to enable the kids I might plough into a
fair chance of survival. I think that is only fair.

Why was a nine year old allowed to play out unsupervised on a bike

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I saw the programme too. What I found rather worrying was the police
blaming the child for the accident, saying things like "It was his own
fault" and "it should teach him a lesson".

What happened was a 9 year old child had ridden his bike (or BSO) out
from behind a parked car. Bearing in mind that he was 9 years old, I
cannot see how he should be entirely responsible for having traffic
avoid hitting him.

Sorry, but that IS definitely the kid's fault. If the kid is too young or
immature to understand that you don't play on a bike in the road and you
don't cycle out from behind obstacles, then it's the parents' fault for
failing to supervise him properly.

It goes to show that cars rule the public highway. I drive at a maximum
of 20 mph passing parked cars, even in a 40 limit

You'd fail a driving test for doing so.

Rubbish. 40mph is an arbitrary maximum speed, not the speed you should be
travelling at. I can imagine that you would fail the test if you travelled
too fast in the presence of hazards. Always drive according to the road
conditions.

Would you even do that in a 70 limit?

There generally aren't parked cars on dual carriageways or motorways.

"Mr Benn" %%%@%.%% gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

It goes to show that cars rule the public highway. I drive at a
maximum of 20 mph passing parked cars, even in a 40 limit

You'd fail a driving test for doing so.

Rubbish. 40mph is an arbitrary maximum speed, not the speed you should
be travelling at. I can imagine that you would fail the test if you
travelled too fast in the presence of hazards. Always drive according
to the road conditions.

Indeed.

Which does not include doing 20mph just because there's a parked car.

Would you even do that in a 70 limit?

There generally aren't parked cars on dual carriageways

It's far from unknown. I can think of plenty of stretches of NSL d/c with
residential parking at the sides.

Mr Benn wrote:


"Adrian" wrote in message
... "mileburner"
gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I saw the programme too. What I found rather worrying was the police
blaming the child for the accident, saying things like "It was his own
fault" and "it should teach him a lesson".

What happened was a 9 year old child had ridden his bike (or BSO) out
from behind a parked car. Bearing in mind that he was 9 years old, I
cannot see how he should be entirely responsible for having traffic
avoid hitting him.

Sorry, but that IS definitely the kid's fault. If the kid is too young or
immature to understand that you don't play on a bike in the road and you
don't cycle out from behind obstacles, then it's the parents' fault for
failing to supervise him properly.

It goes to show that cars rule the public highway. I drive at a maximum
of 20 mph passing parked cars, even in a 40 limit

You'd fail a driving test for doing so.

Rubbish. 40mph is an arbitrary maximum speed, not the speed you should be
travelling at. I can imagine that you would fail the test if you travelled too
fast in the presence of hazards. Always drive according to the road conditions.


Its not rubbish at all , you would fail for hesitancy or not making proper progress
, my daughter did on her first test

At a traffic island she allowed a pedestrian to cross and a car to clear the island
before proceeding , as a new driver a sensible thing to do .

and before i read comments you wernt there its only what shes told you , i was
behind her on my motorcycle and as far as i was concerned her actions were spot on ,
infact if she had moved off its highly likely the car comming around the island
would have hit her