Cycling doctor gets death threats after posting videos of crapdriving on Youtube.

On 26 Mar, 13:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
But, yes, the police have been useless. *After that incident I got
cameras for my bike but the police aren't interested in prosecuting
even with video evidence. *See for example
*`KN51 TXU pulls out forcing me to swerve and brake' at
*http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

Weren't they even interested in prosecuting the two cyclists clearly
seen cycling across the Zebra crossing in that video?

Rob Morley wrote:

In article a0334884-326d-42d2-a282-f3d829d99c73
@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, spindrift
says...
HELMET-CAM-DOCTOR-CYCLIST GETS DEATH THREATS AFTER FILMING ERRANT
DRIVERS:

http://tinyurl.com/2v4vtu

Caps lock headline speak frenzy!


There's a forum fro bus drivers called "Bloodbus", no, really, whose
members have been issuing threats to Magnatom.

The word "Vigilante" is entirely the wrong word in that article, are
CCTVs in banks "vigilantes"?

//
(Police) said: "We would advise anyone who feels their safety on the
road has been compromised to contact the police in the first instance."
//
When they will, of course, do nothing about it.

"Police warned against anyone taking the the law into their own hands."
So people shooting video in a public place and posting it on the web is
"taking the law into their own hands", apparently, rather than creating
amateur documentary.

reading/watching this i get the feeling they think he's a idiot/funny.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 26 Mar, 15:17, POHB wrote:


Weren't they even interested in prosecuting the two cyclists clearly
seen cycling across the Zebra crossing in that video?


Whilst I in no way condone such behaviour I do not think
it is actually illegal. In the HC it is a Do Not rather than a
Must Not.

"Paul George" wrote in message
...
On 26 Mar, 15:17, POHB wrote:


Weren't they even interested in prosecuting the two cyclists clearly
seen cycling across the Zebra crossing in that video?


Whilst I in no way condone such behaviour I do not think
it is actually illegal. In the HC it is a Do Not rather than a
Must Not.


but cycling on the pavement is a MUST NOT, they were therefore illegal at
the start and end of the crossing!!

pk

On 26 Mar, 16:16, "PK" wrote:

but cycling on the pavement is a MUST NOT, they were therefore illegal at
the start and end of the crossing!!

There is no evidence of pavement cycling in the video.

"Paul George" wrote in message
...
On 26 Mar, 16:16, "PK" wrote:

but cycling on the pavement is a MUST NOT, they were therefore illegal at
the start and end of the crossing!!

There is no evidence of pavement cycling in the video.





you mean they walked their bikes to the edge of the pavement, got on, rode
across the crossing and then got off again before mounting the pavement. Of
course! my mistake! I apologise for my error!

pk

On 26 Mar, 16:29, "PK" wrote:

you mean they walked their bikes to the edge of the pavement, got on, rode
across the crossing and then got off again before mounting the pavement. Of
course! my mistake! I apologise for my error!


I have no idea, neither do you.
The question was why did the police not use this video evidence to
prosecute the cyclists. The answer is because that video contains
no evidence of lawbreaking by the cyclists.

"Paul George" wrote in message
...
On 26 Mar, 16:29, "PK" wrote:

you mean they walked their bikes to the edge of the pavement, got on,
rode
across the crossing and then got off again before mounting the pavement.
Of
course! my mistake! I apologise for my error!


I have no idea, neither do you.
The question was why did the police not use this video evidence to
prosecute the cyclists. The answer is because that video contains
no evidence of lawbreaking by the cyclists.


******** and you know it!

pk

On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, "PK" wrote:
"Paul George" wrote in message

...

On 26 Mar, 15:17, POHB wrote:

Weren't they even interested in prosecuting the two cyclists clearly
seen cycling across the Zebra crossing in that video?

Whilst I in no way condone such behaviour I do not think
it is actually illegal. In the HC it is a Do Not rather than a
Must Not.

but cycling on the pavement is a MUST NOT, they were therefore illegal at
the start and end of the crossing!!

What a wonderfully joined up legal system we have. I thought that the
"parking on a pavement is ok, but driving on a pavement is not" was a
one off anomaly!

peter

In article , PK
says...
"Paul George" wrote in message
...
On 26 Mar, 16:29, "PK" wrote:

you mean they walked their bikes to the edge of the pavement, got on,
rode
across the crossing and then got off again before mounting the pavement.
Of
course! my mistake! I apologise for my error!


I have no idea, neither do you.
The question was why did the police not use this video evidence to
prosecute the cyclists. The answer is because that video contains
no evidence of lawbreaking by the cyclists.


******** and you know it!

Hey, mister mind reader, what am I thinking?