texting motorist

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 15:07:37 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 09/09/2016 14:44, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 09:59:58 +0100, Bod wrote:


Cyclists are individual differing people with individual differing
intellects, are they not?

No, they're all nutters dressing up like they're in the Tour de
France.

Get away! Trying to look like your heroes doesn't make you a nutter.
Although I saw someone in town the other day wearing a Wayne
Rooney replica
shirt and I reckon he was about a hundred years old - I didn't
think he was
a nutter but it did make me smile.

A bicycle is a means from getting from A to B faster than
walking. You can wear normal clothes.

...or you can wear abnormal clothes. The choice is rightly up to the
individual concerned.

Only if they want to be seen as and treated as a ****ing imbecile.

By you, maybe, the choice is rightly up to the individual concerned.
Careful
how you go enjoying your freedom of choice, however, it doesn't extend
beyond the law.

I don't give a monkeys about what other people wear. I find it sad that
some people judge a person by their attire.
That says more about them than it does about the wearer.
As you say, *freedom of choice* is our right in our democratic country
and long may it be so.
People who criticise others are just saddoes.

People doing anything unnecessary annoys me.

Then that's your problem.

It shows stupidity. The world would be a better place with no stupid people.

--
The Muslim across the road started yelling "I'm going to end it all!", and started to pour petrol over himself.
As he was about to strike a match, I shouted "Abdul, no! Stop, wait, it's times like these that you need your family around you!"

On Friday, 9 September 2016 01:22:11 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone, then I drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us caused more harm.

If we both kill someone, we both caused identical harm.

In both cases we should receive precisely the same punishment.

So this bloke should have been let off as it was an "accident"?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sic-phone.html

On 09/09/2016 15:07, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2016 14:44, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 09:59:58 +0100, Bod wrote:


Cyclists are individual differing people with individual
differing
intellects, are they not?

No, they're all nutters dressing up like they're in the Tour de
France.

Get away! Trying to look like your heroes doesn't make you a
nutter.
Although I saw someone in town the other day wearing a Wayne
Rooney replica
shirt and I reckon he was about a hundred years old - I didn't
think he was
a nutter but it did make me smile.

A bicycle is a means from getting from A to B faster than
walking. You can wear normal clothes.

...or you can wear abnormal clothes. The choice is rightly up to the
individual concerned.

Only if they want to be seen as and treated as a ****ing imbecile.

By you, maybe, the choice is rightly up to the individual concerned.
Careful
how you go enjoying your freedom of choice, however, it doesn't extend
beyond the law.

I don't give a monkeys about what other people wear. I find it sad that
some people judge a person by their attire.
That says more about them than it does about the wearer.
As you say, *freedom of choice* is our right in our democratic country
and long may it be so.
People who criticise others are just saddoes.

People doing anything unnecessary annoys me.

Then that's your problem.

Exactly, though I suspect he didn't mean anything quite so simple as
what he actually said.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 17:10:45 +0100, Alycidon wrote:

On Friday, 9 September 2016 01:22:11 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone, then I drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us caused more harm.

If we both kill someone, we both caused identical harm.

In both cases we should receive precisely the same punishment.

So this bloke should have been let off as it was an "accident"?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sic-phone.html

Please learn to read what you're replying to.

--
A Muslim told me he had the Koran on DVD.
He got really upset when I asked him to burn me a copy.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 16:14:52 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 09:41:52 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:49:46 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 21:57:26 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698




Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get
9 years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being
confirmed. What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I
wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who already
has six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of pedestrians that they
are going to be hit and killed by a serial texting cyclists who have already
been convicted several times for texting whilst cycling? Has any pedestrian
ever lost their life to such a cyclist since mobile phones were invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented, so you didn't need to put in that requirement.

But that date is important because we can then know how long a time scale we
are looking at.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question that is far from
sensible itself. But I would have thought it was obvious that a cyclist is
highly unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were to hit and
kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a history of cycling and texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they hit and injure a
pedestrian walking along the pavement - a serial pavement riding cyclist or
a serial pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver are acting
illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted for doing so. But the driver
will get the greater punishment of the two and you don't think that is how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should there be a difference?

The potential for the outcome to be fatal is much greater with a car than a
bicycle. Come on it's obvious, which vehicle would you prefer to see
hurtling towards you as a pedestrian? Your responsibilities are far greater
as a car driver than a cyclist, hence all the extra hassle to which you are
subject to become a driver and then continue to be so.

If both ended up killing the pedestrian, you cannot say one was worse than the other. Both resulted in precisely one death.

If both happened. But I was questioning if one of them has ever even
happened (i.e. has a convicted serial texting cyclist ever gone on to hit
and kill a pedestrian and, if not, over how long a period of time would that
be).

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone, then I drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us caused more harm.

If we both kill someone, we both caused identical harm.

In both cases we should receive precisely the same punishment.

I agree in those essentials, but that is not what we were discussing. You
are talking about harm done and not done while failing to take into account
the potential to do harm. In the real world, with us both on the phone, you
in your car and me on my bike, if neither of us were to cause (equal amounts
of) no harm, we will both still have broken the law and if both of us were
caught and prosecuted, in spite of what you believe, you know one of us will
face greater sanctions than the other. It doesn't matter if you accept that
or not, the Law does it their way (as the record shows) and that is why
sensible people try to live within it.

Potential harm doesn't hurt anyone.

That's a bit like saying it doesn't hurt when you fall off a roof. It
doesn't hurt until you hit the ground.

Potential harm doesn't hurt until the potential is realised.

Not the same at all. One creates something else which kills you. The other causes a slight risk. If that risk does not result in death, no action should be taken against you.

--
A Muslim told me he had the Koran on DVD.
He got really upset when I asked him to burn me a copy.

On 09/09/2016 01:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:49:46 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 21:57:26 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698





Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while
texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he
get
9 years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being
confirmed. What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I
wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who
already
has six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of pedestrians
that they
are going to be hit and killed by a serial texting cyclists who
have already
been convicted several times for texting whilst cycling? Has any
pedestrian
ever lost their life to such a cyclist since mobile phones were
invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented, so you
didn't need to put in that requirement.

But that date is important because we can then know how long a time
scale we
are looking at.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question that is far
from
sensible itself. But I would have thought it was obvious that a
cyclist is
highly unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were to
hit and
kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a history of cycling and
texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they hit and injure a
pedestrian walking along the pavement - a serial pavement riding
cyclist or
a serial pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver
are acting
illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted for doing so. But the
driver
will get the greater punishment of the two and you don't think
that is how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should there be a
difference?

The potential for the outcome to be fatal is much greater with a car
than a
bicycle. Come on it's obvious, which vehicle would you prefer to see
hurtling towards you as a pedestrian? Your responsibilities are far
greater
as a car driver than a cyclist, hence all the extra hassle to which
you are
subject to become a driver and then continue to be so.

If both ended up killing the pedestrian, you cannot say one was worse
than the other. Both resulted in precisely one death.

If both happened. But I was questioning if one of them has ever even
happened (i.e. has a convicted serial texting cyclist ever gone on to hit
and kill a pedestrian and, if not, over how long a period of time
would that
be).

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone, then I
drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us caused more harm.

Knowing you didn't cause harm after the event is not enough. You must
know with a high degree of certainty that something you want to do is
not going to cause harm. The record amongst drivers is shown to be poor.

If we both kill someone, we both caused identical harm.

In both cases we should receive precisely the same punishment.

No problem with that. We shall just have to wait for a texting cyclist
to kill someone. I'm not holding my breath for such news and I don't
suppose you are. However, since some posters here seem to think all the
world's problems are caused by cyclists, I expect the idea is making
them terrified of stepping out of the front door.

A bicycle is a means from getting from A to B faster than walking.
You can wear normal clothes.

...or you can wear abnormal clothes. The choice is rightly up to the
individual concerned.

Only if they want to be seen as and treated as a ****ing imbecile.

Specific clothing is used in many occupations and activities. Why do you
take such exception to riding a bicycle? Of course it's possible to
ride to the shops in whatever but a 30-50 mile ramble through the
countryside is something different. It's usty not easy for an outsider
to distinguish between a "touring" cyclist and a TdF wannabe.

On 08/09/2016 13:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2016 20:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/09/2016 17:00, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698


Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while
texting jailed for nine years Why he wasn't banned before
beggars belief. Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the time. If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a
pedestrian, would he get 9 years in jail? Or, do we both know
the answer to that one?

Fortunately you will not get the opportunity to find out.

I hope you are right.

But experience teaches sensible people to never say "never".

Sensible people read what is written, not what they wish had been
written and not what they imagined had been written.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 12:14:40 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/09/2016 01:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:49:46 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 21:57:26 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698





Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while
texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he
get
9 years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being
confirmed. What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I
wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who
already
has six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of pedestrians
that they
are going to be hit and killed by a serial texting cyclists who
have already
been convicted several times for texting whilst cycling? Has any
pedestrian
ever lost their life to such a cyclist since mobile phones were
invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented, so you
didn't need to put in that requirement.

But that date is important because we can then know how long a time
scale we
are looking at.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question that is far
from
sensible itself. But I would have thought it was obvious that a
cyclist is
highly unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were to
hit and
kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a history of cycling and
texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they hit and injure a
pedestrian walking along the pavement - a serial pavement riding
cyclist or
a serial pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver
are acting
illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted for doing so. But the
driver
will get the greater punishment of the two and you don't think
that is how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should there be a
difference?

The potential for the outcome to be fatal is much greater with a car
than a
bicycle. Come on it's obvious, which vehicle would you prefer to see
hurtling towards you as a pedestrian? Your responsibilities are far
greater
as a car driver than a cyclist, hence all the extra hassle to which
you are
subject to become a driver and then continue to be so.

If both ended up killing the pedestrian, you cannot say one was worse
than the other. Both resulted in precisely one death.

If both happened. But I was questioning if one of them has ever even
happened (i.e. has a convicted serial texting cyclist ever gone on to hit
and kill a pedestrian and, if not, over how long a period of time
would that
be).

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone, then I
drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us caused more harm.

Knowing you didn't cause harm after the event is not enough. You must
know with a high degree of certainty that something you want to do is
not going to cause harm. The record amongst drivers is shown to be poor.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 09:52:10 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 16:14:52 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 09:41:52 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:49:46 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 21:57:26 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698




Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get
9 years in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being
confirmed. What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I
wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who already
has six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of pedestrians that they
are going to be hit and killed by a serial texting cyclists who have already
been convicted several times for texting whilst cycling? Has any pedestrian
ever lost their life to such a cyclist since mobile phones were invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented, so you didn't need to put in that requirement.

But that date is important because we can then know how long a time scale we
are looking at.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question that is far from
sensible itself. But I would have thought it was obvious that a cyclist is
highly unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were to hit and
kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a history of cycling and texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they hit and injure a
pedestrian walking along the pavement - a serial pavement riding cyclist or
a serial pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver are acting
illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted for doing so. But the driver
will get the greater punishment of the two and you don't think that is how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should there be a difference?

The potential for the outcome to be fatal is much greater with a car than a
bicycle. Come on it's obvious, which vehicle would you prefer to see
hurtling towards you as a pedestrian? Your responsibilities are far greater
as a car driver than a cyclist, hence all the extra hassle to which you are
subject to become a driver and then continue to be so.

If both ended up killing the pedestrian, you cannot say one was worse than the other. Both resulted in precisely one death.

If both happened. But I was questioning if one of them has ever even
happened (i.e. has a convicted serial texting cyclist ever gone on to hit
and kill a pedestrian and, if not, over how long a period of time would that
be).

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone, then I drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us caused more harm.

If we both kill someone, we both caused identical harm.

In both cases we should receive precisely the same punishment.

I agree in those essentials, but that is not what we were discussing. You
are talking about harm done and not done while failing to take into account
the potential to do harm. In the real world, with us both on the phone, you
in your car and me on my bike, if neither of us were to cause (equal amounts
of) no harm, we will both still have broken the law and if both of us were
caught and prosecuted, in spite of what you believe, you know one of us will
face greater sanctions than the other. It doesn't matter if you accept that
or not, the Law does it their way (as the record shows) and that is why
sensible people try to live within it.

Potential harm doesn't hurt anyone.

That's a bit like saying it doesn't hurt when you fall off a roof. It
doesn't hurt until you hit the ground.

Potential harm doesn't hurt until the potential is realised.

Not the same at all. One creates something else which kills you.

There is potential harm in wandering around on a roof with little
appreciation of the risks involved. If you were to fall off the roof then
that potential is going to be fully realised when you hit the ground.

There is potential harm when you drive while texting, as there is when you
cycle while texting. A proper risk assessment would give you an idea of the
dangers entailed in each activity.

A risk doesn't mean it will happen. Until it happens, no crime is committed. You just have a risk of committing a crime.

--
Peter is listening to "Pogues with Sinead O'Connor - I'm a man you don't meet every day"

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 02:02:33 +0100, Alycidon wrote:

On Friday, 9 September 2016 01:18:56 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:

No, they're all nutters dressing up like they're in the Tour de France.

Erm, 99.9% of cyclists that I see, wear normal type clothes.

99.9% here do not. Only on council estates they dress normally, presumably they can't afford the stupid clothes.

Last time I visited our village green, the cricket team could afford cricket whites. I did not see them as stupid.

You don't see them as silly snobs then? See my sig:

--
Hockey is a sport for white men.
Basketball is a sport for black men.
Golf is a sport for white men dressed like black pimps. -- Tiger Woods