More driver wriggling

Driver who was done for driving without due care and attention,
represents himself in court and adopts the kitchen sink approach.

First attempt - "Cyclists was on the pavement"
No, he wasn't - try again.

Second go - "OK, he was on the road but travelling "too fast"."
Nope - have another go.

Third attempt.
"Well, the sun was in my eyes and I couldn't see"
Sorry - that won't wash either- kerching.

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/ne...ad_1_ 2925908

--
Simon Mason

On 04/08/2011 17:04, Simon Mason wrote:
Driver who was done for driving without due care and attention,
represents himself in court and adopts the kitchen sink approach.

You sad, sad git. *Any* opportunity to have a go at a motorist and
you're right in there. People have more-or-less given up replying and
trying to reason with you, haven't they?

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Driver who was done for driving without due care and attention,
represents himself in court and adopts the kitchen sink approach.

First attempt - "Cyclists was on the pavement"
No, he wasn't - try again.

Second go - "OK, he was on the road but travelling "too fast"."
Nope - have another go.

Third attempt.
"Well, the sun was in my eyes and I couldn't see"
Sorry - that won't wash either- kerching.

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/ne...ad_1_ 2925908

Well what about compensation for injuries, trauma, time off work, damage
caused to mental health and bicycle?

IMHO this sort of driver should not be allowed to hold a driving license, it
should have been withdrawn (if possible).

On 04/08/2011 22:59, Ding Dong wrote:
On 04/08/2011 17:04, Simon Mason wrote:
Driver who was done for driving without due care and attention,
represents himself in court and adopts the kitchen sink approach.

You sad, sad git. *Any* opportunity to have a go at a motorist and
you're right in there. People have more-or-less given up replying and
trying to reason with you, haven't they?


If you do try to reason with the retard he will simply kill file you
rather that reply. His intellectual capacity is similar to that of a worm.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 4-Aug-2011, Ding Dong wrote:

On 04/08/2011 17:04, Simon Mason wrote:
Driver who was done for driving without due care and attention,
represents himself in court and adopts the kitchen sink approach.

You sad, sad git. *Any* opportunity to have a go at a motorist and
you're right in there. People have more-or-less given up replying and
trying to reason with you, haven't they?

Why do you want to ignore or discount the fact that drivers, mostly
motorists, kill or injure cyclists? Cyclists don't kill or injure drivers
during a collision so why should this one-sided conflict be allowed by law?

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

"Doug" wrote in message
...

On 4-Aug-2011, Ding Dong wrote:

On 04/08/2011 17:04, Simon Mason wrote:
Driver who was done for driving without due care and attention,
represents himself in court and adopts the kitchen sink approach.

You sad, sad git. *Any* opportunity to have a go at a motorist and
you're right in there. People have more-or-less given up replying and
trying to reason with you, haven't they?

Why do you want to ignore or discount the fact that drivers, mostly
motorists, kill or injure cyclists? Cyclists don't kill or injure drivers
during a collision so why should this one-sided conflict be allowed by
law?

Which law allows motorists to kill cyclists?

Hint - there isn't one, but between you and Simon, you're starting to
persuade me to petition Parliament to make one.

On 05/08/2011 07:43, Doug wrote:
On 4-Aug-2011, Ding Dong wrote:

On 04/08/2011 17:04, Simon Mason wrote:
Driver who was done for driving without due care and attention,
represents himself in court and adopts the kitchen sink approach.

You sad, sad git. *Any* opportunity to have a go at a motorist and
you're right in there. People have more-or-less given up replying and
trying to reason with you, haven't they?

Why do you want to ignore or discount the fact that drivers, mostly
motorists, kill or injure cyclists? Cyclists don't kill or injure drivers
during a collision so why should this one-sided conflict be allowed by law?

Because the usefulness of motor vehicles is correctly judged (by sane
people) to massively outweigh the impact of the unfortunate collisions.
Tens of millions benefit from cars every day; a couple of thousand
deaths involve cars every year. (You see, most reasonable people judge
being able to go where you want, when you want as "useful", rather than
as "an unwelcome freedom" like you, Simon Mason, Chapman and "Brake" do.)

So the idea is to carry on using cars but to minimise the collisions
that they are involved in. This effort was steadily paying off until 20
years ago, when the anti-car brigade (you know, people like you)
infected the road safety debate and started inflicting speed cameras,
and other anti-car measures which don't really improve safety, on us all
in place of genuine road safety improvements. As a result, deaths have
stopped falling the way that they were. Congratulations, car-haters.

So if you're really and truly bothered about these collisions (which I
don't think you are) then you will grow up, accept the car's continuing
role in society, and start campaigning for genuine road safety measures.
You can either try to discourage car use (which has been shown to be
futile, hasn't it?) *or* you can try to make it safer; the two aims are
completely incompatible (rather than being "one and the same" as some
would like us to think), and you need to decide which is more important
to you. If you continue to try (in vain) to discourage car use then you
must accept that until you succeed, it won't be getting any safer (in
fact if anything it'll be the opposite), and you and your ilk will be
responsible for that.

Considering how many journeys there are, and how often cars mingle with
other cars and other road users (and the speeds at which they do it),
drivers are amazingly good at staying out of trouble and preventing
collisions. The vast majority of people go through their whole lives
without being involved in a fatal collision, and yet we all benefit
every day from road transport (even the car-haters have their goods
brought on trucks, which shows how hypocritical they are). It's a shame
that some people are determined to see only the negatives of motoring
when there are so many positives. It's even more of a shame that such
people these days have such a disproportionate and unrepresentative
influence on policy (rather than being correctly treated as impractical
loonies like they used to be).

On 05/08/2011 01:15, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Jolly polly" considered Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:08:51
+0100 the perfect time to write:


"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Driver who was done for driving without due care and attention,
represents himself in court and adopts the kitchen sink approach.

First attempt - "Cyclists was on the pavement"
No, he wasn't - try again.

Second go - "OK, he was on the road but travelling "too fast"."
Nope - have another go.

Third attempt.
"Well, the sun was in my eyes and I couldn't see"
Sorry - that won't wash either- kerching.

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/ne...ad_1_ 2925908

Well what about compensation for injuries, trauma, time off work, damage
caused to mental health and bicycle?

Unfortunately, our wonderful legal system forces the victim to take
responsibility for taking action to recover all those losses.

IMHO this sort of driver should not be allowed to hold a driving license, it
should have been withdrawn (if possible).

It's possible alright, but rarely actually done.
Still, he got 4 points, which means he can do this twice more in any
three year period before being banned (and then only for 6 months).
The system seems to be aimed at ensuring that very little can be done
to impede the ability of **** drivers to cause maximum mayhem.

OK, fine: punish the genuinely dangerous drivers more, by all means.
And stop giving out ridiculously harsh punishments for trivial
violations like exceeding pointless speed limits and parking on
pointless double yellows. Deal? Thought not. Discouraging normal,
generally law-abiding, safe drivers from getting into the car is just
too much of a pull for you, isn't it?

Now if they changed it to 1 point = one month ban, and retained the
totting up rules but for a permanent ban, that would be reasonable.

A 3-month ban, with the risk to employment and everything else that goes
with it, for exceeding a stupid speed limit which was set by a
car-hating councillor against government guidelines. Well done, that's
one of your best ever. Why not just go the whole hog and say that you
want all drivers to be banned forever (you know, the thing that you
really want)?

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message

It's possible alright, but rarely actually done.
Still, he got 4 points, which means he can do this twice more in any
three year period before being banned (and then only for 6 months).
The system seems to be aimed at ensuring that very little can be done
to impede the ability of **** drivers to cause maximum mayhem.

Now if they changed it to 1 point = one month ban, and retained the
totting up rules but for a permanent ban, that would be reasonable.

Indeed.
The mobile phone law was widely flouted until 3 points a pop was introduced,
which tends to concentrate the mind somewhat.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Mentalguy2k8" wrote in message
...


Which law allows motorists to kill cyclists?

Hint - there isn't one, but between you and Simon, you're starting to
persuade me to petition Parliament to make one.

Nice - your real agenda is coming out.
Is the Essex thug with the bad teeth one of your heroes?

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/