texting motorist

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.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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?

On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 23:16:49 UTC+1, 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.

Even this scum was only banned for 2 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-37212913

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.
Now, would you like to try and answer my question sensibly?
It's okay if you can't, I do understand the intellect of a cyclist.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:47:34 +0100, 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.

The fines and punishments given to drivers don't make sense. The nurse overtaking a lorry killed a cyclist too, but she just got a 2 year ban and some community service. Clearly she's just as dangerous, as for whatever reason she didn't see the cyclist either.

--
"His idea of safe sex is an `X' spray-painted on the rump of animals that are known to kick."

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:00:31 +0100, 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 need to reintroduce the word accident back into the English language. The driver did not mean to kill anyone.

--
If the Pope goes #2, does that make it "Holy ****"?

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.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:25:42 +0100, 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.

Indeed, it would be pretty difficult to kill someone while cycling, considering you have a fraction of the mass of a car.

--
Two blondes are racing down a bumpy back road in a pretty beat up car down to a bank they're going to rob.
"Drive slower" pleads the one in the passenger seat, "I don't want all the nitro in the boot to explode."
"Relax," the driver replies, "even if it did, I've got a spare box under the seat . . . "

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.

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?

It's okay if you can't, I do understand the intellect of a cyclist.

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.

--
Love is complicated machinery.
But sometimes all you need is a good screw to fix it.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:55:07 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:47:34 +0100, 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.

The fines and punishments given to drivers don't make sense. The nurse overtaking a lorry killed a cyclist too, but she just got a 2 year ban and some community service. Clearly she's just as dangerous, as for whatever reason she didn't see the cyclist either.

When we hear these sentences that drivers receive we often don't know the
full facts that come out during their trail, so it can be difficult to
compare them objectively.

Even so, it does seem that on occasion you can be particularly lucky or
unlucky on the day - I guess it's just a day we all hope we are never
obliged to face.

Presumably it's up to the judge how big the sentence is, the jury just say guilty or not.

--
"I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting." - Ronald Reagan