No I'm not - you just got the wrong end of the stick about the laws I was referring to.
W W Biffta wrote:
this is a law about bikes that makes it comparable to a gun.
Well personally I wouldn't have used "gun" as my example, I would have used "vehicle".
look i set up the premiss you cant just refer to stuff out of context and then say i got it wrong. if i got the wrong end of the stick its cos you were out of my context when replying to my post. its like me saying "look at that plane," and you saying, "yes the sky already has stuff in it," then i say "yeah but i was talking about the plane," and then you saying "you just got the wrong end of the stick."
i was talking specifically about laws for using dangerous/lethal intruments which is why i specifically did not use a vague word like 'vehicle' and instead used a hyperbolous one like 'gun.'
you are talking about civil laws like having lights and observing the highway code? or this guy got done for wreckless cycling, 2k fine max.
this is different from death by dangerous driving (or cycling) which is a criminal offence, specifying the intrument of that death, leading directly to a need to control its use, as happened with knives.
cars, guns (dont get nitty about bullets pls) and knives can kill on their own, nobody is claiming the bike did or can.
if im still getting wrong end of the stick, please tell me what youre talking about