Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:32 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Should bikes be taxed, insured and licenced?
yes? 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
no? 67%  67%  [ 18 ]
wtf you talkin about, i thought this was about death by wreckless cycling? 26%  26%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 27
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:30 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:50 am
Posts: 1043
Location: on the mothership with a probe up my aaa..
yes generally laws designed to protect the rider.
you are taking me out of context, this is a law about bikes that makes it comparable to a gun.
blah getting away from the point there. do you guys think its a good idea to have insurance, registation, taxing and licencing to use a bicycle?
by the looks of the yahoo discussions itd pass with a 90% majority.
makes me feel sick


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:28 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
W W Biffta wrote:
yes generally laws designed to protect the rider.

No - I'm talking about laws specifically about cycling on the road - similar to those for driving.
W W Biffta wrote:
you are taking me out of context,

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".
W W Biffta wrote:
blah getting away from the point there. do you guys think its a good idea to have insurance, registation, taxing and licencing to use a bicycle?

Can't say as I do.
W W Biffta wrote:
by the looks of the yahoo discussions itd pass with a 90% majority.
makes me feel sick

Then as cyclists, we have to try and understand why so many non-cyclists have that view.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:53 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:50 am
Posts: 1043
Location: on the mothership with a probe up my aaa..
Quote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:36 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
W W Biffta wrote:
Quote:
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.

Hang on a minute - you were saying:-
W W Biffta wrote:
if this goes through there will be a law about your bike too. you will be resonsible for something that is more dangerous that it used to be when nothing has actually changed.

To which I said there's already laws about your bike - and there are - so don't go talking about out of context - it wasn't out of context at all - there are already laws about cycling on road.
W W Biffta wrote:
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.

What, exactly, was this cyclist convicted with - go quote from the news articles. Then come back and tell me there's no laws about cycling on road.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: death by cycling
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:17 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:11 pm
Posts: 812
This MP wants to make a name for herself

Want's to bring in a law because of a death in 2007. Tragedy I am sure

BUT -

Cyclist kills girl in 2007

HOW MANY CYCLISTS KILLED BY CARS SINCE 2007 ? HOW MANY PEDESTRIANS KILLED BY CARS SINCE 2007 ?

Pandering to the anti bike lobby.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: death by cycling
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:21 am 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
bobgarrod wrote:
This MP wants to make a name for herself

Want's to bring in a law because of a death in 2007. Tragedy I am sure

BUT -

Cyclist kills girl in 2007

HOW MANY CYCLISTS KILLED BY CARS SINCE 2007 ? HOW MANY PEDESTRIANS KILLED BY CARS SINCE 2007 ?

Pandering to the anti bike lobby.

Not that I'm sure I buy into what the MP is mithering about...

But, in reply to how many cyclists killed by cars and how many pedestrians killed by cars, there's explicit laws in place to deal with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:27 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:21 pm
Posts: 5784
Location: Lost in Translation
Tazio wrote:
From looking at the reports from the time of the trial it is accepted that what he shouted was reported verbatim, though that of course could be a fabrication from the girls friends.

I found some comments from the defendant's solicitor that I remember reading at the time of the trial. The simplest way to get to them is to go to this blog entry and click "Comments":

http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogs ... oited.html

In particular:

"None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed if he shouted at all.

None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping" which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise the cyclist."



cgt

"I acted as solicitor for the cyclist.

He was on the road.

The girl was drunk.

I don't for a moment criticse the decision of a very experienced and capable District Judge.

What is clear though is that the media print or say what will sell copy and not always the facts as they come out in Court.

The cyclist is a thorughly decent bloke who is devastated."



cgt

"Hats off to the person who has spotted that almost all of the press coverage came about as a result of the Prosecutor's opening. The evidence came out very differently in Court.

None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed if he shouted at all.

None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping" which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise the cyclist.

Having been in Court throughout the trial I do wonder where some of the reporters got their information. Some of them even had us in the Crown Court!

I'm back to defending murderers and rapists now where I get a much quieter life!"


Last edited by one-eyed_jim on Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:41 am 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
one-eyed_jim wrote:
Tazio wrote:
From looking at the reports from the time of the trial it is accepted that what he shouted was reported verbatim, though that of course could be a fabrication from the girls friends.

I found some comments from the defendant's solicitor that I remember reading at the time of the trial. The simplest way to get to them is to go to this blog entry and click "Comments":

http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogs ... oited.html

In particular:

"None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed if he shouted at all.

None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping" which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise the cyclist."



cgt

"I acted as solicitor for the cyclist.

He was on the road.

The girl was drunk.

I don't for a moment criticse the decision of a very experienced and capable District Judge.

What is clear though is that the media print or say what will sell copy and not always the facts as they come out in Court.

The cyclist is a thorughly decent bloke who is devastated."


and:

"Hats off to the person who has spotted that almost all of the press coverage came about as a result of the Prosecutor's opening. The evidence came out very differently in Court.

None of the witnesses could agree what the cyclist shouted or indeed if he shouted at all.

None of them gave evidence that he shouted "move - I'm not stopping" which seems to be the phrase that the media have used to demonise the cyclist.

Having been in Court throughout the trial I do wonder where some of the reporters got their information. Some of them even had us in the Crown Court!

I'm back to defending murderers and rapists now where I get a much quieter life!"

You can say all that in terms of what came out in the trial - as opposed to any opening comments (or for that matter, comments made in the press).

But in court much would have come down to which side of the story was most credible, and matched the facts.

Now we can all make judgements, after the facts, on what was said, what happened in the trial, who said what, and what was reported by the press. But at the end of the day, he was convicted of something - no doubt the end result had a bearing on that - but all the same, he wasn't convicted of merely being careless.

So not merely accidental, but more deliberate omission.

Now it's always possible that there's been a miscarriage of justice - and that the result wasn't correct - but if the argument, here, is that people are commenting on the prosecution's opening statement - and that's what the media did, too - the court wouldn't have been so misdirected, and still convicted for the "dangerous" offence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:53 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:21 pm
Posts: 5784
Location: Lost in Translation
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewto ... &start=129


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:55 am 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
one-eyed_jim wrote:
http://www.retrobike.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127692&start=129

"So?

I'm not specifically asking for your reply - these aren't PMs or emails. If responses are made to a thread on a forum like this, they're for general reference and general discussion.

Whatever you choose to do / not do regarding any replies I make to comments you make are entirely your choice - but they're hardly for your sole attention or even comment."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eldridge, Google Adsense [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group