Bruno Posted April 16, 2010 Author Share Posted April 16, 2010 Because the damage caused by cyclists is negligible, and in most cases it is the driver who is at fault, not the cyclist. A car is capable of inflicting crippling injuries and a lot of damage, this simply is not true of cyclists, even though many of them are insured, as I explained upthread. Total nonsense, you saying it is impossible for a cyclist to pull out of a junction and slam into side of a vehicle without causing damage? Im sure a cycle can impose cripling injuries too if you slam into a pedestrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Total nonsense, you saying it is impossible for a cyclist to pull out of a junction and slam into side of a vehicle without causing damage? Err, no. You've replaced what I said with something completely different. Have you got an example of this happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 It's a ridiculous idea, if anything the alcohol limit should be raised to about 3 pints to help save country pubs which are going to the wall. No-one causes an accident because they've enjoyed a couple of leisurely pints with a meal, the people who cause accidents are those who've had 7 or 8 who never take any notice of the law anyway. Thank god we're voting this bunch of crooks out so it won't become law anyway. Hooray - the voice of sanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Hooray - the voice of sanity. Um, despite three seperate incidents of people DYING after the driver had two pints, smashed into them and killed them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothic_Angel Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Pure "accidents" on the roads are incredibly rare. 95% of RTAs involve driver error. http://www.roadar.org/drivers/how/faqs.htm People who have had no alcohol will pass a breathaliser. I'm thinking of the times when Mr/s P*ll*ck has walked out in front of my car and I've had to slam the brakes on. I wouldn't fancy a life sentence because some people don't get that a tonne of metal is !"£$%^& painful when it hits you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 I'm thinking of the times when Mr/s P*ll*ck has walked out in front of my car and I've had to slam the brakes on. I wouldn't fancy a life sentence because some people don't get that a tonne of metal is !"£$%^& painful when it hits you! You wouldn't, because, for the third time, Strict Liability has NOTHING to do with criminal law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothic_Angel Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 You wouldn't, because, for the third time, Strict Liability has NOTHING to do with criminal law. I'm talking about the jail for killer drivers thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich5315 Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 why do people harp on about drink drivers, im not condoning it by any means, but at one point it was a done thing 30 years ago, now in 2010 there are still as many people getting killed by it as there was then, in a think denmark or norway there is zero tolerance, they can only drink on a friday nite even at home, so they get wasted just because they have to be totally alcohol free by monday morning for work, there are lots of things on the market you could take that contain alcohol without knowing that youve taken it breath freshener for one, for me drug driving is the thing to clamp down on ( let us keep our 2 pints ) that will help rural pubs as well, and when i talk about drug driving i dont just mean people smoking joints and taking other recreation stuff there are a lot of drivers who take prescription drugs who drive, also another point 40% of drivers drive with defective eyesight, for me i would sooner be a passenger with someone whos had 2 pints than someone who sober cant se further than the end of the bonnet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted April 17, 2010 Author Share Posted April 17, 2010 There is already an offence of "Being drunk in charge of a bike" so your law change is unnecessary. There is no jay walking law in this sountry. Funny thing is you are happy to quote laws in other countries and thier limits, but when someone proposes a similar idea, then you want to dismiss it....... Think it's fair to say, you have talked some ****e in this thread, and if you are honest you will have the balls to admit it..... go on be a man:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted April 17, 2010 Share Posted April 17, 2010 I didn't dismiss anything, I pointed out that you don't need to make a new law since one already exists. there is no sign of any political party introducing a jay walking law. It's not going to happen and there are other measures, such as 20mph zones, that have a far greater impact on road safety than addressing pedestrian behaviour. Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of: — Total accidents -56 per cent — Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent — Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent — All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent — Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent. It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm If you want to make roads safer you moderate driver behaviour, not pedestrian behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.