Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t agree, cycles should be on the road, where they’re meant to be. Lots of roads have cycle lanes now, and lots of boroughs also hold ‘safe cycling’ courses. Will’s showing off about what he termed the ‘old biddies’ moaning, they’re entitled to Will. The pavements are meant for pedestrians, not cyclists. Older people, and children! can move suddenly and if you Will or another cyclist were to hit them and knock them down, what then, your responsible because you shouldn’t have been there in the first place!
As for the remark on women drivers Will, women are the cause and/or are involved in less accidents than men, fact!
I was driving to work a few days ago, I have two roundabouts to go across. I was on the second one and an older man, i’d say in his 50’s or so, pulled out in front of me, I was actually on! the roundabout so had right of way. It meant I had to brake sharply and then come to a standstill, not only did he pull out in front of me, he then stopped completely and screamed obscenities at me out of his window :roll: for what reason iv’e no completely worked out, maybe he’d gotten out the wrong side of the bed, maybe the wife had given him a knock back, either way, watever his problem was it wasn’t my fault :roll: He chose tho, to take it out on me.
Nex time your riding on the pavement Will, instead of complaning about the ‘old biddies’ give them plenty of space, cos they’re more entitled to be there than you are.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/…/Return-cyc … -test.html
You shoulda tried Tesco B55, they had loads :)
@will wrote:
how do u all feel about ppl riding bicycles on da road. was ridin mine da other day n a woman clipped me back weel with her car cos she was chattin on her phone.. very responsibul eh. anyway.. she yelled at me like it was my fault.. it was all her cos she werent fckin concentratin cos she was on her phone.
i feel safer ridin on da pavement but then the old biddies start wingin about dat too. but how can a bike compare to a car if there was an acident. it cant realley.. i dnt feel safe on da road.Will it wasn’t responsible of her to be on her phone to clip you or to have a go at you. People do these days tho seem in-capable of taking any responsibility.
I don’t have a problem with bikes on the pavement, I do tho have a problem with some of the riders because they can often be quite rude! and I believe that over a certain wheel size, it might be 26″ they shouldnt be on the pavement in the first place but in the road. But then when you see police officers doing it, what can you say. That and pressing the button at a pelican crossing and then riding their bikes across, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
When pple buy one now Sarah, a new one anyway, they have to register it, they’re then sent a tax disc by the DVLA, they dont have to pay for it, but it means they’re registered and traceable in the event of an accident.
Obviously the same doesn’t apply when buying the machines second hand, well not yet anyway.
As far as the insurance of them goes. At the moment its not compulsory, its voluntary. Mostly they’re not, the usual excuse is they can’t afford it lol. Laughable when you consider the cost of some of these machines. A man I know in local shopping precinct was telling me one day that he sold a £3000.00 machine to an elderly lady, offered her the insurance package, which was £58 and said she was very indignant in saying where do you think I have the money for insurance, and i’ll only be using it to go shopping. I wonder if i’d get away with that if I had no insurance, but i’m only using the car officer to get my shopping! lol, I doubt it. :roll:
They should certainly be insured and accountable for any accidents incurred as a result of poor or drunken driving.
@bassingbourne55 wrote:
Now that these scooters are available secondhand quite cheap, I’m suspicious that a minority of the people who use them are the ‘unfit able-bodied’, who see them as a lazy alternative to walking or cycling.
Of course B55. Iv;e seen people with them, know of people who have them because, ‘they can’t be bothered to walk’ :roll:
I saw a lady on one at the weekend. She was huge, and the scooter was one of the small 3 wheeled kind. It seemed to be straining under the weight of her! Several times it almost ended up on its side, and her too! I can only assume it was because of the weight ratio. The scooter was clearly too small for a woman of her size!
@forumhostpb wrote:
I agree with you there Cas. this “abnormality of mind” is a classic lawyer’s defence when some violent little hoodlum (or even adult) smashes somebody’s life or even kills them.
But I guess if they weren’t allowed some sort of defence, then we may as well have trial by tabloid newspaper eh? (The Sun ses you done it so you must ‘ve done it yeah? We’ll print yer name & address so the boys can go round and smash you up).
Quite PB. Yes they should have a defence because otherwise there would just be anarchy as you say about the Sun. (sorry but that one did make me smile :) ).
As Kenty says though, he’ll probably spend some time in a young offenders place somewhere and when he leaves will be given a new identity etc etc., it’s just so wrong.
Prosecutor Howard Bentham QC said: “When her small body was examined by Dr Naomi Carter, pathologist, Dr Carter found 68 sites of injury on that small body.
“We say every one of those injuries were caused by this young man.
“They were all over her body but many of them were to her head and face and Dr Carter drew the conclusion that young Demi had probably been punched repeatedly in the face.”
Mr Bentham told the jury that the defence will argue that their client suffered an abnormality of mind which impaired his responsibility.
Abnormality of the mind or not. 68 sites of injury, punched repeatedly in the face. Abnormality or no abnormality, he knew this was wrong and no one! will convince me otherwise :twisted:@forumhostpb wrote:
Publishing his name (and address?) in the Media wouldn’t alter the awfulness of what he did. However, it may well allow some people to take the law into their own hands.
BTW this boy’s defence to murder is that he suffered from “an abnormality of mind” such that he wasn’t fully or legally responsible for his actions.
No PB I know it wouldn’t alter the awfulness of what he’s done and ultimately won’t bring that little girl back.I see though that the usual ‘abnormality of mind’ is being rolled out again. Isn’t it getting all too popular to say that he wasn’t responsible for his actions :roll: No abnormality in remembering that he can use that one, convenient eh :roll: :twisted:
