You know how wide the road was and you know what was coming in the opposite directions too? Clever trick that. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
Or wheelie past as quickly as possible. If this country slows down any more, well all be fucking parked up going nowhere. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
As a general point, it's a fair comment. However I do know that it was a fairly wide one way street at a quiet time of day so there was no good reason for a cyclist to be hogging the door zone.
I do agree with you - just saying that it seems harsh that no account seems to be taken of the actions of the pedal powered party.
Just to add to Clive's point. When the Highway Code uses the term "MUST" it means there is directly applicable legislation which it then references. "SHOULD" is advisory behaviour depending on conditions. Pete
>, Ekul Namsob says... I failed my first motorcycle test because I didn't leave enough room when pulling out from behind a parked car.
@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, AW says... But the 'must' clauses are backed by a legal requirement, while the 'should' clauses are only advisory.
Like cyclists, you mean? I know they moan about how they're at risk from cars, but if I collide with some **** jumping a red, while on my motorcycle, it'll hurt me just as badly, if not worse. And the **** probably won't have insurance. Yes, she was stupid. So was he.
Fucking staggering. Still, I suppose the punishment of living with her child's newly acquired extreme eating disorder makes up for it a bit. (thinks...) This wasn't by the seaside by any chance was it? Were the copper's trousers rolled up at all?
The sentence does indeed appear to be in line with the guidelines stated in that article. I have no problem with the "aggravating factor" argument. What I find surprising is that the conduct of the person killed is not specifically mentioned under "mitigating factors". Still, if she hadn't mown him down, she might have taken out someone else who was entirely innocent. The other day I was nearly nailed by a **** reversing a (white naturally) van out of a builders yard on to a main road whilst talking on their mobile. So yes she always deserved a custodial sentence (never said she shouldn't), and perhaps given those guidelines it was the correct one. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pete Fisher at Home: | | Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z | | Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" | +----------------------------------------------------------------+
Well - the HC does not carry the force of law, full stop. Where it says "must" it's alerting you to the fact that there is law that tells you to do (or not) essentially what the rule says. But it's the relevant statute that has the force of law (by virtue of being law ) - not the HC rule - which is normally a very brief, loosely worded, incomplete summary.
