"riding without due care and attention"

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
Just got trolled this on youtube. :smile: As far as I'm aware there is no such charge in UK law of "riding without due care and attention". :biggrin:

God trolls are thick. I went to his channel page and see his comments log is still up, and that he's made abusive comments about kiddies. Nice man, really nice. Must be a credit to your mother. :laugh:
 
There are plenty of internet lawyers out there. I had one the other day. I suggested that he was in fact an unemployed internet lawyer as he was so bad. He got really agressive and annoyed that I was suggesting that he was unemployed etc.

Whoosh! :laugh:
 
OP
downfader

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
magnatom said:
There are plenty of internet lawyers out there. I had one the other day. I suggested that he was in fact an unemployed internet lawyer as he was so bad. He got really agressive and annoyed that I was suggesting that he was unemployed etc.

Whoosh! :laugh:
I get the same thing at work tbh. Someone comes out with "its illegal to use a camera in a public place" a while back. I replied "what about tourists then?" They shut up after that.

Angry Aussie did a good vlog on internet lawyers. Wont be able to find it though, haha, as he's got like 900 other videos up.
 
Location
Edinburgh
downfader said:
Just got trolled this on youtube. :ohmy: As far as I'm aware there is no such charge in UK law of "riding without due care and attention".
RTA 1988 Section 29

29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
In this section “road” includes a bridleway.
 
OP
downfader

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
User3143 said:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
In this section “road” includes a bridleway.

What part of the wording above are you having trouble understanding?

You seriously suggesting that if you was to ride without due care and attention you would not get nicked?
Stop trying to twist what I wrote, Lee. It wont work on me. :ohmy:
 
Location
Edinburgh
downfader said:
Close, but no cigar!:ohmy: Same as the 'Furious charge. The troll was VERY specific. :biggrin:
downfader said:
Just got trolled this on youtube. :bicycle: As far as I'm aware there is no such charge in UK law of "riding without due care and attention". :bicycle:

29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
In this section “road” includes a bridleway.
So, what precisely is the difference between "riding without due care and attention" in your OP and the law that covers "cycle on a road without due care and attention"
 
OP
downfader

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
Touche said:
So, what precisely is the difference between "riding without due care and attention" in your OP and the law that covers "cycle on a road without due care and attention"
The name of the charge, or is that unclear?
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
User3143 said:
Not trying to twist anything (I don't need to) you said in your opening op that there was no such law as ''riding without due care and attention'' the RTA which has been quoted to you contradicts what your OP says.

Simples really - like the two times table 1*2=2 2*2=4 3*2=6 4*2=8 5*2=10 6*2=12 7*2=14 8*5=16 9*2=18 10*2=20 I could on but can't be arsed, am bored with debating shoot riding and ignorance with other people.
Enough of the cyclists' guilt. I know it's not fashionable to point it out but cars and bicycles really, really aren't the same thing. Some things there are sort of equivalents for, some things not. Live with it.

As for numbers, don't talk nonsense on that either.
 
OP
downfader

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
User3143 said:
Not trying to twist anything (I don't need to) you said in your opening op that there was no such law as ''riding without due care and attention'' the RTA which has been quoted to you contradicts what your OP says.

Simples really - like the two times table 1*2=2 2*2=4 3*2=6 4*2=8 5*2=10 6*2=12 7*2=14 8*5=16 9*2=18 10*2=20 I could on but can't be arsed, am bored with debating shoot riding and ignorance with other people.
Touche posted the charge along with the criteria, the criteria is not the name of the charge. As it stood the troll said and I quote:

another cyclist with an anger problem riding too fast for the conditions

should be charged for riding without due care and attention
 
User3143 said:
Simples really - like the two times table 1*2=2 2*2=4 3*2=6 4*2=8 5*2=10 6*2=12 7*2=14 8*5=16 9*2=18 10*2=20 I could on but can't be arsed, am bored with debating shoot riding and ignorance with other people.

Obviously not simple as 8*5 isn't in the 2* table and doesn't equal 16. As a physicist I feel fairly qualified to conform this. :ohmy:
 
downfader said:
Touche posted the charge along with the criteria, the criteria is not the name of the charge. As it stood the troll said and I quote:

To be fair downfader, he does say charged for, not charged with. Had he said with, then you would have been right, however, as he said for, and it is actually part of the description of the charge, then he is probably right.

Sorry! :ohmy:
 
User3143 said:
OMFG you'd give Nick ''Mr Loophole'' Freeman a run for his money. It's a shame you are not as good at reading simple sums.....

Go on then, enlighten me about your sums. How am I wrong?
 
Top Bottom