The Fair Guarantee (lobby for changes in the legal system)

pinno

Too many cyclists are being intimidated, seriously injured and killed with scant recourse.

I believe that we need to strengthen the legal process so that in the case of serious injury or death to any other road user it will be mandatory for a preliminary hearing to take place.
This does not mean a change to the legal system as such, it means that the police are obligated to investigate death or serious injury and present thier findings at a preliminary hearing. It is plain to see that many cyclists killed or seriously injured are rarely given proper judicial and investigative time.
We have to make the legal process such that it is disuasive to bad car drivers.
Reducing the number of serious injurys and fatalities has numerous benefits to all.

If you have an opinion on this matter, post your comments in The Shoot Clarkson Campaign forum - this is just a poll.

spen666

Precisely what are you asking?

you appear to have 3 polls in 1. The forum software does not allow this to happen properly

you also slant your question re reasonable time so that it assumes that reasonable time is not given at present. Such questions slant the results of the poll.


PS where is the option to shoot Clarkson?

spen666

pinarello001 wrote:

Too many cyclists are being intimidated, seriously injured and killed with scant recourse.

I believe that we need to strengthen the legal process so that in the case of serious injury or death to any other road user it will be mandatory for a preliminary hearing to take place.
This does not mean a change to the legal system as such,

Having manadatory preliminary hearings- where courts direct the police what to do- IS a fundamental change to the legal system. It requires the Constitution to be changed as you are changing the role of the courts from presiding over an adversarial system to taking on the role of investigative magisttrates

it means that the police are obligated to investigate death or serious injury and present thier findings at a preliminary hearing. It is plain to see that many cyclists killed or seriously injured are rarely given proper judicial and investigative time.

And your evidence of this being plain?

How does that compare with all other alleged crimes?
How does it compare with all other alleged road incidents?

Which crimes are not going to be dealt with to allow more time to allegations where cyclists are the victims? Perhaps we should reduce the time spent investigating rape, child abuse and murder...

There is only a limited amount of time available, so if you increase it for one group, you must need t oreduce it elsewhere.

so where do you make the cuts?

We have to make the legal process such that it is disuasive to bad car drivers.
Reducing the number of serious injurys and fatalities has numerous benefits to all.

If you have an opinion on this matter, post your comments in The Shoot Clarkson Campaign forum - this is just a poll.

pinno

Killing a cyclist because of complete and utter disregard for the speed limit and other road users is Murder in my book.

Just answer the poll spen666 - if you do not agree with it, just tick the 'no' boxes.

spen666

pinarello001 wrote:

Killing a cyclist because of complete and utter disregard for the speed limit and other road users is Murder in my book.

Nur not in the book of laws and never can it be in those circumstances because it doesn't fit the definition of murder.

Hence why there are other laws that cover the situation. However- irrespective of what you call the offence, you need EVIDENCE to convict someone.

EVIDENCE is not the (understable) anger of a relative of loved one.

Just answer the poll spen666 - if you do not agree with it, just tick the 'no' boxes.

See my first post. I'm not sure what i'm answering as there appear to be 3 seperate polls in one and I cannot answer 3 questions at once with the software this forum operates on

pinno

If you don't like the poll, don't bother - it is plainly obvious that to you a cyclists life is less important than any other.

You do not care and you do not believe that cyclists are not getting a 'fair crack of the whip'.

You do not want to see any changes to give better protection to cyclists.

Why do you bother?

You do not sound like someone who is actually interested in the matter.

I do not believe that you care.
(anyone who finds these conclusions odd, please look at the Shoot Clarkson Campaign blogs).
Shoot Clarkson is a metaphor - it got your attention did'nt it? Are you utterly stupid: it is a benner, a title, something to get your attention. I have no wish to shoot him.
You are systematically unconstructive, uncaring and you are epitomising the very hypocarcracy towards cyclists in the event of deaths that I am trying to campaign about ("...investigating serious crimes like murder", quote, unquote).

spen666

pinarello001 wrote:

If you don't like the poll, don't bother - it is plainly obvious that to you a cyclists life is less important than any other.

That is rather offensive.

I have never said or even implied such a thing.

You are now resorting to slander.

You do not care

Again, slanderous.

This is like most things you level at me false

and you do not believe that cyclists are not getting a 'fair crack of the whip'.

You do not want to see any changes to give better protection to cyclists.

Why do you bother?

You do not sound like someone who is actually interested in the matter.

I do not believe that you care.
(anyone who finds these conclusions odd, please look at the Shoot Clarkson Campaign blogs).

Ah yes- the rantings of someone who thinks he is going to get more respect for cyclists by persuading the world that cyclists want to shoot people.

Shoot Clarkson is a metaphor - it got your attention did'nt it? Are you utterly stupid: it is a benner, a title, something to get your attention. I have no wish to shoot him.

You fail to see how threads entitled shoot XY or Z are going to be perceived by the public at large who are not in on your little joke.

You seem to be the only person wanting to cause injury to anyone by your incitement to shoot people

You are systematically unconstructive, uncaring and you are epitomising the very hypocarcracy towards cyclists in the event of deaths that I am trying to campaign about ("...investigating serious crimes like murder", quote, unquote).

As my spelling and grammar is so bad ( remember your earlier posting today?) can you explain to me what "hypocarcracy" is please? I'm afraid I'm unable to find the word in my dictionary. :twisted:



You are doing nothing to help the cause of cycling or reducing road accident by your exteremist ranting about shooting people and calling road traffic incidents murder when any right thinking person knows they are nothing of the sort. Get a sense of perspective and an understanding of what you are proposing and then come back with some rational ideas.

I leave you with the follwing questions: -

1. How do I answer your 3 poll questions when there are 7 answer options, but only 6 answers.

2. How do I answer the 3 seperate questions in one poll when the software only allows 1 answer? The software does not allow me to go back and answer 3 times?

3. Murder is defined by the common law as:

Where a person of sound mind and discretionunlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the Queen's peace,

with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

How are you going to prove the highlighted part of the offence? In 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of cases it is not possible to prove the necessary intent and therefore it is not murder. Would you rather the motorists in such incidents get charged with an offence that can't possibly be proven and as a result get acquitted or would you rather them be convicted and jailed of a relevant offence ( assuming there is sufficient evidence)?

4. Can you explain how changing the court system from the adversarial system that is part of our constitution to a system of investigative magistrates ( which is what you are proposing, even if you do not realise it) which is outside our constitution (and under the current constitution is illegal for the courts so to act.) does not involve changing the legal system?

I would love to answer your poll(s) if I knew what exactly I was meant to be answering and how to answer it.

The poll is flawed because it does not fit in with the software this forum is based on