Nuxx:4e335a87$0$2502$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e335a87$0$2502$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: "Man jailed for hitting Bristol parking attendant with car" Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:12:39 +0100 References:  <4e302ae3$0$2495$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> <4OHYp.59753$_r1.17381@newsfe06.ams2> Lines: 44 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4OHYp.59753$_r1.17381@newsfe06.ams2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 490eabd7.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=;En>3HB_0Pj6Y=L7egEU5a\bFaf>g`:ITG5aA:cgoLTLD6Uc[hl X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3228 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:819471

On 30/07/2011 00:57, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: > On 27/07/2011 16:12, Nuxx Bar wrote: >> On 27/07/2011 08:24, Doug wrote: >>> Its good to see that this use of a car-weapon ended up with a suitable >>> punishment. The question is though, why doesn't this happen when >>> cyclists >>> are deliberately rammed and knocked off their bikes, as sometimes >>> happens on >>> London Critical Mass rides? Do cyclists have fewer rights than parking >>> attendants, or does participation in CM afford drivers with immunity >>> from >>> prosecution? >> >> Actually I'd say that cyclists who deliberately get in drivers' way >> (e.g. in Critical Mass), and "parking attendants" who are just trying to >> make money from the motorist, are about equally deserving of being run >> over. (They don't deserve to be run over, but if they didn't needlessly >> antagonise drivers in the first place then it probably wouldn't get to >> that stage....) >> >> The really stupid thing about this is that the "penalty charge" in >> question was completely unenforceable. All the driver had to do was >> refuse to pay and ignore any correspondence regarding the matter. (I >> know the car-haters don't like this being publicised, but "the law is >> the law"....) > > Indeed, see the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Charges may not be punitive, > they may only recover any loss incurred.

Absolutely. And that's zero most of the time.

>> Quite surprised that ASDA are actually using these vermin to give out >> tickets for these trivial "infractions". You'd think they wouldn't want >> to alienate paying customers (as opposed to, say, those who were using >> the car park but not the shop). > > Wickes do it as well & distance themselves from the vermin by claiming > they have no influence. I got a ticket in Wickes last year - they > suddenly decided they did have some influence when I reminded them of > the £8K I spent there each year....

Not the first time I've heard such a tale. It seems that when it comes to these money-grabbing assaults on the motorist, dishonesty *always* features heavily.