Cnut cyclist

#1
[rage]If you see this tube cycleing around on his carbon fibre bike (costing nearly 5k) feel free to run him over.

Preferabley shouting "move because I am not stopping". Then reverse over the twat.



Apparently this is all you need to do if you are travelling at 23mph, and see a group of pedestrians, then you can ram one, killer her and walk away with a fine of 2.2k and 750 in costs.

He is known around the area as a "thrill seeker" so maybe he would appreciate the "thrill" of being kit by something doing nearly 4 times the speed he is.

Like the 17 year old pedestrian he murdered.

More here

He should thank his stars someone wasn´t in the group who may have taken his fcuking bike, beaten him half to death with it and then shoved it up his arrse.

Bloody hate cyclists like this.....

Couldn´t they give him an ASBO barring him from ever getting on a bike? I would imagine murdering someone with a bike is pretty anti-social. Taking his driving licence (if he has one) is surely possible too. He was in charge of a vehicle at the time of his stupidity.[/rage]
 
#2
Not defending this turd but I will only share your rage when coppers and other drivers get similar punishment to him for killing pedestrians/cyclists when driving like cnuts.
 
#3
Similar? They do get similar.

Personally I believe a driver involved in a fatal accident (where it was their fault) should lose their driving licence for ever.
 
#4
Can we set up a paypal account for the fine - about £3000 inc costs and then someone can run him over. Cheap hit.
 
#5
Suddick said:
Not defending this turd but I will only share your rage when coppers and other drivers get similar punishment to him for killing pedestrians/cyclists when driving like cnuts.
The point here, I think, should be that there are already laws for errant drivers (old bill or not) who through their actions take someones life. IMHO they are not stringent enough.

Police vehcles are generally fitted with 'a black box', not to protect the officer, but to defend the police authority against civil action.

The fact remains that currently the law for cyclists who kill, only permits a maximum fine of £2500.

In any case had the laws been different, where on earth would we put them. But that's another story.
 
#7
Admittedly just as bad, and he should have been hammered more.

But atleast the truck driver was only negligent (yes ONLY negligent). He didn´t inetnd to hit the cyclist, he just didn´t see him (looked but didn´t see is the police phrase I think).

The moron in the OP deliberately raced in to a situtation that he SHOULD have slowed down for, he had seen the pedestrians, and the shouted "warning" reveals his fcuked up mindset.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#8
Someone should visit his house with an axe and put it in his wife's head. Then let down the tyres on his bike.
 
#9
Biscuits_AB said:
Someone should visit his house with an axe and put it in his wife's head. Then let down the tyres on his bike.
:D
 
#10
I heard on the news the guy was charged with dangerous cycling which carriess a maximum sentence of a 2.5k fine. Can anyone here explain why this kn*b jockey wasn't charged with manslaughter at least? :x
 
#11
daviroo said:
I heard on the news the guy was charged with dangerous cycling which carriess a maximum sentence of a 2.5k fine. Can anyone here explain why this kn*b jockey wasn't charged with manslaughter at least? :x

[cynicism]
because putting someone inside costs shed loads (30K? a year) this way they can fine him and he can continue in his job and pay lots of tax...[/cynicism]
 
#12
Biscuits_AB said:
....................................Then let down the tyres on his bike.
You absolute b@stard!





.
 
#13
nottyash said:
Biscuits_AB said:
Someone should visit his house with an axe and put it in his wife's head. Then let down the tyres on his bike.
:D
I saw his wife on the telly, I'd put something else in her head first.
 
#14
theoriginalphantom said:
daviroo said:
I heard on the news the guy was charged with dangerous cycling which carriess a maximum sentence of a 2.5k fine. Can anyone here explain why this kn*b jockey wasn't charged with manslaughter at least? :x

[cynicism]
because putting someone inside costs shed loads (30K? a year) this way they can fine him and he can continue in his job and pay lots of tax...[/cynicism]
He could still do that after watching his bike be melted down, and having to do 1 hour of community service per day for the rest of his natural.
 
#15
I, for one, am sick of these mickey-mouse charges being brought. He killed someone because he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, intent or no. How in Christ's name can that not be manslaughter pure and simple? Isn't that the essence of the thing?
 
#16
smartascarrots said:
I, for one, am sick of these mickey-mouse charges being brought. He killed someone because he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, intent or no. How in Christ's name can that not be manslaughter pure and simple? Isn't that the essence of the thing?
Presumably because there wasn't sufficient evidence for a manslaughter charge. We have to presume of course, because the Daily Mail doesn't examine this point (it would dilute the Outrage)
 
#17
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#18
If it were my kid that he'd killed, his wife would need to go into hiding. I wouldn't touch him. Let him live with the consequences. For me, well murder reduced to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. I'd be out in 6. I reckon that would be 6 years well spent and fair exchange for losing my child. The arrogance of this c*nt is incredible.

Then I'd let his tyres down. I'd more than likely try to run him over as well. Several times.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#19
I've just looked ast his photograph again. He needs his face beaten to a pulp with a bike pump and his nostrils sealed up with his puncture repair kit.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top