Shooting a cyclist in the head is not attempted murder

I'll be surprised & amazed if all of those billions are actually delivered. I expect to hear, in a few years' time, that only a fraction of that was taken up for various reasons, & the rest was therefore diverted towards other 'number one issues'.

@bensynnock to be fair, there does seem to be a marshall shown in the picture.

@Rendel Harris Going down the hill was usually Ok ish, it was coming back up that was the problem, especially at night. Near the top it narrowed with hedges on a low wall, not somewhere you would chose to ride on your own in the dark. Best time was race days when it is all stationary!

As the Danish government has pointed out nobody can afford to ignore active travel. The extra funding for defence will come from reduced motor traffic road maintenance requirements but Streeting knows that if he has done some "proper" research. (Proper implies reading and understanding research papers produced by transport specialists not watching a couple of YouTube videos and the opinions of the Dog & Duck clientele).

The problem with testing is it would be trivial to have someone, perhaps an ex-Volkswagen engineer, create a "test mode" which could be easily engaged, and stealthy.

@MaxiMinimalist Be who you are. Absolutely. Provided you don’t annoy the rest of mankind by blathering on a load of bigoted old shite regarding what people choose to call themselves and how they choose to identify when it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

If you stab someone and they die that's murder, if you stab someone and a doctor saves them that's attempted murder. If you create a hazard and kill someone that's manslaughter, if you create a hazard and a doctor saves them that's fly tipping.

Courts have the power to impose a driving ban for a non-driving offence, although I don't think it's used very often. Sentencing Act 2020 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/group/THIRD/part/8/chapter/1/enacted

@momove You beat me to it.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself? As I understand it (not greatly...) the problem is exactly that some (few) want to be themselves absolutely (including pronouns etc.) and "mankind" (including yourself it seems) won't have it because it's "annoying"? Actually I think a number of those people wouldn't mind being left to be themselves quietly and eg. just not be harassed or worst... because some of *man*kind (much of the abuse and almost all the violence... ) sees this as far more than "annoying". (Though not all want tacit toleration - and there does seem to be irreconcilable conflict on eg. "who is a woman") Anyway - the law's in now. There shall generally be male spaces for males, female spaces for females, and those who choose (or were given?) a gender divergent from sex "should be accommodated".