Children are fighting back!
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: For all those Facebookers who don't like England Flags on cars..
Next: Yet another pavement killing, by police this time.
From: Brimstone on 7 Jun 2010 02:36 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:10939a44-51a0-42ca-9a33-ca02a0375004(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 6 June, 08:50, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >> > On 5 June, 23:04, "jamesd1974" <easyh...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:f1b97043-e847-495d-882c-fccfd6d95567(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>> Probably tired of having their lives put at risk by dangerous >> >>> drivers. >> >>> "Stone-throwing Shrewsbury children shatter car window >> >>> A driver had a "lucky escape" after her windscreen was shattered by >> >>> children who threw a rock at her car. >> >>> The motorist was driving along Robertson Way in Shrewsbury at 1235 >> >>> BST >> >>> on Thursday when she spotted three children hiding in bushes. >> >>> Moments later she spotted one throwing a stone at her car, which >> >>> shattered the windscreen, say West Mercia Police. >> >>> The driver was able to stop safely. A force spokesman said: "This was >> >>> an extremely foolish and dangerous act." >> >> if she had been blinded by broken glass and then inadvertently hit and >> >> killed a cyclist would the death have been her fault?, and if so, how? >> >> >> james ( I know what your answer is going to be, I'm just wondering >> >> how >> >> you're going to twist it so she would be to blame) >> >> > You are surely not trying to blame the vulnerable victim for their own >> > death, as usual? >> >> > Let me see. >> >> > Likely scenario... >> >> > Windscreen gets broken and driver continues to proceed in a straight >> > line while cautiously applying her brakes and hits a cyclist who >> > wrongly gets in her way. Obviously the driver cannot be at fault >> > because children broke her windscreen thus absolving her from all >> > blame The fact that she is in sole charge of a dangerous machine, aka >> > 'weapon', in a public place is of no consequence. Probably because >> > millions of others are in a similar position and this is a democracy, >> > where majority mob rule must, by definition, prevail regardless of any >> > ethical considerations. >> > >> >> Well we know from what you have said before, that if she had lost >> control of her vehicle it would not be her fault as she had been >> attacked. >> >> Therefore you have just accepted that as she was attacked she would not >> be to blame. >> > How clever of you to understand what has been written above. Yes > indeed, I was merely illustrating why a hypothetical cyclist should > not be blamed as a way of absolving a driver from possible blame. > Then why do you introduce hypothetical cyclists into so many threads Doug?
From: GT on 7 Jun 2010 15:15 > "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > news:363bdb0e-75ae-4e02-9475-e929721490da(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > On 5 June, 10:12, PeterG <petergra...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > No as I see it, kids are frequently mown down by killer drivers so its > hardly surprising that they might react in such a fashion. I could be > and act of instinctive self-preservation. No, children aren't vindictive and nasty like you.
From: GT on 7 Jun 2010 15:18 > "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > news:a3a3ca51-f379-4b98-96ca-19e8cb28d98f(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 5 June, 23:04, "jamesd1974" <easyh...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > Windscreen gets broken and driver continues to proceed in a straight > line while cautiously applying her brakes and hits a cyclist who > wrongly gets in her way. Obviously the driver cannot be at fault > because children broke her windscreen thus absolving her from all > blame The fact that she is in sole charge of a dangerous machine, aka > 'weapon', in a public place is of no consequence. Before you use the word 'weapon' again to describe a 'vehicle'. Please give us a clear definition of the word weapon, then continue to explain how it can logically be applied to a car and why we don't us it to name every single thing in the world that has ever caused harm or death to a person.
From: Derek C on 7 Jun 2010 15:46 On Jun 7, 8:18 pm, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > >news:a3a3ca51-f379-4b98-96ca-19e8cb28d98f(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > On 5 June, 23:04, "jamesd1974" <easyh...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: > > Windscreen gets broken and driver continues to proceed in a straight > > line while cautiously applying her brakes and hits a cyclist who > > wrongly gets in her way. Obviously the driver cannot be at fault > > because children broke her windscreen thus absolving her from all > > blame The fact that she is in sole charge of a dangerous machine, aka > > 'weapon', in a public place is of no consequence. > > Before you use the word 'weapon' again to describe a 'vehicle'. Please give > us a clear definition of the word weapon, then continue to explain how it > can logically be applied to a car and why we don't us it to name every > single thing in the world that has ever caused harm or death to a person. Does that include bicycles, electric bicycles and mobility scooters? In which case Doug is a potential killer!
From: Ian Jackson on 7 Jun 2010 16:22
In message <4c0d4602$0$2591$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, GT <a(a)b.c> writes >> "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> news:a3a3ca51-f379-4b98-96ca-19e8cb28d98f(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> On 5 June, 23:04, "jamesd1974" <easyh...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: >> Windscreen gets broken and driver continues to proceed in a straight >> line while cautiously applying her brakes and hits a cyclist who >> wrongly gets in her way. Obviously the driver cannot be at fault >> because children broke her windscreen thus absolving her from all >> blame The fact that she is in sole charge of a dangerous machine, aka >> 'weapon', in a public place is of no consequence. > >Before you use the word 'weapon' again to describe a 'vehicle'. Please give >us a clear definition of the word weapon, then continue to explain how it >can logically be applied to a car and why we don't us it to name every >single thing in the world that has ever caused harm or death to a person. > I've been driving 'weapons' for over 50 years. Although, on a handful of occasions, I've actually managed to inflict some very minor damage to other, similar weapons, so far I've failed miserably to kill or injure anyone. This is now beginning to get to me. I'm getting desperate. Something must be done. Is there anyone out there who can help me in overcoming this problem? -- 'Worried and desperate' |