Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: NM on 29 Nov 2009 12:37 On 29 Nov, 16:03, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > > news:4fbe66fa-e9df-4305-a097-188f03c6d3e8(a)w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 29 Nov, 13:48, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > > >>news:10e2072e-41df-4a0c-b464-12aa79ccc6db(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 29 Nov, 11:50, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >> NM wrote: > >> >> > On 28 Nov, 19:46, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> >> Well, according to the legal system, "killed by a motor vehicle" is > >> >> >> not worth taking seriously, whereas other causes are. > > >> >> > Rubbish, use you motor vehicle to deliberatly kill will not incur a > >> >> > lesser penalty than another method, you convieniently fail to > >> >> > distinguish between an accident and a deliberate act of murder. > > >> >> There is however a lot of scope for claiming that murder by use of a > >> >> car > >> >> was > >> >> merely a terrible and tragic accident and it could be a lot more > >> >> difficult > >> >> to prove otherwise. > > >> > So what, it's still murder. > > >> And if you get away with it you will receive a lesser sentence... > > > If you 'get away with it' then there should be no sentence. > > If you get away with murder but are found guilty of a lesser offence such as > causing death by dangerous driving then you are still guilty of an offence. But not of murder, you may be guilty of lesser offences, your implication that because one is guilty of a lesser offence means thet you 'got away with murder' is fallacious. > > The offence "Causing death by dangerous driving" puzzles me slightly. If you > cause death by driving, by definition the driving was dangerous. Not necessarily If it was > not dangerous there would have been no death, or even an injury. Again not necessarily. > > Perhaps the law should simply be "Causing death by driving". What would be the gain in that?
From: BrianW on 29 Nov 2009 12:38 On 29 Nov, 16:03, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > > news:4fbe66fa-e9df-4305-a097-188f03c6d3e8(a)w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 29 Nov, 13:48, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > > >>news:10e2072e-41df-4a0c-b464-12aa79ccc6db(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 29 Nov, 11:50, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> >> NM wrote: > >> >> > On 28 Nov, 19:46, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> >> Well, according to the legal system, "killed by a motor vehicle" is > >> >> >> not worth taking seriously, whereas other causes are. > > >> >> > Rubbish, use you motor vehicle to deliberatly kill will not incur a > >> >> > lesser penalty than another method, you convieniently fail to > >> >> > distinguish between an accident and a deliberate act of murder. > > >> >> There is however a lot of scope for claiming that murder by use of a > >> >> car > >> >> was > >> >> merely a terrible and tragic accident and it could be a lot more > >> >> difficult > >> >> to prove otherwise. > > >> > So what, it's still murder. > > >> And if you get away with it you will receive a lesser sentence... > > > If you 'get away with it' then there should be no sentence. > > If you get away with murder but are found guilty of a lesser offence such as > causing death by dangerous driving then you are still guilty of an offence. > > The offence "Causing death by dangerous driving" puzzles me slightly. If you > cause death by driving, by definition the driving was dangerous. If it was > not dangerous there would have been no death, or even an injury. Hi, Doug!
From: mileburner on 29 Nov 2009 13:01 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:c851e08c-e371-49fe-b1e4-da01f2bd3b08(a)g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 29 Nov, 16:03, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> If you get away with murder but are found guilty of a lesser offence such >> as >> causing death by dangerous driving then you are still guilty of an >> offence. > > But not of murder, you may be guilty of lesser offences, your > implication that because one is guilty of a lesser offence means thet > you 'got away with murder' is fallacious. Not if you intended to kill. >> The offence "Causing death by dangerous driving" puzzles me slightly. If >> you >> cause death by driving, by definition the driving was dangerous. > > Not necessarily By definition, the driving must have been dangerous to cause death.
From: Judith M Smith on 29 Nov 2009 13:43 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:48:38 +0000, Keitht <KeithT> wrote: <snip> >>> That would be the same reason a set of lights was installed at a minor >>> crossroads near me -- drivers never seemed to understand 'give way' and >>> managed to run in to each other constantly. >>> Now they just run the red lights as if they didn't exist and still smash >>> in to each other. >> >> >> Yes of course they do. >> >> Do really think that any one actually believes your outright lies and >> exaggerations with such statements. >> > >I'm exaggerating that there is now a set of traffic lights near me that >reduces the number of smashes? >I'm exaggerating that now there are barriers installed most are bent and >folded over due to drivers running red lights and smashing in to other cars? > >You must try harder than that . Yes it is odd how a number of people actually disbelieved what you said. I wonder why that was? So they "Run the red lights as if they didn't exist and still smash in to each other." - it's odd that you haven't actually said how many such accidents you have seen. Care to share it with us? You have witnessed such things - haven't you? -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Roger Merriman on 29 Nov 2009 16:25
mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Conor wrote: > > In article <hetmta$sme$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner > > says... > > > >> People own cars through choice. > > > > There speaks someone who lives in an urban area with decent public > > transport. > > > > One string of villages up the road from me get two buses a week. > > People choose where they live too. to a point, people also have families or get trapped in a job etc while some people are free to move, others are less so. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com |