Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: johnwright ""john" on 29 Nov 2009 16:31 Roger Merriman wrote: > 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. Price of houses has a deep bearing on this. Houses close to desirable places are expensive, further away they are cheaper. This can have a great influence on where people live, how they travel to work etc. etc. As an example, politicians have been heard to agonise over the plight of relatively poorly paid workers like nurses and the price of houses near where they need to work. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: JNugent on 29 Nov 2009 16:42 mileburner wrote: > "NM" <nik.morgan(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. Maybe by the ordinary definition as understood by a layman who takes no note of what the law says. But not by the definition provided by the law. HTH.
From: JNugent on 29 Nov 2009 16:44 mileburner wrote: > "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. But not necessarily by the *relevant* definition.
From: johnwright ""john" on 29 Nov 2009 17:05 NM wrote: > On 29 Nov, 16:03, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> The offence "Causing death by dangerous driving" puzzles me slightly. If you >> cause death by driving, by definition the driving was dangerous. > > Not necessarily Indeed, I can quote examples where a death occurred due to a motor vehicle but the driver was not held to be driving dangerously and the vehicle was perfectly satisfactory. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: BrianW on 29 Nov 2009 18:10
On 29 Nov, 18:01, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "NM" <nik.mor...(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. Interesting. Presumably, applying the same logic, the train in this story must have been driven dangerously: http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Level-crossing-death-woman-named-235872360.html After all, it caused someone's death, so it *must* have been dangerous. Right? |