Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 04:13 "BrianW" <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:58bfb60b-7a33-45fe-abb7-8bada43f91eb(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > 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? Skidding on ice on a level crossing and being involved in a minor collision with another vehicle and then hit by a train sounds dangerous to me.
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 04:14 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7nhd4lF3lr59sU2(a)mid.individual.net... > BrianW <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>> 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? > > She tried to stop for the level crossing - but couldn't, because it was > icy. She bounced off an oncoming van, and ended up stationary in the > middle of the crossing, trying frantically to drive off it - which she > couldn't, because it was icy. > > It was 8.30am on a January morning in the fens, during a fairly bloody > cold winter. > > Yes, I can see that the ice would come as a huge surprise to her... > > Oh, wait, I'm "blaming the victim" again... Driving too fast on ice is dangerous.
From: BrianW on 30 Nov 2009 04:19 On 30 Nov, 09:13, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "BrianW" <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:58bfb60b-7a33-45fe-abb7-8bada43f91eb(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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-235... > > > After all, it caused someone's death, so it *must* have been > > dangerous. Right? > > Skidding on ice on a level crossing and being involved in a minor collision > with another vehicle and then hit by a train sounds dangerous to me. No, no, it was the train that killed her, not the ice. Therefore, by your logic, the train must have been dangerous. Or does your "logic" only apply to cars?
From: BrianW on 30 Nov 2009 04:21 On 30 Nov, 08:13, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > > >> 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? > > She tried to stop for the level crossing - but couldn't, because it was > icy. She bounced off an oncoming van, and ended up stationary in the > middle of the crossing, trying frantically to drive off it - which she > couldn't, because it was icy. > > It was 8.30am on a January morning in the fens, during a fairly bloody > cold winter. > > Yes, I can see that the ice would come as a huge surprise to her... > > Oh, wait, I'm "blaming the victim" again... I don't know. Next you'll be suggesting that someone who walks into the middle of a road to rescue a dead bird and gets hit by a car is at least partly to blame for his own misfortune ...
From: Steve Firth on 30 Nov 2009 04:17
mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1j9ytmr.m1f9cnvel6tqN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > > mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > >> Are you suggesting that to cause death by dangerous driving there must be > >> an > >> intent to drive dangerously? > > > > No, that has a different test. There must a reckless disregard of > > driving standards sufficient for the driving to be "dangerous" if there > > is not then a lesser offence of "causing death by careless driving" may > > be considered. However for an act to be murder there must be criminal > > intent. > > > > You're not very good at this, are you? > > Clearly I am not :-( > > It just seems blatantly obvious that if someone is killed, by someone > driving a car, that the driving must have, by definition, been dangerous. Since that fails even an unsearching examination of the "logic" behind it, it's simply an indication of how shallow your thought processes are. |