Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Tony Dragon on 30 Nov 2009 04:31 mileburner 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. > > Yes of course it is dear, it could never be the fault of the other person could it? -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 30 Nov 2009 04:32 BrianW wrote: > 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 ... No it was the birds fault. -- Tony Dragon
From: Adrian on 30 Nov 2009 04:50 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > It just seems blatantly obvious that if someone is killed, by someone > driving a car, that the driving must have, by definition, been > dangerous. Only if you automatically assume that the person driving the car is always to blame.
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 04:54 "Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:2pidnYp3R_PbEY7WnZ2dnUVZ7tadnZ2d(a)bt.com... > Adrian wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled happily, >> sounding much like they were saying: >> >>> Cars have registration plates & can be easily identified if they break >>> the law. Cyclists don't, because they don't pay to use the roads. >> >> There's quite a lot of cars which "don't pay to use the roads" (in terms >> of VED). It's perfectly legal to drive a car without "paying to use the >> roads" (in terms of fuel duty). > > So what you are saying is that many cars pay no tax so 'don't pay to use > the roads', but they do have to carry number plates so they can be > identified. > > Cycles pay no tax so 'don't pay to use the roads' but they don't have to > carry number plates. > > This seems unfair to motorists & is yet another way that is unfair to > motorists. The duty applies to motorised vehicles. If you think it is unfair, use a non-motorised vehicle. However saying that, there are now other of other ways that you can avoid paying this "unfair" tax such as using an electric car. Meanwhile, while you pollute, you pay. Seems fair to me :-)
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 04:57
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:7aCdnTuovtFnDY7WnZ2dnUVZ8vOdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > mileburner 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. > > Yes of course it is dear, it could never be the fault of the other person > could it? Regardless of fault, it was still dangerous, otherwise no one would have died. |