Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: JNugent on 30 Nov 2009 04:57 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. The situation, as it turns out, may well have been risky, dangerous or even fatal (hindsight is a wonderful analytical tool). That is not the same as saying that there was dangerous driving involved.
From: JNugent on 30 Nov 2009 04:58 mileburner wrote: > "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. But not (as you describe it) dangerous driving.
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 05:03 BrianW wrote: > 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? Level crossings are dangerous. Especially if you stop on them. Especially if a train is coming. Level crossings are not the place to skid on ice. Level crossings are not the place to have accidents. As proven, a train is very dangerous, especially if you get in its way.
From: soup on 30 Nov 2009 05:21 Tony Dragon wrote: > I don't recall being knocked over on the pavement by another pedestrian, > but a cyclist has managed to do this. I have been knocked over by a cycle, and a pedestrian (OK they were pushing a buggy). Vehicles on the road, pedestrians on the pavement, invalid carriages (powered wheel chairs are in a strange nether world ).
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 05:31
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7nhiqdF3jcvlrU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "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. Blame is not the issue. The issue is whether the driving was dangerous. If someone dies as a result of it, the driving must have been dangerous. |