Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Adrian on 30 Nov 2009 05:37 "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. I'd love to hear how somebody can be driving "dangerously", yet contribute no blame to a collision. Unless, of course, you're working towards "all driving is inherently dangerous"? You _do_ know the definition of dangerous in this context, don't you? Dangerous driving is defined in S2(A)(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A person is guilty of dangerous driving if: 1. the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and 2. it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous Now, please explain how that can apply to somebody who is then involved in a collision where their driving can be deemed not to have contributed at all?
From: NM on 30 Nov 2009 06:03 On 30 Nov, 10:37, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "mileburner" <milebur...(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.. > > I'd love to hear how somebody can be driving "dangerously", yet > contribute no blame to a collision. > > Unless, of course, you're working towards "all driving is inherently > dangerous"? > > You _do_ know the definition of dangerous in this context, don't you? > > Dangerous driving is defined in S2(A)(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A > person is guilty of dangerous driving if: > > 1. the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a > competent and careful driver and > 2. it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving > in that way would be dangerous > > Now, please explain how that can apply to somebody who is then involved > in a collision where their driving can be deemed not to have contributed > at all? Them being collided with by another vehicle(s) in which the the style of their driving had no bearing on the cause of the incident. Example speeding down motorway, collision on carriagway in the other direction, transit van catapaulted over barrier whilst spinning on its axis and collides head on with our example motorist. (remember that one on the M4 a few years ago) 'spose you could use the old arab logic and say well if he wasn't going so fast he wouldn't have been there therefore it wouldn't have happened.
From: Tony Dragon on 30 Nov 2009 06:47 mileburner wrote: > "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. > > What a quaint form of logic. -- Tony Dragon
From: PeterG on 30 Nov 2009 06:58 On Nov 30, 9:57 am, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "Tony Dragon" <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > > news:7aCdnTuovtFnDY7WnZ2dnUVZ8vOdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > > > mileburner wrote: > >> "Steve Firth" <%ste...(a)malloc.co.uk> wrote in message > >>news:1j9ytmr.m1f9cnvel6tqN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > >>> mileburner <milebur...(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. This incident happened near me earlier this year. A motorist was sitting in her car after having parked it in her driveway. A motorcyclist lost control of his bike, left the road, bounced over the pavement & collided with her car. The rider broke quite a few bones & was in hospital for a few weeks. According to you the car driver must have been driving dangerously, even though 1 She was in her own drive. 2 She could not have avoided the collision 3 None of her actions were dangerous 4 The car was not moving, had not been moving for some time, the engine was not running. PeterG
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 07:16
PeterG wrote: > > This incident happened near me earlier this year. > > A motorist was sitting in her car after having parked it in her > driveway. > A motorcyclist lost control of his bike, left the road, bounced over > the pavement & collided with her car. > The rider broke quite a few bones & was in hospital for a few weeks. > According to you the car driver must have been driving dangerously, > even though According to who? > 1 She was in her own drive. > 2 She could not have avoided the collision > 3 None of her actions were dangerous > 4 The car was not moving, had not been moving for some time, the > engine was not running. It sounds to me that that the motorcyclist was riding dangeously. If he wasn't, he would not have lost control, hit the car and injured himself. |