From: mileburner on
Adrian wrote:
> "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?

What you appear to saying is that it is OK to drive dangerously, so long as
the level of dangerousness does not exceed that proscribed by law.

Again, if someone dies, by definition, the driving must have been dangerous.

Dangerous in this context means there is danger.



From: Adrian on
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> 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?

> What you appear to saying is that it is OK to drive dangerously, so long
> as the level of dangerousness does not exceed that proscribed by law.

If those tests are not met, then the driving is not dangerous. It may be
careless - that has a less strict test.

> Again, if someone dies, by definition, the driving must have been
> dangerous.

No.

Somebody jumps off a motorway bridge and is hit by a truck. Was the
trucker driving "dangerously"?

Somebody runs out of a hidden entrance onto an NSL dual carriageway and
is hit by a car. Was the driver driving "dangerously"?

> Dangerous in this context means there is danger.

No, "dangerous" in this context - the context of the applicability of a
charge of dangerous driving - means (and ONLY means)

>> 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

I think the word you're looking for is "risk".

Yes, there are risks associated with the use of any form of transport.
This should not be news to anybody with a modicum of intelligence.

Life is a series of risks. If you don't like the fact, and don't wish to
deal with risk, stay in bed. But that carries risks, too.
From: BrianW on
On 30 Nov, 10:03, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.-

<sigh>

Rational thought really isn't your thing, is it?

A train is not inherently dangerous. However, as you observe,
stopping on a level crossing in front of an oncoming train is
dangerous.

Similarly, a properly maintained car being driven in accordance with
the law is not dangerous. However, running out in front of that car,
within its stopping distance, is dangerous.

In other words, if a collision occurs, it's not necessarily the driver
who is being dangerous. It could be that the other person behaved
dangerously.
From: BrianW on
On 30 Nov, 09:17, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> mileburner <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> 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.
>
> Since that fails even an unsearching examination of the "logic" behind
> it, it's simply an indication of how shallow your thought processes are.

Bollen's Disease, aka Duhgitis, appears to be spreading at an alarming
rate.
From: mileburner on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7nhsbfF3jcvlrU6(a)mid.individual.net...
> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>>> 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?
>
>> What you appear to saying is that it is OK to drive dangerously, so long
>> as the level of dangerousness does not exceed that proscribed by law.
>
> If those tests are not met, then the driving is not dangerous. It may be
> careless - that has a less strict test.

Ah, so what you are saying is that the driving is not dangerous, so long as
the law says it is not dangerous - I see.

>> Again, if someone dies, by definition, the driving must have been
>> dangerous.
>
> No.
>
> Somebody jumps off a motorway bridge and is hit by a truck. Was the
> trucker driving "dangerously"?

Does not compute. Jumping off a motorway bridge is dangerous.

> Somebody runs out of a hidden entrance onto an NSL dual carriageway and
> is hit by a car. Was the driver driving "dangerously"?

Again, does not compute.

The *cause* was not the driving, the cause was running out of a hidden
entrance into the path of a car on a road where the traffic is likely to be
moving at speeds in excess of 70mph.

But if someone *causes* death by driving, by definition, the driving must
have been dangerous (regardless of whether the law says it was dangerous or
not).