From: mileburner on
BrianW wrote:
> 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.

So far so good...

> Similarly, a properly maintained car being driven in accordance with
> the law is not dangerous.

No so, cars are dangerous, that's why people get hurt and die, even when
driven in accordance with the law.

However, running out in front of that car,
> within its stopping distance, is dangerous.

True, are you suggesting the *cause* was the running out or the driving?

> 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.

True, but if the driver causes the death, the driving must have been
dangerous.


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.

> 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.

Congratulations. Well done. Yes, I am saying that as far as the law is
concerned, the driving is not dangerous so long as it doesn't meet the
law's definition of dangerous.

>>> 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 died in a collision involving a motor vehicle. Was the driving
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.

Somebody died in a collision involving a motor vehicle. Was the driving
dangerous?

> The *cause* was not the driving

The motor vehicle was the cause, though.

> 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.

Correct, but not what you were claiming earlier.

> 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).

Must it? Would you not have said that the truck/car _caused_ the death in
those instances? After all, if it hadn't been there, no death would have
occurred.
From: mileburner on

"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ni3qmF3jcvlrU8(a)mid.individual.net...

>> 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).
>
> Must it? Would you not have said that the truck/car _caused_ the death in
> those instances? After all, if it hadn't been there, no death would have
> occurred.

Perhaps then you could cite an example (hypothetical if you like) of where
*the driving* causes death, but at the same time, *the driving* is not
dangerous.

And please to not try to use examples where it was not *the driving* which
caused the death, such as jumping off a motorway bridge or running blindly
into a dual carriageway.

If the driving caused the death, the driving must have been dangerous.


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

>>> 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).

>> Must it? Would you not have said that the truck/car _caused_ the death
>> in those instances? After all, if it hadn't been there, no death would
>> have occurred.

> Perhaps then you could cite an example (hypothetical if you like) of
> where *the driving* causes death, but at the same time, *the driving* is
> not dangerous.

In a legal context, there's plenty. Just google for any case where
somebody's been convicted of causing death by careless driving.

> If the driving caused the death, the driving must have been dangerous.

That's for a jury to decide, after all the evidence has been presented
and examined.

Or are you suggesting that evidence and due judicial process is
irrelevant, that innocence until guilt is proven should not apply -
because "it's obvious"...?
From: PeterG on
On Nov 30, 12:16 pm, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> 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.

So you would agree that the motorist although involved in an accident
in which somebody was injured, was not driving dangerously, thankyou.


PeterG