Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 10:27 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ni55bF3jcvlrU9(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >> 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. So careless driving (in a legal context) is not dangerous. Why then is it illegal? >> 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"...? No, I am suggesting that if driving caused the death, the driving was dangerous.
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 10:34 PeterG wrote: > 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. In your above example, no one was driving and no death was caused by driving - your example is totally irrellevant. If you are going to try to make an argument where none exists, please try to keep track of what is going on.
From: Adrian on 30 Nov 2009 10:47 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> 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. > So careless driving (in a legal context) is not dangerous. Correct. > Why then is it illegal? Because it increases risk. >> 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"...? > No, I am suggesting that if driving caused the death, the driving was > dangerous. So you're suggesting that the offence of "causing death by careless driving" is not only un-necessary, but completely tautologous? You'd suggest that, in this case, since he was found by a jury not to be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, he must have been completely innocent of any blame in the collision? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7888653.stm
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 11:27 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ni7nmF3jcvlrU11(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>>> 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. > >> So careless driving (in a legal context) is not dangerous. > > Correct. > >> Why then is it illegal? > > Because it increases risk. And is therefore dangerous. >>> 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"...? > >> No, I am suggesting that if driving caused the death, the driving was >> dangerous. > > So you're suggesting that the offence of "causing death by careless > driving" is not only un-necessary, but completely tautologous? Yes, it seems to be nit picking. Regardless of whether the driving was "careless" or "dangerous" (in a legal sense) if the driving caused death it was by definition dangerous (in a real sense). Therefore it seems utterly pointless to differentiate. > You'd suggest that, in this case, since he was found by a jury not to be > guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, he must have been > completely innocent of any blame in the collision? > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7888653.stm Quite the opposite. He caused death by driving. He "got off" on a lesser charge of "causing death by careless driving" as opposed to "causing death by dangerous driving". This was no comfort to the deceased's family. "After the verdict, Michelle's father Peter Hagans said his family had been devastated Da Silva was found guilty of the "lesser charge". He said: "I think from the night of the accident when Mr da Silva butchered our family, which I believe he did, it was not possible to get justice in a British court." It is dangerous to use a laptop computer while driving.
From: Peter Grange on 30 Nov 2009 12:04
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:05:31 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:42:54 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >> wrote: >> >>> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> I'd rate my chances as being about as good as those of stopping a >>>>> cyclist. >>>> Ah, but then you may find yourself drawn into the "relative amount >>>> of damage" argument. >>> >>> No I'd find myself being drawn into the typical cyclists "tu quoque" >>> fallacy. >> >> I didn't attempt to justify either of them being there. It's a simple >> comparison between getting hit by a ton of fairly hard steel and a >> couple of hundred kilos of steel and squidgy bits. > >Of course if you are hit by a car you can claim against the drivers >insurance, but not with a cyclist who isn't insured & can't be traced. Tough innit? I'd write to your MP if I were you. I'm insured. -- Pete |