Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: BrianW on 30 Nov 2009 12:05 On 30 Nov, 14:28, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > 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? The cause was clearly the presence of the car. People tend not to die if they run across an empty road. > > 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. Well, it depends upon what you mean by "cause". The usual legal test for causation is the "but for" test - but for the action of the defendant, would the thing have occurred? In nearly every case involving a road death, the application of the "but for" test leads to the driver being the cause of the death. In the example I gave above, of someone running into the stopping distance of a car, the person would not die if the car was not there. Hence the additional requirement that the car was being driven dangerously, or carelessly, in order to secure a conviction.
From: Peter Grange on 30 Nov 2009 12:08 On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:41:31 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> 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. >> > >See previous comment about "tu quoque" it really does draw you like a >moth to a candle, doesn't it? I repeat, I didn't attempt to justify either of them being there, and never have. -- Pete
From: Peter Grange on 30 Nov 2009 12:10 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:03:49 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:07:04 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >> wrote: >> >>> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve >>>> Firth) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Here's something you could try to test the theory. Stop the next >>>>>>> pavement cyclist that you see and ask them to ride where they >>>>>>> belong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his >>>>>> hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it >>>>>> belongs. >>>>> >>>>> When I see a driver driving down the pavement at 25mph I shall >>>>> tell them off. >>>> >>>> Good luck with stopping him. >>> >>> 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. >> >> BTW, I meant to comment last time, 25 mph is pretty impressive for a >> cyclist on the pavement, it's not bad on the road. >> >> Oh, and I must be honest, I saw another pavement cyclist when I went >> for the newspaper this morning. Probably the same one as last time, >> lad about 12. > >Precisely. Bikes are for kids not adults. Bollocks. -- Pete
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 12:18 BrianW wrote: > > The cause was clearly the presence of the car. People tend not to die > if they run across an empty road. You are Doug AICM5P
From: JNugent on 30 Nov 2009 12:28
mileburner wrote: > 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 ....but is likely to be confused with the term-of-art definition of "dangerous driving" given above; and who knows - that might be your intention... It's best to use a different term. |