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
> >>>>> Interesting. Presumably, applying the same logic, the train in
> >>>>> this story must have been driven dangerously:
> >>>>> 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. ï¿½However, 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. ï¿½It could be that the other person behaved
> > dangerously.
> True, but if the driver causes the death, the driving must have been
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, %firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Firth)
>Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:42:54 +0000, %email@example.com (Steve Firth)
>> >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"
>> 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
From: Peter Grange on 30 Nov 2009 12:10
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:03:49 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
>Peter Grange wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:07:04 +0000, %firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Firth)
>>> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, %email@example.com (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
>>>>>> Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his
>>>>>> hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it
>>>>> 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
>> 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.
From: mileburner on 30 Nov 2009 12:18
> 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
> 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
>>> If someone dies as a result of it, the driving must have been
>> 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
>> 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.