From: Adrian on 30 Nov 2009 13:10
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
>> You clearly don't understand the difference between "danger" and
>> "risk". I suggest you learn or shut up, for the sake of any shred of
>> credibility you may have left.
> This might help
It may well help you. Now look at
and think about the difference.
From: Adrian on 30 Nov 2009 13:20
Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
> Or have you found a way to tell Gordon precisely what he is going to
> spend your tax on?
Gawd, wouldn't that be wonderful?
From: Peter Grange on 30 Nov 2009 13:22
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:44:26 +0000, Phil W Lee
>Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009
>23:28:17 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:47:00 +0000, Phil W Lee
>>>Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009
>>>09:48:29 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>On 26 Nov 2009 12:08:38 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
>>>>>like they were saying:
>>>>>>> Perhaps you could clarify what you said. Are you proposing that killer
>>>>>>> cyclists should face appropriate jail sentences or are you proposing
>>>>>>> that the law should be enforced as it has been to-date. In a weak,
>>>>>>> ineffective manners which permits cyclists to kill and then walk free?
>>>>>> As far as I am concerned, if you unlawfully kill someone whilst riding a
>>>>>> bike that is not substantially different from unlawfully killing someone
>>>>>> whilst driving a car. What have I said which makes you think I believe
>>>>>You should believe differently, because it is different.
>>>>>There is no equivalent, applicable to cycling, to the offences of Causing
>>>>>Death by Dangerous Driving or Causing Death by Careless Driving.
>>>>>They were introduced specifically because, in the case of a road
>>>>>collision, it's very difficult to prove the gross negligence required for
>>>>>a Manslaughter conviction - basically, juries were very reluctant to
>>>>>convict because of the "There but for the grace..." angle. CDbDD and
>>>>>CDbCD carry much less onerous tests, so are considerably easier to prove
>>>>>- and thereby convict.
>>>>>Which all means that, yes, there IS a substantial difference between
>>>>>unlawfully killing someone whilst riding a bike and unlawfully killing
>>>>>someone whilst driving a car - and that the cyclist IS much more likely
>>>>>to walk free.
>>>>There are legal differences. However if you kill someone as a result
>>>>of a deliberate act or a failure to take due care whilst performing a
>>>>potentially dangerous activity (like driving, cycling, walking, waving
>>>>a chainsaw about in your local Tesco etc) you should be held to
>>>>account. There are differences in the frequency of deaths resulting
>>>>from various activities, which is why the laws are different, but for
>>>>the victim it's 100% the same.
>>>The surviving relatives are more likely to feel that their dearly
>>>departed has been judged as having some value if the instrument of
>>>their death is something other than a motor vehicle though.
>>>And of course, the same goes for injured survivors.
>>That is, at the very least, a strange comment. If I thought someone
>>had had a part in dispatching a friend or relative early I wouldn't
>>really care whether said person was driving a car, riding a bike,
>>flying an aeroplane, pissed whist taking his appendix out or
>>whatever. I'd still be unhappy. The fact that out of all those
>>"driving a car" is the statistically most likely has little influence
>>on the individual event.
>But it apparently has a huge influence over the value placed on that
>life by the legal system.
I'm afraid we come back to my point that society has decided it's ok
to kill people on the roads, where "society" includes the jurors who
won't convict because they know that in the same circumstances they
might have killed the poor victim. It ain't right, but that's how it
From: Tony Dragon on 30 Nov 2009 13:50
> 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
>>>> 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
>> 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: BrianW on 30 Nov 2009 13:50
On 30 Nov, 17:18, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
> > The cause was clearly the presence of the car. ï¿½People tend not to die
> > if they run across an empty road.
> You are Doug AICM5P
LOL! It is you who is suffering from Bollen's disease, not me.