How many die later from serious injuries on our roads?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: webreader on 28 Feb 2010 04:16 On Feb 28, 8:21 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 27 Feb, 15:46, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > >news:d1f4236c-dcbe-4da1-abfb-785b5caa9e0f(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On 27 Feb, 09:51, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > > >>news:694ed41e-e7a7-4fc5-a6ff-08ba46ba25f5(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, > > >> >> sounding > > >> >> much like they were saying: > > > >> >> >>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with > > >> >> >>>>>>> motoring. > > >> >> >>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end. > > >> >> >>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of > > >> >> >>>>> a > > >> >> >>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is > > >> >> >>>>> just > > >> >> >>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years.. > > >> >> >>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. > > > >> >> >>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE > > >> >> >>>> ONE > > >> >> >>>> of > > >> >> >>>> them. > > > >> >> >>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. > > >> >> >>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! > > >> >> >><slaps forehead> > > >> >> >>Migod! You're right! > > > >> >> >>It's worse than we thought! > > >> >> > Up to a point, Lord Copper. > > >> >> > At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. > > > >> >> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too > > >> >> lenient a > > >> >> fate for Motorists Who Kill? > > > >> > No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not in a > > >> > majority would suffice, > > > >> But if you had a jury which did not have a majority of motorists then it > > >> would not be representative of the adult population as a whole would it > > >> Doug? > > > > Juries are usually vetted for bias but not with road crash cases and > > > its motorist majority. Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a > > > jury with a paedophile majority! > > > Are paedophile's in the majority amongst the adult population? No, so your > > attempt at argument falls flat, again. > > Can't you tell a hypothetical when you see one? It illustrates my > point. > > > >> Even you are a motorist. > > > > Not any longer, thankfully. > > > Once a motorist, always a motorist Doug. Just because you choose not to > > drive a car it doesn't mean you can't. > > 'Choose not to' says it all. > > > >> > with penalties similar to non-road killings. > > > >> Why would you want to reduce the maximum possible sentence? > > > > I don't. Manslaughter carries a longer maximum sentence than the > > > softer death from dangerous driving. > > > But which has the greater likelihood of prosecution and conviction by a > > jury? > > Manslaughter, if the jury isn't dominated by a motorist majority and > there is sympathy for the victim. > > > How would you react if you had to convict someone who had made an > > honest mistake? > > Honest mistake my eye! They choose to get behind the wheel and thereby > knowingly put lives at risk. > > > Would you take the view that he should be banged up for the > > rest of his natural or "That could be me"? > > I would expect a punishment comparable to causing a non-road death. I > don't see why those who kill on roads should get lighter sentences, if > any, compared to those who kill elsewhere. > > -- > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill. If I were to be to be taken to court for a motoring offensce, perhaps I should object to any juror who is a cyclist as he would be biased against me, I could cite Dougs posts as the reason, because they prove the bias in the average cyclist. WSR
From: Doug on 1 Mar 2010 03:56 On 28 Feb, 09:16, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Feb 28, 8:21 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > On 27 Feb, 15:46, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > > >news:d1f4236c-dcbe-4da1-abfb-785b5caa9e0f(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On 27 Feb, 09:51, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > > > >>news:694ed41e-e7a7-4fc5-a6ff-08ba46ba25f5(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> > On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> >> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, > > > >> >> sounding > > > >> >> much like they were saying: > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with > > > >> >> >>>>>>> motoring. > > > >> >> >>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end. > > > >> >> >>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of > > > >> >> >>>>> a > > > >> >> >>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is > > > >> >> >>>>> just > > > >> >> >>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years. > > > >> >> >>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. > > > > >> >> >>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE > > > >> >> >>>> ONE > > > >> >> >>>> of > > > >> >> >>>> them. > > > > >> >> >>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. > > > >> >> >>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! > > > >> >> >><slaps forehead> > > > >> >> >>Migod! You're right! > > > > >> >> >>It's worse than we thought! > > > >> >> > Up to a point, Lord Copper. > > > >> >> > At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. > > > > >> >> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too > > > >> >> lenient a > > > >> >> fate for Motorists Who Kill? > > > > >> > No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not in a > > > >> > majority would suffice, > > > > >> But if you had a jury which did not have a majority of motorists then it > > > >> would not be representative of the adult population as a whole would it > > > >> Doug? > > > > > Juries are usually vetted for bias but not with road crash cases and > > > > its motorist majority. Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a > > > > jury with a paedophile majority! > > > > Are paedophile's in the majority amongst the adult population? No, so your > > > attempt at argument falls flat, again. > > > Can't you tell a hypothetical when you see one? It illustrates my > > point. > > > > >> Even you are a motorist. > > > > > Not any longer, thankfully. > > > > Once a motorist, always a motorist Doug. Just because you choose not to > > > drive a car it doesn't mean you can't. > > > 'Choose not to' says it all. > > > > >> > with penalties similar to non-road killings. > > > > >> Why would you want to reduce the maximum possible sentence? > > > > > I don't. Manslaughter carries a longer maximum sentence than the > > > > softer death from dangerous driving. > > > > But which has the greater likelihood of prosecution and conviction by a > > > jury? > > > Manslaughter, if the jury isn't dominated by a motorist majority and > > there is sympathy for the victim. > > > > How would you react if you had to convict someone who had made an > > > honest mistake? > > > Honest mistake my eye! They choose to get behind the wheel and thereby > > knowingly put lives at risk. > > > > Would you take the view that he should be banged up for the > > > rest of his natural or "That could be me"? > > > I would expect a punishment comparable to causing a non-road death. I > > don't see why those who kill on roads should get lighter sentences, if > > any, compared to those who kill elsewhere. > > > -- > > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > > A driving licence is a licence to kill. > > If I were to be to be taken to court for a motoring offensce, perhaps > I should object to any juror who is a cyclist as he would be biased > against me, I could cite Dougs posts as the reason, because they prove > the bias in the average cyclist. > You certainly have a point but it is unlikely that any jury would be dominated by cyclists in the same way that it is by motorists. Whereas about 80% of traffic are cars only 2% are bicycles. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean motorist mob.
From: Brimstone on 1 Mar 2010 04:10 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:9cd01b3b-d908-42f4-84dc-bbb56034c647(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Feb, 09:16, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On Feb 28, 8:21 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 27 Feb, 15:46, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> > >news:d1f4236c-dcbe-4da1-abfb-785b5caa9e0f(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > > On 27 Feb, 09:51, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >> >> > > >>news:694ed41e-e7a7-4fc5-a6ff-08ba46ba25f5(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > >> > On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, >> > > >> >> sounding >> > > >> >> much like they were saying: >> >> > > >> >> >>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to >> > > >> >> >>>>>>> interfere with >> > > >> >> >>>>>>> motoring. >> > > >> >> >>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end. >> > > >> >> >>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a >> > > >> >> >>>>> result of >> > > >> >> >>>>> a >> > > >> >> >>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his >> > > >> >> >>>>> vehicle is >> > > >> >> >>>>> just >> > > >> >> >>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 >> > > >> >> >>>>> years. >> > > >> >> >>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. >> >> > > >> >> >>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY >> > > >> >> >>>> SINGLE >> > > >> >> >>>> ONE >> > > >> >> >>>> of >> > > >> >> >>>> them. >> >> > > >> >> >>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. >> > > >> >> >>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! >> > > >> >> >><slaps forehead> >> > > >> >> >>Migod! You're right! >> >> > > >> >> >>It's worse than we thought! >> > > >> >> > Up to a point, Lord Copper. >> > > >> >> > At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. >> >> > > >> >> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too >> > > >> >> lenient a >> > > >> >> fate for Motorists Who Kill? >> >> > > >> > No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not >> > > >> > in a >> > > >> > majority would suffice, >> >> > > >> But if you had a jury which did not have a majority of motorists >> > > >> then it >> > > >> would not be representative of the adult population as a whole >> > > >> would it >> > > >> Doug? >> >> > > > Juries are usually vetted for bias but not with road crash cases >> > > > and >> > > > its motorist majority. Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a >> > > > jury with a paedophile majority! >> >> > > Are paedophile's in the majority amongst the adult population? No, so >> > > your >> > > attempt at argument falls flat, again. >> >> > Can't you tell a hypothetical when you see one? It illustrates my >> > point. >> >> > > >> Even you are a motorist. >> >> > > > Not any longer, thankfully. >> >> > > Once a motorist, always a motorist Doug. Just because you choose not >> > > to >> > > drive a car it doesn't mean you can't. >> >> > 'Choose not to' says it all. >> >> > > >> > with penalties similar to non-road killings. >> >> > > >> Why would you want to reduce the maximum possible sentence? >> >> > > > I don't. Manslaughter carries a longer maximum sentence than the >> > > > softer death from dangerous driving. >> >> > > But which has the greater likelihood of prosecution and conviction by >> > > a >> > > jury? >> >> > Manslaughter, if the jury isn't dominated by a motorist majority and >> > there is sympathy for the victim. >> >> > > How would you react if you had to convict someone who had made an >> > > honest mistake? >> >> > Honest mistake my eye! They choose to get behind the wheel and thereby >> > knowingly put lives at risk. >> >> > > Would you take the view that he should be banged up for the >> > > rest of his natural or "That could be me"? >> >> > I would expect a punishment comparable to causing a non-road death. I >> > don't see why those who kill on roads should get lighter sentences, if >> > any, compared to those who kill elsewhere. >> >> > -- >> > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net >> > A driving licence is a licence to kill. >> >> If I were to be to be taken to court for a motoring offensce, perhaps >> I should object to any juror who is a cyclist as he would be biased >> against me, I could cite Dougs posts as the reason, because they prove >> the bias in the average cyclist. >> > You certainly have a point but it is unlikely that any jury would be > dominated by cyclists in the same way that it is by motorists. Whereas > about 80% of traffic are cars only 2% are bicycles. > Are you taking into account those people on bicycles who also use cars and those people in cars who also use bicycles? Just because a juror uses a car on occasions it doesn't stop him also being a cyclist, does it Doug?
From: Tony Dragon on 1 Mar 2010 12:31
Doug wrote: > On 28 Feb, 09:16, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On Feb 28, 8:21 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 27 Feb, 15:46, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >>>> news:d1f4236c-dcbe-4da1-abfb-785b5caa9e0f(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On 27 Feb, 09:51, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:694ed41e-e7a7-4fc5-a6ff-08ba46ba25f5(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, >>>>>>>> sounding >>>>>>>> much like they were saying: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motoring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of >>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is >>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years. >>>>>>>>>>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. >>>>>>>>>>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE >>>>>>>>>>>> ONE >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! >>>>>>>>>> <slaps forehead> >>>>>>>>>> Migod! You're right! >>>>>>>>>> It's worse than we thought! >>>>>>>>> Up to a point, Lord Copper. >>>>>>>>> At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. >>>>>>>> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too >>>>>>>> lenient a >>>>>>>> fate for Motorists Who Kill? >>>>>>> No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not in a >>>>>>> majority would suffice, >>>>>> But if you had a jury which did not have a majority of motorists then it >>>>>> would not be representative of the adult population as a whole would it >>>>>> Doug? >>>>> Juries are usually vetted for bias but not with road crash cases and >>>>> its motorist majority. Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a >>>>> jury with a paedophile majority! >>>> Are paedophile's in the majority amongst the adult population? No, so your >>>> attempt at argument falls flat, again. >>> Can't you tell a hypothetical when you see one? It illustrates my >>> point. >>>>>> Even you are a motorist. >>>>> Not any longer, thankfully. >>>> Once a motorist, always a motorist Doug. Just because you choose not to >>>> drive a car it doesn't mean you can't. >>> 'Choose not to' says it all. >>>>>>> with penalties similar to non-road killings. >>>>>> Why would you want to reduce the maximum possible sentence? >>>>> I don't. Manslaughter carries a longer maximum sentence than the >>>>> softer death from dangerous driving. >>>> But which has the greater likelihood of prosecution and conviction by a >>>> jury? >>> Manslaughter, if the jury isn't dominated by a motorist majority and >>> there is sympathy for the victim. >>>> How would you react if you had to convict someone who had made an >>>> honest mistake? >>> Honest mistake my eye! They choose to get behind the wheel and thereby >>> knowingly put lives at risk. >>>> Would you take the view that he should be banged up for the >>>> rest of his natural or "That could be me"? >>> I would expect a punishment comparable to causing a non-road death. I >>> don't see why those who kill on roads should get lighter sentences, if >>> any, compared to those who kill elsewhere. >>> -- >>> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net >>> A driving licence is a licence to kill. >> If I were to be to be taken to court for a motoring offensce, perhaps >> I should object to any juror who is a cyclist as he would be biased >> against me, I could cite Dougs posts as the reason, because they prove >> the bias in the average cyclist. >> > You certainly have a point but it is unlikely that any jury would be > dominated by cyclists in the same way that it is by motorists. Whereas > about 80% of traffic are cars only 2% are bicycles. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean motorist mob. Yes, but what is the percentage of motorists in the population who would be eligible for jury service and what is the percentage of cyclists? -- Tony Dragon |