Yet another pavement killing, by police this time.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Children are fighting back!
Next: Halfrauds
From: Nick on 5 Jun 2010 14:11 Dr Zoidberg wrote: > The alternative is driving at 10mph or less to all emergencies. How many > people would die that way? I can see that ambulances and fire engines often need to drive at speed to save lives yet they seem to have a much lower accident rate than the police. > They need to strike a sensible balance between the severity of the > incident and the speed they drive at, but in the main they do this very > well. > This is the type of argument we always hear after the police have killed some innocent. I don't see any evidence that they do get the balance right. These are the type of people who see no problem with a risk assessment that leads them to shoot an innocent man because he might be about to explode a bomb, which he has somehow managed to hide under his T-shirt. >> The force has referred the incident to the Independent Police >> Complaints Commission. > > As is quite right. > An investigation by the IPCC is of course a joke.
From: Dr Zoidberg on 5 Jun 2010 15:08 "Bill" <Bill(a)birchnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:iljJ+5TlLlCMFwtr(a)birchnet.demon.co.uk... > In message <hudgrb$vq5$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dr Zoidberg > <AlexNOOOO!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes > >>I can see a cyclist from my lounge Doug. >>Does that mean a discussion of the double glazing would be acceptable? > > Probably be more interesting............................. A fair point :0) -- Alex
From: Derek Geldard on 5 Jun 2010 16:27 On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 19:11:22 +0100, Nick <Nick.spam(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >Dr Zoidberg wrote: > >> The alternative is driving at 10mph or less to all emergencies. How many >> people would die that way? > >I can see that ambulances and fire engines often need to drive at speed >to save lives yet they seem to have a much lower accident rate than the >police. > >> They need to strike a sensible balance between the severity of the >> incident and the speed they drive at, but in the main they do this very >> well. >> > >This is the type of argument we always hear after the police have killed >some innocent. I don't see any evidence that they do get the balance >right. These are the type of people who see no problem with a risk >assessment that leads them to shoot an innocent man because he might be >about to explode a bomb, which he has somehow managed to hide under his >T-shirt. > Yeah, Whatever. (Yawn) Still not a transport issue and therefore off topic in uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving. Derek
From: The Medway Handyman on 5 Jun 2010 16:56 Nick wrote: > Dr Zoidberg wrote: > >> The alternative is driving at 10mph or less to all emergencies. How >> many people would die that way? > > I can see that ambulances and fire engines often need to drive at > speed to save lives yet they seem to have a much lower accident rate > than the police. And yet ambulance drivers and FRU medics (capable of much higher speeds) have no specific driver training to speak off. Certainly with LAS you have to pass your PSV test an your own expense prior to joining. > >> They need to strike a sensible balance between the severity of the >> incident and the speed they drive at, but in the main they do this >> very well. >> > > This is the type of argument we always hear after the police have > killed some innocent. I don't see any evidence that they do get the > balance right. These are the type of people who see no problem with a > risk assessment that leads them to shoot an innocent man because he > might be about to explode a bomb, which he has somehow managed to > hide under his T-shirt. You see plenty of evidence that they get it right. You don't get bombed very often. The police are by & large very efficient in a very demanding job. They make the odd mistake - life is like that. > > >>> The force has referred the incident to the Independent Police >>> Complaints Commission. >> >> As is quite right. >> > > An investigation by the IPCC is of course a joke. Evidence? Or prejudice? -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: Doug on 6 Jun 2010 01:26
On 5 June, 12:53, FrengaX <hnkjqr...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 12:48 pm, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > On 5 June, 12:42, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On Jun 5, 12:13 pm, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > Once again demonstrating that nowhere is safe from these killer > > > > drivers. More walls were also smashed. Pure luck that no cyclists > > > > happened to be in the way at the time. Also we are told that police > > > > are impeccable, specially trained drivers. So what does this say about > > > > ordinary motorists and the so-called driving test? > > > > > "Two killed in police car collision in Luton > > > > > Two pedestrians were killed when they were hit by a police car > > > > responding to an incident in Bedfordshire. > > > > > The men died when the car came off the road after colliding with a > > > > Vauxhall Zafira in Luton at 2351 BST on Friday. > > > > > The victims, believed to be foreign nationals, had been standing on > > > > the pathway at the junction of Holland Road and Leagrave Road. > > > > > The force has referred the incident to the Independent Police > > > > Complaints Commission. > > > > > The junction has been closed while the investigation is carried out.. > > > > > A Bedfordshire police spokeswoman said: "The marked panda car, crewed > > > > by two male police officers from Luton, was responding to an immediate > > > > call for assistance and was on blue lights and a siren when it first > > > > collided with a Vauxhall Zafira being driven by a man who was alone in > > > > the car." > > > > > Neither of the two police officers who were in the car nor the driver > > > > of the other vehicle were injured. > > > > > The junction has been closed while the investigation into the > > > > collision on Friday night is carried out." > > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds_bucks_and_herts/10244595.stm > > > > So putting cyclist in the text makes it on topic? > > > No the fact that cyclists, on roads or pavements, can be the victims > > of such drivers makes it on topic > > > -- > > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text - > > No it doesn't. The word "can" is the clue. > Would you like to comment on all the other off topic threads in these newsgroups or are you just targeting me in particular? BTW, I see from subsequent reports that the frequently used euphemism 'accident', which diminishes blame, is being avoided this time and instead... "...The IPCC said it had sent investigators to the scene of the collision..." Makes a welcome change. I wonder what the outcome of the investigation will be? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds_bucks_and_herts/10244595.stm -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |