Cyclist doing nothing wrong killed in broad daylight. CPS do nothing.
spindrift
Anthony's father comments here:
'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
survivors.
Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
court hearing.
This CPS decision means that no jury will get It’s chance to see
evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.
After all, the well known facts are, Anthony and his friend, both of
whom were legitimately placed in the road, and were in no way at
fault, were hit from behind by a van travelling at considerable speed,
and in broad daylight. '
The CPS decision not to prosecute a driver who ran into Anthony, in
broad daylight, with clear visibility, criticised here:
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_questions_cps_decision
' Mr Harding (of the CPS) says cost is not an issue.
He says they applied the code.
What about the public interest Mr Harding? Isn't that in the code?
Hundreds of yards of visibility on a beautiful evening and you decide
not to prosecute?
Why, if cost is not the issue?
Why don't you want a jury to consider the facts?
People, stay off your cycles please.
If you get killed, hit from behind when you are doing nothing wrong,
the state will not even bother a jury with the evidence.
Mr Harding, this is something we are all interested in, the public at
large. With respect it is not only the people directly involved in the
case, but the rest of us too who require an explanation. It is our
lives too at risk, and the state's failure to protect the public
interest intensifies the danger. You have failed us all, and we all
require an explanation.'
Something is very wrong here, this case beggars belief. It has
ramifications for anyone who cycles, a justice system loaded against
those with most to lose.
Ian
> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_qu...
"“When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in this
case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."
There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not necessarily
on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid, sometimes do Very
Stupid Things Indeed.
Ian
spindrift
There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.
Brimstone
Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?
spindrift
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. Read the thread.
Brimstone
I have, there is no evidence of any description. Quite understandably there
is an emotional plea from the father that the case should be properly
investigated. But contributions are your usual emotive rants.
I repeat, is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything
untoward?
A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
JNugent
> Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
I don't really want to make adverse comment on what a bereaved parent has
said in such a case (those of us who are parents can easily understand their
feelings). But perhaps some light and shade is required here (though of a
general nature and not about the specific case itself).
> Anthony's father comments here:
> 'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
> proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
> user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
> survivors.
That, I'm afraid, is simply inaccurate. The burden of proof lies primarily
with the Crown, as it does in all criminal matters.
> Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
> all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
> is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
> favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
> court hearing.
> This CPS decision means that no jury will get It�s chance to see
> evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
> make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.
Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service.
spindrift
>
> - Show quoted text -
The evidence we have is that an experience cyclist was using the road
in the correct manner and was hit from behind in broad daylight and
killed. No charges have been laid against the driver.
I would say that was 'untoward.'
If both parties using the same road abide to the HC, it is not
possible for a collision to take place.
spindrift
> spindrift wrote:
> > Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
>
> I don't really want to make adverse comment on what a bereaved parent has
> said in such a case (those of us who are parents can easily understand their
> feelings). But perhaps some light and shade is required here (though of a
> general nature and not about the specific case itself).
>
> > Anthony's father comments here:
> > 'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
> > proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
> > user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
> > survivors.
>
> That, I'm afraid, is simply inaccurate. The burden of proof lies primarily
> with the Crown, as it does in all criminal matters.
>
> > Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
> > all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
> > is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
> > favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
> > court hearing.
> > evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
> > make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.
>
> Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
> procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
> Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
> a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
> before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service.
If the CPS decide not to lay charges, the Crown have no opportunity to
decide anything. That's the whole point.
A civil claim can fail because no charges were laid. For example, a
cyclist hit by an inattentive driver was aksed whether they would be
happy for the driver to atend a driver awareness course rather than be
fined for an offence. the cyclist agreed, then their civil case failed
because no prosecution was put in place.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
>> I don't really want to make adverse comment on what a bereaved parent has
>> said in such a case (those of us who are parents can easily understand their
>> feelings). But perhaps some light and shade is required here (though of a
>> general nature and not about the specific case itself).
>>> Anthony's father comments here:
>>> http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15013&postdays=0&po...
>>> 'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
>>> proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
>>> user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
>>> survivors.
>> That, I'm afraid, is simply inaccurate. The burden of proof lies primarily
>> with the Crown, as it does in all criminal matters.
>>> Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
>>> all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
>>> is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
>>> favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
>>> court hearing.
>>> This CPS decision means that no jury will get It�s chance to see
>>> evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
>>> make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.
>> Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
>> procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
>> Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
>> a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
>> before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service..
> If the CPS decide not to lay charges, the Crown have no opportunity to
> decide anything. That's the whole point.
Wrong on two counts.
Firstly, there is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Secondly, "the Crown" does not decide cases. That is for the jury or the bench.
> A civil claim can fail because no charges were laid. For example, a
> cyclist hit by an inattentive driver was aksed whether they would be
> happy for the driver to atend a driver awareness course rather than be
> fined for an offence. the cyclist agreed, then their civil case failed
> because no prosecution was put in place.
Surprisingly, considering the amount of ranting you do about it, you don't
actually have much (layman's) knowledge of the legal system, do you?
Philip Ryder
> > Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
> > This CPS decision means that no jury will get It’s chance to see
> > evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
> > make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.
> Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution ... it's there as a facility.
> A case can be placed before a jury other than under the aegis of the
> Crown Prosecution Service.
Well, exactly, If someone believes the CPS has acted unreasonably
then they can still go ahead and prosecute privately. Sadly, in this
case, it looks like there's not enough evidence to stand any chance of
winning, and that's exactly why the CPS made their decision. I don't
think the fault here is with the CPS, it's with the law.
In my opinion, if someone takes the wheel of what is effectively a
lethal weapon, then they must take full responsibility for what
happens when they are in control of that weapon.
Imagine someone had a full licence to own a gun, and during the course
of using it legally, someone gets shot and dies. Would it be fair for
them to get away with murder just because there weren't any witnesses?
I couldn't care less if someone jumps in front of their gun whilst
they happen to be firing it, that's the responsibility they took when
they picked up that gun. They should go to jail. It was their decision
to pick the gun up and they understood the risks when they did that,
no excuses.
However, most people would rather not have to take responsibility for
people who die under their cars. We live in a democracy and for the
most part, we live by the rule of the masses. What hope do we have
when a significant proportion of people would claim it was the
cyclist's fault he died because he was in the middle of the road?
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
>>> This CPS decision means that no jury will get It�s chance to see
>>> evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
>>> make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.
>> Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution ... it's there as a facility.
>> A case can be placed before a jury other than under the aegis of the
>> Crown Prosecution Service.
> Well, exactly, If someone believes the CPS has acted unreasonably
> then they can still go ahead and prosecute privately. Sadly, in this
> case, it looks like there's not enough evidence to stand any chance of
> winning, and that's exactly why the CPS made their decision. I don't
> think the fault here is with the CPS, it's with the law.
> In my opinion, if someone takes the wheel of what is effectively a
> lethal weapon, then they must take full responsibility for what
> happens when they are in control of that weapon.
A motor vehicle is not a weapon. Any sophist argument to the effect that it
is a weapon comes unstuck on the fact that if a car is a weapon, so is a milk
bottle, or a tyre lever... or a bicycle.
> Imagine someone had a full licence to own a gun, and during the course
> of using it legally, someone gets shot and dies. Would it be fair for
> them to get away with murder just because there weren't any witnesses?
That's interesting.
What scenario has a gun being used legally (I assume you meant "lawfully") to
murder someone?
> I couldn't care less if someone jumps in front of their gun whilst
> they happen to be firing it, that's the responsibility they took when
> they picked up that gun. They should go to jail. It was their decision
> to pick the gun up and they understood the risks when they did that,
> no excuses.
That's not the law though, is it?
I hasten to add that I'm certainly no expert on the law relating to
firearms, but I think we both know that accidents sometimes happen. And
accidents are not normally treated as criminal offences (absent negligence or
similar factor).
spindrift
> spindrift wrote:
> > JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >> spindrift wrote:
> >>> Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
> >> I don't really want to make adverse comment on what a bereaved parent has
> >> said in such a case (those of us who are parents can easily understand their
> >> feelings). But perhaps some light and shade is required here (though of a
> >> general nature and not about the specific case itself).
> >>> Anthony's father comments here:
> >>>http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15013&postdays=0&po...
> >>> 'In this a country as with many others, but not all, the burden of
> >>> proof when a motor vehicle is in collision with a more vulnerable road
> >>> user, causing harm/injury/death, lies with the victim or his/her
> >>> survivors.
> >> That, I'm afraid, is simply inaccurate. The burden of proof lies primarily
> >> with the Crown, as it does in all criminal matters.
> >>> Before any court case ensues, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews
> >>> all available evidence and, working to a code of maxims, much of which
> >>> is based on likelihood of a successful prosecution outcome, i.e in
> >>> favour of the victim, decides whether or not to progress the case to a
> >>> court hearing.
> >>> evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
> >>> make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.
> >> Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
> >> procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
> >> Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
> >> a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
> >> before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service..
> > If the CPS decide not to lay charges, the Crown have no opportunity to
> > decide anything. That's the whole point.
>
> Wrong on two counts.
>
> Firstly, there is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
> procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
> Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
> a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
> before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service.
>
> Secondly, "the Crown" does not decide cases. That is for the jury or the bench.
>
> > A civil claim can fail because no charges were laid. For example, a
> > cyclist hit by an inattentive driver was aksed whether they would be
> > happy for the driver to atend a driver awareness course rather than be
> > fined for an offence. the cyclist agreed, then their civil case failed
> > because no prosecution was put in place.
>
> Surprisingly, considering the amount of ranting you do about it, you don't
>
> - Show quoted text -
A situation where restitution is up to grieving relatives is not
effective justice. For the justice system to wash its hands of a fatal
RTA and leave the relatives to pick up the pieces and pursue the
driver is inappropriate, IMO. That's nothing to do with my ignorance
of the law, although your inability to refrain from personal sniping
on a thread discussing a fatality is noted.
'I was hit by a car whilst stationary (in fact waiting for him to
turn, he cut the corner, wrote off my bike, smashed up my leg...etc.
etc. Luckily
I was wearing a helmet or it could have been worse, he hit me at some
speed and threw me a couple of meters across the roadway).
The police arrived and there were a number of witnesses who had taken
pictures. They decided to prosecute the guy for dangerous driving.
The police rang me up, saying that they had a 'driver retraining
scheme' and the driver, if he took this six week part time course and
passed would not be prosecuted...but they needed my permission.
I thought this sounded like a good idea, better than prosecution, the
driver might learn to respect other road users. I gave my permission.
When finally my claim made its way to the driver's insurance company -
they refused to pay out (for replacement bike, two weeks in bed, tube
fairs for journey to work whilst waiting for payout for replacement
bike)..and why?
Because the police hadn't prosecuted, so their driver 'wasn't to
blame'.
(and they even had the cheek to counter claim for the scratches down
the side of his car which had occurred as he dragged what was left of
my bike up the road. I got a bit ratty and they withdrew their claim,
but not until after several solicitor's letters)
Bicycles rule, but cyclists get shafted.'
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8270&start=60
Nugent, I suspect had anyone else started this thread you wouldn't
have bothered contributing. You've followed me around like a love
struck teenager for a few weeks now, claiming I don't cycle, calling
me a liar when I posted the pictures of the Tourmalet ride I did.
You're a safespeed supporter, fine, but please don't let your
antagonism toward those not taken in by the late Smith's dishonesty
spill over into your frankly creppy behaviour on this thread. A man's
dead, the justice system failed him, discuss the case and stop trying
posting silly insults.
spindrift
> Philip Ryder wrote:
> > JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >> spindrift wrote:
> >>> Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
>
> - Show quoted text -
A motor vehicle is often used as a weapon, cases of deliberate driving
at people are not uncommon.
Philip Ryder
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> I hasten to add that I'm certainly no expert on the law relating to
> firearms, but I think we both know that accidents sometimes happen. And
> accidents are not normally treated as criminal offences (absent negligence or
> similar factor).
I think if you were to shoot someone dead with a firearm, the onus
would be on you to prove it was an accident. I don't think it'd be
assumed to be an accident with a lack of evidence, as was the case
with this cyclist.
> A motor vehicle is not a weapon. Any sophist argument to the effect that it
> is a weapon comes unstuck on the fact that if a car is a weapon, so is a milk
> bottle, or a tyre lever... or a bicycle.
I think with a milk bottle or a tyre lever, the wounds nearly always
indicate whether an incident was an accident or not. It'd be pretty
hard to murder someone with either of those weapons and make it look
like an accident.
With a firearm, the injury looks pretty similar if they were shot once
at close range deliberately or if they were shot at close range whilst
walking in front of the gun.
There have been cases where a pedestrian has been killed with bicyle
and the bicycle rider has gotten away with it, and as we've seen
above, a van driver has gotten away with killing a cyclist. In these
two situations, I would say that the law needs to be changed. If the
car driver or the bike rider can prove it was an accident then fair
enough, but the onus should be on them to prove it was an accident, it
shouldn't be assumed automatically.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> If the CPS decide not to lay charges, the Crown have no opportunity to
>>> decide anything. That's the whole point.
>> Wrong on two counts.
>> Firstly, there is such a thing as a private prosecution, though as a
>> procedure, it doesn't have a tremendously good track record. Ask Doreen
>> Lawrence, who managed to achieve only the opposite of what she intended, via
>> a private prosecution. But, it's there as a facility. A case can be placed
>> before a jury other than under the aegis of the Crown Prosecution Service..
>> Secondly, "the Crown" does not decide cases. That is for the jury or the bench.
>>> A civil claim can fail because no charges were laid. For example, a
>>> cyclist hit by an inattentive driver was aksed whether they would be
>>> happy for the driver to atend a driver awareness course rather than be
>>> fined for an offence. the cyclist agreed, then their civil case failed
>>> because no prosecution was put in place.
>> Surprisingly, considering the amount of ranting you do about it, you don't
>> actually have much (layman's) knowledge of the legal system, do you?
> A situation where restitution is up to grieving relatives is not
> effective justice.
It's a good job we don't have such a system, isn't it?
> For the justice system to wash its hands of a fatal
> RTA and leave the relatives to pick up the pieces and pursue the
> driver is inappropriate, IMO.
Your perception of how the system works is faulty.
> That's nothing to do with my ignorance
> of the law, although your inability to refrain from personal sniping
> on a thread discussing a fatality is noted.
There's no way to avoid commenting adversely on your not knowing that the
proof threshold for a civil case is actually *lower* than it is for a
criminal case.
The theroretical underpinning of your whole "point" in the last post was that
it was higher: it isn't.
[snip anecdote]
> Nugent, I suspect had anyone else started this thread you wouldn't
> have bothered contributing. You've followed me around like a love
> struck teenager for a few weeks now,
"Love struck" is very far wide of the mark.
I like being thought of as a teenager though. Keep it up.
> claiming I don't cycle,
You must be thinking of someone else. I have no reason to assume you are not
a cyclist. What can you be thinking of?
> calling me a liar when I posted the pictures of the Tourmalet ride I did.
I recall nothing about that. The word itself means nothing to me.
> You're a safespeed supporter, fine,
Not true. I've never even looked at the website. Not once. Not never, not nohow.
So you're wrong. Again.
> but please don't let your
> antagonism toward those not taken in by the late Smith's dishonesty
> spill over into your frankly creppy behaviour on this thread.
"Creppy"?
Is this a witty neologism - formed from "crappy" and "preppy"?
But apart from that, since your premises are faulty... well, so are your
conclusions.
> A man's
> dead, the justice system failed him, discuss the case and stop trying
> posting silly insults.
"Discuss the case"?
How, in the absence of every piece of evidence considered by the CPS and/or
the courts?
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Philip Ryder wrote:
>>> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
>>>>> This CPS decision means that no jury will get It�s chance to see
> A motor vehicle is often used as a weapon, cases of deliberate driving
> at people are not uncommon.
For some very rrified value of "not uncommon", maybe.
Actually, I'll tell you something - I once saw that very thing happen. It was
a bloomin' long time ago (I was fifteen), but I did see a fight outside the
pub my mother kept, where one of the protagonists, having had a half-brick
heaved through the windscreen of his Mini, drove it full speed straight at
the person who had thrown the missile. The target jumped out of the way. I
had no doubt at the time that the driver intended to kill the brick-thrower.
The police arrived a few minutes later. I don't know what happened subsequently.
But I'v never seen anything similar since.
So... a motor vehicle is "often" (WTMM) used as a weapon. But so are beer
glasses (much more "often" than motor vehicles, I suspect). Is a beer glass a
weapon?
Note that I do not ask "Can a beer glass be a weapon?".
I ask "Is a beer glass a weapon?".
I'm sure you see the reason for that.
aard...@the.zoo
<pipr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 5 July, 21:27, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>> > Anthony Maynard, pertinent to the Strict Liability proposal.
>
>> > This CPS decision means that no jury will get It�s chance to see
>> > evidence. In a way, you could argue that, with all cases that never
>> > make it to court, the CPS has effectively, been the jury.
>
>> Not so. There is such a thing as a private prosecution ... it's there as a facility.
>> A case can be placed before a jury other than under the aegis of the
>> Crown Prosecution Service.
>
>Well, exactly, If someone believes the CPS has acted unreasonably
>then they can still go ahead and prosecute privately. Sadly, in this
>case, it looks like there's not enough evidence to stand any chance of
>winning, and that's exactly why the CPS made their decision. I don't
>think the fault here is with the CPS, it's with the law.
>
>In my opinion, if someone takes the wheel of what is effectively a
>lethal weapon, then they must take full responsibility for what
>happens when they are in control of that weapon.
>
You are Douglas Bollen of this parish, AICMFP.
>Imagine someone had a full licence to own a gun, and during the course
>of using it legally, someone gets shot and dies. Would it be fair for
>them to get away with murder just because there weren't any witnesses?
>
They're NOT "getting away with murder", because it WASN'T murder -
you've already stated that the gun was being used legally, which
immediately discounts the possibility of murdering someone with it.
See what you can do with semantics?
>I couldn't care less if someone jumps in front of their gun whilst
>they happen to be firing it, that's the responsibility they took when
>they picked up that gun. They should go to jail. It was their decision
>to pick the gun up and they understood the risks when they did that,
>no excuses.
>
Oh no, obviously you DIDN'T see what can be done with semantics,
because here you are with some more of them. Tell us, are train
drivers "responsible" for people who leap off bridges in front of
them? If not, why not? It's the same as your example above!
>However, most people would rather not have to take responsibility for
>people who die under their cars. We live in a democracy and for the
>most part, we live by the rule of the masses. What hope do we have
>when a significant proportion of people would claim it was the
>cyclist's fault he died because he was in the middle of the road?
Yeah, I know, this democracy stuff is a real pisser, isn't it?
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
[what - no P. Ryder attribution here?]
>> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> I hasten to add that I'm certainly no expert on the law relating to
>> firearms, but I think we both know that accidents sometimes happen. And
>> accidents are not normally treated as criminal offences (absent negligence or
>> similar factor).
> I think if you were to shoot someone dead with a firearm, the onus
> would be on you to prove it was an accident. I don't think it'd be
> assumed to be an accident with a lack of evidence, as was the case
> with this cyclist.
You've sidestepped my question about your scenario, haven't you?
You said:
"Imagine someone had a full licence to own a gun, and during the course of
using it *legally* [that's my emphasis - JN], someone gets shot and dies.
Would it be fair for them to get away with murder just because there weren't
any witnesses?"
And I said:
"That's interesting.
"What scenario has a gun being used legally (I assume you meant "lawfully")
to murder someone?"
That does need to be answered before your subsequent question can be addressed.
>> A motor vehicle is not a weapon. Any sophist argument to the effect that it
>> is a weapon comes unstuck on the fact that if a car is a weapon, so is a milk
>> bottle, or a tyre lever... or a bicycle.
> I think with a milk bottle or a tyre lever, the wounds nearly always
> indicate whether an incident was an accident or not. It'd be pretty
> hard to murder someone with either of those weapons and make it look
> like an accident.
> With a firearm, the injury looks pretty similar if they were shot once
> at close range deliberately or if they were shot at close range whilst
> walking in front of the gun.
You are making distinctions there between firearms and improvised hand
weapons. That wasn't actually the issue. The question was whether a motor
vehicle is "effectively a weapon", as you claimed. That it can be used as a
weapon does not make it a weapon, any more than a milk bottle or a tyre lever
is a weapon (and you seem to be saying that they are not).
> There have been cases where a pedestrian has been killed with bicyle
> and the bicycle rider has gotten away with it, and as we've seen
> above, a van driver has gotten away with killing a cyclist. In these
> two situations, I would say that the law needs to be changed. If the
> car driver or the bike rider can prove it was an accident then fair
> enough, but the onus should be on them to prove it was an accident, it
> shouldn't be assumed automatically.
This tendentious phrase "killing a pedestrian/cyclist" is problematic, as I'm
sure you can see. The use of that form implies that there is/was something
deliberate about it.
Is it really not possible for you to put your points more neutrally?
Ian
> On 5 July, 20:11, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not necessarily
> > on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid, sometimes do Very
> > Stupid Things Indeed.
> There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.
I was responding to your general point: as a driver I see some
cyclists behaving with astonishingly dangerous stupidity. Similarly,
of course, as a cyclist I see some car drivers behave with
astonishingly dangerous stupidity.
Ian
Ian
> On 5 July, 20:25, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?- Hide quoted text -
> Yes. Read the thread.
There isn't actually. Just the understandably distraught father saying
"I know my son did nothing wrong, he was a safe cyclist" ... and he
wasn't there. I'm sure it's an honestly held belief, but it may not be
supported by the evidence.
Ian
Ian
> The evidence we have is that an experience cyclist was using the road
> in the correct manner and was hit from behind in broad daylight and
> killed. No charges have been laid against the driver.
>
> I would say that was 'untoward.'
And supposing a reliable witness claimed that the cyclist swerved to
the right just as the van was starting an otherwise safe overtake?
> If both parties using the same road abide to the HC, it is not
> possible for a collision to take place.
Both parties. Both.
Ian
Ian
> In my opinion, if someone takes the wheel of what is effectively a
> lethal weapon, then they must take full responsibility for what
> happens when they are in control of that weapon.
Bicycles are also potentially - if rarely - lethal weapons.
> Imagine someone had a full licence to own a gun, and during the course
> of using it legally, someone gets shot and dies. Would it be fair for
> them to get away with murder just because there weren't any witnesses?
No. But then they wouldn't have been using it legally, would they?
> I couldn't care less if someone jumps in front of their gun whilst
> they happen to be firing it, that's the responsibility they took when
> they picked up that gun. They should go to jail.
Would you then want to see drivers of the trains in front of which
unfortunates stand to commit suicide prosecuted for murder? Is than
not the responsibility they took when they started driving the train?
Ian
Ian
> I think if you were to shoot someone dead with a firearm, the onus
> would be on you to prove it was an accident. I don't think it'd be
> assumed to be an accident with a lack of evidence, as was the case
> with this cyclist.
Two problems here. First "assumed to be an accident" - are you
suggesting that it was deliberate murder? Have you any evidence for
that?
Secondly, the lack of evidence in this case was lack of sufficient
evidence to have a realistic chance of conviction. That may because
there just isn't any, or it may be that there is evidence which
exonerates the driver. We don't know.
> ... as we've seen
> above, a van driver has gotten away with killing a cyclist.
That's a potentially defamatory statement, you know. There is no
evidence that "a van driver killed a cyclist" ... there is evidence
that a cyclist died as a result of a collision with a van and that's
all. Would you want to live in a country where the accused had to
prove his/her innocence?
Ian
Judith M Smith
How do we *know* that the cyclists were doing nothing wrong?
I would like to know the full circumstances before I cast aspersions
on any of the parties.
It is odd that I cannot find a full report of the circumstances of the
accident - anyone?
Judith M Smith
There is no evidence that the driver of the vehicle did anything at
all stupid.
Judith M Smith
From where do you get this "correct manner"?
Where is there an accurate report of what actually happened?
Judith M Smith
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>If the CPS decide not to lay charges, the Crown have no opportunity to
>decide anything. That's the whole point.
Why should the CPS not decide to press charges - if they thought the
motorist was not to blame - seems sensible to me.
Perhaps there is a little more to this than we know.
Do we even know that the cyclists were on the correct side of the
rode?
Did one of them wobble and knock the other off?
Had the cyclist been drinking?
I am not saying that this is what happened- it may have been - we do
not know.
Philip Ryder
> On 5 July, 22:44, Philip Ryder <pipry...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> unfortunates stand to commit suicide prosecuted for murder? Is than
A train is rarely capable of avoiding an impact with someone on the
line. The probability of a death occuring because a train driver
hadn't paid attention is negligible.
Due to the unique dangers that trains present, unique measures are in
place to prevent people from being on the track. For instance, it is a
criminal offence to trespass on a railway.
> Would you want to live in a country where the accused had to
> prove his/her innocence?
In select instances, particularly the incident above. I think in the
absence of sufficient evidence showing otherwise, a van driver should
be assumed to be responsible for the death of a cyclist if the van in
which they were in control of was the cause of that cyclists death. If
a person does not wish to take responsibility, then they have the
choice not to operate that van.
That is my personal view on the matter.
DavidR
>
> I was responding to your general point: as a driver I see some
> cyclists behaving with astonishingly dangerous stupidity. Similarly,
> of course, as a cyclist I see some car drivers behave with
> astonishingly dangerous stupidity.
As a cyclist I have seen other cyclists behaving with "astonishingly
dangerous stupidity" (which I have to avoid to protect myself). There is
something about the noise, size and speed of a car that inhibits such
encounters while driving Other than the very unlikely possibility of
performing a sudden u-turn it is difficult to conceive what a cyclist could
do to
put themselves in danger on a straight main road with no junctions.
Judith M Smith
Oh dear, oh dear.
Nuxx Bar will love this - it certainly puts things in perspective.
Now there is a hard-luck story.
Back to the case:
Please provide details of what actually happened - as you seem to have
amazing insight.
PS - I think that you would not be able to post "Luckily
I was wearing a helmet or it could have been worse, he hit me at some
speed and threw me a couple of meters across the roadway" in the
proposed moderated group.
It is obviously meant to be inflammatory.
Doug
> spindrift wrote:
> > On 5 July, 20:11, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_qu...
>
> >> ""When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in
> >> this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
> >> conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."
>
> >> There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not
> >> necessarily on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid,
> >> sometimes do Very Stupid Things Indeed.
>
> >> Ian
>
> > There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.
>
> Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?
>
happens on one of our roads.
Do you seriously imagine that if, say, the police found a body
anywhere else exhibiting serious physical injuries they would not
investigate it to the utmost and make the assailant accountable? The
fact that there were no witnesses to the crime would hardly act as a
defence, as it did in this case.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Brimstone
By whom has that evidence been provided?
> No charges have been laid against the driver.
Is there any evidence that would persuade a court to convict, if not what's
the point in charging him?
> I would say that was 'untoward.'
What's "untoward"?
> If both parties using the same road abide to the HC, it is not
> possible for a collision to take place.
Indeed, but it does need both parties to comply. Sadly human beings make
mistakes and until that can be corrected there will be collisions.
Bod
blowouts/heart attacks etc).
Bod
JNugent
> spindrift <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_qu...
>>> "�When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in this
>>> case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
>>> conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."
>>> There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not necessarily
>>> on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid, sometimes do Very
>>> Stupid Things Indeed.
>> There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.
> There is no evidence that the driver of the vehicle did anything at
> all stupid.
And no evidence that either of them did anything illegal.
But before you burst a blood vessel, spindrift, that's not to say that
neither of them could have done anything illegal. It's just that there isn't
any evidence of it, so they are both entitled to be treated as having done
nothing illegal. Just like (and for exactly the same reason that) you are
treated as not having committed arson in Her Majesty's dockyard.
JNugent
> On 5 July, 20:25, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> On 5 July, 20:11, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_qu...
>>>> ""When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in
>>>> this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
>>>> conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."
>>>> There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not
>>>> necessarily on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid,
>>>> sometimes do Very Stupid Things Indeed.
>>>> Ian
>>> There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.
>> Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?
> Yes he killed someone.
There is no evidence of that which has been produced here.
The most that can be said is that someone was killed in an incident in which
the motor vehicle driver was involved. Arguing that he "killed" someone is
prejudicial.
Mr Benn
Bod
> You are as mad as Nuxx Bar
>
>
Or are you talking to yourself?
Bod
Ian
> Other than the very unlikely possibility of
> performing a sudden u-turn it is difficult to conceive what a cyclist could
> do to
> put themselves in danger on a straight main road with no junctions.
Pull out suddenly to avoid a pothole?
Ian
spindrift
The right of cyclists to have 'wobble-room' is enshrined in case law.
You can look up safe passing guidelines for cyclists in the HC.
Broadly, an overtake can only be carried out if enough room is left to
miss the cyclist even if they were to fall sideways.
Keitht
Though not always a 'must', there is still 'duty of care' and 'due care
and attention'.
Cue -
Primary position allows cyclists to wander all over the road.
or
Cyclists never look where they are going.
or
Why should they be able to wobble about when drivers can't.
or
Cyclists want all of the road, all of the time.
I have seen cyclists wobble and side-swipe cars and motorbikes but only
when doing the 'hide in amongst the parked cars and pull out at the
absolute last minute as it must be safer than going with the traffic
flow'. I know I shouldn't laugh but (so far) each time I've seen this
it's been at low speed and it's been very funny as it's like yer average
sit-com line -- see it coming a long way off and hope it's amusing.
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
Toom Tabard
>
> Imagine someone had a full licence to own a gun, and during the course
> of using it legally, someone gets shot and dies. Would it be fair for
> them to get away with murder just because there weren't any witnesses?
>
> they happen to be firing it, that's the responsibility they took when
> to pick the gun up and they understood the risks when they did that,
> no excuses.
>
> people who die under their cars. We live in a democracy and for the
> most part, we live by the rule of the masses. What hope do we have
> when a significant proportion of people would claim it was the
> cyclist's fault he died because he was in the middle of the road?
If they have a licence to use a gun legally then the normal use for
the licensed puposes is, by definition, officially sanctioned.
If someone dies as a result of the use of the gun then there are clear
distinctions based on the circumstances and intent - criminal
distinctions of murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence, civil
liability distinctions between negligence and unforeseeable accident.
That is probably much as it should be if there is to be any
correspondence between justice and the intent of individuals.
It is probably correct that in the case of licensed and insured use of
a road vehicle there should be the same distinction from death by
dangerous driving, down to civil liability to compensate for injury
resulting from a simple mistake or misjudgement by someone driving
with no intent to cause harm. There is the separate issue of whether
vulnerable road users such as cyclists or pedestrians should be
compensated for injury caused by insured vehicles even when they are
themselves partly or wholly at fault, but that, by definition, is not
an issue of blame or punishment, but of social policy.
That is separate from the need to improve general behaviour in terms
of road use, better enforcement of the law and to ensure the proper
level of penalty and punishment when there is malfeasance.
It is the case that, in wilful dangerous driving in a manner likely to
cause serious injury and death, penalties should be more severe. At
the other end of the scale where people driving with good intent are
involved in fatal injury or road death due to an error or
misjudgement, it is a mistake to think the effect on them will not be
severe or lifelong, whether it was their fault or the other party's.
We rightly require insurance for financial compensation where the
driver is at fault. Incarceration for mistakes, misjudgment or
momentary inattention - ie for for being human - may have little
purpose unless we regard vindictive retribution to be function of
justice.
Toom
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 5 July, 20:25, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> spindrift wrote:
> >>> On 5 July, 20:11, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 5 July, 19:02, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_qu...
> >>>> ""When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in
> >>>> this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
> >>>> conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."
> >>>> There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not
> >>>> necessarily on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid,
> >>>> sometimes do Very Stupid Things Indeed.
> >>>> Ian
> >>> There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.
> >> Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?
> > Yes he killed someone.
>
> There is no evidence of that which has been produced here.
>
blue Ford transit van which struck Mr Maynard">
The BBC also states: "A cycling club has paid tribute to a member who
was killed and another who was injured when they were struck by a van
in Oxfordshire."
Obviously the survivor is also a witness.
It seems clear enough.
>
> The most that can be said is that someone was killed in an incident in which
> the motor vehicle driver was involved. Arguing that he "killed" someone is
> prejudicial.
>
Well since he was 'struck' by the vehicle it is plain that that is
what killed him. What are you trying to do, blame the victim again?
Brimstone
Just because a news organisation adopts a particular way of phrasing its
reports doesn't mean that one party or the other is guilty of a crime.
>> The most that can be said is that someone was killed in an incident
>> in which the motor vehicle driver was involved. Arguing that he
>> "killed" someone is prejudicial.
>>
> Well since he was 'struck' by the vehicle it is plain that that is
> what killed him. What are you trying to do, blame the victim again?
It's conventional phrasing, nothing more. The only people trying to blame
anyone are the rabid anti-car brigade. Most people are willing to wait fir
the unbiased evidence to appear.
Mr Benn
"Bod" <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7bdrblF...@mid.individual.net...
Sorry, I was talking about spindrift being as madly-obsessed as the other
nutter, Nuxx Bar.
aard...@the.zoo
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Ian <uberg...@googlemail.com> considered Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:27:38
>-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 5 July, 20:39, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5 July, 20:25, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> > Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> Yes. Read the thread.
>>
>>There isn't actually. Just the understandably distraught father saying
>>"I know my son did nothing wrong, he was a safe cyclist" ... and he
>>wasn't there. I'm sure it's an honestly held belief, but it may not be
>>supported by the evidence.
>>
>Apart from the other cyclist, who was injured, and who WAS there.
>Not that you'd let the facts get in the way of a good victim blaming.
>
>I'm actually coming to the belief that little will change until a
>militant wing of the cyclist defence fund get's organised, such that
>justice can be applied to dangerous drivers even where police, CPS and
>courts are denying it.
>I would find it very hard to condemn anyone who beat the van driver
>into permanent inability to drive, that apparently being the only
>remaining way to stop him from wielding lethal weapons in public.
Your post is not only extremely offensive, it borders potentially on
being unlawful. No doubt the mod group would allow it though, so I
shouldn't worry about that too much.
Vigilante justice will do cycling no good whatsoever, as I'm utterly
positive there would be a huge increase in people wearing lycra being
found in the gutter wearing Goodyear imprints with nobody in sight...
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_qu...
>>>>>> ""When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in
>>>>>> this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse
>>>>>> conditions, there has to be careless driving involved."
>>>>>> There certainly has to be some sort of negligence, but not
>>>>>> necessarily on the part of the driver. Cyclists do, I'm afarid,
>>>>>> sometimes do Very Stupid Things Indeed.
>>>>> There is no evidence Mr Maynard did anything at all stupid.
>>>> Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?
>>> Yes he killed someone.
>> There is no evidence of that which has been produced here.
> The newspaper article states: "The unnamed 38-year-old driver of the
> blue Ford transit van which struck Mr Maynard"
And?
> The BBC also states: "A cycling club has paid tribute to a member who
> was killed and another who was injured when they were struck by a van
> in Oxfordshire."
> Obviously the survivor is also a witness.
> It seems clear enough.
It does.
And given that, I'm surprised that you misinterpret that clear statement as
though it said something else or more than it says.
Well, perhaps not really surprised that *you* (and one or two others) so
misinterpret it (your views on this are well-known).
>> The most that can be said is that someone was killed in an incident in which
>> the motor vehicle driver was involved. Arguing that he "killed" someone is
>> prejudicial.
> Well since he was 'struck' by the vehicle it is plain that that is
> what killed him.
*What* killed him is not the same thing as *who* killed him (if, indeed,
anyone killed him).
> What are you trying to do, blame the victim again?
If the driver is innocent and is wrongly blamed, he too is a victim.
It's best to try not to blame anyone unless there is good reason (politicised
dogma is not good reason).
Doug
>
> > What are you trying to do, blame the victim again?
>
> If the driver is innocent and is wrongly blamed, he too is a victim.
>
injured who is called the victim. There is no mention of the driver
being injured but one cyclist was injured and one cyclist was killed,
by the driver of the van.
>
> It's best to try not to blame anyone unless there is good reason (politicised
> dogma is not good reason).
>
someone is charged with ANY killing, anywhere other than on a road, it
is usually assumed they are to blame for that killing.
Brimstone
AIUI no one has been charged therefore there is no one to blame.
Ian
> On Jul 6, 10:03 am, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Pull out suddenly to avoid a pothole?
> The right of cyclists to have 'wobble-room' is enshrined in case law.
> You can look up safe passing guidelines for cyclists in the HC.
> Broadly, an overtake can only be carried out if enough room is left to
> miss the cyclist even if they were to fall sideways.
Of course. And if the cyclist suddenly and without looking pulls out
by more than that amount? Or turns right across the path of a car
without checking?
Ian
Ian
> Well since he was 'struck' by the vehicle it is plain that that is
> what killed him. What are you trying to do, blame the victim again?
It is clear that the vehicle killed him, but not clear that the driver
was therefore culpable. If he'd come off his bike, slid across the
pavement, hit a lamppost with his head and died the lamppost would
certainly have killed him.
Ian
Ian
> Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> considered Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:27:38
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
> >On 5 July, 20:39, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5 July, 20:25, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > Is there any evidence that the motor vehicle driver did anything untoward?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> Yes. Read the thread.
>
> >There isn't actually. Just the understandably distraught father saying
> >"I know my son did nothing wrong, he was a safe cyclist" ... and he
> >wasn't there. I'm sure it's an honestly held belief, but it may not be
> >supported by the evidence.
>
> Apart from the other cyclist, who was injured, and who WAS there.
And where is any evidence from him presented in the article. The van
driver had a passenger, did he not?
> Not that you'd let the facts get in the way of a good victim blaming.
I'm not blaming the victim at all. I'm pointing out that there is no
evidence about what happened in the articles cited, just the
assumptions and beliefs of the dead cyclist's father. "My son was a
save cyclist, he would never have done anything wrong" is not the same
as "I saw the whole thing - the cyclist did nothing wrong."
> I would find it very hard to condemn anyone who beat the van driver
> into permanent inability to drive, that apparently being the only
> remaining way to stop him from wielding lethal weapons in public.
Would you want any actual evidence about what happened?
Ian
Ian
> Leaving out your attempt at evasive semantics for the moment, if
> someone is charged with ANY killing, anywhere other than on a road, it
> is usually assumed they are to blame for that killing.
No it's not. Does the phrase "presumption of innocence" mean anything
to you?
Ian
Ian
> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Mon, 6 Jul 2009
> 12:28:23 +0100 the perfect time to write:
> >It's conventional phrasing, nothing more. The only people trying to blame
> >anyone are the rabid anti-car brigade. Most people are willing to wait fir
> >the unbiased evidence to appear.
>
> Apart from the CPS, who are suppressing it.
The jury at the inquest will have heard it.
Ian
Simon Brooke
> *What* killed him is not the same thing as *who* killed him (if, indeed,
> anyone killed him).
Well, /if/ the van killed him, then the person who was in control of
the van is responsible for his death; either through negligence in
failing to control his vehicle, or through negligence in failing to
drive safely. Either way it's negligence, and therefore, manslaughter
and not an act of God.
If you are in control of a vehicle and that vehicle causes the death
of another road user, there really isn't any excuse or any get out
clause, be that vehicle a pedal cycle or a transit van.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> *What* killed him is not the same thing as *who* killed him (if, indeed,
>> anyone killed him).
> Well, /if/ the van killed him,
It didn't. The collision killed him.
> then the person who was in control of
> the van is responsible for his death;
That's the point at issue. The law (to the extent that it says anything about
such cases) says that you are wrong *unless* there is evidence for your
proposition (and that, of course, says nothing about the instant case). In
the absence of such evidence, there is no guilt.
> either through negligence in
> failing to control his vehicle, or through negligence in failing to
> drive safely. Either way it's negligence, and therefore, manslaughter
> and not an act of God.
Where *do* you get this stuff from?
Not from the statutes of England.
Well, not unless you can cite one which provides the basis for your claim.
> If you are in control of a vehicle and that vehicle causes the death
> of another road user, there really isn't any excuse or any get out
> clause, be that vehicle a pedal cycle or a transit van.
<Paxman>
Ye-e-e-s-ss
</Paxman>
Ian
> On 6 July, 17:50, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
> > *What* killed him is not the same thing as *who* killed him (if, indeed,
> > anyone killed him).
>
> Well, /if/ the van killed him, then the person who was in control of
> the van is responsible for his death; either through negligence in
> failing to control his vehicle, or through negligence in failing to
> drive safely.
That's simply not true.
> If you are in control of a vehicle and that vehicle causes the death
> of another road user, there really isn't any excuse or any get out
> clause, be that vehicle a pedal cycle or a transit van.
That's simply not true either. Or at least, it depends on a rather
dubious bit of semantics.
Supposing Car A is driving along the road from - to take an example at
random - Dalbeattie to Auchencairn. The driver progresses at a
reasonable speed and keeps a good lookout. Car B drives out of the
Palnackie road at speed and without looking, immediately into the path
of Car A. The driver of Car B is killed.
Who was to blame? Clearly the driver of Car B. With the best will in
the world nobody - car driver, bus driver, HGV driver, cyclist - can
be expected to avoid someone who pulls out in front of them, or who
sails through red traffic lights at speed.
But we've got a problem here. The car which caused the accident is B.
The car which caused the death - ie supplied the energy for the fatal
injury - is A. So your phrase "...and that vehicle causes the death of
another road user..." really only applies if we (a) change it to
"..death of a road user..." and (b) use it to mean "the vehicle
responsible for the fatal accident" and not "the vehicle responsible
for the fatal injury"
In the case of a collision between a cycle and a car, the car with in
almost every case be responsible for the fatal injuries. However, that
doesn't necessarily mean that the car (driver) is responsible for the
fatal accident.
As a parallel, I have seen some unbelievably stupid riding by
motorcyclists recently. High speed overtakes across double white lines
on simultaneous blind bends and blind summits (Leyburn to Hawes road,
since you ask). No car driver could possibly be held to blame for a
fatal accident involving their car doing a responsible 30 and a
motorbike on the wrong side of a blind bend doing 70+.
Final thought. Would you say a cyclist is invariably to blame,
"through negligence in failing to control his vehicle, or through
negligence in failing to [ride] safely" if he hits the opening door of
a parked car?
Ian
Judith M Smith
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Ian <uberg...@googlemail.com> considered Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:27:38
>-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
<snip>
>I would find it very hard to condemn anyone who beat the van driver
>into permanent inability to drive, that apparently being the only
>remaining way to stop him from wielding lethal weapons in public.
I really do think that you are a raving nutter.
No doubt you colleagues will be along shortly to condemn what you say.
(Don't hold your breath)
jms
ffs
You really do talk bollocks.
No doubt you will be allowed to say shite like this in the moderated
group (I suppose you'd just pass it yourself as a moderator) and then
stop any criticism of what you say.
Simon Brooke is to be a moderator in the proposed group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
His post (and this thread in general) is indicative of the sort of
posts which will be allowed in the moderated group with reasonable
discussion by others being censored.
I would urge all to read the discussions at uk.net.news.config and
then vote NO to the formation of that moderated group.
Judith M Smith
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 10:03�am, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 July, 00:35, "DavidR" <cured...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Other than the very unlikely possibility of
>> > performing a sudden u-turn it is difficult to conceive what a cyclist could
>> > do to
>> > put themselves in danger on a straight main road with no junctions.
>>
>> Pull out suddenly to avoid a pothole?
>>
>> Ian
>
>The right of cyclists to have 'wobble-room' is enshrined in case law.
I have not seen that one - can you point me to it please.
Judith M Smith
>spindrift wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 10:03 am, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6 July, 00:35, "DavidR" <cured...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Other than the very unlikely possibility of
>>>> performing a sudden u-turn it is difficult to conceive what a cyclist could
>>>> do to
>>>> put themselves in danger on a straight main road with no junctions.
>>> Pull out suddenly to avoid a pothole?
>>>
>>> Ian
>>
>> The right of cyclists to have 'wobble-room' is enshrined in case law.
>> You can look up safe passing guidelines for cyclists in the HC.
>> Broadly, an overtake can only be carried out if enough room is left to
>> miss the cyclist even if they were to fall sideways.
>
>Though not always a 'must', there is still 'duty of care' and 'due care
>and attention'.
Primary position allows cyclists to wander all over the road.
Cyclists never look where they are going.
Why should they be able to wobble about when drivers can't.
Cyclists want all of the road, all of the time.
Doug
like the conclusion the report must be wrong but it must be right when
you agree with it.
Doug
prior to bringing them to court? They are hardly knowingly going to
charge an innocent person are they?
Doug
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >> *What* killed him is not the same thing as *who* killed him (if, indeed,
> >> anyone killed him).
> > Well, /if/ the van killed him,
>
> It didn't. The collision killed him.
>
>
> > then the person who was in control of
> > the van is responsible for his death;
>
> That's the point at issue. The law (to the extent that it says anything about
> such cases) says that you are wrong *unless* there is evidence for your
> proposition (and that, of course, says nothing about the instant case). In
> the absence of such evidence, there is no guilt.
>
killed the cyclist.
>
> > either through negligence in
> > failing to control his vehicle, or through negligence in failing to
> > drive safely. Either way it's negligence, and therefore, manslaughter
> > and not an act of God.
>
> Where *do* you get this stuff from?
>
> Not from the statutes of England.
>
> Well, not unless you can cite one which provides the basis for your claim.
>
"Criminally negligent manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as
criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence
manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some
jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is
required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of
willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts
himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would
render him liable..."
This last sentence seems to be particularly apt, i.e. driving too fast
to be able to stop in time when presented with the unexpected.
>
> > If you are in control of a vehicle and that vehicle causes the death
> > of another road user, there really isn't any excuse or any get out
> > clause, be that vehicle a pedal cycle or a transit van.
>
> <Paxman>
>
> Ye-e-e-s-ss
>
> </Paxman>
>
When are you going to start treating road deaths seriously, motorist?
Brimstone
I haven't said the report is wrong.
Toom Tabard
> Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> considered Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:41:03
> If they are the only ones that get to hear all the evidence, who could
> do it better?
The inquest verdict in this case was 'accidental death'. It would
presumbly have been 'unlawful killing' if there was sufficient
evidence of dangerous driving.
What can be gleaned from online reports of the accident and the
inquest verdict is that the accident occurred on a section of dual
carriageway. The van used the overtaking lane to pass two other
vehicles. The driver claims he checked his mirror to make sure it was
safe to pull back in but at that point was dazzled by the sun as he
did so and did not see the cyclists in the inside lane. He seems to
have run into them, or into the one who died pushing him into the
other. See e.g http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/321
Newspaper reports indicate was initially charged under suspicion of
causing death by dangerous driving and released on bail.
There would presumably have been a full specialised police
investigation of the accident scene. There were witnesses in the other
vehicles, plus the injured cyclist. The final result was that the
charges were dropped by the CPS apparently in accordance with the CPS
guidlelines, and the inquest delivered a verdict of accidental death.
Presumably it was felt that the charge of causing death by dangerous
driving was not appropriate or would not hold. There has been some
publicity about the difficulty of proving the degree criminally
negligent culpability to successfully convict in such cases. Instead
of sorting that, there has been the political knee-jerk reaction of
introducing the offence of causing death by careless driving - a very
bad piece of law - but that offence was not introduced until after
this incident. However options of charges of dangerous driving or
careless driving would presumably have been available, if appropriate
What would need to be known are the detailed evidence and the exact
criteria and reasoning for the CPS not proceeding and for the inquest
verdict, before any rational individual judgement can made about the
evidence, the degree of culpability and appropriateness of the law and
how it operated in this case. Even the, opinions on that will no doubt
vary.
Toom
Simon Brooke
> On 6 July, 21:52, Simon Brooke <still...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6 July, 17:50, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
> > > *What* killed him is not the same thing as *who* killed him (if, indeed,
> > > anyone killed him).
>
> > Well, /if/ the van killed him, then the person who was in control of
> > the van is responsible for his death; either through negligence in
> > failing to control his vehicle, or through negligence in failing to
> > drive safely.
>
> That's simply not true.
>
> > If you are in control of a vehicle and that vehicle causes the death
> > of another road user, there really isn't any excuse or any get out
> > clause, be that vehicle a pedal cycle or a transit van.
>
> That's simply not true either. Or at least, it depends on a rather
> dubious bit of semantics.
>
> Supposing Car A is driving along the road from - to take an example at
> random - Dalbeattie to Auchencairn. The driver progresses at a
> reasonable speed and keeps a good lookout. Car B drives out of the
> Palnackie road at speed and without looking, immediately into the path
> of Car A. The driver of Car B is killed.
>
> Who was to blame? Clearly the driver of Car B. With the best will in
> the world nobody - car driver, bus driver, HGV driver, cyclist - can
> be expected to avoid someone who pulls out in front of them, or who
> sails through red traffic lights at speed.
If you are driving at such a speed that you cannot avoid another
vehicle which pulls suddenly and unexpectedly out of a side road - as,
we all know, happens - then you are by definition driving dangerously.
Yes, Car B should not have pulled out of the side road and bears some
share of the blame. But if Car A was going so fast that its driver was
unable to stop in time, then Car A's driver is clearly not a fit and
proper person to hold a driving license.
> But we've got a problem here. The car which caused the accident is B.
> The car which caused the death - ie supplied the energy for the fatal
> injury - is A. So your phrase "...and that vehicle causes the death of
> another road user..." really only applies if we (a) change it to
> "..death of a road user..." and (b) use it to mean "the vehicle
> responsible for the fatal accident" and not "the vehicle responsible
> for the fatal injury"
Well, I wouldn't altogether disagree with you. But in all my thirty-
something years of driving I've only ever heard of one road accident:
the front offside stub axle of a car sheered, causing the front
offside subframe to dig into the road surface and spinning the car
across the central reservation and across two lanes of oncoming
traffic. No-one as hurt, thankfully, but if they had been it would
have been an accident. Every other collision of which I've ever heard
has been caused by the negligence of at least one - but typically more
than one - driver.
> Final thought. Would you say a cyclist is invariably to blame,
> "through negligence in failing to control his vehicle, or through
> negligence in failing to [ride] safely" if he hits the opening door of
> a parked car?
In this case it is a specific offence to open the door of a vehicle to
the endangerment of other road users. Nevertheless, on the whole I
think the cyclist is partly to blame for not anticipating adequately,
but would add
(i) Where the rider is inexperienced, the rider is less to blame.
(ii) where the local authority has painted a cycle lane in the door
zone, the rider is less to blame (and the local authority much more to
blame)
Daniel Barlow
> Who was to blame? Clearly the driver of Car B. With the best will in
> the world nobody - car driver, bus driver, HGV driver, cyclist - can
> be expected to avoid someone who pulls out in front of them, or who
> sails through red traffic lights at speed.
This is not the advice which would usually be dispensed when the injured
party is a cyclist. We would expect to hear that he should have
proceeded with caution and not assumed the vehicle would stop, because
after all it is better to stay alive than to be right but dead.
Would you disagree with that?
> Final thought. Would you say a cyclist is invariably to blame,
> "through negligence in failing to control his vehicle, or through
> negligence in failing to [ride] safely" if he hits the opening door of
> a parked car?
Almost invariably not to blame, I'd say, in the same way that a rear-end
collision is hardly ever held to b the fault of the front vehicle. Road
Vehicles (Constuction & Use) Regs 1986 s105: "No person shall open, or
cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to
injure or endanger any person."
But, again, this still doesn't stop it happening, and although I would
sympathise with anyone who had been injured in this manner I would still
as a general rule advise cyclists to avoid riding in the door zone
rather than depending on car users to observe the law.
-dan
JNugent
What "definition" would that be?
> Yes, Car B should not have pulled out of the side road and bears some
> share of the blame. But if Car A was going so fast that its driver was
> unable to stop in time, then Car A's driver is clearly not a fit and
> proper person to hold a driving license.
<boggle>
Where is the authority for that (other than in the Big Bumper Book Of Things
I'd Like To Be In The Law)?
It's the "fit and proper" Pooterism that I'd really like a citation for.
Toom Tabard
> On 7 July, 01:09, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Supposing Car A is driving along the road from - to take an example at
> > random - Dalbeattie to Auchencairn. The driver progresses at a
> > reasonable speed and keeps a good lookout. Car B drives out of the
> > Palnackie road at speed and without looking, immediately into the path
> > of Car A. The driver of Car B is killed.
>
> > Who was to blame? Clearly the driver of Car B. With the best will in
> > the world nobody - car driver, bus driver, HGV driver, cyclist - can
> > be expected to avoid someone who pulls out in front of them, or who
> > sails through red traffic lights at speed.
>
> If you are driving at such a speed that you cannot avoid another
> vehicle which pulls suddenly and unexpectedly out of a side road - as,
> we all know, happens - then you are by definition driving dangerously.
> Yes, Car B should not have pulled out of the side road and bears some
> share of the blame. But if Car A was going so fast that its driver was
> unable to stop in time, then Car A's driver is clearly not a fit and
> proper person to hold a driving license.
>
We're getting into the realms of fantasy here. You would not 'by
definition' be 'driving dangerously' and would not be guilty of such
in criminal law. In the civil law of legal liability the driver of car
A would have no liability or, in certain circumstance would at worst
have some minor contributory liability.
Proceeding on a main road at reasonable speed and keeping a good
lookout would fulfil the duty of a 'reasonable man'. Emerging suddenly
and unexpectedly from a side road into the path of a moving vehicle
does not in any way meet that duty.
> > But we've got a problem here. The car which caused the accident is B.
> > The car which caused the death - ie supplied the energy for the fatal
> > injury - is A. So your phrase "...and that vehicle causes the death of
> > another road user..." really only applies if we (a) change it to
> > "..death of a road user..." and (b) use it to mean "the vehicle
> > responsible for the fatal accident" and not "the vehicle responsible
> > for the fatal injury"
>
> Well, I wouldn't altogether disagree with you. But in all my thirty-
> something years of driving I've only ever heard of one road accident:
> the front offside stub axle of a car sheered, causing the front
> offside subframe to dig into the road surface and spinning the car
> across the central reservation and across two lanes of oncoming
> traffic. No-one as hurt, thankfully, but if they had been it would
> have been an accident. Every other collision of which I've ever heard
> has been caused by the negligence of at least one - but typically more
> than one - driver.
>
Iv'e dealt with many hundreds and there is frequently negligence and
contributory negligence. There is also the issue of drivers driving
carefully with good intent who, in a complex situation, may simply
make a mistake or a misjudgement. It is perhaps fair that the insurers
of such drivers do bear the cost of any injury or damage. It is not
negligence in the strict definition of the term and whether in these
circumstances people should be 'blamed' for being human and with less
than perfect reactions and judgement is another matter. It is however
certainly the case that if there was more 'defensive' driving and road
use by all parties - use at a speed, spacing and care which makes
allowance for yourself and others making mistakes and misjudgements -
then the incidence and severity of accidents would be much reduced.
Toom
aard...@the.zoo
Fascinating. So when you're in your car and you pass a turning on
either side where a car is waiting, you slow down to a maximum of say
5mph then? I mean, you couldn't possibly go any faster, because to do
so would mean you couldn't stop immediately if that car chose to pull
out, right? At about 5 metres from the junction, 5mph might actually
be a bit fast, because your reaction time to get your foot onto the
brake pedal would mean you'd hit him before you'd had a chance to
stop. Now, since the answer to that is patently 'no you DON'T drive at
5mph' the question is where precisely is the line between
irresponsibility and simply making way?
>> But we've got a problem here. The car which caused the accident is B.
>> The car which caused the death - ie supplied the energy for the fatal
>> injury - is A. So your phrase "...and that vehicle causes the death of
>> another road user..." really only applies if we (a) change it to
>> "..death of a road user..." and (b) use it to mean "the vehicle
>> responsible for the fatal accident" and not "the vehicle responsible
>> for the fatal injury"
>
>Well, I wouldn't altogether disagree with you. But in all my thirty-
>something years of driving I've only ever heard of one road accident:
>the front offside stub axle of a car sheered, causing the front
>offside subframe to dig into the road surface and spinning the car
>across the central reservation and across two lanes of oncoming
>traffic. No-one as hurt, thankfully, but if they had been it would
>have been an accident. Every other collision of which I've ever heard
>has been caused by the negligence of at least one - but typically more
>than one - driver.
>
So YOUR screwup was excusable, but everyone else's isn't? How
convenient. Your car obviously wasn't sufficiently maintained if that
mechanical fault occurred, and you were also travelling too fast to be
able to deal with the repercussions of that failure.
>> Final thought. Would you say a cyclist is invariably to blame,
>> "through negligence in failing to control his vehicle, or through
>> negligence in failing to [ride] safely" if he hits the opening door of
>> a parked car?
>
>In this case it is a specific offence to open the door of a vehicle to
>the endangerment of other road users. Nevertheless, on the whole I
>think the cyclist is partly to blame for not anticipating adequately,
>but would add
>
>(i) Where the rider is inexperienced, the rider is less to blame.
>(ii) where the local authority has painted a cycle lane in the door
>zone, the rider is less to blame (and the local authority much more to
>blame)
The 'additions' are irrelevant - a simple yes or no would suffice. A
cyclist who hit a car door MUST, using your reasoning above, be to
blame REGARDLESS of whether there is an offence involved for the other
party.
Ian
> On 7 July, 01:09, Ian <ubergeek...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Who was to blame? Clearly the driver of Car B. With the best will in
> > the world nobody - car driver, bus driver, HGV driver, cyclist - can
> > be expected to avoid someone who pulls out in front of them, or who
> > sails through red traffic lights at speed.
>
> If you are driving at such a speed that you cannot avoid another
> vehicle which pulls suddenly and unexpectedly out of a side road - as,
> we all know, happens - then you are by definition driving dangerously.
Would you suggest that a cyclist who rode into the side of a car which
pulled out of a side road directly in front of him (smidsy) was by
definition riding dangerously?
Sorry Simon, but that's complete cobblers. We have a system of road
markings and traffic rules precisely in order to allow road users to
make reasonable assumption about the behaviour of others. Anyone who
ignores a stop sign, a give way sign or red traffic light has only
themselves to blame for any unfortunate consequences.
> Yes, Car B should not have pulled out of the side road and bears some
> share of the blame. But if Car A was going so fast that its driver was
> unable to stop in time, then Car A's driver is clearly not a fit and
> proper person to hold a driving license.
I drove along the A75 from Castle Douglas to Dumfries and back today.
How fast should I have gone past each side road, farm and field
entrance, bearing in mind that another vehicle might have emerged at
speed from any of them? 10mph? 5mph? 2mph?
> Well, I wouldn't altogether disagree with you. But in all my thirty-
> something years of driving I've only ever heard of one road accident:
> the front offside stub axle of a car sheered, causing the front
> offside subframe to dig into the road surface and spinning the car
> across the central reservation and across two lanes of oncoming
> traffic. No-one as hurt, thankfully, but if they had been it would
> have been an accident. Every other collision of which I've ever heard
> has been caused by the negligence of at least one - but typically more
> than one - driver.
Still accidents, unless you think the drivers intended to do it. There
can still be and almost always is, as you say, negligence - but my
point, put briefly, is that it is wrong to assume in a fatal crash
that the surviving driver was the negligent one.
Ian
PS If you tell me when you're next out for a time trial, and the route
you are taking, I'll conceal myself somewhere along the way and jump
out in front of you. If you hit me, you give me fifty quid. If you
miss me, I'll give you fifty quid. Deal?
Ian
> The 'additions' are irrelevant - a simple yes or no would suffice. A
> cyclist who hit a car door MUST, using your reasoning above, be to
> blame REGARDLESS of whether there is an offence involved for the other
> party.
Indeed. Going too fast to be able to stop for a hazard - that's
dangerous driving by definition, ain't it?
Ian
DavidR
> On 6 July, 00:35, "DavidR" <cured...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Other than the very unlikely possibility of
>> performing a sudden u-turn it is difficult to conceive what a cyclist
>> could
>> do to
>> put themselves in danger on a straight main road with no junctions.
>
> Pull out suddenly to avoid a pothole?
I expect the forensic people might notice something like that. A
different story might emerge from the driver too, ie, not " I didn't see
him" but "he swerved suddenly".
Anyway, the fact that two wheelers work by countersteering means that
"swerving" can only displace the wheels momentarily while keeping the centre
of gravity on track. Skirting a pothole with a bodily right shift seems an
unlikely possibililty.
Doug
>
> > Yes, Car B should not have pulled out of the side road and bears some
> > share of the blame. But if Car A was going so fast that its driver was
> > unable to stop in time, then Car A's driver is clearly not a fit and
> > proper person to hold a driving license.
>
> <boggle>
>
> Where is the authority for that (other than in the Big Bumper Book Of Things
> I'd Like To Be In The Law)?
>
> It's the "fit and proper" Pooterism that I'd really like a citation for.
>
wash. Try addressing the issue instead, i.e. drivers kill people and
they are sometimes exonerated by diverting blame, often to their
vulnerable victims.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> If you are driving at such a speed that you cannot avoid another
>>> vehicle which pulls suddenly and unexpectedly out of a side road - as,
>>> we all know, happens - then you are by definition driving dangerously.
>> What "definition" would that be?
> In common parlance it means 'self-evident', as you well know.
It certainly does not mean that.
The phrase "by definition" means that a proposition has to be true and cannot
possibly be untrue under the terms presented within the proposition (and
therefore cannot be falsified by external references unless also falsifying
one or more of the terms used in the proposition).
"A red car isn't yellow".
By definition [see what I did there?] that is true.
"Doug is mentally ill".
One cannot say that that is true by definition, because there isn't a
definition within it.
>>> Yes, Car B should not have pulled out of the side road and bears some
>>> share of the blame. But if Car A was going so fast that its driver was
>>> unable to stop in time, then Car A's driver is clearly not a fit and
>>> proper person to hold a driving license.
>> <boggle>
>> Where is the authority for that (other than in the Big Bumper Book Of Things
>> I'd Like To Be In The Law)?
>> It's the "fit and proper" Pooterism that I'd really like a citation for.
> Trying to avoid the issue by seeking refuge in semantics just won't
> wash. Try addressing the issue instead, i.e. drivers kill people and
> they are sometimes exonerated by diverting blame, often to their
> vulnerable victims.
Pace your warped view on that topic, you're way off topic.
It is necessary to be a "fit and proper person" in order to be awarded a
licence to drive a bus or a taxi, or a licence to operate a public house.
There are other sorts of licences and permissions which require the holder to
be a "fit and proper person", but holding a driving licence for a car, van or
motorcycle is not one of them.
IOW... there is no "fit and proper" condition (any more than there is for
riding a bike) and it is impossible for a licence to be rescinded on that
imaginary basis.
But it sounds impressive to certain sorts of audience.
Nuxx Bar
Yes, it's clearly a load of car-hating bollocks. Either Simon Brooke
really thinks that, in which case his driving skills obviously aren't
anywhere near up to scratch, or he's just saying it because he hates
(other) motorists and wants to make out that "speeding" is worse than
it is. It's so clearly a load of rubbish that it's hardly even worth
explaining why; anyone who doesn't know why it's rubbish is not worth
trying to reason with (and isn't fit to be driving or riding
anything).
You can't possibly always go at a speed at which you can stop if
someone suddenly decides to pull or run out into your path, and nor
should you be expected to. Only a lunatic would genuinely think
otherwise. If Brooke was correct then good driving practice would be
to come to almost a complete stop whenever you passed a pedestrian or
a car waiting to pull out (even on an NSL rural road). His is quite
possibly the most inane assertion I've ever seen on URC, and there are
a *lot* of contenders for that crown. But will he ever admit to being
wrong, no matter how obvious that becomes? I'm not holding my breath.
Ye gods. I've seen it all now. Next people will be saying that all
you need to do to reduce accidents is to lower speed limits and put up
cameras. Oh wait.
Doug
speeds in the presence of the vulnerable and if by so doing you cause
harm to them you should be suitably punished and not given special
light penalties as drivers are at present. In other words, if you
choose to put others at risk its your personal choice which you are
free to make provided you are prepared to suffer the consequences.
To sum up, the penalties for killing and injuring the vulnerable on
our roads, by striking them with a vehicle, sorely need to be
increased. Also, a 'dangerous speed' in this context is a speed at
which your braking distance is too great for you to be able to stop in
time before colliding with the vulnerable, or which prevents you from
retaining full directional control of the vehicle. Naturally none of
this would apply to collisions between motorised vehicles.
Brimstone
> To sum up, the penalties for killing and injuring the vulnerable on
> our roads, by striking them with a vehicle, sorely need to be
> increased. Also, a 'dangerous speed' in this context is a speed at
> which your braking distance is too great for you to be able to stop in
> time before colliding with the vulnerable, or which prevents you from
> retaining full directional control of the vehicle. Naturally none of
> this would apply to collisions between motorised vehicles.
So how come you always fail to stop when in imminent danger of collision
Doug?
Doug
Brimstone
> On 10 July, 08:21, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> To sum up, the penalties for killing and injuring the vulnerable on
>>> our roads, by striking them with a vehicle, sorely need to be
>>> increased. Also, a 'dangerous speed' in this context is a speed at
>>> which your braking distance is too great for you to be able to stop
>>> in time before colliding with the vulnerable, or which prevents you
>>> from retaining full directional control of the vehicle. Naturally
>>> none of this would apply to collisions between motorised vehicles.
>>
>> So how come you always fail to stop when in imminent danger of
>> collision Doug?
>>
> I don't drive, fortunately.
What has that got to do with you failing to stop?
BrianW
> On 6 July, 22:03, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > > JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> > >> *What* killed him is not the same thing as *who* killed him (if, indeed,
> > >> anyone killed him).
> > > Well, /if/ the van killed him,
>
> > It didn't. The collision killed him.
>
> Semantics eh? No van, no collision.
>
> > > then the person who was in control of
> > > the van is responsible for his death;
>
> > That's the point at issue. The law (to the extent that it says anything about
> > such cases) says that you are wrong *unless* there is evidence for your
> > proposition (and that, of course, says nothing about the instant case). In
> > the absence of such evidence, there is no guilt.
>
> There is clear evidence that he was driving the van at the time it
> killed the cyclist.
>
> > > either through negligence in
> > > failing to control his vehicle, or through negligence in failing to
> > > drive safely. Either way it's negligence, and therefore, manslaughter
> > > and not an act of God.
>
> > Where *do* you get this stuff from?
>
> > Not from the statutes of England.
>
> > Well, not unless you can cite one which provides the basis for your claim.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
Oh, dear, Mr Bollen holds forth on manslaughter again. Do you
remember what happened last time you did that, Mr Bollen? I referred
you to the leading case on manslaughter, Adomako, and you loftily
dismissed it, declaring it was concerned only with corporate
manslaughter. Here's the link to the exchange, in case you have
forgotten:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/d446bdc43cf604ce?hl=en&dmode=source
You *really* made an arse of yourself there, didn't you? I love
Adrian's comment "You're so stupid that yeast takes the piss out of
you. Gary Glitter doesn't want to be seen near you, for fear of his
reputation
being harmed."
BTW, have you read the Adomako case yet? Or are you still using your
man in the pub, "stanstareasondunnit", line of argument on this issue?
Doug
fail to stop. Why do you always exaggerate?
Brimstone
> On 12 July, 08:06, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 10 July, 08:21, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> To sum up, the penalties for killing and injuring the vulnerable
>>>>> on our roads, by striking them with a vehicle, sorely need to be
>>>>> increased. Also, a 'dangerous speed' in this context is a speed at
>>>>> which your braking distance is too great for you to be able to
>>>>> stop in time before colliding with the vulnerable, or which
>>>>> prevents you from retaining full directional control of the
>>>>> vehicle. Naturally none of this would apply to collisions between
>>>>> motorised vehicles.
>>
>>>> So how come you always fail to stop when in imminent danger of
>>>> collision Doug?
>>
>>> I don't drive, fortunately.
>>
>> What has that got to do with you failing to stop?
>>
> Hint, motorised vehicle?
I didn't ment the ypre of vehicle Doug, nor any vehile at all.
> Actually even on a bicycle I don't ALWAYS
> fail to stop. Why do you always exaggerate?
Because on every occasion that you've been hit by a car it's because you've
failed to stop.
Doug
occurrence among cyclists. Also, being stationary is no protection
either. Any vehicle which is out of control can hit you, either while
you are in motion or stationary. This much should be obvious to you.
Brimstone
In what way does that contradict my previous comment?
> a common
> occurrence among cyclists. Also, being stationary is no protection
> either. Any vehicle which is out of control can hit you, either while
> you are in motion or stationary.
If you had stopped before reaching the conflict point when the car trying to
cross your path hit you, you would not have been hit, there would have been
no collision, there would have been no accident. That vehicle was not out of
control. The driver made a mistake which you compounded by failing to take
the avoiding action which you've said we should all do.
> This much should be obvious to you.
There is one thing very obvious to everyone Doug. That is, that you're a
lying hypocrite that expects everyone else to behave in a superhuman manner
just so that you can go about your business without taking any
responsibility for your own actions. It's also known as "passing the buck"
and only spineless, reckless people behave like that.
BrianW
What were you doing when you managed to flip your Land Rover all those
years ago, Doug? Was that an accident?
Brimstone
Of course not, he was errr ... errr ... errr. ah got it - demonstrating the
quality of the roll cage.
BrianW
Right, got you. What about the time the Land Rover broke down and he
simply abandoned it by the side of the road?
Brimstone
Oooooh no, he didn't abandon it. That would be environmental contamination.
He was donating it to a friend he had yet to meet.
BrianW
That is obviously untrue. Mr Bollen doesn't have any friends, unmet
or otherwise.
Brimstone
Quite true, but he didn't know that at the time. (This is from his POV
remember. ;-) )
BrianW
I dunno, I suspect the curmudgeonly old turd is actually quite proud
of the fact that no-one (including, apparently, his own family) likes
him.
Brimstone
It saves him having to deal with anything or anyone in a manner that he
doesn't like.
BrianW
Indeed. Interesting, isn't it, that even groups which share (some of)
his beliefs, with which he has been associated, eventually tire of him
and tell him to fuck off.
I wonder if anyone will attend the old turd's funeral?
Brimstone
I expect his local council has someone who looks after the affairs of those
who die alone.
JNugent
> BrianW wrote:
[ ... ]
[Doug]
>> I wonder if anyone will attend the old turd's funeral?
> I expect his local council has someone who looks after the affairs of those
> who die alone.
<sharp intake of breath>
Come on, both of you.
You're losing the plot a bit there. No need for that level of nastiness.