CPS protest yesterday.
spindrift
(see below) at the Crown Prosecution Service at 50 Ludgate Hill on
Friday 3 July at 4pm to protest against lax treatment of killer
motorists.
Click here for London protest location
Kate Cairns, sister of Eilidh Cairns, killed in a collision with an
HGV in Notting Hill, said, "It seems that 'Sorry mate I didn't see
you' is enough for the Crown Prosecution Service. Is that all a driver
has to say to get away with killing a cyclist?"
Friday 3 July is the first anniversary of the death of Berkshire
cyclist Anthony Maynard. He was run over from behind in 2008 by a van
driver who claimed in his defence that he didn't see Anthony. Another
cyclist was seriously injured in the collision.
The local Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute the
driver, prompting Reading Cycling Club, of which the two cyclists were
members, to organise a demonstration on the anniversary of the
collision.
This will take place outside the Reading office of the CPS at Eaton
Court, 112 Oxford Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 7LL.
Demonstration statement
We are cyclists of London, gathered here this afternoon, in a quiet
protest and short vigil in memory of all our fellow cyclists killed by
the drivers of vehicles; several more during this year already.
In particular we think of Eilidh Cairns, 30, who was killed at Notting
Hill Gate by a tipper lorry driver on 5th February this year, and of
Anthony Maynard, 25, who was killed north of Henley by a van driver
exactly a year ago.
We make our protest here at the London Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS), to remind Ms Dru Sharpling, Chief Crown Prosecutor, of the
decision of her colleagues at Reading CPS, when last year they
inappropriately, remissly, and to our minds unforgivably, ordered that
the van driver who struck Anthony (and his companion) from behind
would not face charges. We do not hold Anthony’s life so cheap.
You, the CPS at London, will shortly be reviewing the case of Eilidh
Cairns who was also hit from behind on a one-way straight road.
Our protest is on behalf of all cyclists.
Across Europe, motorists are presumed to be at fault in motorist-
cyclist collisions. In the UK, even faced with prime evidence of a
dead body, a driver does not have to prove his innocence. Instead, the
CPS decides whether charges can successfully be brought against the
motorist, and can then choose to drop a case entirely.
In Anthony’s case (and as is claimed in Eilidh’s case, and in the
cases of many others) the van driver’s defence that he simply didn't
see the cyclists was accepted by the CPS as an adequate accounting for
the death of a highly principled and well-loved citizen in the prime
of his life.
In a time when the nation as a whole is encouraged to exercise, and
use forms of transport other than the car, and when climate change is
seen as a real threat, cyclists need to feel that they have the full
and equal protection of the law when on public roads, and not a law
apparently interpreted (or simply set aside) to the maximum advantage
of the driver, no matter how culpably careless.
The CPS was in dereliction of its duty last year. We fervently hope
that it will adopt a different perspective, starting with the
forthcoming case of Eilidh. Allowing drivers to kill with complete
impunity just will not do, and does not meet the nation’s needs and
priorities.
We append a quotation from Christopher G Thompson, District Crown
Prosecutor (Oxford Rural) in a letter sent by him to one of the
Reading Cycling Club committee who had written deploring this failure
to prosecute (dated 16 March 2009):
“The fact that no prosecution has followed in this case does not in
any way mean or suggest that drivers may drive carelessly around
cyclists or that cyclists will not be afforded the protection of the
law where appropriate.”
In what must have been a considered letter, the phrase affording
cyclists the protection of the law “where appropriate” is chilling:
NO! We demand the protection of the law.
JNugent
[ ... ]
> Across Europe, motorists are presumed to be at fault in motorist-
> cyclist collisions
...even if they're not.
> In the UK...
...we prefer justice.
spindrift
It's nothing to do with criminal proceedings, as you'd know if you
bothered to check.
The EU proposals only relate to insurance, not to the underlying legal
position in relation to liability.
At present, in a car - bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist
or pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the
motorist was reckless.
We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist –
choosing to use a ton of metal at speed – has to prove the
cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.
This only applies to insurance claims. In criminal law, drivers
in collisions remain innocent until proven guilty.
This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and
cycling, and a better child road safety record, Let’s raise
driving standards and create better road user attitudes.
Interestingly, in the recent case in which two UK motorists caught by
a speed camera tried to claim they could not be forced to incriminate
themselves, the European Court of Human Rights judgement noted that
people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted
certain responsibilities" under UK law.
Strict liability would simply be a logical extension of this aspect of
that judgment.
Matthew Brealey
> On Jul 4, 5:36 pm, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
> > spindrift wrote:
>
> > [ ... ]
>
> > > Across Europe, motorists are presumed to be at fault in motorist-
> > > cyclist collisions
>
> > ...even if they're not.
>
> > > In the UK...
>
> > ...we prefer justice.
>
> It's nothing to do with criminal proceedings, as you'd know if you
> bothered to check.
Given that you spent your whole post talking about CPS proceedings,
which are criminal, choosing to cite European civil liability rules is
misleading.
In order for criminal proceedings to succeed, it is necessary to prove
the offence beyond reasonable doubt. If the CPS do not see a realistic
prospect of conviction, they should not bring the case to court.
The other day I went round a roundabout in my car and was nearly side-
swiped by a lorry. This was avoidable on my part, I could have waited,
it was quite predictable that the lorry would do this - I took an
unnecessary risk. If something had gone wrong, and the lorry had hit
us, then the numerous safety features of my car, and 1.5 tonnes of
metal would have likely protected me from injury, let alone death.
Had I done the same on my bicycle, which has zero safety features and
weighs 10 kilos or so, then the impact would likely have kiled me.
The cause of the accident would be the same, however the cyclist would
die while the driver would not - but whether you die (much more likely
for cyclists) or walk off uninjured, doesn't change the fact of
criminal liability at all (the charge would change, assuming there was
any liability at all, but the fact of the liability is unchanged).
spindrift
>
> - Show quoted text -
Once again, criminal liability has sod all to with it.
RTFT.
Doug
for the rest of his life and awarded a massive insurance payout but
the motorist is not criminally guilty? In which case the vulnerable
victim is to blame in law? How can that be?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Keitht
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, JUST ME"
(sorry, will look for Pratchett reference to bikes)
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>> Across Europe, motorists are presumed to be at fault in motorist-
>>> cyclist collisions
>> ...even if they're not.
>>> In the UK...
>> ...we prefer justice.
> It's nothing to do with criminal proceedings, as you'd know if you
> bothered to check.
I *never* said it was. Justice applies in both criminal and civil
proceedings, as most people (but apparently not your good self) are well
aware. Perhaps you hould have "checked" it?
> The EU proposals only relate to insurance, not to the underlying legal
> position in relation to liability.
Quite. A civil matter involving interference in the law of torts (or whatever
they call it in countries populated by less happy breeds) and in the due
process of civil litigation. Here, we apply the rules of justice, not those
of the lynch mob.
> At present, in a car - bike/pedestrian collision, the cyclist
> or pedestrian (probably the worst injured) has to prove the
> motorist was reckless.
Fancy having to prove what you say when accusing someone. Whatever next?
> We want that burden of proof switched so the motorist
You don't say?
> choosing to use a ton of metal at speed � has to prove the
> cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.
Not even that he (the "motorist", in that quaint term that you and some
others like to use) was simply not to blame?
> This only applies to insurance claims. In criminal law, drivers
> in collisions remain innocent until proven guilty.
Civil law in the UK is still operated on the basis of justice. That clearly
rankles with you and certain others.
> This rule exists in many EU countries with more walking and
> cycling, and a better child road safety record, Let�s raise
> driving standards and create better road user attitudes.
The recognition of irony isn't your strong suit, eh?
Whose attitude stinks on this?
[Hint, it isn't mine.]
> Interestingly, in the recent case in which two UK motorists caught by
> a speed camera tried to claim they could not be forced to incriminate
> themselves, the European Court of Human Rights judgement noted that
> people "who choose to keep and drive cars" have implicitly "accepted
> certain responsibilities" under UK law.
That does not inlude a responsibility to admit or accept guilt or fault where
none exists. And in a country which adhered to the rules of justice, it could
not.
> Strict liability would simply be a logical extension of this aspect of
> that judgment.
Except that it would not.
JNugent
[ ... ]
> So let me get this straight. Motorist leaves cyclist in a wheelchair
> for the rest of his life and awarded a massive insurance payout but
> the motorist is not criminally guilty? In which case the vulnerable
> victim is to blame in law? How can that be?
Your incredulity does you credit.
In fact though, the paragraph would have made even more sense phrased thus:
So let me get this straight. Traffic accident leaves cyclist in a wheelchair
for the rest of his life and a driver caught up in the incident (perhaps
stationary, waiting at a set of traffic lights) is not guilty or at fault in
any way but the cyclist is still awarded a massive insurance payout on the
driver's insurance policy? In which case the innocent victim is to blame in
spindrift
of strict liability would emcourage more cycling.
So the questions are:
1/
Is this fair, in your opinion:
In July 2003 James Foster was tragically killed in a road traffic
accident. He was on a bicycle, an experienced cyclist, killed by
coincidence outside the bike shop that he worked on Essex Road, London
N1. The driver, Sabrina Harman (24 of Apprentice Way, Clarence Road,
London E5), when breathalised was found to be over the legal limit.
Later examination of the skid asseses a speed of approximately 47 -
55mph (in an area with a 30mph limit). Sabrina has a previous
conviction for drink driving,
Sabrina was speeding, drunk, unlicensed, uninsured and driving with a
previous drink driving conviction just two years earlier for which she
was fined and disqualified from driving for one year. This time she
had a learner driver passenger and she ran down and killed an innocent
cyclist through her criminal negligence. In these circumstances, a car
is a dangerous weapon. For all these simultaneous offences, she
received 21 months custodial sentence and merely a three-year driving
ban - almost spent by the time her sentence is over.
http://www.deter.org.uk/consequence.php
2/
Would you support initiatives that would boost cycling?
JNugent
> The more cyclists there are the safer the roads become,. The adoption
> of strict liability would emcourage more cycling.
Maybe that is true. Maybe it isn't true. It really doesn't matter which. It's
no-one's business to bring it about, any more than it is anyone's legitimate
business to encourage more driving or more drivers. It's a matter of free
choice in an ominally free society. I accept that there are some who think
that we should be less free. It takes all sorts.
> So the questions are:
"So" implies some sort of connection between the irrelevant "position
statement" above and the question. AFAICS, there is none.
> 1/
> Is this fair, in your opinion:
> In July 2003 James Foster was tragically killed in a road traffic
> accident. He was on a bicycle, an experienced cyclist, killed by
> coincidence outside the bike shop that he worked on Essex Road, London
> N1. The driver, Sabrina Harman (24 of Apprentice Way, Clarence Road,
> London E5), when breathalised was found to be over the legal limit.
> Later examination of the skid asseses a speed of approximately 47 -
> 55mph (in an area with a 30mph limit). Sabrina has a previous
> conviction for drink driving,
> Sabrina was speeding, drunk, unlicensed, uninsured and driving with a
> previous drink driving conviction just two years earlier for which she
> was fined and disqualified from driving for one year. This time she
> had a learner driver passenger and she ran down and killed an innocent
> cyclist through her criminal negligence. In these circumstances, a car
> is a dangerous weapon. For all these simultaneous offences, she
> received 21 months custodial sentence and merely a three-year driving
> ban - almost spent by the time her sentence is over.
> http://www.deter.org.uk/consequence.php
I don't know the circumstances, don't know what was said in mitigation and
certainly didn't hear all the evidence (any more than you did).
So how could I - or anyone else - meaningfully answer such a question? The
question of wther the oputcome of the court case is "fair" is something which
should really be addressed by the court. Or perhaps by another court.
More detail... the word "tragically" in the first sentence is pure hyperbole.
Either everyone's death is tragic or no-one's is (in either case, the word is
window-dressing). The location of the incident is not relevant unless there
is some particular feature of the location which should make it less or more
dangerous than any other spot.
Of what relevance is the passage: "Sabrina was ... driving with a previous
drink driving conviction just two years earlier for which she was fined and
disqualified from driving for one year"? The fact that the driver had
previously been banned is relevant to sentencing but not to the incident
itself, unless she was driving whilst disqualified (which is not suggested).
You seem to be suggesting that a year's ban should involve not driving for
two years or more. What should a two year ban mean?
> 2/
> Would you support initiatives that would boost cycling?
Only reasonable ones which did not operate at the expense of third parties
who are not involved and/or who don't wish to be involved.
spindrift
>
> - Show quoted text -
At the moment, after an RTA, it is the cyclist/pedestrian who is
presumed to be guilty.
What's the difference?
I say we should always give the benefit of doubt to the vulnerable. So
in the case of a cyclist and a pedestrian coliding, the cyclist should
assume responsibility. After all, surely he should have been cycling
in a responsible manner at speeds that would enable the easy avoidance
of the accident in the first place.
On more cycling making roads safer:
Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen
Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205
More cycling is making UK roads safer
Oct 20th
CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to
cycle on UK roads.
Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC
estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since
1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by
more than 34
per cent over the same period.
Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:
"The relationship between increased cycle use and reduced cycle
casualties found in mainland Europe also holds for Britain - the more
people that cycle, the safer it is to cycle."
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/22045/More-cycling-is-making-UK-roads-safer
The more people cycle, the more aware drivers become and the safer the
roads are for cyclists.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/4188.aspx
CYCLING MAKES ROADS SAFER!
Recent statistics gathered throughout the UK confirm that an increase
in cycle use leads to safer roads. Apart from the fact that drivers
who also cycle tend to be more aware of other road users, more
cyclists on the road ensures that even drivers who don't cycle are
more likely to expect the presence of cyclists, motorcyclists and
pedestrians.
http://www.cyclingscotland.org/didyouknow.aspx
After all, the more people who take up cycling, the safer it will be
for all road users, not just for cyclists – hence the conference
title:
“Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer
Cycling = More Cycling .....”
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4802
Perception is a big problem here," says Wilson. "Unsurprisingly, many
people think cycling is dangerous but it has been proved that the more
cyclists there are on the road, the safer it is per cyclist. Drivers
get used to them."
http://motoring.independent.co.uk/features/article1088929.ece
Besides, there are already rules that often hold true concerning
liability. For instance. in a collision between two cars where one is
damaged from behind it is assumed that the person in the rear of the
shunt is culpable. This may not always be the case and if not it is
sorted out in court. In the eyes of the law there is still a presumed
innocence. This is no different and most people seem happy with this
state of affairs.
I like this law because it makes the motorist weary, therefore more
aware of vulnerable road users. If the motorist is also trying to
preserve their no claims bonus it might prompt them into giving
vulnerable road users more room. We haven’t been able to rely on their
good nature and their will to not hurt their fellow man, so maybe we
should appeal to their selfish nature to preserve a bit of their hard
earned cash.
At the moment, a cyclist is considered liable in a collision with a
motor vehicle. They have to prove that the motorist was reckless by
taking the motorist to court - so, as it stands, the motorist benefits
from strict liability. If the cyclist or ped wants to prove they
weren't liable, they have to initiate a tort (civil case) in order to
try to get a decision in their favour. As they can sometimes be
severely injured (esp compared with the driver with whom they were in
a collision), this is often difficult and can be ignored in favour of
concentrating on a physical and mental recovery.
spindrift
in the most appalling way in the two cases cited.
A motorist kills a cyclist in broad daylight, says 'I didn't see them'
and gets away with zero punishment.
That's not really justice at all, is it?
Kate Cairns, sister of Eilidh Cairns, killed in a collision with an
HGV in Notting Hill, said, “It seems that ‘Sorry mate I didn’t see
you’ is enough for the Crown Prosecution Service. Is that all a driver
has to say to get away with killing a cyclist?”
LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, “Until drivers are
called to account for their actions, we should expect more preventable
deaths and injuries. On too many occasions, not seeing someone really
means not paying attention or going too fast.”
The only way you can get the CPS to prosecute is if you have a camera
and are filming your rides. The CPS will not act without overwhelming
evidence. Their only standard for prosecutions is cost, the cheaper a
case is the better the change of it going forward. This attitude has
permeated all levels of the Criminal Justice System, so we now have
the situation where a solicitor is paid more if their client pleads
guilty than if they plead not guilty. Right and Wrong, Justice and law
don’t matter. Its all about money.
JNugent
>>> So the questions are:
> At the moment, after an RTA, it is the cyclist/pedestrian who is
> presumed to be guilty.
Wrong.
*No-one* is presumed guilty unless there is evidence that someone is guilty
and no reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Honest. It's all there on the
web. Check out "Rumpole". Works of fiction but very relevant on the subject
of guilt, innocence and lack of evidence.
> What's the difference?
Since your premise was 100% incorrect, there's clearly no need to answer
that. There is no connection between your statement and reality.
> I say we should always give the benefit of doubt to the vulnerable. So
> in the case of a cyclist and a pedestrian coliding, the cyclist should
> assume responsibility.
On the footway, that would be more or less reasonable and already has
parallels in other aspects of traffic law. Cyclists have no business on
footways* and so are breaking the law anyway. A rule to the effect that they
are therefore responsible for any footway collision with a pedestrian would
be very similar to the law on causing death whilst driving without a licence
and/or insurance - the "he shouldn't have been there anyway, so the accident
shouldn't have happened" principle.
On the carriageway, OTOH, it is nothing like so clear that the cyclist would
be at fault. In fact, except at marked pedestrian crossings (which are not
respected by many cyclists), it is probably the pedestrian who is more likely
(statistically) to be at fault. Of course, that does not mean that cases
should not be treated on their merits.
[*I mean footways; nothing else. Mention of "magic paint" will be treated as
B O R I N G and as the irrelvance it nis. There is no magic paint on the
footway outside my garden gate.]
> After all, surely he should have been cycling
> in a responsible manner at speeds that would enable the easy avoidance
> of the accident in the first place.
Not at all. That's Doug's theory. It isn't practical or legally correct. Some
accidents befall cyclists - and other sorts of road-user - with no chance of
their avoiding them.
The kid running out of a sweet shop and straight across the road immediately
in front of the cyclist is an obvious example. That happened to me on my
driving test and I had to do a real emergency stop.
> On more cycling making roads safer:
> Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
> bicycling
> P L Jacobsen
That's his view. He might be right. He might not be. It doesn't matter. It's
a phenomenon, not a right.
> Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
> and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
> the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
> route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
> http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205
Even if that were right (and it might be), so what?
> More cycling is making UK roads safer
> Oct 20th
> CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to
> cycle on UK roads.
> Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC
> estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since
> 1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by
> more than 34 per cent over the same period.
So what?
> Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:
[nothing of relevance]
> The more people cycle, the more aware drivers become and the safer the
> roads are for cyclists.
So what?
[snip more in same weary vein]
> http://motoring.independent.co.uk/features/article1088929.ece
> Besides, there are already rules that often hold true concerning
> liability. For instance. in a collision between two cars where one is
> damaged from behind it is assumed that the person in the rear of the
> shunt is culpable.
Nonsense. That is simply the way that insurance companies choose to operate
their relationships with each other. It is not the law.
> This may not always be the case and if not it is
> sorted out in court. In the eyes of the law there is still a presumed
> innocence. This is no different and most people seem happy with this
> state of affairs.
> I like this law because it makes the motorist weary ...
Freudian, or a genuine typo?
> At the moment, a cyclist is considered liable in a collision with a
> motor vehicle.
Wrong.
[snip faulty conclusions drawn from a faulty premise.]
JNugent
> More specifically, the 'justice' you defend nugent seems to be lacking
> in the most appalling way in the two cases cited.
Happily, the British system of justice dees not rely upon my protection or
support. It has millions of other supporters.
> A motorist kills a cyclist in broad daylight, says 'I didn't see them'
> and gets away with zero punishment.
Because zero guilt - in which case phrasing a description of the incident as
"kill[ing] a cyclist" is appalling, tendentious, tripe.
> That's not really justice at all, is it?
It certainly wouldn't be justice to punish someone without evidence of their
having done something wrong. I am aware that you don't agree with that, but
that's life. I can live with your being wrong. Can you?
> Kate Cairns, sister of Eilidh Cairns, killed in a collision with an
> HGV in Notting Hill, said, �It seems that �Sorry mate I didn�t see
> you� is enough for the Crown Prosecution Service. Is that all a driver
> has to say to get away with killing a cyclist?�
> LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, �Until drivers are
> called to account for their actions, we should expect more preventable
> deaths and injuries. On too many occasions, not seeing someone really
> means not paying attention or going too fast.�
LCC?
> The only way you can get the CPS to prosecute is if you have a camera
> and are filming your rides. The CPS will not act without overwhelming
> evidence. Their only standard for prosecutions is cost, the cheaper a
> case is the better the change of it going forward. This attitude has
> permeated all levels of the Criminal Justice System, so we now have
> the situation where a solicitor is paid more if their client pleads
> guilty than if they plead not guilty. Right and Wrong, Justice and law
> don�t matter. Its all about money.
That's a view.
Not a very compelling one, but a view.
I prefer to take the much simpler line: you can't punish anyone for anything
they haven't admitted to or been proven to have done. If you can't prove they
did it and if they deny it, they didn't do it. And that's the case whether
it's armed robbery, bestiality, sex with a bicycle or causing death by dangerous.
Sorry for introducing truth and common sense into such an emotive subject.
spindrift
broad daylight and receiving no punishment is the 'justice' you
defend?
I didn't ask whether British justice depends on your support, I
pointed out that you defend a judicial system weighted against
vulnerable road users.
Kate Cairns, sister of Eilidh Cairns, killed in a collision with an
HGV in Notting Hill, said, “It seems that ‘Sorry mate I didn’t see
you’ is enough for the Crown Prosecution Service. Is that all a
driver
has to say to get away with killing a cyclist?”
LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, “Until drivers are
called to account for their actions, we should expect more
preventable
deaths and injuries. On too many occasions, not seeing someone
really
means not paying attention or going too fast.”
What 'LCC' means in the above quote is not essential to your
understanding of the point. It's the London Cycling Campaign pointing
out that the system you defend allows drivers who kill through
recklessness or inattentiveness to get away with it.
Can you explain why you think this is acceptable or not?
Third time.
JNugent
> So, you think that a motorist saying 'I didn't see the cyclist' in
> broad daylight and receiving no punishment is the 'justice' you
> defend?
> I didn't ask whether British justice depends on your support, I
> pointed out that you defend a judicial system weighted against
> vulnerable road users.
I defend a justice system that does not seek to punish (ie, oppress) people
who have not been shown to have done something wrong.
You want the opposite. We know that.
> Kate Cairns, sister of Eilidh Cairns, killed in a collision with an
> HGV in Notting Hill, said, �It seems that �Sorry mate I didn�t see
> you� is enough for the Crown Prosecution Service. Is that all a
> driver has to say to get away with killing a cyclist?�
> LCC communications officer Mike Cavenett said, �Until drivers are
> called to account for their actions, we should expect more
> preventable deaths and injuries. On too many occasions, not seeing someone
> really
> means not paying attention or going too fast.�
>
> What 'LCC' means in the above quote is not essential to your
> understanding of the point.
What point?
I have no wish to comment on the understandably grief-stricken comments of a
bereaved relative and it would serve no purpose for anyone to do so. Were I
in her position, I might well feel the same and might say the same sort of thing.
> It's the London Cycling Campaign pointing
> out that the system you defend allows drivers who kill through
> recklessness or inattentiveness to get away with it.
> Can you explain why you think this is acceptable or not?
I defend a justice system that does not seek to punish (ie, oppress) people
who have not been shown to have done something wrong.
You want the opposite. We know that.
spindrift
You think a driver who collides with and kills a cyclist in broad
daylight has done nothing wrong?
Brimstone
> You think a driver who collides with and kills a cyclist in broad
> daylight has done nothing wrong?
As always, it depends.
JNugent
> You think a driver who collides with and kills a cyclist in broad
> daylight has done nothing wrong?
Whom are you addressing (and do you have any flesh to adorn the bare bones of
that scenario)?
spindrift
Once again:
In particular we think of Eilidh Cairns, 30, who was killed at
Notting
Hill Gate by a tipper lorry driver on 5th February this year, and of
Anthony Maynard, 25, who was killed north of Henley by a van driver
exactly a year ago.
We make our protest here at the London Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS), to remind Ms Dru Sharpling, Chief Crown Prosecutor, of the
decision of her colleagues at Reading CPS, when last year they
inappropriately, remissly, and to our minds unforgivably, ordered
that
the van driver who struck Anthony (and his companion) from behind
would not face charges. We do not hold Anthony’s life so cheap.
I didn't know Anthony, those who did say he was a smashing chap:
http://www.readingcyclingclub.com/node/194
The younger Mr Maynard, who used to attend Woodley’s Waingels College,
died on the A4130 in Bix, near Henley, on Thursday, July 3.
The unnamed 38-year-old driver of the blue Ford transit van which
struck Mr Maynard – who was cycling with a friend – was initially
arrested in relation to the incident.
However, no charges were ever brought and on Saturday, November 15, he
was released without being prosecuted.
The older Mr Maynard said: “I do not accept the decision.
“While I wouldn’t wish any charge to be brought unless an offence were
suspected, were there the slightest grounds for suspicion, then of
course, a jury should have that chance to see evidence, then decide
guilt or otherwise.
“In my opinion, this CPS decision has removed that opportunity right
at the outset.
“The CPS’s own guidelines in these situations state that these
decisions must be influenced by the public interest.
“Surely it is in the public interest that a jury have the opportunity
to decide guilt when an innocent cyclist is killed from behind on a
clear road?
“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.
“Accidents just don’t happen.
“Cyclists have a basic right to be spared the constant fear of being
hit by motor vehicles.
“The message needs to be driven home that even the slightest lack of
care whilst driving can have devastating consequences.
“With driving comes responsibility.”
Mr Maynard, of London Road, Earley, explained his son was a good,
experienced rider.
“Anthony, was a known good, safe cyclist, and was not at fault,” he
continued.
“The investigation proved that, as if I needed confirmation. He was a
competent and proficient amateur sports cyclist who was always mindful
of road safety.”
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_questions_cps_decision
Broad daylight.
A cyclist doing nothing wrong killed by a van driver who claims he
failed to see him and hits him from behind.
The CPS do nothing.
Why do you think this represents 'justice'?
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> You think a driver who collides with and kills a cyclist in broad
>>> daylight has done nothing wrong?
>> Whom are you addressing (and do you have any flesh to adorn the bare bones of
>> that scenario)?
> Once again:
[snip emotive cases and even more emotive comment from the OP]
> The CPS do nothing.
Presumably, they will have considered the evidence and decided to take no
further action. That's their job. It is not "doing nothing". Their job is not
to "do something because spindrift wants something done".
> Why do you think this represents 'justice'?
Are you really asking why it is just that people are not punished in the
absence of proof that they have done anything wrong?
Would it be OK if you were imprisoned for five years?
And that's not such a wild question in the circumstances.
After all, you are no more innocent then anyone else who hasn't been
convicted of an offence, aren't you?
spindrift
For the fourth time, you think a van driver in broad daylight who at
high speed runs into a cyclist behaving entirely lawfully from behind
and kills him has done nothing wrong?
Why?
JNugent
>>> Once again:
>>> The CPS do nothing.
The unanswered question: has he been convicted of it?
In other words - and let's spell this out - is there no reasonable doubt that
he did what you (who presumably was not an eye-witness to the incident) say
he did?
You see, if he hasn't been convicted of it, he didn't do it, and in countries
which have a proper justice system (not all do), we don't punish people for
things they haven't done.
Just like if you haven't been convicted of armed robbery, there's no need to
put you away for ten years.
> Why?
Why what?
Why do we not punish people for things they haven't done?
Simon Brooke
Whether he did it or not is a fact independent of whether he was
convicted for it or not. For example, I have just eaten a doughnut.
The fact that I have not been convicted of it does not mean I didn't
do it. The reason the van driver in question was not convicted was
because he was not prosecuted. By this I don't mean to allege that if
he had been prosecuted he would inevitably have been found guilty, but
that without being prosecuted he cannot be found guilty.
I do not know the facts of this case, but if, as reported, the driver
was arrested at the scene and there is no dispute as to who was
driving the van; and if there is no dispute that the van hit the
cyclists, then prima facie there is a case to answer. Which raises the
question: why did the CPS not believe that it was in the public
interest to bring that case.
JNugent
>>>>> Once again:
>>>>> The CPS do nothing.
That's sort of true in some far-out cosmic sense, but that isn't the issue.
Society cannot act on the assumption or lynch-mob conclusion that someone has
done something wrong and illegal (even if they're a paediatrician). It has to
be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they did it. The way we do that is
via a trial (or a guilty plea). In the absence of one of those, he didn't do
it for all practical purposes ("it" meaning something which was an offence).
> For example, I have just eaten a doughnut.
> The fact that I have not been convicted of it does not mean I didn't
> do it. The reason the van driver in question was not convicted was
> because he was not prosecuted. By this I don't mean to allege that if
> he had been prosecuted he would inevitably have been found guilty, but
> that without being prosecuted he cannot be found guilty.
Well, OKish... sort of... though your "The reason the van driver in question
was not convicted was because he was not prosecuted" still sounds awfully as
you think he would have been convicted had he been prosecuted.
But take this a stage farther (and this is not fanciful): why didn't the CPS
charge *you* or *me* with the alleged offence of causing that death
(whichever one it was) by dangerous driving?
> I do not know the facts of this case, but if, as reported, the driver
> was arrested at the scene and there is no dispute as to who was
> driving the van; and if there is no dispute that the van hit the
> cyclists, then prima facie there is a case to answer. Which raises the
> question: why did the CPS not believe that it was in the public
> interest to bring that case.
You'd have to ask them, but I think I already know the answer.
Doug
euphemistic 'accident'. Secondly, why would an insurance company pay
out if the driver was not guilty or at fault? They are notorious for
not paying out on the slightest pretext and so must have truly
believed that the driver was at fault.
It is my belief that the CPS did not take it to court because they are
pragmatically aware that our UK courts are biased in favour of drivers
and therefore against cyclists.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>> So let me get this straight. Motorist leaves cyclist in a wheelchair
>>> for the rest of his life and awarded a massive insurance payout but
>>> the motorist is not criminally guilty? In which case the vulnerable
>>> victim is to blame in law? How can that be?
>> Your incredulity does you credit.
>> In fact though, the paragraph would have made even more sense phrased thus:
>> So let me get this straight. Traffic accident leaves cyclist in a wheelchair
>> for the rest of his life and a driver caught up in the incident (perhaps
>> stationary, waiting at a set of traffic lights) is not guilty or at fault in
>> any way but the cyclist is still awarded a massive insurance payout on the
>> driver's insurance policy? In which case the innocent victim is to blame in
>> law? How can that be?
> There are problems with this. Firstly its a crash and not a
> euphemistic 'accident'.
I use the terminology used in the law: "road traffic accident". Your calling
it a crash is alright with me, but I regard it as heightened language and
therefore tending to be unhelpful.
> Secondly, why would an insurance company pay
> out if the driver was not guilty or at fault?
That's the central point. You are right - it would not happen.
The scenario painted farther back along the thread is the situation proposed
by those who want drivers to be automatically held responsible for "crashes"
when they are not to blame. Obviously, in cases where the driver *is* to
blame, that would not alter anything.
> They are notorious for
> not paying out on the slightest pretext and so must have truly
> believed that the driver was at fault.
> It is my belief that the CPS did not take it to court because they are
> pragmatically aware that our UK courts are biased in favour of drivers
> and therefore against cyclists.
They are certainly aware that juries tend not to convict defendants against
whom there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.
spindrift
proposed
by those who want drivers to be automatically held responsible for
"crashes"
Sigh.
No, it isn't.
Daniel Barlow
> The scenario painted farther back along the thread is the situation
> proposed by those who want drivers to be automatically held
> responsible for "crashes" when they are not to blame. Obviously, in
> cases where the driver *is* to blame, that would not alter anything.
I haven't seen anyone say that. The usual suggestion is that the driver
is *assumed* responsible, but of course it is still open to him to
demonstrate that he was driving with due care and attention (or int e
language of torts, adequately discharging his duty of care). Assumed
responsible, not held responsible.
In a case where the driver was not at fault and there are no witnesses
alive and no forensic evidence can be found and there was no CCTV, it is
of course unjust that the driver's insurance may end up paying out to
the cyclist's family. How often does that happen? But the present
situation is equally unjust in the other direction, not to mention a
great deal more likely.
-dan
Simon Brooke
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > For example, I have just eaten a doughnut.
> > The fact that I have not been convicted of it does not mean I didn't
> > do it. The reason the van driver in question was not convicted was
> > because he was not prosecuted. By this I don't mean to allege that if
> > he had been prosecuted he would inevitably have been found guilty, but
> > that without being prosecuted he cannot be found guilty.
>
> Well, OKish... sort of... though your "The reason the van driver in question
> was not convicted was because he was not prosecuted" still sounds awfully as
> you think he would have been convicted had he been prosecuted.
No, there's a process:
(1) investigation
(2) prosecution
(3) conviction
Prosecution isn't a sufficient condition for conviction, but it is a
necessary condition. No-one who is not prosecuted is convicted. I'll
say again: I don't know the details of this case an have no opinion of
the guilt of the driver.
aard...@the.zoo
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Simon Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com> considered Sun, 5 Jul 2009
>And why is the anonymous coward who made the decision to free a killer
>not being named and prosecuted?
>That person bears an even greater guilt. and should be prosecuted, as
>he has shown complete contempt for the victims, their families, all
>other vulnerable road users, and the entire judicial system.
>
>FOI to name the responsible person?
>We should have the right to know who is condoning the killing of
>vulnerable road users.
The men in the black helicopters have been despatched to deal with
you. Make sure you keep your tinfoil hat on...
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>
>> The scenario painted farther back along the thread is the situation
>> proposed by those who want drivers to be automatically held
>> responsible for "crashes" when they are not to blame. Obviously, in
>> cases where the driver *is* to blame, that would not alter anything.
>
> I haven't seen anyone say that. The usual suggestion is that the driver
> is *assumed* responsible, but of course it is still open to him to
> demonstrate that he was driving with due care and attention (or int e
> language of torts, adequately discharging his duty of care). Assumed
> responsible, not held responsible.
You are hair-splitting; and not even to good effect, since you are trying to
pretend that nothing is being asked for.
The fact is that a few people (including, it seems, yourself) *do* want
drivers to be automatically held responsible for "crashes" when they are not
to blame, with that artificial "responsibility" given effect by making the
driver's insurance policy pay out sums which he has never become liable to pay.
Where the driver is at fault, there is no problem in the pay-out (assuming
him to be insured).
> In a case where the driver was not at fault and there are no witnesses
> alive and no forensic evidence can be found and there was no CCTV, it is
> of course unjust that the driver's insurance may end up paying out to
> the cyclist's family. How often does that happen? But the present
> situation is equally unjust in the other direction, not to mention a
> great deal more likely.
The currect situation - where evidence is needed - is certainly not an
injustice. It is an injustice to exact penalties where no wrongdoing is shown.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> For example, I have just eaten a doughnut.
>>> The fact that I have not been convicted of it does not mean I didn't
>>> do it. The reason the van driver in question was not convicted was
>>> because he was not prosecuted. By this I don't mean to allege that if
>>> he had been prosecuted he would inevitably have been found guilty, but
>>> that without being prosecuted he cannot be found guilty.
>> Well, OKish... sort of... though your "The reason the van driver in question
>> was not convicted was because he was not prosecuted" still sounds awfully as
>> you think he would have been convicted had he been prosecuted.
> No, there's a process:
> (1) investigation
> (2) prosecution
> (3) conviction
No, there's a process:
(1) investigation;
(2) decision as to whether there there is reason (ie, enough evidence) to
prosecute;
(3) if there is a prosecution: verdict.
I wonder why you got that so seriously wrong?
Simon Brooke
You really, really dont understand the English language, do you?
JNugent
Now come on... don't be daft.
Comprehension of our native language (a topic on which I yield to few in
general, and even fewer here) is nothing to the point.
Are you really so peeved to have been (so deservedly) corrected on a simple
point about the English legal system??
Your "investigation-prosecution-conviction" model was clearly something of a
Freudian slip. Can you really *not* concieve of an acquittal? Or even of a
case where there simply isn't enough *evidence* for a prosecution in the
first case?
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> [ ... ]
> >>> So let me get this straight. Motorist leaves cyclist in a wheelchair
> >>> for the rest of his life and awarded a massive insurance payout but
> >>> the motorist is not criminally guilty? In which case the vulnerable
> >>> victim is to blame in law? How can that be?
> >> Your incredulity does you credit.
> >> In fact though, the paragraph would have made even more sense phrased thus:
> >> So let me get this straight. Traffic accident leaves cyclist in a wheelchair
> >> for the rest of his life and a driver caught up in the incident (perhaps
> >> stationary, waiting at a set of traffic lights) is not guilty or at fault in
> >> any way but the cyclist is still awarded a massive insurance payout on the
> >> driver's insurance policy? In which case the innocent victim is to blame in
> >> law? How can that be?
> > There are problems with this. Firstly its a crash and not a
> > euphemistic 'accident'.
>
> I use the terminology used in the law: "road traffic accident". Your calling
> it a crash is alright with me, but I regard it as heightened language and
> therefore tending to be unhelpful.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_traffic_accident
"Phrases commonly used to describe collisions include: auto accident,
car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle accident
(MVA), motor vehicle collision (MVC), personal injury collision (PIC),
road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision
(RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), smash-up and fender bender.
As the factors involved in collisions have become better understood,
some organizations have begun to avoid the term "accident," as the
word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event and disregards the
opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the crash..."
> > Secondly, why would an insurance company pay
> > out if the driver was not guilty or at fault?
>
> That's the central point. You are right - it would not happen.
>
> The scenario painted farther back along the thread is the situation proposed
> by those who want drivers to be automatically held responsible for "crashes"
> when they are not to blame. Obviously, in cases where the driver *is* to
> blame, that would not alter anything.
>
Someone who loses proper control of a dangerous vehicle in a public
place and thereby causes death or injury MUST be to blame.
>
> > They are notorious for
> > not paying out on the slightest pretext and so must have truly
> > believed that the driver was at fault.
> > It is my belief that the CPS did not take it to court because they are
> > pragmatically aware that our UK courts are biased in favour of drivers
> > and therefore against cyclists.
>
> They are certainly aware that juries tend not to convict defendants against
> whom there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.
>
Surely the fact that the driver was behind the wheel when the crash
occurred is ample evidence?
Brimstone
Which confirms that in your little coming together with the car trying to
cross your path you were as much to blame as the car driver.
>>> Secondly, why would an insurance company pay
>>> out if the driver was not guilty or at fault?
>>
>> That's the central point. You are right - it would not happen.
>>
>> The scenario painted farther back along the thread is the situation
>> proposed by those who want drivers to be automatically held
>> responsible for "crashes" when they are not to blame. Obviously, in
>> cases where the driver *is* to blame, that would not alter anything.
>>
> Someone who loses proper control of a dangerous vehicle in a public
> place and thereby causes death or injury MUST be to blame.
What if it's the person who lost control who ends up dead?
>>> They are notorious for
>>> not paying out on the slightest pretext and so must have truly
>>> believed that the driver was at fault.
>>> It is my belief that the CPS did not take it to court because they
>>> are pragmatically aware that our UK courts are biased in favour of
>>> drivers and therefore against cyclists.
>>
>> They are certainly aware that juries tend not to convict defendants
>> against whom there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.
>>
> Surely the fact that the driver was behind the wheel when the crash
> occurred is ample evidence?
The mere fact of being in control of the vehicle is not sufficient grounds
to decide guilt, despite your preferences.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>> So let me get this straight. Motorist leaves cyclist in a wheelchair
>>>>> for the rest of his life and awarded a massive insurance payout but
>>>>> the motorist is not criminally guilty? In which case the vulnerable
>>>>> victim is to blame in law? How can that be?
>>>> Your incredulity does you credit.
>>>> In fact though, the paragraph would have made even more sense phrased thus:
>>>> So let me get this straight. Traffic accident leaves cyclist in a wheelchair
>>>> for the rest of his life and a driver caught up in the incident (perhaps
>>>> stationary, waiting at a set of traffic lights) is not guilty or at fault in
>>>> any way but the cyclist is still awarded a massive insurance payout on the
>>>> driver's insurance policy? In which case the innocent victim is to blame in
>>>> law? How can that be?
>>> There are problems with this. Firstly its a crash and not a
>>> euphemistic 'accident'.
>> I use the terminology used in the law: "road traffic accident". Your calling
>> it a crash is alright with me, but I regard it as heightened language and
>> therefore tending to be unhelpful.
> Well you would wouldn't you.
I would try to use a neutral term rather than an emotive weasel word?
Yes, usually.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_traffic_accident
> "Phrases commonly used to describe collisions include: auto accident,
> car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle accident
> (MVA), motor vehicle collision (MVC), personal injury collision (PIC),
> road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision
> (RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), smash-up and fender bender.
That is not a UK source, is it?
I've never heard the terms "auto accident" or "fender bender" being used in
the UK, except in a self-conscious attempt to present an American context.
> As the factors involved in collisions have become better understood,
> some organizations have begun to avoid the term "accident," as the
> word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event and disregards the
> opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the crash..."
...and they prefer to insinuate a suggestion that the incident was caused
deliberately, instead of weighing the facts and probabilities correctly.
We know.
>>> Secondly, why would an insurance company pay
>>> out if the driver was not guilty or at fault?
>> That's the central point. You are right - it would not happen.
>> The scenario painted farther back along the thread is the situation proposed
>> by those who want drivers to be automatically held responsible for "crashes"
>> when they are not to blame. Obviously, in cases where the driver *is* to
>> blame, that would not alter anything.
> Someone who loses proper control of a dangerous vehicle in a public
> place and thereby causes death or injury MUST be to blame.
That, as so often in such matters, depends.
>>> They are notorious for
>>> not paying out on the slightest pretext and so must have truly
>>> believed that the driver was at fault.
>>> It is my belief that the CPS did not take it to court because they are
>>> pragmatically aware that our UK courts are biased in favour of drivers
>>> and therefore against cyclists.
>> They are certainly aware that juries tend not to convict defendants against
>> whom there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.
> Surely the fact that the driver was behind the wheel when the crash
> occurred is ample evidence?
Boring.
Try using reason.
Try being right (you sometimes are, but certainly not on this occasion).
Daniel Barlow
> The fact is that a few people (including, it seems, yourself) *do*
> want drivers to be automatically held responsible for "crashes" when
> they are not to blame, with that artificial "responsibility" given
> effect by making the driver's insurance policy pay out sums which he
> has never become liable to pay.
You have just shifted the goalposts. Your original protest was that
"the [at fault] cyclist is still awarded a massive insurance payout on
the [innocent] driver's insurance policy". I agree that would be
unjust. Now you appear to be quibbling merely that the driver's
insurance must pay any costs associated with proving that he is not at
fault. This is not the same thing at all.
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> The fact is that a few people (including, it seems, yourself) *do*
>> want drivers to be automatically held responsible for "crashes" when
>> they are not to blame, with that artificial "responsibility" given
>> effect by making the driver's insurance policy pay out sums which he
>> has never become liable to pay.
> You have just shifted the goalposts. Your original protest was that
> "the [at fault] cyclist is still awarded a massive insurance payout on
> the [innocent] driver's insurance policy".
The original from which you constructed that (the words in square brackets
are not mine, for the avoidance of doubt) was a parodied quote, for the sake
of demonstration.
> I agree that would be unjust.
I am glad you agree that it would be wrong. It is nevertheless what the
wilder extremists are calling for.
> Now you appear to be quibbling merely that the driver's
> insurance must pay any costs associated with proving that he is not at
> fault. This is not the same thing at all.
You are misinterpreting something (though exactly what, God alone knows).
I have said precisely nothing about the costs of proving anything. The topic
had not even come up before you just mentioned it as part of your latest
attempt to move the goalposts.
Daniel Barlow
>> Now you appear to be quibbling merely that the driver's
>> insurance must pay any costs associated with proving that he is not at
>> fault. This is not the same thing at all.
>
> You are misinterpreting something (though exactly what, God alone knows).
>
> I have said precisely nothing about the costs of proving anything. The
> topic had not even come up before you just mentioned it as part of
> your latest attempt to move the goalposts.
Well, then, for the avoidance of doubt, perhaps you'd care to come cleam
on just wtf it *is* that you're talking about instead of leaving us all
to guess.
If you are not talking about the costs of proving anything, and you are
still claiming that I have said the driver should be held responsible
for a crash in which he was not at fault, the onus is on you to explain
how.
Come on. Exercise that rarely equalled command of language to the end
of effective communication, for a change.
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
This thread has covered various topics and sub-topics. I think I still have
all of my postings for this thread on the hard drive.
Which topic(s) did you have in mind?
Daniel Barlow
> This thread has covered various topics and sub-topics. I think I still
> have all of my postings for this thread on the hard drive.
In very simple words: you have said that I wish drivers to be held
responsible for crashes in which they were not at fault. I do not
believe that I have. Indeed, I believe I have stated quite clearly that
they should not be.
I do not know why you are imputing to me a position which I do not
hold. I would be grateful if you would explain.
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
I think you must be referring to this posting from yesterday (relavant part
quoted):
STARTQUOTE:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> The scenario painted farther back along the thread is the situation
>> proposed by those who want drivers to be automatically held
>> responsible for "crashes" when they are not to blame. Obviously, in
>> cases where the driver *is* to blame, that would not alter anything.
> I haven't seen anyone say that. The usual suggestion is that the driver
> is *assumed* responsible, but of course it is still open to him to
> demonstrate that he was driving with due care and attention (or int e
> language of torts, adequately discharging his duty of care). Assumed
> responsible, not held responsible.
You are hair-splitting; and not even to good effect, since you are trying to
pretend that nothing is being asked for.
The fact is that a few people (including, it seems, yourself) *do* want
drivers to be automatically held responsible for "crashes" when they are not
to blame, with that artificial "responsibility" given effect by making the
driver's insurance policy pay out sums which he has never become liable to pay.
ENDQUOTE
There's an ultimately pointless dispute there about the semantic differences
between "assumed responsible" and "held responsible".
But are you saying that you did not intend your post as support for the
proposition that a driver's insurance company should be made to pay up even
where he was not at fault and cannot be shown to be at fault?
Daniel Barlow
> I think you must be referring to this posting from yesterday (relavant
> part quoted):
> There's an ultimately pointless dispute there about the semantic
> differences between "assumed responsible" and "held responsible".
Well, I thought I made it quite clear, but apparently not. The driver
is assumed responsible until and unless he can demonstrate otherwise.
It would take a grand effort in semantic disputation to equate this to
"held responsible no matter whether he can demonstrate he is not at
fault"
> But are you saying that you did not intend your post as support for
> the proposition that a driver's insurance company should be made to
> pay up even where he was not at fault and cannot be shown to be at
> fault?
There appear to be two distinct propositions in that question, and as I
don't think their combined effect accords with my position I will have
to say "no". A driver's insurance company should not be made to pay up
when he was not at fault. That is, as far as I know, consistent with
the present UK position. But the change I would like to see is that the
onus should be on him/them, as an operator of potentially dangerous
machinery, to prove that he was not at fault. The fact that he and his
vehicle were involved in the collision should be sufficient to establish
a prima facie case.
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> I think you must be referring to this posting from yesterday (relavant
>> part quoted):
>> There's an ultimately pointless dispute there about the semantic
>> differences between "assumed responsible" and "held responsible".
> Well, I thought I made it quite clear, but apparently not.
If you mean that you thought you had distinguished them, you had not.
There is no meanigful distinction between them. "Assuming responsibility" is
proposed only so that the hapless driver can be "held" responsible (as
everyone is well aware).
> The driver is assumed responsible until and unless he can demonstrate otherwise.
Yes. That was clear.
> It would take a grand effort in semantic disputation to equate this to
> "held responsible no matter whether he can demonstrate he is not at
> fault"
The hope and expectation is that he will not be able to prove the negative
(negatives are notoriously difficult to prove and British justice does not
turn on the ability to prove them).
If that were not the case, there would be absolutely no point in the proposal.
>> But are you saying that you did not intend your post as support for
>> the proposition that a driver's insurance company should be made to
>> pay up even where he was not at fault and cannot be shown to be at
>> fault?
> There appear to be two distinct propositions in that question, and as I
> don't think their combined effect accords with my position I will have
> to say "no".
OK...
> A driver's insurance company should not be made to pay up
> when he was not at fault.
What does "...was not at fault" mean?
Does it mean (as it currently means) "...has not been shown, on the balance
of probabilities, to be at fault"?
Or does it mean "...has not been able to show that he was not at fault and is
theferore treated as being at fault whether he was at fault or not"?
If the first case, the change would be pointless. In the second case, that
would be a denial of due process of justice. IOW, a clear injustice.
> That is, as far as I know, consistent with
> the present UK position.
The first case presented above would be consistent with the current system of
justice in the UK (and there would be no point in moving to it).
The second would not be.
> But the change I would like to see is that the
> onus should be on him/them, as an operator of potentially dangerous
> machinery, to prove that he was not at fault.
That is the second case.
The denial of justice.
> The fact that he and his
> vehicle were involved in the collision should be sufficient to establish
> a prima facie case.
Er.. yes, Doug.
I didn't realise you were sock-puppeting. But you're rumbled now, old chap.
Daniel Barlow
> There is no meanigful distinction between them. "Assuming
> responsibility" is proposed only so that the hapless driver can be
> "held" responsible (as everyone is well aware).
"Everyone is well aware"? This is obviously the link I was missing, and
now I see how your mind works I realise why I could not have been
expecting to make it. That's a very fetching tin foil hat you're
sporting, by the way.
> The hope and expectation is that he will not be able to prove the
> negative (negatives are notoriously difficult to prove and British
> justice does not turn on the ability to prove them).
>
> If that were not the case, there would be absolutely no point in the proposal.
Of course there is. It moves the costs of obtaining justice in the
large from mostly uninsured individuals who are statistically less
likely to be at fault and less likely to be able to afford to pay
lawyers, to insurance companies who have them on tap. You may consider
it unfair that your insurance premiums may rise slightly to cover the
cost: I consider it far more unfair that innocent vulnerable road users
and their families are hit with the entire costs of collisions they are
involved in.
>> But the change I would like to see is that the
>> onus should be on him/them, as an operator of potentially dangerous
>> machinery, to prove that he was not at fault.
>
> That is the second case.
>
> The denial of justice.
As opposed to the current denial of justice when the victim is an
innocent pedestrian. Going to court, especially against a large
company, is a long expensive drawn-out process, and even if they get
adequate legal advice and eventual compensation, the key word there is
"eventual". Justice delayed is, as they say, justice denied.
Strict liability would seem to me to deny justice less often than the
present system. Perhaps there is some middle ground that would be
better yet, I don't know.
[pointless twaddle deleted, I hope you get better soon]
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> There is no meanigful distinction between them. "Assuming
>> responsibility" is proposed only so that the hapless driver can be
>> "held" responsible (as everyone is well aware).
> "Everyone is well aware"? This is obviously the link I was missing, and
> now I see how your mind works I realise why I could not have been
> expecting to make it. That's a very fetching tin foil hat you're
> sporting, by the way.
Name a person who is not aware (or who does not believe) that the assumption
(strictly: "presumption") of responsibility is proposed simply so that those
who cannot be shown to be responsible can nevertheless be held responsible.
You have said so. You go on (below) to say it again.
>> The hope and expectation is that he will not be able to prove the
>> negative (negatives are notoriously difficult to prove and British
>> justice does not turn on the ability to prove them).
>> If that were not the case, there would be absolutely no point in the proposal.
> Of course there is. It moves the costs of obtaining justice in the
> large from mostly uninsured individuals who are statistically less
> likely to be at fault and less likely to be able to afford to pay
> lawyers, to insurance companies who have them on tap.
What you mean, but don't (to your credit) have the brass neck to bring
yourself to say, is that the cost of legal action will be shifted from those
who have the case to prove to those who don't have the case to prove.
> You may consider
> it unfair that your insurance premiums may rise slightly to cover the
> cost:
You are absolutely right, thiough it isn't my only objection.
> I consider it far more unfair that innocent vulnerable road users
> and their families are hit with the entire costs of collisions they are
> involved in.
There is a big difference.
You cannot justify mugging (street-robbery) on the basis that you have an
aged mother and five kids (or even five children) to support.
Your (potential) costs are your business. No-one else's. Insure against them.
I insure against mine (it's cheap). Who are you to be able to offload your
costs onto me?
>>> But the change I would like to see is that the
>>> onus should be on him/them, as an operator of potentially dangerous
>>> machinery, to prove that he was not at fault.
>> That is the second case.
>> The denial of justice.
> As opposed to the current denial of justice when the victim is an
> innocent pedestrian.
There is no evidence that there is a denial of justice in the current
situation. In order to show that, you would have to show that the driver was
at fault - in the courts (or through the claim-sttling machinery of the
insurance companies).
If you haven't done that, you haven't got a case. Sorry to have to point that
out.
> Going to court, especially against a large
> company, is a long expensive drawn-out process, and even if they get
> adequate legal advice and eventual compensation, the key word there is
> "eventual". Justice delayed is, as they say, justice denied.
Absolutely irrelevant. The same applies to any litigation. Perhaps you have a
scheme for doing away with it all and loadibng the costs onto drivers?
> Strict liability would seem to me to deny justice less often than the
> present system. Perhaps there is some middle ground that would be
> better yet, I don't know.
Of course you don't. You've been at pains to demonstrate that.
> [pointless twaddle deleted, I hope you get better soon]
Er.. yes, Doug.
Daniel Barlow
> There is a big difference.
>
> You cannot justify mugging (street-robbery) on the basis that you have
> an aged mother and five kids (or even five children) to support.
Wow, the blunt rusty saw of analogy strikes again.
> Your (potential) costs are your business. No-one else's. Insure
> against them. I insure against mine (it's cheap). Who are you to be
> able to offload your costs onto me?
Well, that's the crux of the argument. Why should I as a pedestrian be
forced to insure against the costs of a moment's inattention from a
chainsaw juggler who is sharing the pavement with me? What's that? I
don't? You say the courts will probably start from a position that
juggling chainsaws on the pavement is pretty damn dangerous
intrinsically?
So, why does the same not apply to driving a motor vehicle (or for that
matter a bicycle) in a public place? Done badly it has similar and
probably greater potential to injure, especially in heaver and faster
vehicles.
>> As opposed to the current denial of justice when the victim is an
>> innocent pedestrian.
>
> There is no evidence that there is a denial of justice in the current
> situation. In order to show that, you would have to show that the
> driver was at fault - in the courts (or through the claim-sttling
> machinery of the insurance companies).
That's a completely circular argument, and you know it.
At least, I hope you do. Your state of mind lately has been ... odd
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> There is a big difference.
>> You cannot justify mugging (street-robbery) on the basis that you have
>> an aged mother and five kids (or even five children) to support.
> Wow, the blunt rusty saw of analogy strikes again.
A pretty good analogy (I wish I could claim credit for it; I only adapted it).
>> Your (potential) costs are your business. No-one else's. Insure
>> against them. I insure against mine (it's cheap). Who are you to be
>> able to offload your costs onto me?
> Well, that's the crux of the argument. Why should I as a pedestrian be
> forced to insure against the costs of a moment's inattention from a
> chainsaw juggler who is sharing the pavement with me? What's that? I
> don't? You say the courts will probably start from a position that
> juggling chainsaws on the pavement is pretty damn dangerous
> intrinsically?
I think they would. Unlike driving.
> So, why does the same not apply to driving a motor vehicle (or for that
> matter a bicycle) in a public place?
Because it isn't the same?
I merely throw that possibility out for discussion there. I know that you
believe driving a car to be as dangerous as juggling with a running chainsaw.
It really does take all sorts.
> Done badly it has similar and
> probably greater potential to injure, especially in heaver and faster
> vehicles.
And whether or not you are right with your analogy with chainsaws, you are
certainly right in the implication that when driving can be *demonstrated* to
have been poor and has caused an injury or damage, compensation is payable.
>>> As opposed to the current denial of justice when the victim is an
>>> innocent pedestrian.
>> There is no evidence that there is a denial of justice in the current
>> situation. In order to show that, you would have to show that the
>> driver was at fault - in the courts (or through the claim-sttling
>> machinery of the insurance companies).
> That's a completely circular argument, and you know it.
It is your position that is circular; you start from an untenable position
("those who are not responsible are respoonsible") and then insist on
referring every answer back through a loop that crosses that point.
> At least, I hope you do. Your state of mind lately has been ... odd
I think you mean that I don't agree with you on this. And I certainly don't,
having this old-fashioned belief that no-one should be punished unless
they've done - and can be proved to have done - something wrong*.
Have you always had this belief that others are only there to pay for what
you want, or is it a relatively recent development?
[* Something really wrong, that is; not just something made up for
convenience, in the Caligulan manner that you support.]
Daniel Barlow
> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>
>> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>
>>> There is a big difference.
>>> You cannot justify mugging (street-robbery) on the basis that you have
>>> an aged mother and five kids (or even five children) to support.
>
>> Wow, the blunt rusty saw of analogy strikes again.
>
> A pretty good analogy (I wish I could claim credit for it; I only adapted it).
No, it's a completely dire analogy. Street robbery is a crime of
violence and requires "mens rea". Accidentally causing yourself injury
or death with the involvement someone else's motor vehicle is light
years away from that state, and I cannot fathom that anyone other than
the mentally deranged would attempt it as a way to financially support
their relatives. I'm sure you can come up with something better.
>> Well, that's the crux of the argument. Why should I as a pedestrian be
>> forced to insure against the costs of a moment's inattention from a
>> chainsaw juggler who is sharing the pavement with me? What's that? I
>> don't? You say the courts will probably start from a position that
>> juggling chainsaws on the pavement is pretty damn dangerous
>> intrinsically?
>
> I think they would. Unlike driving.
If you're going to claim that being in notional charge of a one tonne
vehicle capable of 90 mph, controlled by a means so laughably primitive
that a moment's inattention can and often does result in injury and
death, is not intrinsically dangerous, then I don't think we have much
common ground at all for this discussion. The statistics don't agree
with you and the Government don't seem to agree with you either. At
least, I assume that they would not bother requiring driving tests and
MOT certificates and insurance and all that palaver if they didn't think
driving was dangerous.
>>> There is no evidence that there is a denial of justice in the current
>>> situation. In order to show that, you would have to show that the
>>> driver was at fault - in the courts (or through the claim-sttling
>>> machinery of the insurance companies).
>
>> That's a completely circular argument, and you know it.
>
> It is your position that is circular; you start from an untenable
> position ("those who are not responsible are respoonsible") and then
> insist on referring every answer back through a loop that crosses that
> point.
Your position appears to be that the courts do not deny justice because
justice is by definition what the courts deliver. If I have
misrepresented you there then please feel free to say so, but on the
face of it that's either circular, or trivially true but utterly
unhelpful.
I don't understand the position you have attributed to me. I would
describe my position as "those who are doing the intrinsically more
dangerous things should have a greater burden of proof required of them
to demonstrate they were doing so safely". Obviously if you don't agree
that driving a car is more dangerous than walking along the road then
you will not see a lot worth discussing in this position, but I still
don't see any circularity.
> Have you always had this belief that others are only there to pay for
> what you want, or is it a relatively recent development?
Erm? Why do you assume I am not a driver?
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>>>> There is a big difference.
>>>> You cannot justify mugging (street-robbery) on the basis that you have
>>>> an aged mother and five kids (or even five children) to support.
>>> Wow, the blunt rusty saw of analogy strikes again.
>> A pretty good analogy (I wish I could claim credit for it; I only adapted it).
> No, it's a completely dire analogy.
If you mean it isn't an identical case... I have some news for you about what
an analogy is.
> Street robbery is a crime of
> violence and requires "mens rea". Accidentally causing yourself injury
> or death with the involvement someone else's motor vehicle is light
> years away from that state, and I cannot fathom that anyone other than
> the mentally deranged would attempt it as a way to financially support
> their relatives.
That's because you have failed to see (or remnark on) the similarities and
have dwelt only on things which are differences between the things compared.
Quelle surprise.
>>> Well, that's the crux of the argument. Why should I as a pedestrian be
>>> forced to insure against the costs of a moment's inattention from a
>>> chainsaw juggler who is sharing the pavement with me? What's that? I
>>> don't? You say the courts will probably start from a position that
>>> juggling chainsaws on the pavement is pretty damn dangerous
>>> intrinsically?
>> I think they would. Unlike driving.
> If you're going to claim that being in notional charge of a one tonne
> vehicle capable of 90 mph, controlled by a means so laughably primitive
> that a moment's inattention can and often does result in injury and
> death, is not intrinsically dangerous, then I don't think we have much
> common ground at all for this discussion.
I'd come to that conclusion as soon as you resorted to the Dougisms. I wanted
to see how far out you'd go.
> The statistics don't agree
> with you and the Government don't seem to agree with you either. At
> least, I assume that they would not bother requiring driving tests and
> MOT certificates and insurance and all that palaver if they didn't think
> driving was dangerous.
If the government thought that driving was dangerous, they'd ban it. I'd go
further: they'd be under s duty to ban it.
But hold on... *dangerous driving* (as distinct from driving) is an offence
and on conviction, a perp can be punished - severely. Still worse is causing
death by dangerous driving.
Fancy your not knowing that. Famcy your thinking that driving and dangerous
driving were the same thing. It explains your position, though.
>>>> There is no evidence that there is a denial of justice in the current
>>>> situation. In order to show that, you would have to show that the
>>>> driver was at fault - in the courts (or through the claim-sttling
>>>> machinery of the insurance companies).
>>> That's a completely circular argument, and you know it.
>> It is your position that is circular; you start from an untenable
>> position ("those who are not responsible are respoonsible") and then
>> insist on referring every answer back through a loop that crosses that
>> point.
> Your position appears to be that the courts do not deny justice because
> justice is by definition what the courts deliver.
In the case of legal justice (as opposed to any other vague and undefined
notion of "justice", that is true.
Your position appears to be that justice is only delivered when what you,
personally, want to happen, happens.
One needs to start this sort of discussion from a socially-shared premise,
and the generally shared premise with regard to justice, punishment, truth
and the British way is that guilt/fault/negligence/whatever has to be proved.
Additionally, no-one needs to prove either innocence or lack of fault.
> If I have
> misrepresented you there then please feel free to say so, but on the
> face of it that's either circular, or trivially true but utterly
> unhelpful.
No, you were right; justice (in the legal sense - and you are arguing for a
legal process) is what the courts produce.
> I don't understand the position you have attributed to me.
I suspected that you didn't. I wonder whether you can possibly have thought
through the consequences of a system which punishes (or penalises) people who
have not done anything wrong. Can you really not see where that could go?
But let's not get into Godwinisms as well as Dougisms.
> I would
> describe my position as "those who are doing the intrinsically more
> dangerous things should have a greater burden of proof required of them
> to demonstrate they were doing so safely".
I've encountered that before.
> Obviously if you don't agree
> that driving a car is more dangerous than walking along the road then
> you will not see a lot worth discussing in this position, but I still
> don't see any circularity.
Your belief appears to be that the driver is always wrong. If you reference
every point and response from that, you will be putting circular arguments.
I, OTOH, do not take a dogmatic view of this issue.
*If* the driver is in the wrong and has caused injury or damage, he should
pay (and may need to be made to pay).
If he isn't and hasn't, he shouldn't be made to pay.
>> Have you always had this belief that others are only there to pay for
>> what you want, or is it a relatively recent development?
> Erm? Why do you assume I am not a driver?
I don't.
Daniel Barlow
> If you mean it isn't an identical case... I have some news for you
> about what an analogy is.
I know what an analogy is. It's rhetorical device to enable sneaking an
insult into the conversation under the guise of a helpful comparison.
For example, likening the accidental authors of their own misfortune to
muggers.
>> The statistics don't agree
>> with you and the Government don't seem to agree with you either. At
>> least, I assume that they would not bother requiring driving tests and
>> MOT certificates and insurance and all that palaver if they didn't think
>> driving was dangerous.
>
> If the government thought that driving was dangerous, they'd ban
> it. I'd go further: they'd be under s duty to ban it.
Not so. Many dangerous activities (quarrying, flying helicoptors,
setting off fireworks, most kinds of civil engineering) are not banned.
The Government would be (and is) under a duty to regulate them to ensure
that the people doing them take appropriate care to minimise the risk to
others. They do this with greater or lesser tightness depending on the
level of danger posed, the social/political acceptability of the
practice in question, and doubtless other factors such as economic good
and historical precedent.
> One needs to start this sort of discussion from a socially-shared
> premise, and the generally shared premise with regard to justice,
> punishment, truth and the British way is that
> guilt/fault/negligence/whatever has to be proved.
Very well, let's do that. Are you aware that your "generally shared
premise" is not completely shared with the legislators of English law?
There are many strict liability offences alread - both criminal and
civil. Here's an excerpt from a House of Lords ruling about trademarks,
for example
The European Court of Human Rights has recognised that the Convention
does not, in principle, prohibit presumptions of fact or law. What
article 6(2) requires is that they must be confined within reasonable
limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and
maintain the rights of the defence: Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR
379, 388, para 28. Thus, as elsewhere in the Convention, a reasonable
balance has to be held between the public interest and the interests
of the individual. In each case it is for the state to show that the
balance held in the legislation is reasonable. The derogation from
the presumption of innocence requires justification.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in the House of Lords - R v. Johnstone
and note that this case related to criminal law not civil law. The EHCR
says no similar thing about civil cases, and in civil law, as I'm sure
you know, the burden of proof is lower to start with. It's not as black
and white either as you make it out to be or as you (presumably) want it
to be.
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>> If you mean it isn't an identical case... I have some news for you
>> about what an analogy is.
> I know what an analogy is. It's rhetorical device to enable sneaking an
> insult into the conversation under the guise of a helpful comparison.
> For example, likening the accidental authors of their own misfortune to
> muggers.
Or, as in this case, far more like likening self-appointed and vengeful
control freaks to muggers.
>>> The statistics don't agree
>>> with you and the Government don't seem to agree with you either. At
>>> least, I assume that they would not bother requiring driving tests and
>>> MOT certificates and insurance and all that palaver if they didn't think
>>> driving was dangerous.
>> If the government thought that driving was dangerous, they'd ban
>> it. I'd go further: they'd be under s duty to ban it.
> Not so. Many dangerous activities (quarrying, flying helicoptors,
> setting off fireworks, most kinds of civil engineering) are not banned.
Neither, for the most part, are they allowed - and/or treated as safe
activities - in places accessible by the public. Driving certainly is treated
as a safe activity to be carried out in public in close proximity to members
of the public.
Come off it. You're going nowhere with that line.
Driving isn't dangerous. That's why we have a concept of exceptional,
abnormal, driving which *is* dangerous. If it were not for the first fact,
you couldn't have the second.
> The Government would be (and is) under a duty to regulate them to ensure
> that the people doing them take appropriate care to minimise the risk to
> others. They do this with greater or lesser tightness depending on the
> level of danger posed, the social/political acceptability of the
> practice in question, and doubtless other factors such as economic good
> and historical precedent.
>> One needs to start this sort of discussion from a socially-shared
>> premise, and the generally shared premise with regard to justice,
>> punishment, truth and the British way is that
>> guilt/fault/negligence/whatever has to be proved.
> Very well, let's do that. Are you aware that your "generally shared
> premise" is not completely shared with the legislators of English law?
I am aware that there is the concept of an absolute offence.
> There are many strict liability offences alread - both criminal and
> civil. Here's an excerpt from a House of Lords ruling about trademarks,
> for example
> The European Court of Human Rights has recognised that the Convention
> does not, in principle, prohibit presumptions of fact or law. What
> article 6(2) requires is that they must be confined within reasonable
> limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and
> maintain the rights of the defence: Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR
> 379, 388, para 28. Thus, as elsewhere in the Convention, a reasonable
> balance has to be held between the public interest and the interests
> of the individual. In each case it is for the state to show that the
> balance held in the legislation is reasonable. The derogation from
> the presumption of innocence requires justification.
> Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in the House of Lords - R v. Johnstone
> and note that this case related to criminal law not civil law. The EHCR
> says no similar thing about civil cases, and in civil law, as I'm sure
> you know, the burden of proof is lower to start with. It's not as black
> and white either as you make it out to be or as you (presumably) want it
> to be.
Please explain the "criminal" nature of the case you have cited.
Daniel Barlow
>> Not so. Many dangerous activities (quarrying, flying helicoptors,
>> setting off fireworks, most kinds of civil engineering) are not banned.
>
> Neither, for the most part, are they allowed - and/or treated as safe
> activities - in places accessible by the public. Driving certainly is
> treated as a safe activity to be carried out in public in close
> proximity to members of the public.
>
> Come off it. You're going nowhere with that line.
Name another activity conducted in a public place that requires
participants to buy public liability insurance and to obtain a licence
which is only issued after testing their ability to do so safely?
I can't think of one offhand.
> Driving isn't dangerous. That's why we have a concept of exceptional,
> abnormal, driving which *is* dangerous. If it were not for the first
> fact, you couldn't have the second.
I would agree with you that the resonably skilled and adequately trained
driver is not, generally speaking, dangerous. There are around 500
billion vehicle kilometres driven per year and only(sic) 3000 deaths
resulting. That's about, what, one death per hundred million miles?
But what we're discussing here *is* that rare, exceptional, abnormal
case. We are already into the margins. Excepting mechanical failure of
some kind, at least one of the parties to the collision has, in some
way, cocked up.
And in a collision involving a motorist and a pedestrian, the numbers
suggest it's more likely to be the motorist.
>> and note that this case related to criminal law not civil law. The EHCR
>> says no similar thing about civil cases, and in civil law, as I'm sure
>> you know, the burden of proof is lower to start with. It's not as black
>> and white either as you make it out to be or as you (presumably) want it
>> to be.
>
> Please explain the "criminal" nature of the case you have cited.
"Mr Johnstone was charged with having committed criminal offences under
section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 "
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030522/john-1.htm
-dan
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>>> Not so. Many dangerous activities (quarrying, flying helicoptors,
>>> setting off fireworks, most kinds of civil engineering) are not banned.
>> Neither, for the most part, are they allowed - and/or treated as safe
>> activities - in places accessible by the public. Driving certainly is
>> treated as a safe activity to be carried out in public in close
>> proximity to members of the public.
>> Come off it. You're going nowhere with that line.
> Name another activity conducted in a public place that requires
> participants to buy public liability insurance and to obtain a licence
> which is only issued after testing their ability to do so safely?
> I can't think of one offhand.
Does that mean it's dangerous?
NB: Given how dangerous it apparently is, cycling should be tested and licensed.
>> Driving isn't dangerous. That's why we have a concept of exceptional,
>> abnormal, driving which *is* dangerous. If it were not for the first
>> fact, you couldn't have the second.
> I would agree with you that the resonably skilled and adequately trained
> driver is not, generally speaking, dangerous. There are around 500
> billion vehicle kilometres driven per year and only(sic) 3000 deaths
> resulting. That's about, what, one death per hundred million miles?
> But what we're discussing here *is* that rare, exceptional, abnormal
> case. We are already into the margins. Excepting mechanical failure of
> some kind, at least one of the parties to the collision has, in some
> way, cocked up.
> And in a collision involving a motorist and a pedestrian, the numbers
> suggest it's more likely to be the motorist.
Which numbers?
>>> and note that this case related to criminal law not civil law. The EHCR
>>> says no similar thing about civil cases, and in civil law, as I'm sure
>>> you know, the burden of proof is lower to start with. It's not as black
>>> and white either as you make it out to be or as you (presumably) want it
>>> to be.
>> Please explain the "criminal" nature of the case you have cited.
> "Mr Johnstone was charged with having committed criminal offences under
> section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 "
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030522/john-1.htm
Passing-off? Breaching an intellectual property right?
That's not a controversial law.
And it would still be necessary to prove he had committed whatever offence it
wa said to be.