We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Car and cycle collision
Comments
-
"If you're in the UK and want to kill someone, make sure you do it with a car, not a gun."In any walk of life if you killed 2 people you would be in jail, unless it's a cyclist in which case you can do whatever you like.If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »How can the lights catch a reflective strip on the back of some trousers is the cyclist is ringing towards a light source?
If your lights are not picking up day glo yellow trousers with multiple strips (not sure where you got the single strip on the back from) at night there's something wrong with them or you.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »What you fail to realise is these drivers aren't !!!!!! and never set out to kill someone. You have no experience of such cases being an ex postie other than the propaganda the press are allowed to report.
Causing death by dangerous driving does not require intent to kill, it simply requires the driver to kill someone through dangerous driving
e.g. from the sentencing guidelines council
a) a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
i) driving at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing road or weather conditions
p) driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially where commercial concerns had a bearing on the commission of the offence
q) failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road usersSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
If your lights are not picking up day glo yellow trousers with multiple strips (not sure where you got the single strip on the back from) at night there's something wrong with them or you.
I was wearing dayglo yellow top in broad daylight and the driver that hit me claimed he didn't see me as he pulled out of a petrol station. Too many drivers just aren't looking properly. That doesn't mean that cyclists don't need to light up and wear bright clothing.
Driving in London in late Autumn is always an exercise in quick reactions as cyclists zip around traffic dressed in black with no lights. Despite this I haven't hit any of them. Why? Because I'm looking for them.0 -
Causing death by dangerous driving does not require intent to kill, it simply requires the driver to kill someone through dangerous driving
e.g. from the sentencing guidelines council
a) a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
i) driving at a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing road or weather conditions
p) driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially where commercial concerns had a bearing on the commission of the offence
q) failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users
No one has claimed otherwise.0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »No one has claimed otherwise.
I didn't say they did. I have highlighted the relevant part of your own post belowAndyMc..... wrote: »What you fail to realise is these drivers aren't !!!!!! and never set out to kill someone. You have no experience of such cases being an ex postie other than the propaganda the press are allowed to report.
It doesn't matter if they never set out to kill someone. As per the sentence guidelines I posted above, if you commit one of several offences and kill someone you can be convicted of death by dangerous driving regardless of intent.
In the Scotland case, the driver approached a cyclist, wasn't paying attention and clipped the bike causing the death which comes under the 'q' section below so could be considered for it. The fact the judge considered the fact he has PTSD after an incident he himself caused shows the failings of the justice system in the UK.
In the Cumbria one the road conditions were described as wet from snow and road was narrow and that leading up to the accident the light was blinding him yet he didn't slow down as he approached the cyclists (if he had not seen them then he's just proven his own guilt) and then ran over them because he wasn't paying attention to the road ahead. Moreover he admitted he was driving at a speed where he couldn't stop in the distance he could see ahead due to his windscreen wipers not working because of the conditions yet again didn't slow down. The CPS clearly agreed and yet the jury cleared him despite clear and undeniable evidence of his guilt.
The jury system has a number of failings such as the fact unqualified people are expected to understand complex decisions and let personal bias influence the trialSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I didn't say they did. I have highlighted the relevant part of your own post below
It doesn't matter if they never set out to kill someone. As per the sentence guidelines I posted above, if you commit one of several offences and kill someone you can be convicted of death by dangerous driving regardless of intent.
In the Scotland case, the driver approached a cyclist, wasn't paying attention and clipped the bike causing the death which comes under the 'q' section below so could be considered for it. The fact the judge considered the fact he has PTSD after an incident he himself caused shows the failings of the justice system in the UK.
In the Cumbria one the road conditions were described as wet from snow and road was narrow and that leading up to the accident the light was blinding him yet he didn't slow down as he approached the cyclists (if he had not seen them then he's just proven his own guilt) and then ran over them because he wasn't paying attention to the road ahead. Moreover he admitted he was driving at a speed where he couldn't stop in the distance he could see ahead due to his windscreen wipers not working because of the conditions yet again didn't slow down. The CPS clearly agreed and yet the jury cleared him despite clear and undeniable evidence of his guilt.
The jury system has a number of failings such as the fact unqualified people are expected to understand complex decisions and let personal bias influence the trial
Thank you, I did say the criminal justice system is at fault.0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »Thank you, I did say the criminal justice system is at fault.
Well no. You actually saidAndyMc..... wrote: »But twelve fine members of society said he was innocent.0 -
Well no. You actually said
Did you miss this?AndyMc..... wrote: »Yet again you miss the point, it's the criminal justice system that's let them down.
The courts will never serve justice in your eyes because the system will not allow them to.0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »Did you miss this?
The reply 40 posts after your one about those 'fine members of society'?
I mean, I know I'm not qualified to comment in anyway as it seems I'm not worthy in your eyes.
however perhaps you could explain your point about these fine people then?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards