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
-
AndyMc..... wrote: »So what's your point? He hasn't escaped justice.
You may feel so. I would disagree. He is likely out driving again now.
What is it that its felt unreasonable to remove someones driving rights?
Time and time again you see cases of people with horrendous driving records being handed out short term bans.
Ever heard of a lifetime ban?0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »Cause of death unlawfull killing then someone should be brought to account. I think in the case of your bus driver it will be accidental, ie no one really to blame.
No ones to blame. So there was nothing the driver could have done?
The professional driver.
I have to ask,do you drive?0 -
You may feel so. I would disagree. He is likely out driving again now.
What is it that its felt unreasonable to remove someones driving rights?
Time and time again you see cases of people with horrendous driving records being handed out short term bans.
Ever heard of a lifetime ban?
Yes for all the good they do. I encountered someone with two.0 -
-
AndyMc..... wrote: »I don’t make the rules.
No but it seems your opinion is it was an accident. Is that right?
completely unavoidable?0 -
-
AndyMc..... wrote: »No, I said the cause of death is likely to be recorded as accidental.
Which comes right back to how these deaths are viewed.
Peoples interpretation and how disposable a cyclists life is.
Why is this an accident?
The driver admitted they were driving faster than their viewable stopping distance.
The hadn't cleared their windscreen and (though not proven) likely had no working washer jets on leaving their depot.0 -
Which comes right back to how these deaths are viewed.
Peoples interpretation and how disposable a cyclists life is.
Why is this an accident?
The driver admitted they were driving faster than their viewable stopping distance.
The hadn't cleared their windscreen and (though not proven) likely had no working washer jets on leaving their depot.
It’s an accident because the prosecution failed to convict.0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »How can it catch the light if you turn right across their path?
The car turns across the road, the lights catch the reflective panels, that's fairly obvious?
If the trousers were "light reflective" as described and well designed such as the link below, they will catch the light from all angles
https://www.provizsports.com/en-gb/nightrider-mens-waterproof-trousers.htmlSam 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: »So what's your point? He hasn't escaped justice.
He got a short driving ban and some community service.
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.
The judge's comments really sum up the attitude of the law towards cyclists - the death was caused by the driver losing concentration but he apparently wasn't to blame for the fault! Even better, the judge promoted himself to a high level of scientific knowledge sufficient to decide that the lack of a helmet (which is not a legal requirement, and of limited effect in accidents (scientifically proven) thus irrelevant) contributed. Such a judge should be struck off and someone with a brain put in placeSam 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
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