On 22/04/2017 15:46, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:25:23 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 22/04/2017 08:05, Bod wrote:
On 21/04/2017 23:24, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2017 17:56, Bod wrote:
On 21/04/2017 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2017 15:41, Bod wrote:
On 21/04/2017 15:12, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2017 12:46, Bod wrote:
On 21/04/2017 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2017 11:00, Bod wrote:

On 21/04/2017 10:57, Bod wrote:

*How was this not "dangerous driving"*?

Abdelyekini Olafusi was found guilty of careless driving
after he
ran
down the woman in Clerkenwell.

Olafusi clipped the back of the 41-year-old cyclist’s wheel
when he
turned right at traffic lights on Gray's Inn Road on May 27.

The cyclist, an Italian woman, fell off her bike to the ground
but
Olafusi did not stop and continued to drive over her.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...-a3519751.html










*Correction* dangerous driving

The distinction is whether driving falls below the required
standard or
far below the required standard.

The latter is always (and rightly) hard to prove.

But the driver got a 15 month ban and a significant fine (£1250
IIRC,
and no mean penalty for someone whose livelihood has just been
withdrawn
from him).

I wouldn't like to be on the paying end of his next insurance
premium,
either.

Should he also have been fastened to a hurdle, drawn by horse
to a
place
of execution, then hanged (almost to the point of death),
emasculated,
disembowelled, beheaded and quartered (chopped into four pieces)?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

It is NOT illegal to use a hands free phone whilst driving so one
assumes that he was holding the phone.

Not really, since there is no report of a charge for that. The
story
goes on at length about use of a mobile phone, and it may well be
that
he was using an ordinary hand-held phone (thereby doing so
illegally),
but it doesn't actually say so, which is sort of my point.

People with phones stuck to their ears should be made an
example of
with
jail sentences. That'll immediately greatly reduce the
incidences of
these sort of accidents.

You do know that use of a hand-held phone while driving is not
punishable by a prison sentence, don't you?

And that it isn't even always an offence?

Read what I said again "People with phones stuck to their ears
should be
made an example of with jail sentences"
I never said it was prisonable at the moment.

That's what you call a squirm, isn't it?

A squirm for simply suggesting it being made an imprisonable offence?

You need to hon your reading and comprehension skills.

That is not what you wrote.

This is what I wrote ""People with phones stuck to their ears should be
made an example of with jail sentences".

Which way do *you* comprehend that sentence?

That the sentencing power is currently available to the courts, of
course (but it isn't).

No, he said it *should* be (although I completely disagree with his
opinion).

Even the most fascistic cyclist would not suggest that such draconian
punishment for a relatively minor offence should be automatic and not
properly considered by a court.

You have seen the posts from the cycling nuts in here, right? There are
plenty who think every little misdemeanour in a car should result in
immediate death/castration/deportation.

But I might be wrong in that last belief. Now that you have amplified
your meaning, we do now appear to have a case of a fascist urging that
citizens ought to be thrown into prison without due process and without
the possibility of defence or mitigation. Even house-burglars are
treated than that.

When did he say there doesn't need to be evidence?

Looks like Nugent is a bit of a Walter Mitty.