A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Woman crushes neighbour's car



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old January 19th 09, 04:15 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:05:47 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip

Motorists who kill should face manslaughter charges. It defies all
sense of justice that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed four
cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, and the killed effectively
ignored.



Do you always have to lie or distort the facts for you own purposes.

Please provide a link to the story you are referencing so that people
may see you lies.



Ads
  #103  
Old January 19th 09, 06:22 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:58:32 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Why should killing with a car be treated differently from killing with
a gun?


How long did it take you to find that one isolated example?


I was already aware of the killing. One Google for "dad kills son"
brought up the article.
  #104  
Old January 19th 09, 06:27 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Brimstone[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 437
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:58:32 -0000, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Why should killing with a car be treated differently from killing
with a gun?


How long did it take you to find that one isolated example?


I was already aware of the killing. One Google for "dad kills son"
brought up the article.


Why would one use such a search term?





  #105  
Old January 19th 09, 06:52 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Marc[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,589
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

Phil W Lee wrote:
BrianW considered Sun, 18 Jan 2009
13:46:51 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On 18 Jan, 20:18, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:13:41 -0000, "Brimstone"





wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:42:01 +0000, Marc
wrote:
Well I'm a cyclist, with an interest in environmental matters, and I
find Dughs posts not only embarrarising but counter productive;
anyone else?
I would put him on a par with Troll B, but his posts are marginally
better than Troll J's diatribe.
The Daily Wail's photo of the Mercedes mounting the Chrysler was very
amusing, though I put it down to an unfortunate mishap rather than
evidence of an incompetent motorist.
Doug also has some valid points.
Motorists who kill should face manslaughter charges. ?It defies all
sense of justice that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed four
cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, and the killed effectively
ignored.
Can you imagine a scaffolder whose scaffolding collapsed killing four
pedestrians facing a fine for having faulty scaffolding, and the
killing ignored? ?No - the scaffolder would face charges of criminal
negligence and manslaughter.
Only if the evidence showed him to be negligent.
Surely that would be for a jury to decide.

The evidence has to show that the defendant was grossly negligent -
it's a higher standard than ordinary negligence. The CPS will decide
whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution before it
gets before a jury.


I would have thought that driving with any defective tyre in
conditions known to be particularly slippery (scraping the windscreen
being a good indicator of this) could be reasonably interpreted as
negligent, and the fact that 3 tyres were defective could just as
reasonably be interpreted as raising that to gross negligence.

However, I think it's more pertinent that he was clearly driving at a
speed that was in excess of what was safe for the conditions (and
nobody else appeared to have the same difficulty in controlling their
vehicles on that road under those conditions



Errrr the police car that was called to the accident had trouble ( If I
remember correctly) and another police car had reported a problem with
that bit of road , but the message hadn't been forwarded to the LA.

I'm not excusing the driver, for the bald tyres, or the CSA for nor
prosecuting, but it is very difficult when there are variable surfaces
to make a one speed fits all policy. If he had left 20 seconds ealrier
or later, if the club's waitress had been faster or slower, all we would
have had would be another car in the hedge.
  #106  
Old January 19th 09, 07:08 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Marc[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,589
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

Conor wrote:
In article , says...

Good.

I assume that the board is made up of sensible/educated/knowledgeable
people - it looks like they have rightly overridden your view - for
interest were you in a minority of one?

I wouldn't necessarily equate being educated with being able to make
the right decision as the teachers on my sons recent trip to London
demonstrated on Friday. They decided to take a girl who had scalded
herself, when she spilt a boiling hot drink, to the point of blistering
over an hour and 55 miles back home to a town with no A&E when they
passed within 1 mile of a hospital easily accessible by coach 10
minutes away from where the event occurred.


Right decision for who?


Option 1

Take bus , children, child and Teacher(s) to hospital , everyone waits.

Option 2

Take bus Children, Child and Teacher(s) to Hospital, leave child and
Teacher(s) behind ( if you brought enough teachers in first place to
meet the LA's adukt child ratio to be able to leave one or more
behind).Teacher(s) suffer major inconvinience getting home.


Option 3

Take Children, child, and teacher(s) back to School, and now it's the
parent's problem.


If you decide who's time is most important , then the answer follows.
  #107  
Old January 19th 09, 08:13 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
jsabine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

Brimstone wrote:


You're quite right Doug, the "playing field" is decidedly not level.
Offending motorists get punished more severely that do people
convicted of manslaughter.


A moment with Google suggests you're quite, quite wrong.

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../vo060720/text
/60720w1849.htm - a written answer in 2006 - has a table showing that
custodial sentences for manslaughter between 1996-2004 averaged around
60 months.


http://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/cons...gerous_driving
..pdf - ROSPA's input to the sentencing advisory panel in 2007 - says,
inter alia:

"Sentencing statistics show that average sentence lengths for the
offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence
of drink or drugs have altered very little in the years 1999-2005,
remaining close to an average of 42 months. However, average sentence
levels for causing death by dangerous driving have shown a gradual
increase, from 35 months in 1999 to 44 months in 2004."



--
John
  #108  
Old January 19th 09, 08:13 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

On 19 Jan 2009 15:18:13 GMT, Adrian wrote:

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Please provide a link to the story you are referencing so that people
may see you lies.


He's referring to this :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412.stm
(Inquest verdict -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm )



Ah good - so when he said:

"that a motorist with four bald tyres who killed four
cyclists was fined for having bald tyres, "

he was actually incorrect in two places:
1) when he said that the motorist had "four bald tyres"
2) when he said that he was "fined for having bald tyres"


Any idea why he lies so regularly?

Is he really entrusted with teaching children?


(PS - I don't mind people making mistakes - we all do that now and
again. However, I do object to people deliberately distorting the
facts and lying when they know that that is what they are doing)




  #109  
Old January 19th 09, 08:19 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
jsabine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

BrianW wrote:

On 19 Jan, 06:39, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:14:33 -0800 (PST), BrianW





wrote:
On 18 Jan, 22:18, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:46:51 -0800 (PST), BrianW


wrote:
The evidence has to show that the defendant was grossly

negligent - it's a higher standard than ordinary negligence.
?The CPS will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to
warrant prosecution before it gets before a jury.

Perhaps ordinary negligence should suffice, especially if it

makes drivers take more care.

Really? *So you'd be in favour of applying the civil law
definition of negligence (failure to take reasonable care towards
a person to whom you owe a duty of care) to all killings. *Gosh,
the jails will fill up rather quickly.


Or perhaps you are only in favour of such a move in respect of
killer drivers? *If so, I offer you "causing death by dangerous
driving" and "causing death by careless driving".


Are you another of these people, like Doug, who likes to criticise
things without bothering to find out anything about it? *It would
seem so ...


A man who shot and killed his son was charged with manslaughter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1494...n-on-night-tim
e...

Why should killing with a car be treated differently from killing
with a gun?-


Oh my God, you really are Doug Bollen, aren't you?

As you are such an expert on this, you will obviously know the
following stats/information:

1. Average sentence handed down for manslaughter
2. Average sentence handed down for causing death by dangerous
driving.
3. Sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving.

You'll be able to show us, using the above, that the law treats
motorists more leniently than other, non-deliberate, killers.

Go ahead ...


I've responded elsewhere in the thread with sources but to answer your
1&2: 1996-2004, average manslaughter sentence approx 60 months; causing
death by DD averaged 35 months in 1999 rising to 44 months in 2004.

--

John
  #110  
Old January 19th 09, 08:22 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
jsabine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default Woman crushes neighbour's car

Brimstone wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
Does your use of the word "drivers" include those who are driving
al types of road vehicle?


I would have no problem with a cyclist who killed while cycling
being charged with manslaughter.


Why do you think that a charge of manslaughter is preferable to the
present charge which carries a greater maximum penalty?


Eh?

Manslaughter: max sentence = life

Causing death by DD: max sentence = 14 years

Causing death while on a pushbike: no idea what max sentence is but
it's unlikely to be greater than life

--

John
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why not a woman?? [email protected] Racing 84 October 18th 07 03:29 PM
Old woman lardyninja UK 19 September 30th 07 12:42 AM
Neighbour's Kids TREK Josey UK 10 March 25th 07 10:16 AM
Dutch rubs neighbour's nose in it Shane Stanley Australia 6 October 23rd 06 11:39 PM
NoCom racer CRUSHES Sri Chinmoy 400 km race record by 23 minutes windbreaker jacket $65.00 Johnny Recumbent Biking 3 January 31st 05 12:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.