Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free

On 7 May, 15:05, JNugent wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 6 May, 21:48, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.
http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000...
The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.
As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.
On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the
charge also appears wrong.
Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in
Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care &
attention, and Reckless Driving?
The report states that the conviction was for causing death by careless
driving (ie, causing death by driving without due care and attention).
I'd be fairly certain that this is as new an offence in Scotland as it is in
the rest of the UK. And equally sure that it is a charge used where the
prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone
here can)
"the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case
than anyone here can)"
Really? You don't say? Well, why have you never reminded us of that
useful fact before?

What are you talking about (assuming you know)?

I know, and you, being omniscient, must know too.

On 7 May, 13:53, ash wrote:
On 6 May, 19:16, David Hansen wrote:



The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000....

The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.

As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.

--
* David Hansen, Edinburgh
*I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
*http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

To negotiate a bend isn't tantamount to murder, it is either dangerous
driving or undue care and attention. The laws punish on the actions,
not the consequences unless the actions can be proven to be carried
out with intent. He comes across as a badly trained knob who cannot
control his temper. I can think of a few on here who also fit that
description.

Oh lor'

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

In a very real sense are we not all guilty.

********.

Treated as a second class road user, I won't share motorists' guilt.

On Fri, 7 May 2010 04:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

Judge didn't think that 10 mph over the limit was reckless. No,
probably not, the majority of motorists do it. And they know best.
Until it goes wrong. And then the full majesty of the law is thrown at
their wrist.

At least 25% over the speed limit. It's a huge amount in excess of
what is legal.

On 7 May, 17:42, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 04:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

Judge didn't think that 10 mph over the limit was reckless. No,
probably not, the majority of motorists do it. And they know best.
Until it goes wrong. And then the full majesty of the law is thrown at
their wrist.

At least 25% over the speed limit. It's a huge amount in excess of
what is legal.

What is legal, or illegal and what is reckless are not one and the
same. The rule of 'Drive or ride at a speed that will allow you to
stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' is a sensible
one.

This is why different countries have different speed limits - because
not all legislation is enforced by yogurt knitters the world over.

Squashme wrote:

Forget helmets for cyclists, personality tests for motorists could
save quite a few lives.

If you had to take a personality test - they wouldnd't find one.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Squashme wrote:
On 6 May, 19:16, David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000...

The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.

As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.


Judge didn't think that 10 mph over the limit was reckless.

Neither did the highly experienced & knowledgeable police road traffic
investigator.

The judge actually said " had you been driving at a speed 'considered by the
police' to be reckless".


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On 7 May, 22:30, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
ash considered Fri, 7 May 2010 09:59:09
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On 7 May, 17:42, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 04:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

Judge didn't think that 10 mph over the limit was reckless. No,
probably not, the majority of motorists do it. And they know best.
Until it goes wrong. And then the full majesty of the law is thrown at
their wrist.

At least 25% over the speed limit. It's a huge amount in excess of
what is legal.

What is legal, or illegal and what is reckless are not one and the
same. The rule of 'Drive or ride at a speed that will allow you to
stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' is a sensible
one.

I find it hard to think how driving between 25 and 50% over the speed
limit and at such speed that you cannot even manage to keep the
vehicle on the correct side of the road or even pointing in the right
direction can be regarded as anything but reckless.

Well obviously he got it very wrong, and that is plainly obvious, but
loss of control is exactly that and to suggest that once this point
has been passed, he could have magically saved the situation is really
to misunderstand the situation completely to a point of naivety where
controlling the mass of a 1.5 tonne vehicle is concerned.

There are many places marked as the NSL which you would be foolish to
attempt to negotiate at 50% below the posted limit let alone 25% below
it and so it comes down to driver ability to interpret and respond to
the changing circumstances as well as actually exercise skill in
control of the vehicle itself. The former takes a lot more practice
than the latter from my experience, and you never stop learning.


This is why different countries have different speed limits - because
not all legislation is enforced by yogurt knitters the world over.

Indeed, most European countries have speed limits lower than ours, and
greater penalties for breaking them.
It's a shame the judge didn't appear to have any real interest in
enforcing the law, or even any real knowledge of what the law is.

And conversely many also have higher. To suggest that a posted 60mph
NSL on a narrow twisty and damp country lane is safer than the NSL on
a wide open empty and straight 70mph dual carriageway simply because
it is 15% lower is just an awful use of the straw man and does this
representation of applied speed limits no favours whatsoever.

The safest and obviously the most sensible rule of all is as I stated
above, and this really negates all other assertions you might bring
forth on certain lower continental speed limits - 'Drive or ride at a
speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see
to be clear'

On 7 May, 19:36, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Squashme wrote:
Forget helmets for cyclists, personality tests for motorists could
save quite a few lives.

If you had to take a personality test - they wouldnd't find one.


Here's a poster boy for you. He acted out your rage and fantasies:-
http://tinyurl.com/33xxmrp

On 7 May, 23:27, ash wrote:
On 7 May, 22:30, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

ash considered Fri, 7 May 2010 09:59:09
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 7 May, 17:42, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 04:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

Judge didn't think that 10 mph over the limit was reckless. No,
probably not, the majority of motorists do it. And they know best.
Until it goes wrong. And then the full majesty of the law is thrown at
their wrist.

At least 25% over the speed limit. It's a huge amount in excess of
what is legal.

What is legal, or illegal and what is reckless are not one and the
same. The rule of 'Drive or ride at a speed that will allow you to
stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' is a sensible
one.

I find it hard to think how driving between 25 and 50% over the speed
limit and at such speed that you cannot even manage to keep the
vehicle on the correct side of the road or even pointing in the right
direction can be regarded as anything but reckless.

Well obviously he got it very wrong, and that is plainly obvious, but
loss of control is exactly that and to suggest that once this point
has been passed, he could have magically saved the situation is really
to misunderstand the situation completely to a point of naivety where
controlling the mass of a 1.5 tonne vehicle is concerned.


Well, once a drunk driver loses control, he can't magically save the
situation, so why should he be punished for the results?

Phil W Lee wrote:
ash considered Fri, 7 May 2010 09:59:09
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 7 May, 17:42, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2010 04:46:13 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

Judge didn't think that 10 mph over the limit was reckless. No,
probably not, the majority of motorists do it. And they know best.
Until it goes wrong. And then the full majesty of the law is
thrown at their wrist.

At least 25% over the speed limit. It's a huge amount in excess of
what is legal.

What is legal, or illegal and what is reckless are not one and the
same. The rule of 'Drive or ride at a speed that will allow you to
stop well within the distance you can see to be clear' is a sensible
one.

I find it hard to think how driving between 25 and 50% over the speed
limit and at such speed that you cannot even manage to keep the
vehicle on the correct side of the road or even pointing in the right
direction can be regarded as anything but reckless.

The highly experienced & knowledgeable police road traffic investigator
didn't consider it reckless. No doubt you think you are more qualified than
a specifically trained police officer?


This is why different countries have different speed limits - because
not all legislation is enforced by yogurt knitters the world over.

Indeed, most European countries have speed limits lower than ours, and
greater penalties for breaking them.

Source? Or are you making stuff up again?

It's a shame the judge didn't appear to have any real interest in
enforcing the law, or even any real knowledge of what the law is.

Why don't you become a judge - with your vast experience & knowledge? Oh I
forgot. You're a ****.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.