Ho ho ho

Squashme wrote:

On 18 Aug, 09:12, Matt B wrote:

[ ... ]

Perhaps a more accurate picture could be derived from figures for
pedestrians injured on the pavement by a vehicle being deliberately and
consciously used on the pavement.

Or a vehicle being carelessly or dangerously driven on the road, which
ends up killing or injuring pedestrians on the pavement,as opposed to
some physical failure of vehicle or driver which could be classed as
an accident. (Mind you, angry, stressed-out, overweight, middleaged
businessman has heart attack at wheel and scythes down pedestrian
never sounds exactly right for a true accident).

And it happens. It happened to someone I knew (when I was young). His
car mounted the footway in Liverpool's Lord Street (open to traffic on
those days) and hit a shop window. He was already dead. Still, I dare
say that there are some who think he should still have been prosecuted
for "driving on the pavement".

Luckily, he didn't take anyone with him (AFAIK).

But at least you're on the right path (no pun intended) - in seeing the
difference between being on the footway quite intentionally and being on
it unintentionally (death a split second earlier being a good enough
excuse for most people).

There is the problem
of cycle-paths actually marked on the (shared) pavement, as well as
the reversing van at the pedestrianised shopping centre and the
motorist coming out of his own driveway.

What's the "problem" connected with the use of driveways? I've been
using my series of driveways for more than thirty years and have never
encountered much of one.

In ,
Squashme tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Or a vehicle being carelessly or dangerously driven on the road, which
ends up killing or injuring pedestrians on the pavement,as opposed to
some physical failure of vehicle or driver which could be classed as
an accident. (Mind you, angry, stressed-out, overweight, middleaged
businessman has heart attack at wheel and scythes down pedestrian
never sounds exactly right for a true accident).

There wsa a case earlier this year in the Kings Road (London). I cannot now
recall whether anyone died except the driver, but IIRC at least three
pedestrians were knocked down.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Do not top-post like a Cretinous Foul-Yob fit only for Stoning.

Dave Larrington wrote:

Squashme tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Or a vehicle being carelessly or dangerously driven on the road, which
ends up killing or injuring pedestrians on the pavement,as opposed to
some physical failure of vehicle or driver which could be classed as
an accident. (Mind you, angry, stressed-out, overweight, middleaged
businessman has heart attack at wheel and scythes down pedestrian
never sounds exactly right for a true accident).

There wsa a case earlier this year in the Kings Road (London). I cannot now
recall whether anyone died except the driver, but IIRC at least three
pedestrians were knocked down.

I would imagine that there multiple similar cases every year.

Why it wouldn't count as a true accident (an unpredictable confluence of
inintended and non-contrived circumstances which produce an unforseen
outcome) is a mystery.

nully wrote:

Not 20%, but 100% of speeding motorists are fined.

Utter ********. Not even 100% of motorists *caught* speeding are fined. I know several
people who've been let off with a warning.

A.C.P.Crawshaw wrote:
nully wrote:

Not 20%, but 100% of speeding motorists are fined.

Utter ********. Not even 100% of motorists *caught* speeding are fined.
I know several people who've been let off with a warning.
Yep, and some people get away with it by using false addresses. I think
that there was a bloke who advocated using the details of recently
deceased persons. He had some sort of crank website if I remember correctly.
Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe wrote:
A.C.P.Crawshaw wrote:
nully wrote:

Not 20%, but 100% of speeding motorists are fined.

Utter ********. Not even 100% of motorists *caught* speeding are
fined. I know several people who've been let off with a warning.
Yep, and some people get away with it by using false addresses. I think
that there was a bloke who advocated using the details of recently
deceased persons. He had some sort of crank website if I remember
correctly.
Roger Thorpe

More pedantry. Okay, would you prefer it if I changed the text you
quoted to "Not 20%, but at least 98% of speeding motorists are fined."?

nully wrote:

More pedantry. Okay, would you prefer it if I changed the text you
quoted to "Not 20%, but at least 98% of speeding motorists are fined."?

Ah good! Negotiation. "everybody loves negotiation".

nully wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:14:43 +0100, nully wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:52:22 +0100, nully wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:16:47 +0100, nully wrote:

Oh? You can cite examples where speeding motorists are ignored by
the police? Well I'm sure we'd all like you to elucidate?
Every where they are less than 15% + 3mph (or whatever it is).

Perhaps you missed the "(more than a notional 'allowance' for error)"
that you snipped?
You are lying.

I did not miss it, I did not snip it, it was not present in your
posting, the totality of which reads:

LOL, why not try taking a look up the thread, where your first ********
post came in.

That _was_ my first post on the topic. My first post on the topic did
not snip anything in the message it was in response to. You lied
about it.

And please dont call me a liar

And you continue to lie about it, so now I'm killfiling you - it's
pointless talking to someone who is fundamentally incapable of even
knowing what they said in their immediately preceding post of a
thread.

How can I put this nicely for you? Ummmm, lemme try this. Call me a liar
again and I'll track you down and break your jaw. There, hope that makes
it clear for you )

You are a liar.

You can find me in the Preston phone book.

The "(more than a notional 'allowance' for error)" appeared in a
separate post. However, some police forces offer various forms of driver
safety course for people whom they consider to be minor offenders.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire http://www.shrimper.org.uk