|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jumps red light for safety, but what about the child? (onthe back)
On 26/09/2017 10:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 09:55, TMS320 wrote: On 25/09/17 13:27, Nick wrote: The point is I'm not convinced Alliston was doing anything worse. I don't disagree. Some people seem to have more issue with the noises Alliston made, than his mechanical actions. After all, the fact of him having no front brake, the physics involved and the collision with Mrs Briggs weren't in doubt so the only point of the trial was to look inside his head and set the sentence based on what they found in there. I posted this just before reading about the driver going ahead with the teacher on his bonnet. With sentencing based on state of mind, not consequences, 10 months looks rather lenient in comparison. Refusal to park properly and walk 100 yards should also have been added to the package. Not traffic related but you could read also about suspend sentence for Lavinia Woodward who was "too bright" to be given a prison sentence after stabbing her boyfriend and then breaking bail conditions. Being poor and rude words seems to be a critical factor. Funny, I would much prefer to be sworn at than physically damaged. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jumps red light for safety, but what about the child? (onthe back)
On 26/09/2017 10:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 09:55, TMS320 wrote: On 25/09/17 13:27, Nick wrote: The point is I'm not convinced Alliston was doing anything worse. I don't disagree. Some people seem to have more issue with the noises Alliston made, than his mechanical actions. After all, the fact of him having no front brake, .... or, indeed, any brakes at all... the physics involved and the collision with Mrs Briggs weren't in doubt so the only point of the trial was to look inside his head and set the sentence based on what they found in there. I posted this just before reading about the driver going ahead with the teacher on his bonnet. With sentencing based on state of mind, not consequences, 10 months looks rather lenient in comparison. Refusal to park properly and walk 100 yards should also have been added to the package. If that's the case reported today on the TV news, I'm inclined to agree tht 18 months for the driving offence cannot possibly be described as harsh and that there was a lot of room for improvement of the sentence. It could as easily have ended up with the victim dead under the front wheels and it's no thanks to the driver that it didn't. Not sure about the imaginary "offence" of refusing to park properly, though I agree that parking obstructively is more serious than it sounds (though mey well be disconnected from that case). If there were an offence of refusing to walk 100 yards, the most obvious culprits would be cyclists cycling the first and last n yards of their journeys on footways and the yobs who cycle through pedestrianised zones (especially when there's a service of remembrance going on). |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jumps red light for safety, but what about the child? (onthe back)
On 26/09/2017 15:25, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2017 10:15, TMS320 wrote: On 26/09/17 09:55, TMS320 wrote: On 25/09/17 13:27, Nick wrote: The point is I'm not convinced Alliston was doing anything worse. I don't disagree. Some people seem to have more issue with the noises Alliston made, than his mechanical actions. After all, the fact of him having no front brake, ... or, indeed, any brakes at all... the physics involved and the collision with Mrs Briggs weren't in doubt so the only point of the trial was to look inside his head and set the sentence based on what they found in there. I posted this just before reading about the driver going ahead with the teacher on his bonnet. With sentencing based on state of mind, not consequences, 10 months looks rather lenient in comparison. Refusal to park properly and walk 100 yards should also have been added to the package. If that's the case reported today on the TV news, I'm inclined to agree tht 18 months for the driving offence cannot possibly be described as harsh and that there was a lot of room for improvement of the sentence. It could as easily have ended up with the victim dead under the front wheels and it's no thanks to the driver that it didn't. [snip] I take that back, in part. I see that the lenient sentence was not even as much as 18 months. It was apparently only 10 months. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jumps red light for safety, but what about the child? (onthe back)
On 26/09/17 15:25, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2017 10:15, TMS320 wrote: On 26/09/17 09:55, TMS320 wrote: On 25/09/17 13:27, Nick wrote: The point is I'm not convinced Alliston was doing anything worse. I don't disagree. Some people seem to have more issue with the noises Alliston made, than his mechanical actions. After all, the fact of him having no front brake, ... or, indeed, any brakes at all... the physics involved and the collision with Mrs Briggs weren't in doubt so the only point of the trial was to look inside his head and set the sentence based on what they found in there. I posted this just before reading about the driver going ahead with the teacher on his bonnet. With sentencing based on state of mind, not consequences, 10 months looks rather lenient in comparison. Refusal to park properly and walk 100 yards should also have been added to the package. If that's the case reported today on the TV news, I'm inclined to agree tht 18 months for the driving offence cannot possibly be described as harsh and that there was a lot of room for improvement of the sentence. It could as easily have ended up with the victim dead under the front wheels and it's no thanks to the driver that it didn't. Your later correction acknowledged. Not sure about the imaginary "offence" of refusing to park properly, though I agree that parking obstructively is more serious than it sounds (though mey well be disconnected from that case). If there were an offence of refusing to walk 100 yards, It's part of assessing the offender's state of mind at the time of the incident. Perhaps... a bit like shouting. You always seem to be keen on the idea that state of mind is more important than the events. the most obvious culprits would be cyclists cycling the first and last n yards of their journeys on footways and the yobs who cycle through pedestrianised zones (especially when there's a service of remembrance going on). Since you didn't get it, the comment about driving 100 yards was a dig at the laziness of many people. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jumps red light for safety, but what about the child? (onthe back)
On 26/09/2017 19:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/09/17 15:25, JNugent wrote: On 26/09/2017 10:15, TMS320 wrote: On 26/09/17 09:55, TMS320 wrote: On 25/09/17 13:27, Nick wrote: The point is I'm not convinced Alliston was doing anything worse. I don't disagree. Some people seem to have more issue with the noises Alliston made, than his mechanical actions. After all, the fact of him having no front brake, ... or, indeed, any brakes at all... the physics involved and the collision with Mrs Briggs weren't in Â*doubt so the only point of the trial was to look inside his head and set the sentence based on what they found in there. I posted this just before reading about the driver going ahead with Â*the teacher on his bonnet. With sentencing based on state of mind, not consequences, 10 months looks rather lenient in comparison. Refusal to park properly and walk 100 yards should also have been added to the package. If that's the case reported today on the TV news, I'm inclined to agree tht 18 months for the driving offence cannot possibly be described as harsh and that there was a lot of room for improvement of the sentence. It could as easily have ended up with the victim dead under the front wheels and it's no thanks to the driver that it didn't. Your later correction acknowledged. Not sure about the imaginary "offence" of refusing to park properly, Â*though I agree that parking obstructively is more serious than it sounds (though mey well be disconnected from that case). If there were an offence of refusing to walk 100 yards, It's part of assessing the offender's state of mind at the time of the incident. Perhaps... a bit like shouting. You always seem to be keen on the idea that state of mind is more important than the events. It is important. Crimes require the mens rea element (which can be as flimsy as recklessness, of course, as Alliston now knows). the most obvious culprits would be cyclists cycling the first and last n yards of their journeys on footways and the yobs who cycle through pedestrianised zones (especially when there's a service of remembrance going on). Since you didn't get it, the comment about driving 100 yards was a dig at the laziness of many people. Oh, I got it. And I applied it correctly. Pushing a car 100 yards (with proper safe control over it to boot) may be thought a little beyond most of us without help with the steering, braking, etc. Pushing a bicycle 100 yards (eg, through a pedestrian-only area, or through an area where vehicles have temporarily been prohibited, eg for a religious service) is quite another thing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist mows down a child, blames the child and clears off. | MrCheerful | UK | 3 | November 30th 16 05:44 PM |
Cyclist batters child cyclist after crash in a park | MrCheerful | UK | 30 | October 21st 16 08:03 AM |
Child maimed by pavement cyclist, guess what? The cyclist rode away. | MrCheerful | UK | 17 | March 31st 16 02:51 PM |
Like it or not, most Americans must go around with the bike on theback of the car to get somewhere | ComandanteBanana | Social Issues | 101 | July 20th 09 05:31 PM |
A Poster Child for Safety Gear I Am.... | Trapper | Unicycling | 4 | September 12th 05 02:13 PM |