Motorist drives along pavement

ian henden wrote:
You really are a pillock. The car was not being driven at the time. It
was out of control. A loose cannon. If anyone COULD have controlled it *at
the time*, they would have done.

It is very true to say that prior to the actual "what you call driving", the
driver of the car had probably behaved extremely irresponsibly, which caused
the car to go out of control


That's like saying you are not responsible for shooting someone because
once the bullet left the gun it was out of the gun holder's control.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Martin gently breathed:
Tom Crispin wrote:

The Royal Parks prohibit all cycling on footpaths, other than marked
cycle routes and roads, but their regulations allow for children of
ten years and under to ride on paths when learning to ride safely.

That seems very sensible.

UTAPLC. If cycling on footpaths is dangerous, then how can learning to
ride on a footpath be learning to ride safely?

1. An adult cyclist on a full-sized bike going at a speed significantly
faster than walking pace on a pavement is a hazard to other pavement
users.

2. A young child on a child-sized bike learning to ride a slow speeds,
most probably under the control of a guardian, is much less of a hazard
to anyone.

3. Any cyclist attempting to actually get somewhere by use of pavements
is putting themselves at greater risk than if they travelled on the
road, due to the constant giving way at every side-road, etc.

The first two concern risk to other people. The third concerns risk to
the cyclist themselves. This situation doesn't really apply to No2, as
children learning to ride are by definition not yet at the "using the
bike to get somewhere" stage.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as spindrift
gently breathed:

The car in this incident was speeding, overtaking another car involved
in a previous altercation, and the driver lost control.

The fifteen year old girl hit by the car had her leg amputated
yesterday. Crippled for live because of an aggressive, ignorant,
selfish driver.

Al clear-cut case for arguing that the penalties imposed for the results
of offences should take account of the consequences of those actions,
deliberate or otherwise. The penalty for a deliberate act should still
be higher than for an accidental result of a reckless act, but the
difference should be between execution and life without parole, not
between six points and being let off entirely.

More on the draconian penalties killer drivers face:


Cars routinely sideswipe bicycles, overtake and turn left, harass,
intimidate and threaten.

A good argument for requiring all motorised vehicles to be fitted with
tamper-proof data recorders and continuous tracking devices. Driving a
motor vehicle is a privilege and should be treated as such.

For instance, take the case of Peter Williams, a 22-year-old cyclist
who was killed in January 2000 after a driver hit him with her wing
mirror. He fell under the wheels of a following vehicle. The driver
admitted driving without due care and attention but was fined just
£200. No penalty points were applied despite a history of offences
which would have meant an immediate ban under `totting up`. Phillip
Judge, Chairman of the Bench in Cheltenham, said a driving ban would
prevent her from taking her children the 2 miles to school and
therefore cause too much hardship.

The idea that punishments should not cause hardship to the offender is
a new one to me.

Indeed - rank stupidity of the highest order and the result of the
insane notion that convicted criminals have "human rights". Rights are
earned by complying with responsibilities to society, and should not be
absolute, and should be suspended partly or entirely (depending on the
severity of the offence) for convicted wrongdoers.

And walking four miles a day would do wonders for most childrens'
health.

Nor is this unusual. 25-year-old Carl Fox from Doncaster was killed by
a driver travelling at 46mph in a 30mph zone. The driver was fined
£100 and three penalty points. And Peter Longbottom, a racing cyclist
of international repute, was held to have contributed to his demise by
using a flashing rear light. The transport department has figures
showing that these, while technically illegal, are three to five times
more visible than a steady light.

And more recently 17-year-old Jason Salter was knocked off his bike and
killed by a woman who chose to try to overtake in the face of oncoming
traffic, necessitating her passing far too close - a situation
familiar to and dreaded by any regular cyclist. This triumph of
impatience over respect for human life netted the driver a whopping
£135 fine (less than the cost of a bicycle) and just six penalty
points.

Take the blame attached to a cyclist for being killed whilst possibly
wearing an Ipod. How many motorists have died while listening to the
radio? This is an important question because it points to the cyclists`
apartheid, where we are held to a higher standard while being fed a
steady diet of outrage, condescension and nannyish pats on the back:
all for the sin of being self-propelled.

It would help if we weren't seen in many quarters as habitual
law-breakers (red lights, pavement hooligans, etc), but there needs to
be a fundamental shift in opinion. People need to start regarding
driving a car into a city centre when they could have walked or cycled
(or taken public transport) the same way they already see drunk driving
- as anti-social behaviour.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Hansen gently breathed:

Perhaps, if the car was driving itself, as the police officer
asserts. However, in the "real world" cars don't drive themselves
but rather are driven by humans, usually called motorists.

Unless there was some mechanical failure, which is possible but
unlikely, the car crashed into the pedestrians because the motorist
turned the steering wheel, or operated some of the other controls in
such a way as to crash into the pedestrians.

Yes, but it is unlikely (though not, admittedly, impossible) that this
was the driver's deliberate intention. Unless he purposefully set out
to mow down that group of pedestrians and performed the preceding
manoeuvres deliberately to achieve that end, then it was still an
accident.

It can be argued (should, IMO, be argued) that penalties imposed by law
should take account of the results, as well as the intention, of any
criminal action - but that still doesn't turn an accident into murder.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:23:30 +0100 someone who may be Pyromancer
wrote this:-

but that still doesn't turn an accident into murder.

I did not claim that it was a murder.

It is always reassuring when the best people can do is to invent
someone else's position and then discuss that invention.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Mark
Thompson pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com
gently breathed:

All the funds that are squandered on rotting roadside "memorials"
should instead be collected and given to the surviving relatives to
help cover the (often quite steep) funeral expenses.

You mean the money that's spent on flowers should be given to the family to
buy more flowers?

Flowers are a fairly minor expense in a modern funeral. I lost a
relative last year, and the cost was not insignificant, even for a very
basic no-frills coffin and simple cremation.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

From: spindrift - Tues, Mar 21 2006

snip

"But then, you have to ask yourself why the cyclists
are on the pavement in the first place. What is it about the road which

persuades cyclists to ride on the pavement, despite the attendant
inconveniences of having to yield at every side turning, coming into
conflict with pedestrians and street furniture and so on? What could be

scaring these cyclists off the roads? It couldn't possibly be the way
cars are driven, could it?"

Occasionally, but very often it isn't. Many pavement 'cyclists' are
doing it because they accept the car-culture's belief that a bicycle is
not a real vehicle and shoud not be on the road, sometimes combined
with a juvenille wish to be seen doing something which annoys other
people. Hence they often cycle on the pavements of roads with no motor
traffic in sight, or on footways alongside cycleways: the whole idea is
to display allegiance to the car-culture, rather than promote personal
safety.

"Cycling on the footway is also more dangerous than cycling on the
road,
and causes distress to pedestrians. So don't do it. "

Absolutely. But we're not likely to be heeded by the offenders: as
above danger is rarely the issue and sometimes there is a deliberate
intention to cause annoyance/distress.

A friend's teenage son was a case in point. His parents' eventually
took away disposed of his bicycle because he:
- refused to fit lights, then when his father fitted them took off the
rear light and angled the front so it would shine in the faces of
pedestrians he met while riding on the pavement (and kept riding in the
dark without the rear light).
- refused to stop riding on pavements, even in the quiet cul-de-sac
where they lived.
The only reason he gave was that 'his friends would laugh at him' if he
cycled on the road or had lights.

Jon