Can drivers use snow and ice as an excuse if they kill someone?

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:59:17 -0800, McKevvy wrote:

On Feb 6, 8:49Â*am, Richard McKenzie
wrote:
On Feb 6, 7:26Â*am, Doug wrote:

Bearing in mind the large number of crashes and some resulting deaths
during the freeze, will those killer drivers be allowed to get away
with it? They were advised to stay at home but they didn't have to.

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

You are supposed to drive as the road and conditions dictate. Do you
drive?

He only drives poeple on here up the wall with his no-stop anti motorist
crap.

McK.

Agreed.
I should be on his side. I am also against car dependency and pro
healthy economical eco-friendly low-carbon forms of transport. and low-
energy ways of living.
But I can never agree that a driver's licence is a licence to kill, and
I can never agree that motorized transport should be totally outlawed.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Feb 8, 7:40*am, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:59:17 -0800, McKevvy wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:49*am, Richard McKenzie
wrote:
On Feb 6, 7:26*am, Doug wrote:

Bearing in mind the large number of crashes and some resulting deaths
during the freeze, will those killer drivers be allowed to get away
with it? They were advised to stay at home but they didn't have to.

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

You are supposed to drive as the road and conditions dictate. Do you
drive?

He only drives poeple on here up the wall with his no-stop anti motorist
crap.

McK.

Agreed.
I should be on his side. *I am also against car dependency and pro
healthy economical eco-friendly low-carbon forms of transport. and low-
energy ways of living.
But I can never agree that a driver's licence is a licence to kill, *and
I can never agree that motorized transport should be totally outlawed.

I don't agree either that it should be totally outlawed. Instead I
believe it should be treated for what it is, a highly dangerous and
potentially lethal activity for which drivers should be held totally
responsible and punished accordingly, however pragmatic widespread
driving is seen to be.

Typically cyclists are often blamed for their own demise during a
crash and yet cyclists cannot kill drivers. It is the drivers who are
lethal not the cyclists.

Hence...

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

In message
,
Doug writes




Typically cyclists are often blamed for their own demise during a
crash and yet cyclists cannot kill drivers. It is the drivers who are
lethal not the cyclists.

Hence...

A driving licence is a licence to kill.

It's all relative.

From the way you go on, you would think that most drivers are regularly
responsible for killing cyclists (and other people), and that no cyclist
is ever responsible for causing the death of a driver (or other people).
Neither is true. It's only because drivers must have a licence to drive
that you can trot out "A driving licence is a licence to kill". It's
only because fact cyclists don't need to have a licence that you can't
say the same about them.
--
Ian

Doug wrote:

I don't agree either that it should be totally outlawed. Instead I
believe it should be treated for what it is, a highly dangerous and
potentially lethal activity for which drivers should be held totally
responsible and punished accordingly, however pragmatic widespread
driving is seen to be.

It's because it's accepted that it's a slightly risky activity that they
have to be tested for competence, licensed and compulsorily insured
before they are allowed to drive. Their vehicles also have to be
inspected for safety annually. It's also why there's a whole section of
law devoted exclusively to them.

But not every accident is the driver's fault - that's an obvious fact,
but one you seem unwilling to accept or unable to comprehend. There's
mechanical failure, totally unexpected and sudden medical conditions,
and other people acting stupidly, just for example.

Typically cyclists are often blamed for their own demise during a
crash and yet cyclists cannot kill drivers.

When they're blamed for their own demise, that's normally for a very
good reason. Usually it's their own stupidity.

Doug wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:40 am, Peter Keller wrote:

I should be on his side. I am also against car dependency and pro
healthy economical eco-friendly low-carbon forms of transport. and
low- energy ways of living.
But I can never agree that a driver's licence is a licence to kill,
and I can never agree that motorized transport should be totally
outlawed.

I don't agree either that it should be totally outlawed. Instead I
believe it should be treated for what it is, a highly dangerous and
potentially lethal activity for which drivers should be held totally
responsible and punished accordingly, however pragmatic widespread
driving is seen to be.

What exactly is your alternative to driving? Walking everywhere?
Teleporting?

Or do you say that a bus driver or train driver should be punished
automatically if anyone is killed or injured by a bus or train?

On 08/02/2012 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:40 am, Peter wrote:

I should be on his side. I am also against car dependency and pro
healthy economical eco-friendly low-carbon forms of transport. and
low- energy ways of living.
But I can never agree that a driver's licence is a licence to kill,
and I can never agree that motorized transport should be totally
outlawed.

I don't agree either that it should be totally outlawed. Instead I
believe it should be treated for what it is, a highly dangerous and
potentially lethal activity for which drivers should be held totally
responsible and punished accordingly, however pragmatic widespread
driving is seen to be.

What exactly is your alternative to driving? Walking everywhere?
Teleporting?

Apparently it's giant vertical cities.

Yes, I know.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:55:45 -0800, Doug wrote:



-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


No it isn't


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Feb 8, 10:01*am, "The Todal" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:40 am, Peter Keller wrote:
I should be on his side. I am also against car dependency and pro
healthy economical eco-friendly low-carbon forms of transport. and
low- energy ways of living.
But I can never agree that a driver's licence is a licence to kill,
and I can never agree that motorized transport should be totally
outlawed.

I don't agree either that it should be totally outlawed. Instead I
believe it should be treated for what it is, a highly dangerous and
potentially lethal activity for which drivers should be held totally
responsible and punished accordingly, however pragmatic widespread
driving is seen to be.

What exactly is your alternative to driving? *Walking everywhere?
Teleporting?

What is wrong with you? Can you only think in terms of black or
white?

Harsher punishments would reduce the amount of driving and resulting
deaths but not eliminate it completely. Drivers would ask themselves,
"Is my journey really necessary?"

Or do you say that a bus driver or train driver should be punished
automatically if anyone is killed or injured by a bus or train?

Obviously train drivers on railways should be exempt from blame but
road drivers should not. Trespassing on railways is illegal and train
drivers cannot be expected to slow down and be ready to stop for every
crossing. Maybe gated crossings should be replaced by bridges or
tunnels.

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:01 am, "The Todal" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:40 am, Peter Keller wrote:
I should be on his side. I am also against car dependency and pro
healthy economical eco-friendly low-carbon forms of transport. and
low- energy ways of living.
But I can never agree that a driver's licence is a licence to kill,
and I can never agree that motorized transport should be totally
outlawed.

I don't agree either that it should be totally outlawed. Instead I
believe it should be treated for what it is, a highly dangerous and
potentially lethal activity for which drivers should be held totally
responsible and punished accordingly, however pragmatic widespread
driving is seen to be.

What exactly is your alternative to driving? Walking everywhere?
Teleporting?

What is wrong with you? Can you only think in terms of black or
white?

Not at all. I can admire all the colours of your wind.

There's a very good alternative to moving about, and that's standing still.
Everyone should remain at home and wait for goods and services to be
delivered to each household.




Harsher punishments would reduce the amount of driving and resulting
deaths but not eliminate it completely. Drivers would ask themselves,
"Is my journey really necessary?"

Or do you say that a bus driver or train driver should be punished
automatically if anyone is killed or injured by a bus or train?

Obviously train drivers on railways should be exempt from blame but
road drivers should not.

Lucky train drivers but bad luck for the drivers of buses and taxis because
if someone steps out in front of their vehicle, the driver must expect to be
fined or to go to prison. Gradually all driving on the roads will cease.

Will it be okay to be the driver of a horse-drawn vehicle, or will your
strict liability laws apply there as well?


Trespassing on railways is illegal and train
drivers cannot be expected to slow down and be ready to stop for every
crossing. Maybe gated crossings should be replaced by bridges or
tunnels.

You've thought of everything. I can't fault you.

Doug wrote:

Obviously train drivers on railways should be exempt from blame but
road drivers should not. Trespassing on railways is illegal and train
drivers cannot be expected to slow down and be ready to stop for every
crossing.

The answer then is obvious. Make it illegal for pedestrians to walk in
the road except at authorised crossings. Then make it clear that
drivers wouldn't be expected to slow down and be ready to stop for every
crossing. Pedestrians disobeying the law would be fair game and the
driver would not be to blame. Pedestrians would soon learn their place,
and would be a lot safer. Traffic too would move much more freely.

Thank you for that suggestion, Doug. I think it would work.

Maybe gated crossings should be replaced by bridges or tunnels.

In time, yes. In the meantime, well-separated pedestrian crossings on
our roads controlled by locking gates would be a start. As with the
railways, they'd only be opened if there was no traffic approaching or
due.