Its all our fault

Warning for those suffering from high blood pressure, do not read any
further.

The most popular reply on the BBC Have Your Say on Speed Cameras is:

"A review is needed on the causes of accidents, be they idiot cyclists,
careless pedestrians. its about time the person causing a accident pays
for it by getting prosecuted, for being a danger on the public road. All
too often people who get run over, walk out into a cars path, damaging
the vehicle, but not having to pay for the damage, instead its deemed to
be the drivers fault, any cost for damage comes out of the innocent
drivers insurance, what a scam,. this must change.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...05121517 5333


--
Tony

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

Tony Raven wrote:
Warning for those suffering from high blood pressure, do not read any
further.

The most popular reply on the BBC Have Your Say on Speed Cameras is:

"A review is needed on the causes of accidents, be they idiot cyclists,
careless pedestrians. its about time the person causing a accident pays
for it by getting prosecuted, for being a danger on the public road. All
too often people who get run over, walk out into a cars path, damaging
the vehicle, but not having to pay for the damage, instead its deemed to
be the drivers fault, any cost for damage comes out of the innocent
drivers insurance, what a scam,. this must change.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...05121517 5333

There speaks a bitter man. However, I'd wager that drivers cause a
substantial majority of accidents, so it's a moot point.

Tony Raven wrote:
Warning for those suffering from high blood pressure, do not read any
further.

The most popular reply on the BBC Have Your Say on Speed Cameras is:

"A review is needed on the causes of accidents, be they idiot
cyclists,

He's not talking about anyone here. He is talking of idiot cyclists.

I'm sure you would agree that anyone causing an accident should be liable
for the consequences - be they cyclist, motorist or pedestrian?

pk

p.k. wrote:

I'm sure you would agree that anyone causing an accident should be liable
for the consequences - be they cyclist, motorist or pedestrian?


It would certainly be a novelty if motorists were to be held
responsible for the consequences of their actions. For the most part
unless they are charged with causing death by dangerous driving or
similar the fact they have maimed or killed won't be taken into account
when sentencing is being considered and in all probability won't be
mentioned in court at all...

wrote in message
ups.com...

p.k. wrote:

I'm sure you would agree that anyone causing an accident should be liable
for the consequences - be they cyclist, motorist or pedestrian?


It would certainly be a novelty if motorists were to be held
responsible for the consequences of their actions. For the most part
unless they are charged with causing death by dangerous driving or
similar the fact they have maimed or killed won't be taken into account
when sentencing is being considered and in all probability won't be
mentioned in court at all...


Indeedee, If I was of the terrorist inclination (which I am not) I would be
considering that should I want to do away with the odd innocent passer-by,
the way to go to be almost guaranteed of Getting Away With It, would to use
a motor vehicle as the weapon of choice. Despite what followers of the
Church Of Clarkson & the Daily Wail would have us believe, the motorists of
this nation are *not* unfairly put-upon...


Cheers, helen s

wafflycat whizzed past me shouting

Indeedee, If I was of the terrorist inclination (which I am not) I
would be considering that should I want to do away with the odd
innocent passer-by, the way to go to be almost guaranteed of Getting
Away With It, would to use a motor vehicle as the weapon of choice.
Despite what followers of the Church Of Clarkson & the Daily Wail would
have us believe, the motorists of this nation are *not* unfairly put-upon...


Or if you were a suicidal terrorist wanting to kill lots of people at a
stroke, you'd park your wretched motor vehicle on a level crossing after
making a careful study of train movements, as one of my fellow
townspeople did at Ufton Nervet.

The coroner didn't even find "unlawful killing", his former chums all
said what a lovely chap he was, wouldn't hurt a fly (despite clear
evidence to the contrary) and the authorities are now blaming the level
crossing!

--
Sue ]|(

Bicycle helmets are really a bit of a scam.
They make most cyclists slightly less safe but there's money in selling them.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:27:55 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

Warning for those suffering from high blood pressure, do not read any
further.

The most popular reply on the BBC Have Your Say on Speed Cameras is:

Interview this evening on BBC 3 Counties Radio,
with a representative of Association of British Drivers. The radio
interviewer was practically fawning.
ABD rep: "Speed is not the main cause of accidents. In most accidents
we (me: who are we? The ABD? The police? The Home Office?) find that
stolen cars or drink or drugs are involved. Speed is a secondary factor".

So let's get it straight - in the majority of road traffic crashes in the
UK there is a stolen car or a drunk/drugged driver. I would love to see
the figures to back that up. And the interviewer didn't so much as murmur.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:27:55 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

Warning for those suffering from high blood pressure, do not read any
further.
As I said on another forum, next they'll be reporting the scratches to the
precious cars.

And I'll admit to listening to the above 3 Counties Radio interview while
driving down the M40.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:51:07 +0000, John Hearns wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:27:55 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

Warning for those suffering from high blood pressure, do not read any
further.

The most popular reply on the BBC Have Your Say on Speed Cameras is:

Interview this evening on BBC 3 Counties Radio, with a representative of
Association of British Drivers.
Also in the same interview, the statement made repeatedly that it was a
bad thing that speed camera fines should go towards paying for road safety
measures (along the same lines as the former mantra that speed camera
fines going to pay for more speed cameras only means that 'the authorities'
are interested in making money, not cutting collisions).

I thought the whole point of Alistair Darling's statement today was that
the fines would NOT be hypothecated, and therefore go into the general
exchequer. Again not a murmur from the interviewer - didn't he bother to
listen to the news?

John Hearns wrote:
I thought the whole point of Alistair Darling's statement today was that
the fines would NOT be hypothecated, and therefore go into the general
exchequer. Again not a murmur from the interviewer - didn't he bother to
listen to the news?

This is almost funny. For years cameras have not been revenue raising,
but have been decried as such. Now they are revenue raising, and
everyone cheers, despite having incorrectly claimed this for years.
You can't fool all the people all the time, but you can have a jolly
good go at it.

...d