Doug wrote:
> On 24 Jul, 19:33, "Mortimer"
privacy.net> wrote:>> "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:mtSdnZcZhMfRWBXVnZ2dnUVZ8vKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> Every time they, the motorists on this NG, venture out in their high
>>>> speed killing machines on public roads there is the distinct
>>>> possibility that they might kill someone and if there was any justice
>>>> at all they would then have to spend time inside as a consequence.
>>>> Fortunately for them though so-called justice is slanted heavily in
>>>> their favour when it comes to road killings, based on the euphemistic
>>>> assumption that they are merely accidents which could happen to
>>>> anyone.
>> No, a motorist who *causes* an accident is likely to be found guilty and
>> hence to be punished.
>>
> Firstly its not an 'accident' it is a 'crash' caused by the driver
> losing control, i.e. not being able to stop in time.
Yes it was a crash, it could still be a accident as we presume the
action of all were not deliberate.
And yes, at last you agree with us, it was caused by the driver (of the
quad bike) losing control.
>> But one who cannot avoid an accident caused by someone else being where they
>> shouldn't (according to rules of common sense and Highway Code) should not
>> be punished.
>>
> So its OK to kill with your machine if its 'common sense'?
That was not said
As for the
> HC, are you saying that people who use an untaxed and uninsured
> vehicle on a public road deserve to die?
That was not said
Also, there is nothing in the
> HC to say that minors using a public road are committing a criminal
> offence.
The quad bike was not being used in accordance with the law.
>> Anything that is moving will take a finite time/distance to stop. That
>> applies to people walking/running, cyclists, cars/lorries/buses. In order
>> that the moving person/vehicle is able to move at a sensible speed, there
>> are rules which govern who has priority over whom, and the basic precautions
>> that everyone else should take to avoid being hit.
>>
> So it depends what is meant by a 'sensible speed'. Your 'common sense'
> seems to dictate that vehicles should be able to move at highly
> dangerous speeds where they have very long stopping distances
That was not said
because
> it is 'sensible' to reduce journey time as much as possible while
> paying little regard for human life.
>> That's why we teach pedestrians the Kerb Drill / Green Cross Code and
>> encourage them to cross at designated places/times eg zebra and pelican
>> crossing, and why we ban cyclists from pavements.
>>
> Pedestrians are treated as second class road users and excluded from
> public roads
I can think of only a few roads that pedestrians are excluded from &
that is for reasons of safety
to enable drivers to travel at highly dangerous speeds,
> even though peds are entitled in law to use those roads.
Please cite cases
As for
> cyclists on pavements, why do you imagine they put up with the hassle
> of negotiating pavement furniture, peds, and kerbs?
Because they want to break the law & think they are above anybody else
Because our roads
> are too unsafe for them.
>> But of course we are dealing with the world according to Duhg, where the
>> following definitions apply:
>>
>> - the person who is killed or injure is always blameless; the person who
>> survives is always guilty
>>
> Always a good starting point,
For a bigoted idiot
which might be the case if most cops,
> magistrates, judges and MPs were not motorists too.
>> - the motorist is always guilty, no matter what the circumstances
>>
> Only if they kill or injure a more vulnerable road user.
>> - if a motorist hits anything for any reason, they are a motorist terrorist
>> or a murderer, irrespective of whether there was any intent or recklessness,
>> or any political point being made.
>>
> If there was a level playing field in law, which there isn't,
> motorists would be subject to the same charges as everyone else. So,
> if they intimidate they could be charged with terrorism.
>
> I have made it perfectly plain elsewhere that motorists who kill
> without intent should be charged with manslaughter, like everyone
> else, instead of the lesser special charges of careless or dangerous
> driving.
>
> Motorists frequently campaign from their armchairs for their right to
> drive regardless and against taxation levels, which is undoubtedly
> political.
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
>
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
So the usual bigoted, one sided incorrect response then.
Keep digging
--
Tony the Dragon
