Re: Another wrist slapping

spindrift said:

If you kill someone as a result of not abeying the law you should be
jailed, end of argument.

The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death? To
answer that question you need to be clear that if that law was being
obeyed at the time, /no/ death could possibly have occurred.

--
Matt B

Wally said:

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death?

Speeding and driving without due care and attention.

Which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and driving without due care
and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If, in this case, there was
no speeding or no careless driving, there would have been /no/ death.

--
Matt B

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

Which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and driving without due
care and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If, in this case,
there was no speeding or no careless driving, there would have been
/no/ death.

What sort of [censored] line of argument are you seeking to deploy with this
[censored]?

For the record: Almost all accidents are the result of bad driving. The
solution, therefore, is to improve the standard of driving. Your argument
that we can mitigate stupidity and carelessness by changing the shape of the
roads, the features around them, segregation of users, or whatever, doesn't
hold in my view. There's no such thing as idiot-proof - they'll always come
up with a better idiot. The only way to fix idiocy is to get rid of the
idiots. Advanced driving tests for all drivers, and regular retests - fail,
and you're off the road.

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Wally said:

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

Which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and driving without due
care and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If, in this case,
there was no speeding or no careless driving, there would have been
/no/ death.

What sort of [censored] line of argument are you seeking to deploy with this
[censored]?

For the record: Almost all accidents are the result of bad driving. The
solution, therefore, is to improve the standard of driving. Your argument
that we can mitigate stupidity and carelessness by changing the shape of the
roads, the features around them, segregation of users, or whatever, doesn't
hold in my view. There's no such thing as idiot-proof - they'll always come
up with a better idiot. The only way to fix idiocy is to get rid of the
idiots. Advanced driving tests for all drivers, and regular retests - fail,
and you're off the road.

--
Wallywww.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Certainly a way forward, we can start with the cyclists...Since they
have demonstrated absolutely no competency or understanding at all.

The other view point said:

Certainly a way forward, we can start with the cyclists...Since they
have demonstrated absolutely no competency or understanding at all.

There's a subtle difference between a troll that's transparent, and one
that's invisible.

I'm not a cyclist, I just happen to own a cycle. I'm a car driver.

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Wally said:

Matt B' 'matt.bourke said:

Which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and driving without due
care and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If, in this case,
there was no speeding or no careless driving, there would have been
/no/ death.

What sort of [censored] line of argument are you seeking to deploy with this
[censored]?

Do you remember the context of the question?

It was...

spindrift:
If you kill someone as a result of not abeying the law you should be
jailed, end of argument.

Matt B:
The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death?

Wally:
Speeding and driving without due care and attention.

From which it was reasonable to assume that you thought that it was the
breaking of those laws that lead directly to the unfortunate
consequences. My last question was a logical extension based on your
answers.

Do you now deny that it was a reasonable follow-up?

Quoted message said:

For the record: Almost all accidents are the result of bad driving.

Not so much "bad driving", bur driver error. We are all human, and we
do, occasionally make a mistake. Usually those mistakes result in a
brief panic reaction, and then calm is restored. Sometimes, usually due
to an unpredictable set of coincidences, a nightmare scenario results.

Quoted message said:

The
solution, therefore, is to improve the standard of driving.

A solution based on a false premise, so not really a solution at all.

Quoted message said:

Your argument
that we can mitigate stupidity and carelessness by changing the shape of the
roads, the features around them, segregation of users, or whatever, doesn't
hold in my view.

The same false premise. We /can/ design into the system tolerance and
forgivingness for road user errors. We can minimise the chances of error.

Quoted message said:

There's no such thing as idiot-proof - they'll always come
up with a better idiot.

Deliberate, or wanton recklessness, and abuse of the roads, cannot
easily be catered for, those are the actions that we need the police to
deal with.

Quoted message said:

The only way to fix idiocy is to get rid of the
idiots.

Well yes. But that won't cure our road casualty problem.

Quoted message said:

Advanced driving tests for all drivers, and regular retests - fail,
and you're off the road.

Why? Surely the ideal would be to not have to rely on driver skill at
all. Let's try to make road safety sustainable, hey?

--
Matt B