Words fail me.

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Despite witnesses at the trial stating the driver was driving like a bat out of hell, and showing
off with lots of engine revving etc., etc.. it seems the chap killed a 12-year old girl
unintentionally as he was suffering from...

"unintentional accelerator syndrome"

Words fail me (which is unusual)

I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if, having killed a child, they at least had the guts to admit
what they did and not try and squirm out of their responsibility. Otherwise to me they are no better
than Ian Huntley, killing children and covering up in the hope of getting away with it.

Tony

On 21 Feb 2004 11:21:24 GMT, in
<[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) said:

Despite witnesses at the trial stating the driver was driving like a bat out of hell, and showing
off with lots of engine revving etc., etc.. it seems the chap killed a 12-year old girl
unintentionally as he was suffering from...

"unintentional accelerator syndrome"

Words fail me (which is unusual)

If only somebody could accidentally suffer from "unintentional secataur syndrome".

"I meant to put the secataurs back in my pocket, m'lud, but instead I accidentally chopped off
his goolies"

Love and pruning from Rich x

--
DISCLAIMER: My email box is private property.Email which appears in my inbox is mine to do what I
like with. Anything which is sent to me (whether intended or not) may, if I so desire, form a legal
and binding contract.

Quoted message said:

I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if, having killed a child, they at least had the guts to
admit what they did and not try and squirm out of their responsibility. Otherwise to me they are no
better than Ian Huntley, killing children and covering up in the hope of getting away with it.

Tony

My thoughts exactly.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

On 21 Feb 2004 11:21:24 GMT, [email hidden] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The Norwich Crown Court jury also heard that Shaun Moyse might have pressed the wrong pedal when he
lost control of the car, and instead of braking pressed the accelerator – which is known as
"unintentional accelerator syndrome".

Where I come from it's known as "incompetence."

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

And there's more :-(

news.bbc.co.uk3508451.stmOpen ↗

"Wet road blamed for death crash

A driver who denies causing the death of a 12-year-old girl, told his trial he had braked when his
high-performance car went out of control. Shaun Moyse told Norwich Crown Court he had lost control
of his BMW because the road had been wet.

Kristine Errington was walking with three girls in Great Yarmouth when the accident happened.

Mr Moyse, 24, from Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, is charged with causing death by dangerous driving on 6
June 2003.

He told the jury was not a bad driver.

Swerving out

He said that as he came off a roundabout on the A12, the car, which he had owned for a few days,
started swerving out.

He had tried to correct it by braking, but hit the accelerator.

When he was challenged in court, he said he had not been deliberately driving aggressively, he had
not been showing off and he had not been in a rush.

The jury is expected to start considering its verdict on Monday. "

helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

He told the jury was not a bad driver.

Swerving out

He said that as he came off a roundabout on the A12, the car, which he had owned for a few days,
started swerving out.

He had tried to correct it by braking, but hit the accelerator.

Anybody who is so incompetent that they try to correct a skid like that in a rear wheel drive car by
braking or accelerating is a bad driver in my books.

Tony

On 21 Feb 2004 14:07:16 GMT, [email hidden] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"Wet road blamed for death crash

"It wasn't my fault! Really, it wasn't! An old friend came in out of town! The car ran out of gas! I
got a flat tire! I didn't have enough money for cab fare! The tux didn't come back from the
cleaners! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault I swear to God!!!"

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Quoted message said:

Anybody who is so incompetent that they try to correct a skid like that in a rear wheel drive car
by braking or accelerating is a bad driver in my books.

Anyone who loses it on a public road simply because it's wet is a bad driver by anyones books!

Just zis Guy said:

"It wasn't my fault! Really, it wasn't! An old friend came in out of town! The car ran out of
gas! I got a flat tire! I didn't have enough money for cab fare! The tux didn't come back from
the cleaners! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! It wasn't my fault I swear
to God!!!"

"Ohh Jake"

Tony Raven posted ...

Quoted message said:

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Despite witnesses at the trial stating the driver was driving like a bat out of hell, and showing
off with lots of engine revving etc., etc.. it seems the chap killed a 12-year old girl
unintentionally as he was suffering from...

"unintentional accelerator syndrome"

Words fail me (which is unusual)

I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if, having killed a child, they at least had the guts to
admit what they did and not try and squirm out of their responsibility. Otherwise to me they are
no better than Ian Huntley, killing children and covering up in the hope of getting away with it.

Nicely put.

--
Paul

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers posted ...

Quoted message said:

And there's more :-(

Quoted message said:

A driver who denies causing the death of a 12-year-old girl, told his trial he had braked when his
high-performance car went out of control. Shaun Moyse told Norwich Crown Court he had lost control
of his BMW because the road had been wet.

Personally, I think he lost control 'cos he's obviously a [censored] of a driver, with no clue hoiw to
actually drive at all, let alone the 'high-performance car' he can obviously afford.

Quoted message said:

He told the jury was not a bad driver.

If he can't control a car adequately then he's a bad driver, whether the road's wet, dry or whatever
the conditions ...

Quoted message said:

When he was challenged in court, he said he had not been deliberately driving aggressively, he had
not been showing off and he had not been in a rush.

Yeah ... right .... errr, I wonder how he _really_ lost control then ...

Cut his goolies off ... slowly.

--
Paul

Quoted message said:

Yeah ... right .... errr, I wonder how he _really_ lost control then ...

Seems to me its irrelevant whether he hit the accelerator thinking it was the brake or not. Either
brake or accelerator would have sent the vehicle straight to the scene of the crime. The fact that
he does not know what the effect of either of those pedals is on the car's stability and the fact
that he lost it on a wet road clearly indicate he was driving well beyond his capability. Dangerous
driving is defined as "a) where the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be
dangerous." It seems to me that dangerous driving was what led to the loss of control and the
"unintentional accelerator syndrome" was just a detail in the way the consequences of the
dangerous driving unfolded.

Tony

Tony Raven wrote:

Amazing that RWD is still loved so much by hairy-chested "motoring journalists" and BMW. It's OK for
150bhp+ cars and on bone-dry tarmac, but in any other conditions it's a liability.

Try driving a RWD car on snow - besides the fact that the power doesn't go in the same direction as
you're steering, so cornering is terrible - it rapidly becomes evident that the rear wheels are
constantly trying to overtake the front ones.

If it's so much better to push than pull, as BMW would have it, why do trains virtually always have
the locomotive at the front (or at both ends)? Oh, and there are greater coastdown losses (hence
lower efficiency) because of the drive changing direction through the rear diff.

FWD isn't just about flatter floors and integrated transaxles, you know.

Oops...my bike is RWD - please ignore above post ;-)

On 21 Feb 2004 11:21:24 GMT, [email hidden]
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

[snip stuff re: unintentional acce;erator syndrome]

Well, I must confess that I have hit the gas, when intending to hit the brake, but with less serious
results...

Picture the scene: A road in Nottingham, traffic slowly edging along in the rush hour rain. The
traffic starts to move, and I use a bit more gas. The traffic stops once more, and I hit the brakes.
Unfortunately, the the sole if my trainer is still wet from the rain and slides off the brake pedal.
I pull my foot back, and hit the brakes again. Except I don't hit the brakes: The bonnet rises up a
little, and I lurch towards the car in front @ 10mph. Crash! Tinkle!

My fault completely, and I would have been extremely apologetic towards the two occupants of the
stricken car except for two things:

1) An apology may be construed as an admission of fault, which your insurer will not look kindly
upon. It's still possible to ask if everyone's ok, and make conciliatory noises, but the words "I
am very sorry" should not pass your lips.

and

2) The driver ignored the offer of my mobile to summon the feds and an ambulance (what for? They're
both walking around going "What the [censored]!?"😉, and *sprinted* 100m to a call box to alert
whomever. When the Ambulance turned up, they *both* had to be assisted onto stretchers and carted
off. I was occupied by the police officer who was standing conspicuously close to me as we spoke,
his nose twitching. All he got was a blast of me congenital halitosis, as I was stone cold sober,
if a little dazed at the opportunism of some representatives of humanity.

Ho hum.

Vic.

a) Top posting.
b) What's the worst thing about UseNet?

Zog The Undeniable posted ...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven wrote:

Amazing that RWD is still loved so much by hairy-chested "motoring journalists" and BMW. It's OK
for 150bhp+ cars and on bone-dry tarmac, but in any other conditions it's a liability.

For a competent driver a RWD drive car is a much more satisfying car to drive than a FWD, mostly.
You can change the attitude and direction of a RWD car by judicious use of the throttle and brakes,
or a combination of both, and in the right hands they can be made to go way faster than an
equivalent FWD car. It is also easier to put a lot more power down in a RWD than it is in a FWD car,
thus getting better standing start times.

However, little of the above is truly useful on-road ... 😉

In on-road, normal driving situations, RWD cars mostly make very good towcars, with the driving
wheels right where most weight is, so get much more traction and stability that an equivalent FWD
car, especially when higher towing weights are concerned, such as when towing caravans.

Personally I prefer 4WD ... 😉

--
Paul

Quoted message said:

For a competent driver a RWD drive car is a much more satisfying car to drive than a FWD, mostly.
You can change the attitude and direction of a RWD car by judicious use of the throttle and
brakes, or a combination of both, and in the right hands they can be made to go way faster than an
equivalent FWD car. It is also easier to put a lot more power down in a RWD than it is in a FWD
car, thus getting better standing start times.

However, little of the above is truly useful on-road ... 😉

Precisely. The journos probably like it because it's easier to get camera-friendly power slides on
airfields.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tony Raven wrote:

Amazing that RWD is still loved so much by hairy-chested "motoring journalists" and BMW. It's OK
for 150bhp+ cars and on bone-dry tarmac, but in any other conditions it's a liability.

etc

No I didn't

Tony

Zog The Undeniable said:

Amazing that RWD is still loved so much by hairy-chested "motoring journalists" and BMW. It's OK
for 150bhp+ cars and on bone-dry tarmac, but in any other conditions it's a liability.

Try driving a RWD car on snow - besides the fact that the power doesn't go in the same direction
as you're steering, so cornering is terrible - it rapidly becomes evident that the rear wheels are
constantly trying to overtake the front ones.

If it's so much better to push than pull, as BMW would have it, why do trains virtually always
have the locomotive at the front (or at both ends)? Oh, and there are greater coastdown losses
(hence lower efficiency) because of the drive changing direction through the rear diff.

OTOH FWD mixes the steering with the motive power so the poor old front tyres are trying to cope
with two things at once. A lot of engineering has had to go into sorting out the problems of FWD,
torque steering, tramping, tendency to break traction etc. They've done a pretty good job but then
so have Porsche in coping with having an engine in a stupid place on a RWD. Give me RWD over FWD -
it seems to work for Michael Schumacher.

Tony

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For a competent driver a RWD drive car is a much more satisfying car to drive than a FWD, mostly.
You can change the attitude and direction of a RWD car by judicious use of the throttle and
brakes, or a combination of both, and in the right hands they can be made to go way faster than
an equivalent FWD car. It is also easier to put a lot more power down in a RWD than it is in a
FWD car, thus getting better standing start times.

However, little of the above is truly useful on-road ... 😉

Unless you are a) towing (eg the poor sap trying to pull his boat out of the water on a wet slipway.
Traction is only good if the weight is on the wheels doing the driving.

b) trying to go uphill in poor conditions. (Not normally a problem here but then again with the [censored]
tyres people drive on in poor conditions it accurs more frequently than it need to).

c) you are trying to get some performance out of the beast. The difference between FWD and RWD is
that with FWD you go through the hedge forwards, with RWD you go through the hedge backward.

d) trying to park your car in deep snow. Having RWD allows you to slide the rear around (with care
of course) and drop into parking spaces much easier.

This comes of experience in many scandinavian winters where driving can be quite fun, if a little
unconventional (as the MIL noticed when we went into a carpark sidewaysish. Without that we'd have
been stuck in the rut at the entrance.)

Personally I prefer RWD even though I currently have a FWD car. (in fact I prefer a single driven
wheel to get back on topic.)

..d