UK and Europe · Public discussion

BAH!

Started by wafflycat · · Last activity · 10 posts · 598 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
21 July 2005
Last activity
22 July 2005
Original author
wafflycat
Posts
10
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
598
Views / 30 days
1

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–10 of 10
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED21%20Jul%202005%2012%3A23%3A53%3A250

    "A road safety charity today slammed a decision not to ban a teenage driver
    who hit a young cyclist while distracted by the mobile phone he was
    holding."

    He also had a worn tyre...

    ""The child accepted that he had ridden out in front of Mr Bradford."

    But Bradford had been holding his mobile phone which probably contributed to
    him being unable to stop in time.

    Mrs Tucker told the court: "He (Bradford) later said there was another child
    in the road and he was between the devil and the deep blue sea as to which
    child he hit.""

    Perhaps if he had maintained his vehicle properly and paid attention to what
    was going on, he may well have been able to stop in time, thus not hitting
    anyone??

    Cheers, helen s

  2. wafflycat said:

    Perhaps if he had maintained his vehicle properly and paid attention to
    what was going on, he may well have been able to stop in time, thus not
    hitting anyone??

    Perhaps, perhaps not.

    Whilst I abhor the use of mobile phones in cars, and poor maintenance,
    there comes a point whereby even the most attentive driver won't avoid a
    crash if a pedestrian or cyclist does something stupid.

    That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the usual
    amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown that he truly
    could have avoided the accident, this is the correct verdict.

    --
    Mark.
    http://tranchant.plus.com/

  3. Mark Tranchant said:


    That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the usual
    amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown that he truly
    could have avoided the accident, this is the correct verdict.

    No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
    should be punished as if they hit someone.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  4. Ian Smith said:
    Mark Tranchant said:


    That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
    usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
    that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
    verdict.

    No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
    should be punished as if they hit someone.

    regards, Ian SMith

    We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,
    not what might have happened. It would be a dangerous day should we start
    punishing people for what could have happened. I think we'd all be locked
    up at some stage in our lives...

  5. On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:57 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,
    not what might have happened. It would be a dangerous day should we start
    punishing people for what could have happened.

    That day is already here.

    Sajid Badat did not blow up an aeroplane but was sentenced to 13
    years. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1504770_1,00.html
    has the background.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

  6. Mick said:
    Ian Smith said:
    Mark Tranchant said:


    That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
    usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
    that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
    verdict.

    No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
    should be punished as if they hit someone.

    We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,

    You're saying that breaking the law isn't a crime unless someone is
    injured?

    Is that something you would propose for all law, or do you think it
    should only aplly to motoring law?

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  7. in message <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith

    (') said:
    Mark Tranchant said:


    That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
    usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown that
    he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
    verdict.

    No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
    should be punished as if they hit someone.

    Correction: if they hit someone, that's enough for jail time. Oh, and
    _permanent_ license revocation. The phone and the tyre aggravate it, but
    it is not acceptable to drive so you're at risk of hitting people.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
    ... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
    [update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]

  8. Ian Smith said:
    Mick said:
    Ian Smith said:

    On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
    > usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
    > that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
    >verdict.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
    should be punished as if they hit someone.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,

    Quoted message said:

    You're saying that breaking the law isn't a crime unless someone is
    injured?

    Absolutely not, but they should be punished for what they did. In this
    case, the misdemeanour is using a phone whilst driving with a dodgy
    tyre, and appropriate fines/points should be levied. *Only* if it can be
    shown that this contributed to the accident should tougher sentencing arise.

    Innocent until proven guilty *must* prevail.

    Quoted message said:

    Is that something you would propose for all law, or do you think it
    should only aplly to motoring law?

    All law. If I fail to maintain a tree on my property despite warnings
    and a heavy branch blows down, I shouldn't get done for manslaughter
    unless the branch actually does kill someone.

    --
    Mark.
    http://tranchant.plus.com/

  9. Mark Tranchant said:
    Ian Smith said:
    Mick said:

    Ian Smith wrote:
    >On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
    >> usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
    >> that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
    >>verdict.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
    >should be punished as if they hit someone.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,

    Quoted message said:

    You're saying that breaking the law isn't a crime unless someone is
    injured?

    Absolutely not, but they should be punished for what they did. In this
    case, the misdemeanour is using a phone whilst driving with a dodgy
    tyre, and appropriate fines/points should be levied. *Only* if it can be
    shown that this contributed to the accident should tougher sentencing arise.

    Innocent until proven guilty *must* prevail.

    Indeed. I have proposed nothing remotely contrary to that. You are
    arguing with a straw man - it's not really very clever.

    (Incidently, innocent until proven guilty is not a universal precept
    of UK law.)

    Anyone guilty of driving a dangerously illegal vehicle, having been
    proven guilty, should be punished to a degree comensurate with having,
    through delibverate negligence, hit someone with that vehicle.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is that something you would propose for all law, or do you think it
    should only aplly to motoring law?

    All law. If I fail to maintain a tree on my property despite warnings
    and a heavy branch blows down, I shouldn't get done for manslaughter
    unless the branch actually does kill someone.

    Right. So burglary is not an offence in your proposed legal system?
    Fraud? Vandalism? All perfectly OK, as long as no-one is actually
    physically injured.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  10. Simon Brooke said:

    in message <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith

    (') said:

    No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
    should be punished as if they hit someone.

    Correction: if they hit someone, that's enough for jail time. Oh, and
    _permanent_ license revocation. The phone and the tyre aggravate it, but
    it is not acceptable to drive so you're at risk of hitting people.

    No, that simply makes it a lottery. The legal system should not
    tolerate deliberate wilful negligence that unnecessarily increases the
    risk of killing people.

    Driving with a bald tyre should be treated similarly to (say)
    discharging a rifle down the high street. If someone did that and
    somehow didn't kill anyone there'd be uproar if the system prosecuted
    them only for (say) disturbing the peace.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.