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/thread.jspa?threadID=612&&edition=1&ttl=20051215175333
-- Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham
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/thread.jspa?threadID=612&&edition=1&ttl=20051215175333
There speaks a bitter man. However, I'd wager that drivers cause a substantial majority of accidents, so it's a moot point.
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...
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
p.k. said:
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...
wafflycat <?@?.com.invalid> whizzed past me shouting
Quoted message said:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So my dear friend who was killed and heartlessly left dead by some b****** coward in a Range Rover was at fault? Or my friend who was run over and his pelvis smashed by a hit-and-run driver?
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.
Missed out the drivers of the status symbols - four, or more, wheel drivers. 2 wheel power drivers seem to kill themselves.
Quoted message said:
So my dear friend who was killed and heartlessly left dead by some b****** coward in a Range Rover was at fault?
Nope but the bigger the vehicle the easier the killing.
Quoted message said:
Or my friend who was run over and his pelvis smashed by a hit-and-run driver?
I am not a spammer but the following may not be taken kindly by all users of this ng. Capital punishment is no longer allowed and I am not totally unhappy with that because mistakes have been made and can happen. Castration is a middle of the road solution - remove their imagined manhood and the road killers might begin to see sense - I do have castration pliers and a box of castration rings and would be pleased to assist.
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/thread.jspa?threadID=612&&edition=1&ttl=20051215175333
There speaks a bitter man. However, I'd wager that drivers cause a substantial majority of accidents, so it's a moot point.
Really? I'd say not, when in the cases cited, the accident involves a motorist and non-motorist. Sure they drive into each other lots, trees and lamposts as well, but to hit a pedestrian usually involves them being on the road.
With cyclists I wonder how many are caused by lack of lights, filtering etc.
With cyclists I wonder how many are caused by lack of lights, filtering etc.
Certainly some, but by no means all. A substantial number of pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents happen on the pavement! (Blowed if I can find where I read this, though. The ol' grey matter has its limitations). I would respectfully suggest that those are caused by motorists, same as at pedestrian crossings where cars don't stop, ond so on.
I think it's all a viscious circle, though. Some cyclist does something stupid, so all are tarred with the same brush. The motorist then has no respect for bikes and treat them with distain, so all motorists are tarred with the same brush. And so it goes on.
Travel safe, look out for and consider others, whatever your mode of transport.
"A review is needed on the causes of accidents, be they idiot cyclists, careless pedestrians.
Quoted message said:
So my dear friend who was killed and heartlessly left dead by some b****** coward in a Range Rover was at fault? Or my friend who was run over and his pelvis smashed by a hit-and-run driver?
I don't know. Presumably you don't believe so.
Regardless of your emotional involvement in a small sample of cases, the quote has some merit. Having seen plenty of idiots in all forms of transport, I fully agree that any innocent motorists involved should not be instantly held responsible.
Of course, the converse should also be true: when the motorist is at fault, throw the book at them.
There speaks a bitter man. However, I'd wager that drivers cause a substantial majority of accidents, so it's a moot point.
Really? I'd say not, when in the cases cited, the accident involves a motorist and non-motorist. Sure they drive into each other lots, trees and lamposts as well, but to hit a pedestrian usually involves them being on the road.
The police say 90+% of car/bicycle accidents are the fault of the motorist. But I expect you know better.
And for the nth time, pedestrians have a /legal/ /right/ to be on the road (in all the jurisdictions in the British Isles). Motorists don't.
-- [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; If Python is executable pseudocode, ;; then Perl is executable line noise -- seen on Slashdot.
"A review is needed on the causes of accidents, be they idiot cyclists, careless pedestrians.
Quoted message said:
So my dear friend who was killed and heartlessly left dead by some b****** coward in a Range Rover was at fault? Or my friend who was run over and his pelvis smashed by a hit-and-run driver?
I don't know. Presumably you don't believe so.
Regardless of your emotional involvement in a small sample of cases,
Small sample? This was a friend of mine, now dead. I will be f***** if I worry about the no-claims bonus of the swine who drove off after killing him.
