Sunday Times on lorries killing cyclists

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:07:04 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply in
> >countries that introduced capital punishment?
>
> No. In the USA some states saw _increased_ murder rates after
> introducing capital punishment.
>

Did that include the ones the state murdered with capital punishment
though?

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

 

[[email protected]]

>> Unfortunatly to increase the chance of being caught to that level would
>> require near continuous monitoring of all motorists at all times
>> any government proposing it would not see the next election.
>
> I think you'd be surprised. They might win by a landslide. Boy racers make
> a lot of noise, but I don't think they're a significant proportion of the
> electorate.

Colour me surprised too, were that the case. Most people consider
themselves above-average drivers and mandating that they have Big
Brother installed in their cars is tantamount to telling them they're
not. OK, "the innocent have nothing to fear", but it's not just the
guilty who are campaigning against ID cards.

You'd have to find some way of doing it that makes law-abiding
citizens(sic) believe it's only going to be used against "other
people". Like town centre CCTV only works on hoodies and child molestors.


-dan

 

[Mark]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:28:40 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

>>> Unfortunatly to increase the chance of being caught to that level would
>>> require near continuous monitoring of all motorists at all times
> >> any government proposing it would not see the next election.
>>
>> I think you'd be surprised. They might win by a landslide. Boy racers make
>> a lot of noise, but I don't think they're a significant proportion of the
>> electorate.
>
>Colour me surprised too, were that the case. Most people consider
>themselves above-average drivers and mandating that they have Big
>Brother installed in their cars is tantamount to telling them they're
>not. OK, "the innocent have nothing to fear", but it's not just the
>guilty who are campaigning against ID cards.

In fact it is only the "innocent" that have to fear ID cards/NIR since
the "guilty" will find ways to circumvent the system.

M

 

[Mark]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:55:29 -0000, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:07:04 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply in
>> >countries that introduced capital punishment?
>>
>> No. In the USA some states saw _increased_ murder rates after
>> introducing capital punishment.
>>
>
>Did that include the ones the state murdered with capital punishment
>though?

LOL! And no, the figures did not include these.

M

 

[CJ]

On 28 Nov, 20:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Where did I mention people killing themselves? The Purley driver didn't
> > die, and most airline crashes are not fatal.
>
> Most air accidents not fatal? Are you including taxiing scrapes?
>
As it happens, one of my MTBing buddies is an airline pilot. So far as
I know he's not had any taxiing scrapes, but did once fly through a
storm that didn't look as intense as it turned out to be, resulting in
hailstone damage to the front of his jet. He nevertheless landed
safely, passengers untroubled (until they got out and looked back at
the plane!) but was immediately grounded whilst the incident was
investigated. He didn't get to fly again for over a year, during which
he had to undergo and pass a rigourous course of re-training. All this
for misjudging the apperance of a cloud and safely landing a damaged
plane.

It's a bit like a coach driver misjudging the height of a low branch,
but managing to deliver his passengers safely to their destination
despite a dented roof and cracked windscreen. I frankly doubt that
driver would have his PSV licence suspended pending re-training and re-
examination.

Though it was a trying time for my friend, I'm sure we all agree it's
a good thing the airlines are that careful. I think it would be better
if similar strictures applied to all licensed drivers on the road, in
proportion to the class of license and the potential for causing
injury to others that goes with the type of vehicle they are thereby
entitled to drive.

 

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-11-28, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> Where did I mention people killing themselves? The Purley driver didn't
>> die, and most airline crashes are not fatal.
>
> Most air accidents not fatal? Are you including taxiing scrapes?

An awful lot of aircraft do things like run off the end/sides of
runways, land hard and collapse landing gear, land with the parking
brake applied etc. The reason you have the perception that most air
crashes are nearly always fatal is that the bad ones are
the ones that get widespread news coverage. An airliner that runs off
the end of a runway may not even make the news (especially if it was a
small regional airliner in some small town), or may only make local
news.

Just look through airliners.net - there are so many photos of dented
aircraft where no one was hurt.

If you look at general aviation as well - looking at the US NTSB stats
for October, there were well over 100 accidents. Only a few were fatal.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

 

[JNugent]

CJ wrote:
> On 28 Nov, 20:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Where did I mention people killing themselves? The Purley driver didn't
>>>die, and most airline crashes are not fatal.
>>
>>Most air accidents not fatal? Are you including taxiing scrapes?
>>
>
> As it happens, one of my MTBing buddies is an airline pilot. So far as
> I know he's not had any taxiing scrapes, but did once fly through a
> storm that didn't look as intense as it turned out to be, resulting in
> hailstone damage to the front of his jet. He nevertheless landed
> safely, passengers untroubled (until they got out and looked back at
> the plane!) but was immediately grounded whilst the incident was
> investigated. He didn't get to fly again for over a year, during which
> he had to undergo and pass a rigourous course of re-training. All this
> for misjudging the apperance of a cloud and safely landing a damaged
> plane.

But would you call that an "air accident" (a phrase that seems to be
mainly applied to incidents which happen on the ground, even if the
aircraft has only been on it for a fraction of a second at the time)?

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
> >>
> >> In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
> >> reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
> >> normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do
>
> > Make them take care even in ordinary everyday situations, perhaps?
>
> > No, that would never do. We must not make motorists take
> > responsibility for the casualness with which they inflict danger on
> > others.
>
> Actually, we do exactly - and we do it on the basis of proven or
> admitted negligence. We don't do it in the patently unjust manner
> which some say they would like to see.

I'm not calling for anything unjust. In fact, I'm calling for rather
more justice than you seem to want - all negligent and irresponsible
driving should be penalised, not just the outlandishly dangerous.

> >> Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
> >> "consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.
>
> > You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
> > a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
> > Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
> > offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.
>
> That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
> windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would).

No we would not. I really don't mind you making up patently dumb
things and claiming them as a result of your own feeble mental
processes, but kindly do not say stupid things and claim that I
proposed them.

You seem to be under some seriously erroneous impressions about how
offences are decided and sentencing guidelines work. Here is a clue:

it is not necessary to have the same sentencing guidelines for every
single offence.

Further, you are STILL apparently working under the (very wrong)
assumption that the British justice system does not have what you are
calling consequence-based sentencing. It does. It doesn't currently
apply it to road traffic offences, but IF IT DID then it would no more
be automatically applied to breaking windows than it is ALREADY.

In what country (and/or planet) does breaking a window fall under the
offence of 'burglary', btw? (Though that's a different point from
those above).

> > Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
> > careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
> > we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
> > they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
> > encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
> > machinery.
>
> Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
> that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
> more obsessive?

I just did say what I really mean. I'll say it again if you want:
motorists that do not take proper care when operating their vehicles
should be penalised. What are you talking about?

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
>> >> reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
>> >> normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do
>>
>> > Make them take care even in ordinary everyday situations, perhaps?
>>
>> > No, that would never do. We must not make motorists take
>> > responsibility for the casualness with which they inflict danger on
>> > others.
>>
>> Actually, we do exactly - and we do it on the basis of proven or
>> admitted negligence. We don't do it in the patently unjust manner
>> which some say they would like to see.
>
> I'm not calling for anything unjust. In fact, I'm calling for rather
> more justice than you seem to want - all negligent and irresponsible
> driving should be penalised, not just the outlandishly dangerous.

Driving which kills and injures - any driving which kills and injures - is
outlandishly dangerous. We've got into a completely ludicrous position
where the law is completely at odds with common sense, and decides that
lethal driving may not be 'dangerous' but merely 'careless'. That's really
got to change. People whose driving puts others at unnecessary risk should
be prevented from driving, whether or not they actually manage to maim or
kill.

This isn't about 'punishment'. It's withdrawing a /privilege/ from people
who demonstrate that they aren't responsible enough to hold it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans

 

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-11-30, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> But would you call that an "air accident" (a phrase that seems to be
> mainly applied to incidents which happen on the ground, even if the
> aircraft has only been on it for a fraction of a second at the time)?

Yes I would.

The NTSB in the United States (I'll use them because they publish on the
internet - but these definitions are pretty standard thanks to ICAO. I
do have a paper copy of the UK's regulations but not to hand - they are
broadly similar):

NTSB 830.2 definitions:
Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation
of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the
aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have
disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or
in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

The case cited likely met the definition of "substantial damage".

"Air accident" seems to be mainly applied to incidents which happen on
the ground becuase, well... this is where a substantial number of them
actually happen (takeoff and landing phase). The next most substantial
set of accident statistics are weather related (particularly for general
aviation, but the weather claims its fair share of airliners, too).
Mechanical failure is a relatively UNcommon cause of accidents.
Something like 80% of accidents can be attributed to the decision making
of the crew.

Airline pilots operating privately owned aircraft, incidentally, don't
really fare much better in the accident rate than non-professional
pilots. Much of airline safety comes from having lots of expensive
equipment and a crew of more than one, and crew resource management
training (the days of the captain barking orders at the FO are long
gone).

Incidentally, I witnessed a non-fatal accident (which destroyed the
aircraft in question) in April this year. Being a light aircraft and
nobody being killed, it only made local news. Every month there are
about 20 air accidents in Britain - the vast majority result in a bit of
bent metal but no injuries and don't make the news any more than two
cars having a low speed collision on a mini-roundabout would.

(I hold an FAA private pilot license for single and multi engine
aircraft and gliders, plus an instrument rating, and have about 1200 hrs
flight time as pilot in command).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

 

[JNugent]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2007-11-30, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>But would you call that an "air accident" (a phrase that seems to be
>>mainly applied to incidents which happen on the ground, even if the
>>aircraft has only been on it for a fraction of a second at the time)?

> Yes I would.

Fair enough.

In that case, we are talking of different things.

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:

>>>>In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
>>>>reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
>>>>normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do

>>>Make them take care even in ordinary everyday situations, perhaps?
>>>No, that would never do. We must not make motorists take
>>>responsibility for the casualness with which they inflict danger on
>>>others.

>> Actually, we do exactly - and we do it on the basis of proven or
>> admitted negligence. We don't do it in the patently unjust manner
>> which some say they would like to see.

> I'm not calling for anything unjust. In fact, I'm calling for rather
> more justice than you seem to want - all negligent and irresponsible
> driving should be penalised, not just the outlandishly dangerous.

Driving does not have to be "outlandishly dangerous" to be judged
careless in a court. I can't imagine why you think it does. It may
suit you to pretend that it does.

>>>>Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
>>>>"consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.

>>>You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
>>>a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
>>>Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
>>>offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.

>> That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
>> windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would).

> No we would not. I really don't mind you making up patently dumb
> things and claiming them as a result of your own feeble mental
> processes, but kindly do not say stupid things and claim that I
> proposed them.

On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
irrelevant"), someone thrown through a shop window in fight or
landing up there as a passenger on a runaway bus would be as guilty of
burglary as someone inside shop late at night in a striped jersey and
mask, carrying a jemmy and bag marked "swag". You can't have that one
both ways. Intent is the (main) difference between them.

> You seem to be under some seriously erroneous impressions about how
> offences are decided and sentencing guidelines work. Here is a clue:
> it is not necessary to have the same sentencing guidelines for every
> single offence.

I'm not talking about sentencing. Neither, though you don't seem to
realise it, are you. We are discussing convicting people of offences
that they have not committed. You seem to think it would be a good
idea. I think it would be a rotten idea, but maybe I'm stuck in a
bygone age.

> Further, you are STILL apparently working under the (very wrong)
> assumption that the British justice system does not have what you are
> calling consequence-based sentencing. It does. It doesn't currently
> apply it to road traffic offences

Thank you.

> In what country (and/or planet) does breaking a window fall under the
> offence of 'burglary', btw?

On your imaginary planet, where the outcome is the only important
aspect of an incident and where intent is irrelevant. I remind you
that that is NOT my position - it is yours.

>>>Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
>>>careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
>>>we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
>>>they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
>>>encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
>>>machinery.

>> Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
>> that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
>> more obsessive?

> I just did say what I really mean. I'll say it again if you want:
> motorists that do not take proper care when operating their vehicles
> should be penalised. What are you talking about?

Those tried by a court and convicted - on specific and real evidence -
of DWDCAA can be (and are) punished right now.

Why do you want to cut out the trial? Or, if you don't, what do you
want that is different from what we have now?

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > JNugent <> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>
> >>>>Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
> >>>>"consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.
>
> >>>You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
> >>>a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
> >>>Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
> >>>offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.
>
> >> That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
> >> windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would).
>
> > No we would not. I really don't mind you making up patently dumb
> > things and claiming them as a result of your own feeble mental
> > processes, but kindly do not say stupid things and claim that I
> > proposed them.
>
> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
> irrelevant"),

That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID what
you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE of what
you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying about what I
have said.

All negligent, careless and dangerous driving should be penalised,
regardless of outcome. I've said that over and over and over and over
again, and you seem either too dumb to to read it or to busy arguing
with a straw man to pay attention to what I am saying.

I said it several times in the message you responded to.

> someone thrown through a shop window in fight or landing up there
> as a passenger on a runaway bus would be as guilty of burglary as
> someone inside shop late at night in a striped jersey and mask,
> carrying a jemmy and bag marked "swag". You can't have that one
> both ways. Intent is the (main) difference between them.

What are you talking about?

On your planet, are people really prosecuted for burglary when they
don't steal anything from anyone?

Even if someone deliberately broke a window (having previously
written a detailed account of their intentions) they should not be
prosecuted for burglary, regardless of their dress sense. Intention
to break windows has no relevance to prosecution for burglary.

> I'm not talking about sentencing. Neither, though you don't seem to
> realise it, are you. We are discussing convicting people of offences
> that they have not committed. You seem to think it would be a good
> idea.

You are being slanderous again.

I am not proposing convicting people for things they have not done,
and I do not think it would be a good idea.

> I think it would be a rotten idea, but maybe I'm stuck in a
> bygone age.

I don't know where you're stuck, but it's clearly too far up
somewhere for you to be able to read what's written.

> > In what country (and/or planet) does breaking a window fall under
> > the offence of 'burglary', btw?
>
> On your imaginary planet, where the outcome is the only important
> aspect of an incident

Listen you stupid imbecile. That is EXACTLY what I am NOT saying.

How many times does someone have to say something for it to
penetrate your thick skull? So far I'm at seven I think, and you
still haven't noticed.

ALL DRIVERS SHOULD BE PENALISED FOR ALL CARELESS, NEGLIGENT OR
DANGEROUS DRIVING.

Eight.


> >>>Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
> >>>careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
> >>>we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
> >>>they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
> >>>encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
> >>>machinery.
>
> >> Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
> >> that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
> >> more obsessive?
>
> > I just did say what I really mean. I'll say it again if you want:
> > motorists that do not take proper care when operating their vehicles
> > should be penalised. What are you talking about?
>
> Those tried by a court and convicted - on specific and real evidence -
> of DWDCAA can be (and are) punished right now.
>
> Why do you want to cut out the trial?

I don't. You must be hearing voices again. I imagine nurse will be
along with your medication shortly.

> Or, if you don't, what do you
> want that is different from what we have now?

I want all motorists that do not take proper care when operating their
vehicles to be penalised.

Nine.

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

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>JNugent <> wrote:
>>>>Ian Smith wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:

>>>>>>Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
>>>>>>"consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.

>>>>>You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
>>>>>a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
>>>>>Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
>>>>>offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.

>>>>That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
>>>>windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would).

>>>No we would not. I really don't mind you making up patently dumb
>>>things and claiming them as a result of your own feeble mental
>>>processes, but kindly do not say stupid things and claim that I
>>>proposed them.

>> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
>> irrelevant"),

> That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID what
> you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE of what
> you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying about what I
> have said.

I am doing nothing of the sort. If you don't want people punished for
doing things they didn't intend to do, but which have unpleasant
outcomes, why mention outcomes at all in the first place?

> All negligent, careless and dangerous driving should be penalised,
> regardless of outcome. I've said that over and over and over and over
> again, and you seem either too dumb to to read it or to busy arguing
> with a straw man to pay attention to what I am saying.
> I said it several times in the message you responded to.

That happens NOW. [1]

So what's your problem?

>> someone thrown through a shop window in fight or landing up there
>> as a passenger on a runaway bus would be as guilty of burglary as
>> someone inside shop late at night in a striped jersey and mask,
>> carrying a jemmy and bag marked "swag". You can't have that one
>> both ways. Intent is the (main) difference between them.

> What are you talking about?
> On your planet, are people really prosecuted for burglary when they
> don't steal anything from anyone?

No, but on yours (where you originally said that outcomes are
important, even though you have now modified that), they would (in the
situation you first described).

> Even if someone deliberately broke a window (having previously
> written a detailed account of their intentions) they should not be
> prosecuted for burglary, regardless of their dress sense. Intention
> to break windows has no relevance to prosecution for burglary.

It was the being on the premises without permission which would amount
to burglary, if assessed on a "outcomes-only" basis and without
reference to intent.

But you have withdrawn that. Fair enough.

>> I'm not talking about sentencing. Neither, though you don't seem to
>> realise it, are you. We are discussing convicting people of offences
>> that they have not committed. You seem to think it would be a good
>> idea.

> You are being slanderous again.
> I am not proposing convicting people for things they have not done,
> and I do not think it would be a good idea.

So you are a supporter of the current situation, where drivers cannot
be convicted of any offence requiring intention, without that
intention being proven. That's good. [2]

>> I think it would be a rotten idea, but maybe I'm stuck in a
>> bygone age.

> I don't know where you're stuck, but it's clearly too far up
> somewhere for you to be able to read what's written.

You do keep veering between those two positions, don't you?

>>>In what country (and/or planet) does breaking a window fall under
>>>the offence of 'burglary', btw?

>> On your imaginary planet, where the outcome is the only important
>> aspect of an incident

> Listen you stupid imbecile. That is EXACTLY what I am NOT saying.

So you never advocated the outcome dictating the result of a court
case in circumstances where intent could not be proved?

Again, that's good.

> How many times does someone have to say something for it to
> penetrate your thick skull? So far I'm at seven I think, and you
> still haven't noticed.

> ALL DRIVERS SHOULD BE PENALISED FOR ALL CARELESS, NEGLIGENT OR
> DANGEROUS DRIVING.

> Eight.

That is the position we have at present. [3]

I'm glad you require no change to it.

>>>>>Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
>>>>>careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
>>>>>we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
>>>>>they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
>>>>>encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
>>>>>machinery.

You see, that's the bit that causes the problem. Whoever wrote that
was advocating convicting people of things they hadn't done (or
treating them for legal purposes as if they had done it, which amounts
to much the same thing). It's now buried five layers deep in
attributions, but I think it was you that wrote it (if it wasn't, I'll
apologise immediately for getting you mixed up with whoever did write it).

>>>>Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
>>>>that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
>>>>more obsessive?

>>>I just did say what I really mean. I'll say it again if you want:
>>>motorists that do not take proper care when operating their vehicles
>>>should be penalised. What are you talking about?

>> Those tried by a court and convicted - on specific and real evidence -
>> of DWDCAA can be (and are) punished right now.
>> Why do you want to cut out the trial?

> I don't. You must be hearing voices again. I imagine nurse will be
> along with your medication shortly.

>> Or, if you don't, what do you
>> want that is different from what we have now?

> I want all motorists that do not take proper care when operating their
> vehicles to be penalised.

> Nine.

Since that is *exactly* the position we currently have (provided only
that there is the little matter of sufficient evidence) what makes you
think you are not getting what you want, right now? [And that's four
times that I have reminded you that that is the current position - a
fact of which I am certain you were already well aware.]

It seems that you do have some problem or other (if only from of your
outburst above - the one about treating a "careless" driver as though
they had killed someone). Is it something to do with only being able
to convict where there is evidence of an offence? If not, what is it?

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 01 Dec, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > JNugent <> wrote:
>
> >> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is
> >> unimportant and irrelevant"),
>
> > That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID
> > what you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE
> > of what you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying
> > about what I have said.
>
> I am doing nothing of the sort.

You are, repeatedly. You did it above (quoted).

> If you don't want people punished for doing things they didn't
> intend to do, but which have unpleasant outcomes, why mention
> outcomes at all in the first place?

Because you were wrong to imply that the British justice system
disregards outcomes - in some parts of the justice system it does, and
in some it does not - there's no universal fundamental underpinning
disregard of consequence.

I was merely pointing out your factual error.

> > All negligent, careless and dangerous driving should be penalised,
> > regardless of outcome. I've said that over and over and over and over
> > again, and you seem either too dumb to to read it or to busy arguing
> > with a straw man to pay attention to what I am saying.
> > I said it several times in the message you responded to.
>
> That happens NOW. [1]

Nonsense. You yourself referred to 'out-of-the-ordinary risk' as the
only sort that should punished. By implication, you accept that there
is 'ordinary risk' that is not penalised. The level of 'ordinary
risk' that is accepted is far too high with respect to road-going
motor vehicles (and probably too low with respect to other things).

You referred to "absent-mindedness or failure to notice something
unexpected" as being something that should not be penalised.
Absent-mindedness in charge of dangerous machinery is negligent and
should be penalised. Failing to notice something just because it
doesn't normally happen is negligent, and should penalised.

> No, but on yours (where you originally said that outcomes are
> important, even though you have now modified that), they would (in
> the situation you first described).

I have not said what you repeatedly claim. I have repeatedly stated
exactly the opposite, yet you persist in repeating your lies.

> > You are being slanderous again. I am not proposing convicting
> > people for things they have not done, and I do not think it would
> > be a good idea.
>
> So you are a supporter of the current situation, where drivers
> cannot be convicted of any offence requiring intention, without
> that intention being proven. That's good. [2]

You are putting words in my mouth again.

> You do keep veering between those two positions, don't you?

No, I have one repeatedly stated view, but you seem to enjoy lying
about it.

> >> On your imaginary planet, where the outcome is the only important
> >> aspect of an incident
>
> > Listen you stupid imbecile. That is EXACTLY what I am NOT saying.
>
> So you never advocated the outcome dictating the result of a court
> case in circumstances where intent could not be proved?

The outcome DOES dictate the result of court case in some cases.
That's fact. Whether I advocate it or not, it does already. In some
cases, it is right and proper that it does so.

> >>>>>Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all
> >>>>>routinely careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or
> >>>>>three) - then we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on
> >>>>>the basis of what they caused. This would probably be even
> >>>>>more effective at encouraging motorists to take proper care
> >>>>>with their dangerous machinery.
>
> You see, that's the bit that causes the problem. Whoever wrote that
> was advocating convicting people of things they hadn't done (or
> treating them for legal purposes as if they had done it, which
> amounts to much the same thing). It's now buried five layers deep
> in attributions, but I think it was you that wrote it (if it
> wasn't, I'll apologise immediately for getting you mixed up with
> whoever did write it).

I wrote that. I was not advocating convicting people for doing things
they have not done. That quote is not actually advocating anything.

> >> Those tried by a court and convicted - on specific and real
> >> evidence - of DWDCAA can be (and are) punished right now. Why do
> >> you want to cut out the trial?
>
> > I don't. You must be hearing voices again. I imagine nurse will
> > be along with your medication shortly.
> >
> >> Or, if you don't, what do you want that is different from what we
> >> have now?
> >
> > I want all motorists that do not take proper care when operating
> > their vehicles to be penalised.
>
> Since that is *exactly* the position we currently have

No, it is not. The position we currently have is that general
carelessness in control of a potentially deadly piece of machinery is
considered ordinary and not prosecuted.

> It seems that you do have some problem or other (if only from of
> your outburst above - the one about treating a "careless" driver as
> though they had killed someone). Is it something to do with only
> being able to convict where there is evidence of an offence? If
> not, what is it?

In this particular case the 'problem' I have is with an idiot who
can't comprehend english lying about what I have said.

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
>> irrelevant"),
>
> That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID what
> you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE of what
> you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying about what I
> have said.

Ian, don't wrestle with trolls. They just pull you down to their level.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

 

[[email protected]]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>>> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
>>> irrelevant"),
>> That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID what
>> you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE of what
>> you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying about what I
>> have said.
>
> Ian, don't wrestle with trolls. They just pull you down to their level.

BTW, you might feel he's not a troll, but JNugent has previous posting
history of willful misinterpretation -

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/8a71c90ccea66826

(and you'll see a very similar message from Simon if you read further
down the thread ;-)

My conclusion is that he treats usenet as a place to "score points"
through schoolboy-style debate and rhetoric, rather than, say, a place
to have a sensible good-faith discussion. I think he adds more heat
than light.


-dan

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is
>>>>unimportant and irrelevant"),

>>>That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID
>>>what you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE
>>>of what you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying
>>>about what I have said.

>> I am doing nothing of the sort.

> You are, repeatedly. You did it above (quoted).

At first, on reading your uncontrolled and petulant outburst, I
hesitated, wondering whether you had something of a point. Perhaps I
had misread the bit which first caused me to respond to your thoughts
and your prescriptive comments.

But I didn't misread it.

Here it is (verbatim):

QUOTE:
Simply prosecute all routinely careless motorists as if they killed a
pedestrian (or three) - then we avoid your aversion to sentencing
motorists on the basis of what they caused. This would probably be
even more effective at encouraging motorists to take proper care with
their dangerous machinery.
UNQUOTE

I questioned that:

>> You see, that's the bit that causes the problem. Whoever wrote that
>> was advocating convicting people of things they hadn't done (or
>> treating them for legal purposes as if they had done it, which
>> amounts to much the same thing). It's now buried five layers deep
>> in attributions, but I think it was you that wrote it (if it
>> wasn't, I'll apologise immediately for getting you mixed up with
>> whoever did write it).

You responded:

> I wrote that. I was not advocating convicting people for doing things
> they have not done. That quote is not actually advocating anything.

That quote is doing nothing *but* "advocating" something.

How can you deny it?

But I expect you will.

And yes, you may have the last word if you want it, since there is no
point in responding to it because you'll deny having said it, two
lines further down.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 05 Dec, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>>On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is
> >>>>unimportant and irrelevant"),
>
> >>>That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID
> >>>what you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE
> >>>of what you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying
> >>>about what I have said.
>
> >> I am doing nothing of the sort.
>
> > You are, repeatedly. You did it above (quoted).
>
> At first, on reading your uncontrolled and petulant outburst, I
> hesitated, wondering whether you had something of a point. Perhaps I
> had misread the bit which first caused me to respond to your thoughts
> and your prescriptive comments.
>
> But I didn't misread it.
>
> Here it is (verbatim):
>
> QUOTE:
> Simply prosecute all routinely careless motorists as if they killed a
> pedestrian (or three) - then we avoid your aversion to sentencing
> motorists on the basis of what they caused. This would probably be
> even more effective at encouraging motorists to take proper care with
> their dangerous machinery.
> UNQUOTE

Yes, a way to avoid your aversion to outcome dependant 'justice', were
such a thing necessary.

How you can take that quote - "prosecute all routinely careless
motorists [to the same degree]" - as saying that outcomes are all that
matter I do not know - it's EXPLICITLY OPPOSITE to what you claim I'm
saying. I say "treat them all the same, regardless of outcome" and
you quote this as evidence that my basis is that outcomes are all that
matter?

But then OVER and OVER and OVER again I have pointed out that I have
not said that intent is unimportant and irrelevant or that outcomes
are all that matter - and by repeatedly claiming that I have you are
blatantly and explicitly lying.

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