On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:18:37 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:27:50 +0100, Alex Heney  wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:22:48 GMT, Digiman@nospam.com (Digiman) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:03:26 +0100, JNugent  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ... A 
>>>>>> door opening half a mile in front of you in a narrow street with cars 
>>>>>> parked on both sides might still require you to stop by the time you got 
>>>>
>>>>>  That would be a door left open, rather than a door opening.
>>>>
>>>>I adhere to the position that a door that you see being opened, some way 
>>>>off as you approach, may still require you to stop (there being various 
>>>>good and bad reasons for keeping a door open). That does not make the 
>>>>stop automatically an emergency stop or the need for it automatically 
>>>>unreasonable.
>>>>
>>>>Are we simply on different tacks, or are we hair-splitting?
>>>
>>>You are hair splitting (aka trolling).
>>
>>They do appear to be hair splitting.
>>
>>But that is not trolling.
>>
>>Perhaps this explains some of your ridiculous accusations of
>>"trolling" about various people
>>
>It may explain why you don't consider some action trolling and I (and
>others) do.

I rather think your "and others" was probably wrong.

It does explain why we have differing ideas about trolls.


>
>I consider wholly unnecessary hair splitting to be part of the armoury
>of the troll because it is ideal for accomplishing troll aims.

It can be part of the armoury of a troll.

But that doesn't mean it defines one. It is something which happens
quite naturally sometimes.

>
>>>There are all sorts of dangerous behavour where the attribution of
>>>'dangerous' implies some particular condition.
>>>
>>>Sensible people understand that condition.
>>>
>>>Idiots and trolls make post after post pointing out the bleeding
>>>obvious.
>>> 
>>
>>While perfectly rational and reasonable people make post after post
>>trying to work out just what somebody else means by what they *think*
>>is "bleeding obvious".
>
>Instead of just asking.
>
>Perverse, isn't it?

It can seem that way.

>
>I have given you concrete examples of where the troll 'judith' has kept
>an argument going by deliberately avoiding mentioning what the actual
>problem was despite being perfectly well arware of it simply in order to
>protract the argument.
>

I cannot recall being given any such examples.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm

About time too.

McK.

McKev (yay!)  wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> 
> About time too.

Shame it won't apply to cyclists.

"McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message 
news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> About time too.

Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:

"In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention" 
where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which could 
include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"

I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their 
actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.

There is not a driver on the road who does not occasionally exhibit 
'momentary inattention' - because fallibility is part of the human 
condition.

An example of momentary inattention is pulling out of a side road without 
seeing an approaching vehicle which was hidden behind your 'A' pillar.  If 
this happens to you and the approaching vehicle is a car and there is a 
simple minor collision, then it is likely that the matter would not even 
reach court.  If it happened to you and the approaching vehicle was a 
motorcycle and the rider was killed - then should you be far more harshly 
punished than if you had pulled out in front of a car? (Particularly in 
light of the fact that narrow bikes are harder to see and the action of 
negligently pulling out in front of a small bike could be regarded as less 
culpable than pulling out in front of a large car that you *should* have 
been able to see!).

I know that people who have lost loved ones due to a driver's inattention 
will not agree with me - but I do feel that a lot of drivers could find 
themselves facing harsh punishment for a particular piece of driving that, 
in other circumstances, would not merit punishment at all.

Ret.

On 15 Jul, 10:53, "Ret."  wrote:
> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
>
> news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> > About time too.
>
> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
>
> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which could
> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
>
> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.
>
> There is not a driver on the road who does not occasionally exhibit
> 'momentary inattention' - because fallibility is part of the human
> condition.
>
> An example of momentary inattention is pulling out of a side road without
> seeing an approaching vehicle which was hidden behind your 'A' pillar.  If
> this happens to you and the approaching vehicle is a car and there is a
> simple minor collision, then it is likely that the matter would not even
> reach court.  If it happened to you and the approaching vehicle was a
> motorcycle and the rider was killed - then should you be far more harshly
> punished than if you had pulled out in front of a car? (Particularly in
> light of the fact that narrow bikes are harder to see and the action of
> negligently pulling out in front of a small bike could be regarded as less
> culpable than pulling out in front of a large car that you *should* have
> been able to see!).
>
> I know that people who have lost loved ones due to a driver's inattention
> will not agree with me - but I do feel that a lot of drivers could find
> themselves facing harsh punishment for a particular piece of driving that> in other circumstances, would not merit punishment at all.
>
> Ret.

A very sensible and measured reply, IMHO.

On 15 Jul, 10:53, "Ret."  wrote:
> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
>
> news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> > About time too.
>
> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
>
> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which could
> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
>
> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.


"Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson

Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
protected motorists.


> There is not a driver on the road who does not occasionally exhibit
> 'momentary inattention' - because fallibility is part of the human
> condition.

Your fallibility means someone else may pay the price. And then you
will feel remorse. But at least you will be able to feel. Your victim
may not be able to.

>
> An example of momentary inattention is pulling out of a side road without
> seeing an approaching vehicle which was hidden behind your 'A' pillar.  If
> this happens to you and the approaching vehicle is a car and there is a
> simple minor collision, then it is likely that the matter would not even
> reach court.  If it happened to you and the approaching vehicle was a
> motorcycle and the rider was killed - then should you be far more harshly
> punished than if you had pulled out in front of a car? (Particularly in
> light of the fact that narrow bikes are harder to see and the action of
> negligently pulling out in front of a small bike could be regarded as less
> culpable than pulling out in front of a large car that you *should* have
> been able to see!).

Oh, how unfair for you! Well, surely all drivers are well aware of
this basic problem, and should act accordingly. Still I suppose that
you could blame the victim for have neglected to surround himself with
a steel cocoon.

>
> I know that people who have lost loved ones due to a driver's inattention
> will not agree with me - but I do feel that a lot of drivers could find
> themselves facing harsh punishment for a particular piece of driving that,
> in other circumstances, would not merit punishment at all.
>

So just be glad that you've been lucky, and amend your ways.

"Squashme"  wrote in message 
news:76025815-b21a-4cfe-9ad9-b5a81c6b39a6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 Jul, 10:53, "Ret."  wrote:
>> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>
>> > About time too.
>>
>> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
>>
>> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
>> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which 
>> could
>> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
>>
>> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
>> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.
>
>
> "Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
> concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson
>
> Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
> and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
> protected motorists.

You genuinely believe that motorists are over-indulged and over-protected? 
They are just about the most 'attacked' group in the uk today!
>
>
>> There is not a driver on the road who does not occasionally exhibit
>> 'momentary inattention' - because fallibility is part of the human
>> condition.
>
> Your fallibility means someone else may pay the price. And then you
> will feel remorse. But at least you will be able to feel. Your victim
> may not be able to.

Those statements are true - but when I say that human beings are fallible 
that is exactly what I mean. It is part of the human condition and there is 
*nothing* that human beings can do about it. Harsh deterrents are fine when 
the behaviour is capable of modification (drink driving for example) - but 
even if you introduced the death penalty for careless driving - you would 
not stop it because human beings are incapable of 100% perfection in their 
actions. People will *always* make mistakes and errors of judgement and they 
are incapable of ensuring that they wont - no matter the deterrent.

>
>>
>> An example of momentary inattention is pulling out of a side road without
>> seeing an approaching vehicle which was hidden behind your 'A' pillar. 
>> If
>> this happens to you and the approaching vehicle is a car and there is a
>> simple minor collision, then it is likely that the matter would not even
>> reach court.  If it happened to you and the approaching vehicle was a
>> motorcycle and the rider was killed - then should you be far more harshly
>> punished than if you had pulled out in front of a car? (Particularly in
>> light of the fact that narrow bikes are harder to see and the action of
>> negligently pulling out in front of a small bike could be regarded as 
>> less
>> culpable than pulling out in front of a large car that you *should* have
>> been able to see!).
>
> Oh, how unfair for you! Well, surely all drivers are well aware of
> this basic problem, and should act accordingly. Still I suppose that
> you could blame the victim for have neglected to surround himself with
> a steel cocoon.

It is not unfair for *me* - it is unfair for any human being caught in a 
dilemma that they are incapable of putting right. Unless you can demonstrate 
to me that you are incapable of making mistakes then I cannot accept your 
arguments.
>
>>
>> I know that people who have lost loved ones due to a driver's inattention
>> will not agree with me - but I do feel that a lot of drivers could find
>> themselves facing harsh punishment for a particular piece of driving 
>> that,
>> in other circumstances, would not merit punishment at all.
>>
>
> So just be glad that you've been lucky, and amend your ways.

That would be excellent advice - if it was remotely possible. Unfortunately 
there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself 
infallible. Is there?

Ret.

Squashme wrote:

> "Ret."  wrote:
>> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message

>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm

>>> About time too.

>> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
>> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
>> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which could
>> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
>> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
>> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.

> "Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
> concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson

So you say that it is "selfish" not to want to be punished unduly harshly?

"Self-interested" (the phrase economists use when considering the theory 
of rational decison-making) would be nearer the mark - and the phrase 
does not mean "selfish".

> Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
> and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
> protected motorists.

"Fear" of what...?

Injustice?

Peremptory and whimsical exercise of power without reason?

Ret. wrote:
> "Squashme"  wrote in message 
> news:76025815-b21a-4cfe-9ad9-b5a81c6b39a6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 15 Jul, 10:53, "Ret."  wrote:
>>> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>>> About time too.
>>> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
>>>
>>> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
>>> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which 
>>> could
>>> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
>>>
>>> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
>>> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.
>>
>> "Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
>> concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson
>>
>> Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
>> and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
>> protected motorists.
> 
> You genuinely believe that motorists are over-indulged and over-protected? 
> They are just about the most 'attacked' group in the uk today!
>>
>>> There is not a driver on the road who does not occasionally exhibit
>>> 'momentary inattention' - because fallibility is part of the human
>>> condition.
>> Your fallibility means someone else may pay the price. And then you
>> will feel remorse. But at least you will be able to feel. Your victim
>> may not be able to.
> 
> Those statements are true - but when I say that human beings are fallible 
> that is exactly what I mean. It is part of the human condition and there is 
> *nothing* that human beings can do about it. Harsh deterrents are fine when 
> the behaviour is capable of modification (drink driving for example) - but 
> even if you introduced the death penalty for careless driving - you would 
> not stop it because human beings are incapable of 100% perfection in their 
> actions. People will *always* make mistakes and errors of judgement and they 
> are incapable of ensuring that they wont - no matter the deterrent.
> 
>>> An example of momentary inattention is pulling out of a side road without
>>> seeing an approaching vehicle which was hidden behind your 'A' pillar. 
>>> If
>>> this happens to you and the approaching vehicle is a car and there is a
>>> simple minor collision, then it is likely that the matter would not even
>>> reach court.  If it happened to you and the approaching vehicle was a
>>> motorcycle and the rider was killed - then should you be far more harshly
>>> punished than if you had pulled out in front of a car? (Particularly in
>>> light of the fact that narrow bikes are harder to see and the action of
>>> negligently pulling out in front of a small bike could be regarded as 
>>> less
>>> culpable than pulling out in front of a large car that you *should* have
>>> been able to see!).
>> Oh, how unfair for you! Well, surely all drivers are well aware of
>> this basic problem, and should act accordingly. Still I suppose that
>> you could blame the victim for have neglected to surround himself with
>> a steel cocoon.
> 
> It is not unfair for *me* - it is unfair for any human being caught in a 
> dilemma that they are incapable of putting right. Unless you can demonstrate 
> to me that you are incapable of making mistakes then I cannot accept your 
> arguments.
>>> I know that people who have lost loved ones due to a driver's inattention
>>> will not agree with me - but I do feel that a lot of drivers could find
>>> themselves facing harsh punishment for a particular piece of driving 
>>> that,
>>> in other circumstances, would not merit punishment at all.
>>>
>> So just be glad that you've been lucky, and amend your ways.
> 
> That would be excellent advice - if it was remotely possible. Unfortunately 
> there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself 
> infallible. Is there?
> 
> Ret. 

Squshme can.

Or rather, he would if it were necessary and if he were not already as 
perfect as one can be.

Ret. wrote:
|||
||| Your fallibility means someone else may pay the price. And then you
||| will feel remorse. But at least you will be able to feel. Your
||| victim may not be able to.
||
|| Those statements are true - but when I say that human beings are
|| fallible that is exactly what I mean. It is part of the human
|| condition and there is *nothing* that human beings can do about it.
|| Harsh deterrents are fine when the behaviour is capable of
|| modification (drink driving for example) - but even if you
|| introduced the death penalty for careless driving - you would not
|| stop it because human beings are incapable of 100% perfection in
|| their actions. People will *always* make mistakes and errors of
|| judgement and they are incapable of ensuring that they wont - no
|| matter the deterrent.

Precisely. Well said.

-- 
Rob

On Jul 15, 8:52 am, "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> About time too.

Personally I'm more concerned about this new charge of causing death
by driving while unlicenced, uninsured or disqualified.

I'm not in favour of anybody driving when they are not legally
entitled to do so, but these are separate offences which have their
own penalties and it seem unjust to punish one transgressor more
harshly than another just because somebody lost their life, especially
as the CPS prosecution guidelines for the offence say, "This offence
requires no proof that the driving fell below any standard required by
law."

On 15 Jul, 12:29, JNugent  wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
> > "Squashme"  wrote in message
> >news:76025815-b21a-4cfe-9ad9-b5a81c6b39a6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 15 Jul, 10:53, "Ret."  wrote:
> >>> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
>
> >>>news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> >>>> About time too.
> >>> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
>
> >>> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
> >>> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which
> >>> could
> >>> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
>
> >>> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
> >>> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.
>
> >> "Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
> >> concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson
>
> >> Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
> >> and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
> >> protected motorists.
>
> > You genuinely believe that motorists are over-indulged and over-protected?
> > They are just about the most 'attacked' group in the uk today!
>
> >>> There is not a driver on the road who does not occasionally exhibit
> >>> 'momentary inattention' - because fallibility is part of the human
> >>> condition.
> >> Your fallibility means someone else may pay the price. And then you
> >> will feel remorse. But at least you will be able to feel. Your victim
> >> may not be able to.
>
> > Those statements are true - but when I say that human beings are fallible
> > that is exactly what I mean. It is part of the human condition and there is
> > *nothing* that human beings can do about it. Harsh deterrents are fine when
> > the behaviour is capable of modification (drink driving for example) - but
> > even if you introduced the death penalty for careless driving - you would
> > not stop it because human beings are incapable of 100% perfection in their
> > actions. People will *always* make mistakes and errors of judgement and they
> > are incapable of ensuring that they wont - no matter the deterrent.
>
> >>> An example of momentary inattention is pulling out of a side road without
> >>> seeing an approaching vehicle which was hidden behind your 'A' pillar.
> >>> If
> >>> this happens to you and the approaching vehicle is a car and there is a
> >>> simple minor collision, then it is likely that the matter would not even
> >>> reach court.  If it happened to you and the approaching vehicle was a
> >>> motorcycle and the rider was killed - then should you be far more harshly
> >>> punished than if you had pulled out in front of a car? (Particularly in
> >>> light of the fact that narrow bikes are harder to see and the action of
> >>> negligently pulling out in front of a small bike could be regarded as
> >>> less
> >>> culpable than pulling out in front of a large car that you *should* have
> >>> been able to see!).
> >> Oh, how unfair for you! Well, surely all drivers are well aware of
> >> this basic problem, and should act accordingly. Still I suppose that
> >> you could blame the victim for have neglected to surround himself with
> >> a steel cocoon.
>
> > It is not unfair for *me* - it is unfair for any human being caught in a
> > dilemma that they are incapable of putting right. Unless you can demonstrate
> > to me that you are incapable of making mistakes then I cannot accept your
> > arguments.
> >>> I know that people who have lost loved ones due to a driver's inattention
> >>> will not agree with me - but I do feel that a lot of drivers could find
> >>> themselves facing harsh punishment for a particular piece of driving
> >>> that,
> >>> in other circumstances, would not merit punishment at all.
>
> >> So just be glad that you've been lucky, and amend your ways.
>
> > That would be excellent advice - if it was remotely possible. Unfortunately
> > there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself
> > infallible. Is there?
>
> > Ret.
>
> Squshme can.
>
> Or rather, he would if it were necessary and if he were not already as
> perfect as one can be.

So you are saying that all motorists are as close to infallible as
they can be, and cannot learn to improve, so there is no point in
trying to change their behaviour?

Squashme wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 12:29, JNugent  wrote:
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>>> news:76025815-b21a-4cfe-9ad9-b5a81c6b39a6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 15 Jul, 10:53, "Ret."  wrote:
>>>>> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>>>>> About time too.
>>>>> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
>>>>> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
>>>>> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which
>>>>> could
>>>>> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
>>>>> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
>>>>> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.
>>>> "Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
>>>> concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson
>>>> Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
>>>> and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
>>>> protected motorists.
>>> You genuinely believe that motorists are over-indulged and over-protected?
>>> They are just about the most 'attacked' group in the uk today!
>>>>> There is not a driver on the road who does not occasionally exhibit
>>>>> 'momentary inattention' - because fallibility is part of the human
>>>>> condition.
>>>> Your fallibility means someone else may pay the price. And then you
>>>> will feel remorse. But at least you will be able to feel. Your victim
>>>> may not be able to.
>>> Those statements are true - but when I say that human beings are fallible
>>> that is exactly what I mean. It is part of the human condition and there is
>>> *nothing* that human beings can do about it. Harsh deterrents are fine when
>>> the behaviour is capable of modification (drink driving for example) - but
>>> even if you introduced the death penalty for careless driving - you would
>>> not stop it because human beings are incapable of 100% perfection in their
>>> actions. People will *always* make mistakes and errors of judgement and they
>>> are incapable of ensuring that they wont - no matter the deterrent.
>>>>> An example of momentary inattention is pulling out of a side road without
>>>>> seeing an approaching vehicle which was hidden behind your 'A' pillar.
>>>>> If
>>>>> this happens to you and the approaching vehicle is a car and there is a
>>>>> simple minor collision, then it is likely that the matter would not even
>>>>> reach court.  If it happened to you and the approaching vehicle was a
>>>>> motorcycle and the rider was killed - then should you be far more harshly
>>>>> punished than if you had pulled out in front of a car? (Particularly in
>>>>> light of the fact that narrow bikes are harder to see and the action of
>>>>> negligently pulling out in front of a small bike could be regarded as
>>>>> less
>>>>> culpable than pulling out in front of a large car that you *should* have
>>>>> been able to see!).
>>>> Oh, how unfair for you! Well, surely all drivers are well aware of
>>>> this basic problem, and should act accordingly. Still I suppose that
>>>> you could blame the victim for have neglected to surround himself with
>>>> a steel cocoon.
>>> It is not unfair for *me* - it is unfair for any human being caught in a
>>> dilemma that they are incapable of putting right. Unless you can demonstrate
>>> to me that you are incapable of making mistakes then I cannot accept your
>>> arguments.
>>>>> I know that people who have lost loved ones due to a driver's inattention
>>>>> will not agree with me - but I do feel that a lot of drivers could find
>>>>> themselves facing harsh punishment for a particular piece of driving
>>>>> that,
>>>>> in other circumstances, would not merit punishment at all.
>>>> So just be glad that you've been lucky, and amend your ways.
>>> That would be excellent advice - if it was remotely possible. Unfortunately
>>> there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself
>>> infallible. Is there?
>>> Ret.
>> Squshme can.
>>
>> Or rather, he would if it were necessary and if he were not already as
>> perfect as one can be.
> 
> So you are saying that all motorists are as close to infallible as
> they can be, and cannot learn to improve, so there is no point in
> trying to change their behaviour?

No.

Only that you are.

On 15 Jul, 13:28, AndrewR  wrote:
> On Jul 15, 8:52 am, "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> > About time too.
>
> Personally I'm more concerned about this new charge of causing death
> by driving while unlicenced, uninsured or disqualified.
>
> I'm not in favour of anybody driving when they are not legally
> entitled to do so, but these are separate offences which have their
> own penalties and it seem unjust to punish one transgressor more
> harshly than another just because somebody lost their life, especially
> as the CPS prosecution guidelines for the offence say, "This offence
> requires no proof that the driving fell below any standard required by
> law."

"Just because somebody lost their life". Yes, what a trivial reason to
punish someone more harshly. Justice must be blind. After all the
transgressing motorist will feel so bad about it. And the victim was
probably not even a motorist.

On 15 Jul, 12:28, JNugent  wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > "Ret."  wrote:
> >> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> >>> About time too.
> >> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
> >> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
> >> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which could
> >> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
> >> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
> >> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.
> > "Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
> > concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson
>
> So you say that it is "selfish" not to want to be punished unduly harshly?
>
> "Self-interested" (the phrase economists use when considering the theory
> of rational decison-making) would be nearer the mark - and the phrase
> does not mean "selfish".
>
> > Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
> > and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
> > protected motorists.
>
> "Fear" of what...?
>
> Injustice?
>
> Peremptory and whimsical exercise of power without reason?

Fear of death or injury for pedestrians and cyclists. Fear of having
to behave in a civilized manner for motorists, with whom they have to
share the roads.

On 15 Jul, 12:05, "Ret."  wrote:
> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>
> news:76025815-b21a-4cfe-9ad9-b5a81c6b39a6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 15 Jul, 10:53, "Ret."  wrote:
> >> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> >> > About time too.
>
> >> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
>
> >> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
> >> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which
> >> could
> >> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
>
> >> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
> >> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.
>
> > "Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
> > concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson
>
> > Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
> > and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
> > protected motorists.
>
> You genuinely believe that motorists are over-indulged and over-protected?
> They are just about the most 'attacked' group in the uk today!
>

That's just their fantasy, their perception. They're not Muslims. I
feel as a cyclist recently that I am under attack. But I carry on
cycling. I am certainly more in danger from you as a motorist, than
you are from me.

On 15 Jul, 13:39, JNugent  wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 12:29, JNugent  wrote:
> >> Ret. wrote:
> >>> "Squashme"  wrote in message
> >>>news:76025815-b21a-4cfe-9ad9-b5a81c6b39a6@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On 15 Jul, 10:53, "Ret."  wrote:
> >>>>> "McKev (yay!)"  wrote in message
> >>>>>news:3HYek.155$Uk7.106@newsfe16.ams2...
> >>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> >>>>>> About time too.
> >>>>> Although I'm glad that they have included this paragraph:
> >>>>> "In cases of death by careless driving caused by "momentary inattention"
> >>>>> where there were no aggravating factors, a community sentence, which
> >>>>> could
> >>>>> include a curfew requirement, would be appropriate"
> >>>>> I have serious concerns about punishing people for the effects of their
> >>>>> actions as opposed to punishing them for their actions in themselves.
> >>>> "Serious concerns" or selfish concerns? "The prospect of hanging
> >>>> concentrates the mind wonderfully." - Dr Johnson
> >>>> Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
> >>>> and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
> >>>> protected motorists.
> >>> You genuinely believe that motorists are over-indulged and over-protected?
> >>> They are just about the most 'attacked' group in the uk today!
> >>>>> There is not a driver on the road who does not occasionally exhibit
> >>>>> 'momentary inattention' - because fallibility is part of the human
> >>>>> condition.
> >>>> Your fallibility means someone else may pay the price. And then you
> >>>> will feel remorse. But at least you will be able to feel. Your victim
> >>>> may not be able to.
> >>> Those statements are true - but when I say that human beings are fallible
> >>> that is exactly what I mean. It is part of the human condition and there is
> >>> *nothing* that human beings can do about it. Harsh deterrents are fine when
> >>> the behaviour is capable of modification (drink driving for example) - but
> >>> even if you introduced the death penalty for careless driving - you would
> >>> not stop it because human beings are incapable of 100% perfection in their
> >>> actions. People will *always* make mistakes and errors of judgement and they
> >>> are incapable of ensuring that they wont - no matter the deterrent.
> >>>>> An example of momentary inattention is pulling out of a side road without
> >>>>> seeing an approaching vehicle which was hidden behind your 'A' pillar.
> >>>>> If
> >>>>> this happens to you and the approaching vehicle is a car and there is a
> >>>>> simple minor collision, then it is likely that the matter would not even
> >>>>> reach court.  If it happened to you and the approaching vehicle was a
> >>>>> motorcycle and the rider was killed - then should you be far more harshly
> >>>>> punished than if you had pulled out in front of a car? (Particularly in
> >>>>> light of the fact that narrow bikes are harder to see and the action of
> >>>>> negligently pulling out in front of a small bike could be regarded as
> >>>>> less
> >>>>> culpable than pulling out in front of a large car that you *should* have
> >>>>> been able to see!).
> >>>> Oh, how unfair for you! Well, surely all drivers are well aware of
> >>>> this basic problem, and should act accordingly. Still I suppose that
> >>>> you could blame the victim for have neglected to surround himself with
> >>>> a steel cocoon.
> >>> It is not unfair for *me* - it is unfair for any human being caught in a
> >>> dilemma that they are incapable of putting right. Unless you can demonstrate
> >>> to me that you are incapable of making mistakes then I cannot accept your
> >>> arguments.
> >>>>> I know that people who have lost loved ones due to a driver's inattention
> >>>>> will not agree with me - but I do feel that a lot of drivers could find
> >>>>> themselves facing harsh punishment for a particular piece of driving
> >>>>> that,
> >>>>> in other circumstances, would not merit punishment at all.
> >>>> So just be glad that you've been lucky, and amend your ways.
> >>> That would be excellent advice - if it was remotely possible. Unfortunately
> >>> there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself
> >>> infallible. Is there?
> >>> Ret.
> >> Squshme can.
>
> >> Or rather, he would if it were necessary and if he were not already as
> >> perfect as one can be.
>
> > So you are saying that all motorists are as close to infallible as
> > they can be, and cannot learn to improve, so there is no point in
> > trying to change their behaviour?
>
> No.
>
> Only that you are.

Only that I am what? As close to perfection and infallibility as a
motorist, who cannot possibly be expected to change his behaviour,
even when threatened with such unfair punishments?

On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> > About time too.
>
> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.

Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
"careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
lapse. No one is infallible.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ik47f0.1662q7fg4opofN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>
>> About time too.
>
> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.

Nor in Scotland.

Squashme wrote:

> On 15 Jul, 13:39, JNugent  wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 15 Jul, 12:29, JNugent  wrote:
>>>> Ret. wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>>> ... amend your ways.

>>>>> That would be excellent advice - if it was remotely possible. Unfortunately
>>>>> there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself
>>>>> infallible. Is there?

>>>> Squshme can.
>>>> Or rather, he would if it were necessary and if he were not already as
>>>> perfect as one can be.

>>> So you are saying that all motorists are as close to infallible as
>>> they can be, and cannot learn to improve, so there is no point in
>>> trying to change their behaviour?

>> No.
>> Only that you are.

> Only that I am what? As close to perfection and infallibility as a
> motorist, who cannot possibly be expected to change his behaviour,
> even when threatened with such unfair punishments?

In face of arguments to the contrary, you claimed that it is possible 
for people to guarantee never making an error (and urged a poster to do 
so by "mend[ing] your [ie, his] ways".

Another poster responded to that by saying (and I quote verbatim):

"...there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself
infallible. Is there?"

But since you had already claimed that accidents happen only because of 
avoidable negligence which can be obviated by the mending of ways, it 
follows that you believe that you are capable of never making an error 
if you merely adhere to the set of ways you recommend for others.

Well, it's either that or you were posting gibberish.

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are now arguing 
in favour of the second option. So be it.

"Squashme"  wrote in message 
news:6ee8dca5-e1d0-4954-a57c-93d76fb8c9a8@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>
>> > About time too.
>>
>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
>
> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> lapse. No one is infallible.

He doesnt have brakes?

McK.

Squashme wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>> About time too.
>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
> 
> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> lapse. No one is infallible.

He wasn't convicted of "careless" cycling, was he?

What *was* he convicted of, again?

Squashme wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>
>>> About time too.
>>
>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
>
> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> lapse. No one is infallible.

Indeed, but the cyclist you mention could have stopped or at least slowed 
down and given the people in his path the time to move out of the way.

Squashme wrote:

>>> Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
>>> and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
>>> protected motorists.
>> "Fear" of what...?
>>
>> Injustice?
>>
>> Peremptory and whimsical exercise of power without reason?
> 
> Fear of death or injury for pedestrians and cyclists. Fear of having
> to behave in a civilized manner for motorists, with whom they have to
> share the roads.
> 

Great innit, motorists pay for the roads many many times over, then we 
get dictated to by a bunch of lettuce eating "Gay Pride" cyclists who 
pay fuck all to use our roads. Even if you get a decent shot in and 
knock one off their little bike as they trundle through a red light you 
have to pay for the bloody ambulance. Not worth stopping for 'em.

Sanctimonious fucker. Protected indeed. Taxed to bloody death and 
persecuted by pedal pushers, ecomentalists, the government, oil 
companies, insurance companies, and the filth yet you have the blatant 
front to call us "over-indulged and over-protected".

If you want to be protected on the roads, buy a car. You're not going to 
be protected by lycra and a plastic helmet. If you want the rest of the 
world to change because you want to ride a bike, then please feel free 
to throw yourself under a bus.

-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"

Squashme wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 13:28, AndrewR  wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 8:52 am, "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>> About time too.
>> Personally I'm more concerned about this new charge of causing death
>> by driving while unlicenced, uninsured or disqualified.
>>
>> I'm not in favour of anybody driving when they are not legally
>> entitled to do so, but these are separate offences which have their
>> own penalties and it seem unjust to punish one transgressor more
>> harshly than another just because somebody lost their life, especially
>> as the CPS prosecution guidelines for the offence say, "This offence
>> requires no proof that the driving fell below any standard required by
>> law."
> 
> "Just because somebody lost their life". Yes, what a trivial reason to
> punish someone more harshly. Justice must be blind. After all the
> transgressing motorist will feel so bad about it. And the victim was
> probably not even a motorist.

hopefully the victim was a sanctimonious "holier than thou" cyclist.

-- 
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"

Squashme  wrote:

> On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> >
> > > About time too.
> >
> > Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
> 
> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> lapse. No one is infallible.

Yet you expect motorists to be infallible. What is the view like past
your own teeth?

Squashme  wrote:

> I am certainly more in danger from you as a motorist, than
> you are from me.

Pedestrians don't exist in your world, do they?

Squashme  wrote:

> "Just because somebody lost their life". Yes, what a trivial reason to
> punish someone more harshly. Justice must be blind. After all the
> transgressing motorist will feel so bad about it. And the victim was
> probably not even a motorist.

So you're arguing that the cyclist who deliberately rode at a group of
pedestrians on the pavement, shouting abuse (as normal), then rode down
and killed one of those pedestrians should have been tried for murder or
manslaughter rather than getting off with a fine and a slap on the
wrist?

On 15 Jul, 15:03, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > I am certainly more in danger from you as a motorist, than
> > you are from me.
>
> Pedestrians don't exist in your world, do they?

Yes they do, but I don't kill them in large numbers, unlike you.

On 15 Jul, 15:03, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > "Just because somebody lost their life". Yes, what a trivial reason to
> > punish someone more harshly. Justice must be blind. After all the
> > transgressing motorist will feel so bad about it. And the victim was
> > probably not even a motorist.
>
> So you're arguing that the cyclist who deliberately rode at a group of
> pedestrians on the pavement, shouting abuse (as normal), then rode down
> and killed one of those pedestrians should have been tried for murder or
> manslaughter rather than getting off with a fine and a slap on the
> wrist?

Do keep up. He was not on the pavement. if he had been, he would have
got a stiffer punishment. He shouted a warning, using motorist-type
language. He should have slowed down. Maybe he should have faced
manslaughter charges, but then so should many motorists, who instead
get a fine and community service.

On 15 Jul, 14:58, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> > > > About time too.
>
> > > Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
>
> > Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> > "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> > the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> > warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> > kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> > group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> > lapse. No one is infallible.
>
> Yet you expect motorists to be infallible.

I expect that, as privileged people, they should try a lot harder not
to harm others. It's being responsible.  They are not beyond
improvement, despite what you think.

On 15 Jul, 14:28, Pete M  wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> >>> Let's adjust the balance of terror a little. Less fear for pedestrians
> >>> and cyclists to suffer, and more fear for the over-indulged and over-
> >>> protected motorists.
> >> "Fear" of what...?
>
> >> Injustice?
>
> >> Peremptory and whimsical exercise of power without reason?
>
> > Fear of death or injury for pedestrians and cyclists. Fear of having
> > to behave in a civilized manner for motorists, with whom they have to
> > share the roads.
>
> Great innit, motorists pay for the roads many many times over, then we
> get dictated to by a bunch of lettuce eating "Gay Pride" cyclists who
> pay fuck all to use our roads. Even if you get a decent shot in and
> knock one off their little bike as they trundle through a red light you
> have to pay for the bloody ambulance. Not worth stopping for 'em.
>
> Sanctimonious fucker. Protected indeed. Taxed to bloody death and
> persecuted by pedal pushers, ecomentalists, the government, oil
> companies, insurance companies, and the filth yet you have the blatant
> front to call us "over-indulged and over-protected".
>
> If you want to be protected on the roads, buy a car. You're not going to
> be protected by lycra and a plastic helmet. If you want the rest of the
> world to change because you want to ride a bike, then please feel free
> to throw yourself under a bus.
>

The voice of reason. I hear what you're saying, and I thank you.

On 15 Jul, 14:19, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> >>> About time too.
>
> >> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
>
> > Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> > "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> > the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> > warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> > kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> > group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> > lapse. No one is infallible.
>
> Indeed, but the cyclist you mention could have stopped or at least slowed
> down and given the people in his path the time to move out of the way.

Indeed he could, and I'm sure that many motorists would have done. But
mostly motorists wouldn't have to slow down, because even teenage
idiots clear out of their way pretty quickly. So the motorists don't
have to shout "abuse", as Mr Firth puts it.

On Jul 15, 1:41 pm, Squashme  wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 13:28, AndrewR  wrote:

> > I'm not in favour of anybody driving when they are not legally
> > entitled to do so, but these are separate offences which have their
> > own penalties and it seem unjust to punish one transgressor more
> > harshly than another just because somebody lost their life, especially
> > as the CPS prosecution guidelines for the offence say, "This offence
> > requires no proof that the driving fell below any standard required by
> > law."
>
> "Just because somebody lost their life". Yes, what a trivial reason to
> punish someone more harshly. Justice must be blind. After all the
> transgressing motorist will feel so bad about it. And the victim was
> probably not even a motorist.

You're missing the point, try reading what I wrote again.  It might be
easier if, this time, you try not to imagine some innocent child or a
harmless cyclist being mown down by some scum bucket.

On 15 Jul, 14:18, JNugent  wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> >>> About time too.
> >> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
>
> > Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> > "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> > the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> > warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> > kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> > group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> > lapse. No one is infallible.
>
> He wasn't convicted of "careless" cycling, was he?

No. And?

>
> What *was* he convicted of, again?

A lesser offence than he should have been. And the recent idiot
"careless" truck driver got an even lower fine. Poor fallible chap.

On 15 Jul, 14:17, "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>
> news:6ee8dca5-e1d0-4954-a57c-93d76fb8c9a8@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 15 Jul, 10:22, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>
> >> > About time too.
>
> >> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
>
> > Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> > "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> > the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> > warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> > kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> > group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> > lapse. No one is infallible.
>
> He doesnt have brakes?
>

He made an understandable error in not using them, rather like so many
motorists of whom we read, but we just file away under "Just the price
we must pay".

Squashme wrote:

> "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
>> "Squashme"  wrote:
>>> @malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:

>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm

>>>>> About time too.

>>>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.

>>> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
>>> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
>>> the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
>>> warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
>>> kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
>>> group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
>>> lapse. No one is infallible.

>> He doesnt have brakes?

> He made an understandable error in not using them, rather like so many
> motorists of whom we read, but we just file away under "Just the price
> we must pay".

What do you mean, "understandable error"?

As he made absolutely clear when bellowing at the victim, he did it 
deliberately.

On 15 Jul, 15:34, JNugent  wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
> >> "Squashme"  wrote:
> >>> @malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >>>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> >>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> >>>>> About time too.
> >>>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
> >>> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> >>> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who killed
> >>> the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he shouted a
> >>> warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his bike could
> >>> kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot predict how a
> >>> group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in seconds. Momentary
> >>> lapse. No one is infallible.
> >> He doesnt have brakes?
> > He made an understandable error in not using them, rather like so many
> > motorists of whom we read, but we just file away under "Just the price
> > we must pay".
>
> What do you mean, "understandable error"?
>
> As he made absolutely clear when bellowing at the victim, he did it
> deliberately.

No, he warned them all that he was not stopping, to get them out of
the way. Do you really believe that he aimed at her particularly? If
so that would be murder, wouldn't it?

On 15 Jul, 14:17, JNugent  wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 13:39, JNugent  wrote:
> >>Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 15 Jul, 12:29, JNugent  wrote:
> >>>> Ret. wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>>>> ... amend your ways.
> >>>>> That would be excellent advice - if it was remotely possible. Unfortunately
> >>>>> there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself
> >>>>> infallible. Is there?
> >>>> Squshme can.
> >>>> Or rather, he would if it were necessary and if he were not already as
> >>>> perfect as one can be.
> >>> So you are saying that all motorists are as close to infallible as
> >>> they can be, and cannot learn to improve, so there is no point in
> >>> trying to change their behaviour?
> >> No.
> >> Only that you are.
> > Only that I am what? As close to perfection and infallibility as a
> > motorist, who cannot possibly be expected to change his behaviour,
> > even when threatened with such unfair punishments?
>
> In face of arguments to the contrary, you claimed that it is possible
> for people to guarantee never making an error (and urged a poster to do
> so by "mend[ing] your [ie, his] ways".

Could you quote where I say that, please? My memory is so motorist,
sorry I mean fallible.

>
> Another poster responded to that by saying (and I quote verbatim):
>
> "...there is not a human being on the planet that can render him/herself
> infallible. Is there?"

Pointless question.

>
> But since you had already claimed that accidents happen only because of
> avoidable negligence which can be obviated by the mending of ways,


Quote, please. Not your gibberish interpretations.


 it
> follows that you believe that you are capable of never making an error
> if you merely adhere to the set of ways you recommend for others.

Your extrapolation, not mine. I make errors, I learn. Being fallible,
I stay away from behaviours which endanger the lives of others.
Especially behaviours that risk others more than they risk me.  You
believe that motorists cannot improve their error rates, even when
faced with the possibility of severe punishment.

>
> Well, it's either that or you were posting gibberish.
>
> I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt

That's just so big of you.

On 15 Jul, 15:28, AndrewR  wrote:
> On Jul 15, 1:41 pm, Squashme  wrote:
>
> > On 15 Jul, 13:28, AndrewR  wrote:
> > > I'm not in favour of anybody driving when they are not legally
> > > entitled to do so, but these are separate offences which have their
> > > own penalties and it seem unjust to punish one transgressor more
> > > harshly than another just because somebody lost their life, especially
> > > as the CPS prosecution guidelines for the offence say, "This offence
> > > requires no proof that the driving fell below any standard required by
> > > law."
>
> > "Just because somebody lost their life". Yes, what a trivial reason to
> > punish someone more harshly. Justice must be blind. After all the
> > transgressing motorist will feel so bad about it. And the victim was
> > probably not even a motorist.
>
> You're missing the point, try reading what I wrote again.  It might be
> easier if, this time, you try not to imagine some innocent child or a
> harmless cyclist being mown down by some scum bucket.

Ummm. A LEARNER scum bucket. You're right. It's so different.
Motorists have to learn, and learners are going to be more fallible
than the rest. Why should the accidental and totally unconnected
intrusion of some third party matter (especially if they are dead now).

Squashme  wrote:

> A lesser offence than he should have been. And the recent idiot
> "careless" truck driver got an even lower fine. Poor fallible chap.

Was the truck driver that you refer to (but are apparently unable to
specify the exact nature of his offence or any of the particulars of the
case) driving along the pavement screaming abuse at pedestrians?

Squashme  wrote:

> On 15 Jul, 14:58, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Squashme wrote:
> > >[snip]

> > > Like the recent cyclist who killed the girl. Faced with a road blocked
> > > by pedestrians, he shouted a warning and aimed for the gap, never
> > > expecting that his bike could kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking
> > > that you cannot predict how a group will break apart in an emergency.
> > > Happened in seconds. Momentary lapse. No one is infallible.
> >
> > Yet you expect motorists to be infallible.
> 
> I expect that, as privileged people, they should try a lot harder not
> to harm others. It's being responsible.

A motorist is not "priveliged" they are only permitted to drive on
licence. Cyclists OTOH are "priveliged" since the right to cycle is
given without licence conditions.


>  They are not beyond improvement, despite what you think.

Strawman.

I have not stated, implied, hinted or suggested that motorists could not
improve their driving. 

Perhaps you could drop the cyclist's favourite fallacy of "tu quoque"
and attempt to respond in a rational manner? I've not seen any evidence
in the past that you are cpable of such an improvment, but I'll even do
you the courtesy of assuming that improvment is possible.

Squashme  wrote:

> On 15 Jul, 15:03, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Squashme wrote:
> > > I am certainly more in danger from you as a motorist, than
> > > you are from me.
> >
> > Pedestrians don't exist in your world, do they?
> 
> Yes they do, but I don't kill them in large numbers, unlike you.

How many pedestrians have I killed?

You stated that you are more in danger from motorists that (others) are
from you. However I find that the single most common peril to me, in the
cities that I visit from time to time, are not motorists but cyclists.
That's the cyclsits who seem to arrogantly beleive that they can swap
backwards and forwards between being road users and being two-wheeled
pedestrians and that screaming abuse at pedestrians is a valid
substitute for actually obeying the rules of the road and looking where
they are going.

These are the same cyclists who seem to think that a cyclist can do no
wrong (see your pathetic defence of the killer cyclist) and that
motorists have horns on their head rather than under the bonnet of their
car.

Squashme  wrote:

> On 15 Jul, 15:03, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > Squashme wrote:
> > > "Just because somebody lost their life". Yes, what a trivial reason to
> > > punish someone more harshly. Justice must be blind. After all the
> > > transgressing motorist will feel so bad about it. And the victim was
> > > probably not even a motorist.
> >
> > So you're arguing that the cyclist who deliberately rode at a group of
> > pedestrians on the pavement, shouting abuse (as normal), then rode down
> > and killed one of those pedestrians should have been tried for murder or
> > manslaughter rather than getting off with a fine and a slap on the
> > wrist?
> 
> Do keep up. He was not on the pavement.

Yes he was, the witnesses testified to that fact.


> if he had been, he would have got a stiffer punishment. He shouted a
> warning, using motorist-type language.

What an utter, pathetic, stupid attempt to justify disgusting behaviour.

> He should have slowed down. Maybe he should have faced manslaughter
> charges, but then so should many motorists, who instead get a fine and
> community service.

"Tu quoque", you really can't give it up, can you?

Squashme wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 15:34, JNugent  wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
>>>> "Squashme"  wrote:
>>>>> @malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>>>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>>>>>> About time too.
>>>>>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
>>>>> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
>>>>> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who
>>>>> killed the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he
>>>>> shouted a warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his
>>>>> bike could kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot
>>>>> predict how a group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in
>>>>> seconds. Momentary lapse. No one is infallible.
>>>> He doesnt have brakes?
>>> He made an understandable error in not using them, rather like so
>>> many motorists of whom we read, but we just file away under "Just
>>> the price we must pay".
>>
>> What do you mean, "understandable error"?
>>
>> As he made absolutely clear when bellowing at the victim, he did it
>> deliberately.
>
> No, he warned them all that he was not stopping, to get them out of
> the way.

And you think that gives him carte blance to mow her down?

If so that makes you considerably more arrogant and self-obsessed than you 
portray car drivers.

> Do you really believe that he aimed at her particularly? If
> so that would be murder, wouldn't it?

Squashme wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 14:58, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

>> Yet you expect motorists to be infallible.
>
> I expect that, as privileged people, they should try a lot harder not
> to harm others. It's being responsible.  They are not beyond
> improvement, despite what you think.

In what way do you think motorists are "privileged"? A motorist has to be 
licenced, cyclists use the highway by right.

On Jul 15, 3:52 pm, Squashme  wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 15:28, AndrewR  wrote:

> > You're missing the point, try reading what I wrote again.  It might be
> > easier if, this time, you try not to imagine some innocent child or a
> > harmless cyclist being mown down by some scum bucket.
>
> Ummm. A LEARNER scum bucket. You're right. It's so different.
> Motorists have to learn, and learners are going to be more fallible
> than the rest. Why should the accidental and totally unconnected
> intrusion of some third party matter (especially if they are dead now).

Oh, if you're not even going to make an effort to understand rather
than projecting this on to hypothetical situations then I'm not going
to waste my time on you.

On 15 Jul, 16:07, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > A lesser offence than he should have been. And the recent idiot
> > "careless" truck driver got an even lower fine. Poor fallible chap.
>
> Was the truck driver that you refer to (but are apparently unable to
> specify the exact nature of his offence or any of the particulars of the
> case) driving along the pavement screaming abuse at pedestrians?

No and neither was the cyclist. Check the cyclist's words. They are
not abuse. They are stupid. The judge found that the cyclist was on
the road.

Please note, by the way, there is a poster on a C4 group who was, he
says, at the court. He claims:- "not one single witness reported the
cyclist as saying "I'm not going to stop" - the claim that he did was
made solely by the prosecutor." Yes, I know that the Daily Mail has
proved itself more trustworthy than pseudonymous posters.

Should you really care about the lethal truck driver, who had a
careless moment, which I doubt:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4301595.ece

On 15 Jul, 16:35, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Squashmewrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 15:34, JNugent  wrote:
> >>Squashmewrote:
> >>> "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
> >>>> "Squashme"  wrote:
> >>>>> @malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >>>>>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> >>>>>>> About time too.
> >>>>>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
> >>>>> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> >>>>> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who
> >>>>> killed the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he
> >>>>> shouted a warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that his
> >>>>> bike could kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you cannot
> >>>>> predict how a group will break apart in an emergency. Happened in
> >>>>> seconds. Momentary lapse. No one is infallible.
> >>>> He doesnt have brakes?
> >>> He made an understandable error in not using them, rather like so
> >>> many motorists of whom we read, but we just file away under "Just
> >>> the price we must pay".
>
> >> What do you mean, "understandable error"?
>
> >> As he made absolutely clear when bellowing at the victim, he did it
> >> deliberately.
>
> > No, he warned them all that he was not stopping, to get them out of
> > the way.
>
> And you think that gives him carte blance to mow her down?

Where in my postings do I say that? Your fantasy, not mine.

>
> If so that makes you considerably more arrogant and self-obsessed than you
> portray car drivers.

That would be impossible.

>
> > Do you really believe that he aimed at her particularly? If
> > so that would be murder, wouldn't it?

On 15 Jul, 16:08, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 15:03, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > >Squashme wrote:
> > > > I am certainly more in danger from you as a motorist, than
> > > > you are from me.
>
> > > Pedestrians don't exist in your world, do they?
>
> > Yes they do, but I don't kill them in large numbers, unlike you.
>
> How many pedestrians have I killed?
>
> You stated that you are more in danger from motorists that (others) are
> from you. However I find that the single most common peril to me, in the
> cities that I visit from time to time, are not motorists but cyclists.
> That's the cyclsits who seem to arrogantly beleive that they can swap
> backwards and forwards between being road users and being two-wheeled
> pedestrians and that screaming abuse at pedestrians is a valid
> substitute for actually obeying the rules of the road and looking where
> they are going.

Do they keep doing it to you, really? Motorists would do it to you
too, if you weren't herded behind railings and into underpasses and
onto footbridges, and not allowed to impede important speeding
motorised traffic. And if you weren't so brainwashed that you are
happy to walk much greater distances from A to B, because, if not,
motorists would shout "Get out the way, because I'm not stopping" at
you.

>
> These are the same cyclists who seem to think that a cyclist can do no
> wrong (see your pathetic defence of the killer cyclist) and that
> motorists have horns on their head rather than under the bonnet of their
> car.

Not defending him, except from what appear to be inaccuracies and
hyperbole. As I said, if all the bollocks, that has come up as if it
were evidence, were true, then it should have been a murder case.

On 15 Jul, 16:41, AndrewR  wrote:
> On Jul 15, 3:52 pm, Squashme  wrote:
>
> > On 15 Jul, 15:28, AndrewR  wrote:
> > > You're missing the point, try reading what I wrote again.  It might be
> > > easier if, this time, you try not to imagine some innocent child or a
> > > harmless cyclist being mown down by some scum bucket.
>
> > Ummm. A LEARNER scum bucket. You're right. It's so different.
> > Motorists have to learn, and learners are going to be more fallible
> > than the rest. Why should the accidental and totally unconnected
> > intrusion of some third party matter (especially if they are dead now).
>
> Oh, if you're not even going to make an effort to understand rather
> than projecting this on to hypothetical situations then I'm not going
> to waste my time on you.

And bunching up her petticoats, she flounced away.

Squashme wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 16:35, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Squashmewrote:
>>> On 15 Jul, 15:34, JNugent  wrote:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Squashme"  wrote:
>>>>>>> @malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>>>>>>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
>>>>>>>>> About time too.
>>>>>>>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
>>>>>>> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
>>>>>>> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who
>>>>>>> killed the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he
>>>>>>> shouted a warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that
>>>>>>> his bike could kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you
>>>>>>> cannot predict how a group will break apart in an emergency.
>>>>>>> Happened in seconds. Momentary lapse. No one is infallible.
>>>>>> He doesnt have brakes?
>>>>> He made an understandable error in not using them, rather like so
>>>>> many motorists of whom we read, but we just file away under "Just
>>>>> the price we must pay".
>>
>>>> What do you mean, "understandable error"?
>>
>>>> As he made absolutely clear when bellowing at the victim, he did it
>>>> deliberately.
>>
>>> No, he warned them all that he was not stopping, to get them out of
>>> the way.
>>
>> And you think that gives him carte blance to mow her down?
>
> Where in my postings do I say that? Your fantasy, not mine.

Do you not understand the concept of posing a question for clarification?

Your statement, "No, he warned them all that he was not stopping, to get 
them out of the way" could suggest to an impressionable mind that you think 
the cyclist had right of way.


>> If so that makes you considerably more arrogant and self-obsessed
>> than you portray car drivers.
>
> That would be impossible.

That's your view. Other people have a different one.

>>> Do you really believe that he aimed at her particularly? If
>>> so that would be murder, wouldn't it?

On 15 Jul, 16:08, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme  wrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 14:58, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> > > Squashme wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > > > Like the recent cyclist who killed the girl. Faced with a road blocked
> > > > by pedestrians, he shouted a warning and aimed for the gap, never
> > > > expecting that his bike could kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking
> > > > that you cannot predict how a group will break apart in an emergency.
> > > > Happened in seconds. Momentary lapse. No one is infallible.
>
> > > Yet you expect motorists to be infallible.
>
> > I expect that, as privileged people, they should try a lot harder not
> > to harm others. It's being responsible.
>
> A motorist is not "priveliged" they are only permitted to drive on
> licence. Cyclists OTOH are "priveliged" since the right to cycle is
> given without licence conditions.

You people really are so used to your "privilege" that you are
completely unaware of it. You kill lightly, you change the shape of
the landscape, you fundamentally change the cities and towns, you
destroy old buildings, your children can't walk to school, you pollute
the air, you force pedestrians into narrow enclosures, you narrow our
old streets with your parking, you choose 4x4s when given the choice
of smaller cars or larger, you make us beholden to crazy Islamo-
Fascist countries in the Middle East. The power of your vehicles means
that a small mistake on your part or anothers can have lethal
consequences, but you still want to go fast. Despite your privilege,
you are never satisfied. How many vehicles do you need? You are the
majority now and look what a mess you have got us all in.
Pant!

>
> >  They are not beyond improvement, despite what you think.
>
> Strawman.
>
> I have not stated, implied, hinted or suggested that motorists could not
> improve their driving.
>
> Perhaps you could drop the cyclist's favourite fallacy of "tu quoque"
> and attempt to respond in a rational manner? I've not seen any evidence
> in the past that you are cpable of such an improvment, but I'll even do
> you the courtesy of assuming that improvment is possible.

Yes, I've seen your "courtesy" before.

On 15 Jul, 17:23, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 16:35, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Squashmewrote:
> >>> On 15 Jul, 15:34, JNugent  wrote:
> >>>> Squashmewrote:
> >>>>> "McKev \(yay!\)"  wrote:
> >>>>>> "Squashme"  wrote:
> >>>>>>> @malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> McKev (yay!)  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7506668.stm
> >>>>>>>>> About time too.
> >>>>>>>> Shame it won't apply to cyclists.
> >>>>>>> Yes, but if it did, I expect that they mostly would come under
> >>>>>>> "careless" rather than "dangerous." Like the recent cyclist who
> >>>>>>> killed the girl. Faced with a road blocked by pedestrians, he
> >>>>>>> shouted a warning and aimed for the gap, never expecting that
> >>>>>>> his bike could kill at a moderate speed. Not thinking that you
> >>>>>>> cannot predict how a group will break apart in an emergency.
> >>>>>>> Happened in seconds. Momentary lapse. No one is infallible.
> >>>>>>