In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:51:47 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:50:31 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The Woodland Trust certainly don't include this in their
>>>>>environmentally damaging unsolicited persuasion propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>>So what?
>>>>
>>>>And if everything the WT might do or might be involved in was included
>>>>in their publicity leaflets they would be even larger and therefore, in
>>>>your eyes, even more environmentally damaging.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps the same "people" have read the latest statistics which say that
>>>>>>74,000 road traffic accidents are caused by deer annually.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. They are caused by motorists.
>>>>>
>>>>So, if a cyclist shot out of a turning a few yards in front of you and
>>>>you hit him you would accept that you had caused the accident, would
>>>>you?
>>>
>>>Do you not know that motorists are obliged to drive in a manner that
>>>ensures they can stop in an emergency.
>>
>>Of course, but as that doesn't happen in the real world in which
>>everyone, including you, drives there are inevitably accidents (many
>>hundreds of thousands of them a year) and blame is normally apportioned.
>
>Not "normally" apportioned at all.  There is usually someone at fault.

What on earth do you think "blame is normally apportioned" means if not 
deciding which of the parties, or both, were "at fault"?

>>
>>> And it should be recognised
>>>that deer can come out of woodlands on to roads - especially if
>>>disturbed by human activities - shooting, dogwalkers etc..
>>>
>>Indeed, but on 74,000 occasions a year, there are collisions between
>>deer and road users. And disturbance by shooting or walkers is only
>>involved in some of them.
>
>So why shouldn't the shooters and walkers pick up the bill for such
>accidents?
>
Because it would be impossible to prove that they caused the accident.

>Good to see you admit this.  Not before time.  You know I shall quote
>you on this :-)
>
Quote me on what?  It is common sense that deer can be scared and so 
might, but only might, run across a road. However, that's a very long 
way indeed from saying that this is involved in all deer accidents. It 
is likely to be a tiny minority

>>
>>>>
>>>>Interesting POV. Does your car insurance company know that you will
>>>>always take the blame for such an accident?
>>>
>>>If I were to blame for an accident I would say so irrespective of what
>>>insurance companies say.  I don't believe it is right for insurance
>>>companies to demand that their client always deny responsibility
>>>irrespective of the circumstances.
>>>
>>So have you told your insurance company of this attitude of yours, and
>>would you, in the event of an accident in which you felt you were to
>>blame refuse to deny responsibility?
>
>You're confused, Malcolm - again.
>
Not at all. I merely asked you a question.

>I have made it clear that if I felt I was responsible for a crash I
>would say so.
>
Good heavens! You've answered it :-))

So you would say so even though your insurance company "demand" that you 
"always deny responsibility irrespective of the circumstances"?  Do you 
they know?

>And if I was driving at speed through a woodland and hit a deer I
>would feel it was my own fault.
>
What's woodland got to do with it? Or do you believe that all deer are 
confined to woodland?

What if you were driving, not fast, along a road with fields either side 
and the deer leaped over the hedge beside you and crashed into your 
vehicle? This happened to a friend of mine. There were no shooters or 
walkers in the vicinity, the deer just took it into its head to cross 
the road at that point. As there was another deer in the field beside 
the road, it is probable that sex or territorial aggression had 
something to do with it. Of course, had my friend been driving faster he 
would have been past that point before the deer leaped the hedge!

>>
>>>I can quite accept in the dishonest world of fake conservation that
>>>seems appropriate :-(
>>>
>>Your obsession is showing again :-(
>
>Your dishonesty is showing again.
>
I'm not being dishonest, merely indicating that, yet again, you drag 
your obsession with "fake conservation" into as many threads as you can 
even when it is patently off topic in a discussion of motor insurance. 
You're a very sad obsessive person, Angus :-(

-- 
Malcolm