In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:52:32 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:51:47 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes

>>>>>
>>>>>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"?
>>
>
>Apportioned generally means divided or distributed between parties.
>There is usually one party at fault.
>
So what? Apportioned can mean 100% to one part and 0% to the other just 
as easily as 50% to each.

>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
>So there should be some means of preventing the occurrence of such
>disturbance or the land owners should be responsible.  They're happy
>enough to treat deer as their own for shooting but if the deer cause
>an accident then they don't want to know. Perhaps, it should be the
>landowners responsibility to erect deer fencing at roadsides next to
>where shooting or access for dogwalking occurs.
>
Only a minority of deer in Britain are subject to shooting. That's why 
there are so many.

>>It is common sense that deer can be scared and so
>>might, but only might, run across a road.
>
>Of course it is. I've been saying that for years and the Erie
>Insurance Group in America did a study on this as well.
>
Yes, note the words "in America".

>>However, that's a very long
>>way indeed from saying that this is involved in all deer accidents.
>
>It may or may not be.  Erie found that deer collisions rose five times
>at the beginning of the shooting season and remained substantially
>high until the season ended.
>
But that was both in America and where deer were being shot. The 
majority of deer in Britain are not subject to shooting, hence the 
problems of there being too many.

>>It
>>is likely to be a tiny minority
>>
>
>Five times the norm is hardly a "tiny minority.
>
That was in North America and bears little relationship to anything 
happening in the UK. Different deer, different shooting culture, 
different habitats.

>>
>>>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?
>>
No answer I see.


-- 
Malcolm