On 11 Jul, 08:00, Doug  wrote:
> On 10 Jul, 08:24, JNugent  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 9 Jul, 21:57, "DavidR"  wrote:
> > >> "David Hansen"  wrote
>
> > >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenag...
> > >>> As one might expect with the Daily Wail, the headline bears little
> > >>> relationship to the contents of the story
> > >> In the Telegraph there was another story on the same page about a person
> > >> deliberately droving a LandRover at someone. The victim leapt of the way
> > >> but the driver was charged with assault. My thought was "why wasn't it
> > >> attempted murder?"
>
> > > Good point. Why aren't cars treated like any other lethal weapon?
>
> > Good point. Perhaps motor cars should be taxed and regulated like those
> > lethal weapons kitchen knives (even daggers), hammers and plastic bags.
> > Not to mention sleeping pills.
>
> Any of which would involve a manslaughter charge if they inadvertently
> caused a death but why not a car? If a car is deliberately used to
> kill then that is treated as murder, just like any other weapon,

Well we are getting somewhere.  Not so long ago, you were confidently
stating that murderers using cars got away scot-free.  You now appear
to have recognised just how stupid that made you look.

> but
> not if it is an involuntary cause. Obviously killer drivers are
> treated preferentially.

No longer sustainable.  What about the new offence of causing death by
careless driving?  To be convicted of manslaughter through negligence,
the prosecution must prove "gross negligence" - ordinary negligence is
not enough.  To be convicted of causing death by careless driving, the
prosecution merely need prove ordinary negligence.  Therefore, killer
drivers, at the lower end of the culpability spectrum, are actually
treated more harshly than other killers.