They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.

"A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
kerb and hit his pushchair.

Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.

The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
died soon after arriving.

A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
driving remains in custody..."

More:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
> "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
> kerb and hit his pushchair.
>
> Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
> crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.
>
> The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
> died soon after arriving.
>
> A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
> driving remains in custody..."
>
> More:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm
>

And...?

Someone breaks the law, she's arrested. The law will take its course. 
Nothing new there, then.

Not forgetting the fact that cycles on pavements are also responsible for 
death and injury. Somehow, you conveniently forget to mention those cases.

Doug wrote:
> They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
Was that a quick one off the wrist Doug, or did you reach orgasm by just 
reading it?

On 19 Sep, 17:35, Doug  wrote:
> They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
> "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
> kerb and hit his pushchair.

Did you get your trousers off in time, Gollum, or is that *yet*
another pair of underpants soiled?

On 19 Sep, 17:46, "Graculus" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
> > "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
> > kerb and hit his pushchair.
>
> > Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
> > crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.
>
> > The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
> > died soon after arriving.
>
> > A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
> > driving remains in custody..."
>
> > More:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm
>
> And...?
>
> Someone breaks the law, she's arrested. The law will take its course.
> Nothing new there, then.
>
> Not forgetting the fact that cycles on pavements are also responsible for
> death and injury. Somehow, you conveniently forget to mention those cases.

Yes but cars are much more damaging and lethal. I have no doubt that
after this killer has been punished she will once again be allowed to
drive.

Here's an update on this disgusting incident.

'Baby killed in front of mother outside school gates by woman drink-
driver 'trying to avoid having her car towed'...'

"...The woman driver was just ramming the car into the gates over and
over again. We all screamed at her to stop but she ignored us. All the
time Finlay was in the pram. It was getting more and more crushed
against a pillar...'

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058214/Baby-killed-mother-outside-school-gates-woman-drink-driver-trying-avoid-having-car-towed.html

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 19 Sep, 17:49, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
> Was that a quick one off the wrist Doug, or did you reach orgasm by just
> reading it?

Well you and your motorist chums here will be hard pressed to blame
the vulnerable victim, as you usually do, with this one. Or was it the
mum's fault for allowing her baby to get in the way of the 4x4?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 20 Sep, 07:25, Doug  wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 17:46, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
> > > "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
> > > kerb and hit his pushchair.
>
> > > Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
> > > crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.
>
> > > The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
> > > died soon after arriving.
>
> > > A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
> > > driving remains in custody..."
>
> > > More:
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm
>
> > And...?
>
> > Someone breaks the law, she's arrested. The law will take its course.
> > Nothing new there, then.
>
> > Not forgetting the fact that cycles on pavements are also responsible for
> > death and injury. Somehow, you conveniently forget to mention those cases.
>
> Yes but cars are much more damaging and lethal. I have no doubt that
> after this killer has been punished she will once again be allowed to
> drive.

Not keen on the concept of crime and punishment?
Oh wait its a motorist so in your book that is a capital offense.
Where is the nearest lamppost so they can be hanged eh?

If someone kills someone while drink driving they will be punished for
it Doug.
As has been pointed out to you many times motorists do get punished
and non motorists often avoid jail for crimes that invovle someone
dying.  Its a complex and flawed system.

Of course the fact that, ignoring this case, you want faultless
motorists to go to jail certainly must biase your views.

Fod

On 20 Sep, 07:28, Doug  wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 17:49, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
> > Was that a quick one off the wrist Doug, or did you reach orgasm by just
> > reading it?
>
> Well you and your motorist chums here will be hard pressed to blame
> the vulnerable victim, as you usually do, with this one. Or was it the
> mum's fault for allowing her baby to get in the way of the 4x4?
>

Sadly Doug in most cases your bring to the group ( once you've calmed
down from your inital excitment) you find that any driver behaving
dangerously or irresponsibly gets slated by the other posters here.

What you seem to get upset by is when other parties in accidents get
their actions looked at as well.  We like to look at evidence and
facts before coming to a conclusion about an outcome.  As you've
stated you don't want to do this ( and you've done this several times
but if you want to look silly when I post the link feel free to
object) its hardly a surpise you hold this twisted viewpoint.

Fod

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
FOADQ

On 20 Sep, 07:25, Doug  wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 17:46, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
> > > "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
> > > kerb and hit his pushchair.
>
> > > Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
> > > crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.
>
> > > The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
> > > died soon after arriving.
>
> > > A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
> > > driving remains in custody..."
>
> > > More:
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm
>
> > And...?
>
> > Someone breaks the law, she's arrested. The law will take its course.
> > Nothing new there, then.
>
> > Not forgetting the fact that cycles on pavements are also responsible for
> > death and injury. Somehow, you conveniently forget to mention those cases.
>
> Yes but cars are much more damaging and lethal. I have no doubt that
> after this killer has been punished she will once again be allowed to
> drive.
>
> Here's an update on this disgusting incident.
>
> 'Baby killed in front of mother outside school gates by woman drink-
> driver 'trying to avoid having her car towed'...'
>
> "...The woman driver was just ramming the car into the gates over and
> over again. We all screamed at her to stop but she ignored us. All the
> time Finlay was in the pram. It was getting more and more crushed
> against a pillar...'
>
> More:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058214/Baby-killed-mother-ou...
>
> --
> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Its odd that the other stories about this don't mention her ramming
the gates multiple times but given that she was tanked up on drink and
possibly drugs its a moot point.  And given that her tax disc had
expired she shouldn't have been driving the car even if clean and
sober.

So the killer driver is to be condemned on two points.  ( Just so you
donm't get confused and think I'm saying its the babys fault Doug, I
know your sometimes easily confused).

Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
( this is illegal and she's been charged)
Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.

It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
while drunk.

Fod

Doug wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 17:49, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists
>>> around.
>>
>> Was that a quick one off the wrist Doug, or did you reach orgasm by
>> just reading it?
>
> Well you and your motorist chums here will be hard pressed to blame
> the vulnerable victim, as you usually do, with this one. Or was it the
> mum's fault for allowing her baby to get in the way of the 4x4?

As always Doug, you demonstrate your inability to look at all the evidence 
and arrive at a balanced decision.

In this instance I've got no hesitation in condeming the driver. The issue I 
have is with you and your expectation that anyone here will do otherwise.

Doug wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 17:49, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>> Was that a quick one off the wrist Doug, or did you reach orgasm by just
>> reading it?
> 
> Well you and your motorist chums here will be hard pressed to blame
> the vulnerable victim, as you usually do, with this one. Or was it the
> mum's fault for allowing her baby to get in the way of the 4x4?
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 

As usual you repeat the same thing over & over again in the belief that 
if you say it often enough people will believe you. The problem is we 
know what we have posted & will always point out your errors & lies.
I await your usual reply.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Well you and your motorist chums here will be hard pressed to blame the
> vulnerable victim, as you usually do, with this one. Or was it the mum's
> fault for allowing her baby to get in the way of the 4x4?

Can you please point me to ONE, just one, instance of anybody here doing 
anything other than condemning utterly fuckwits such as this pissed 
cretin? Or even claiming that all drivers are somehow blameless?

There's only one person round here who allocates blame according to the 
mode of transport, regardless of the facts.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> after this killer has been punished she will once again be allowed to
> drive.

Considering there's no way on this planet she won't be doing serious jail 
time, that's going to be quite a while. Fortunately.

> "...The woman driver was just ramming the car into the gates over and
> over again. We all screamed at her to stop but she ignored us. All the
> time Finlay was in the pram. It was getting more and more crushed
> against a pillar...'

Sounds like she's going to be being charged with more than just death by 
dangerous. Manslaughter, or even murder, wouldn't surprise me. Let's hope 
so.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Fod
 wrote:

>On 20 Sep, 07:25, Doug  wrote:
>> On 19 Sep, 17:46, "Graculus" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> >news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>>
>> > > "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
>> > > kerb and hit his pushchair.
>>
>> > > Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
>> > > crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.
>>
>> > > The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
>> > > died soon after arriving.
>>
>> > > A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
>> > > driving remains in custody..."
>>
>> > > More:
>>
>> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm
>>
>> > And...?
>>
>> > Someone breaks the law, she's arrested. The law will take its course.
>> > Nothing new there, then.
>>
>> > Not forgetting the fact that cycles on pavements are also responsible for
>> > death and injury. Somehow, you conveniently forget to mention those cases.
>>
>> Yes but cars are much more damaging and lethal. I have no doubt that
>> after this killer has been punished she will once again be allowed to
>> drive.
>>
>> Here's an update on this disgusting incident.
>>
>> 'Baby killed in front of mother outside school gates by woman drink-
>> driver 'trying to avoid having her car towed'...'
>>
>> "...The woman driver was just ramming the car into the gates over and
>> over again. We all screamed at her to stop but she ignored us. All the
>> time Finlay was in the pram. It was getting more and more crushed
>> against a pillar...'
>>
>> More:
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058214/Baby-killed-mother-ou...
>>
>> --
>> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
>Its odd that the other stories about this don't mention her ramming
>the gates multiple times but given that she was tanked up on drink and
>possibly drugs its a moot point.  And given that her tax disc had
>expired she shouldn't have been driving the car even if clean and
>sober.
>
>So the killer driver is to be condemned on two points.  ( Just so you
>donm't get confused and think I'm saying its the babys fault Doug, I
>know your sometimes easily confused).
>
>Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
>( this is illegal and she's been charged)
>Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.

Far be it for me to interfere on a post that is addressed to Duhng,
but I'm not sure that you're correct that a car may not be driven if
it does not have a current/valid VED. AIUI, the driver/owner of the
vehicle may be prosecuted (by the DVLA, not the police) for the
offence, but the car may not be siezed at it would be if it was
uninsured
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>On 19 Sep, 17:49, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>>
>> Was that a quick one off the wrist Doug, or did you reach orgasm by just
>> reading it?
>
>Well you and your motorist chums here will be hard pressed to blame
>the vulnerable victim, as you usually do, with this one. Or was it the
>mum's fault for allowing her baby to get in the way of the 4x4?

No Duhng, I think you will find that there is a concensus among
everyone that it was the fault of the driver - something that will
doubtless be proved in a court of law - she is of course innocent at
this time of the charges she is being reported for.
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Petert  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> Far be it for me to interfere on a post that is addressed to Duhng, but
> I'm not sure that you're correct that a car may not be driven if it does
> not have a current/valid VED.

It can be - in certain very limited circumstances.

> AIUI, the driver/owner of the vehicle may be prosecuted (by the DVLA, 
> not the police) for the offence, but the car may not be siezed at it 
> would be if it was uninsured

Oh, yes, it can...

On 20 Sep 2008 18:35:03 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>Petert  gurgled happily, sounding much
>like they were saying:
>
>> Far be it for me to interfere on a post that is addressed to Duhng, but
>> I'm not sure that you're correct that a car may not be driven if it does
>> not have a current/valid VED.
>
>It can be - in certain very limited circumstances.

They being?
>
>> AIUI, the driver/owner of the vehicle may be prosecuted (by the DVLA, 
>> not the police) for the offence, but the car may not be siezed at it 
>> would be if it was uninsured
>
>Oh, yes, it can...

On what grounds?
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Petert  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>> Far be it for me to interfere on a post that is addressed to Duhng,
>>> but I'm not sure that you're correct that a car may not be driven if
>>> it does not have a current/valid VED.

>>It can be - in certain very limited circumstances.

> They being?

To or from a pre-booked MOT, on tradeplates, and (I _think_) to a 
requested pre-registration inspection of an imported vehicle at a LVLO.

>>> AIUI, the driver/owner of the vehicle may be prosecuted (by the DVLA,
>>> not the police) for the offence, but the car may not be siezed at it
>>> would be if it was uninsured

>>Oh, yes, it can...

> On what grounds?

It ain't taxed. Clamp and/or seizure. They've been doing it a couple of 
years now. Good.

Adrian wrote:
> Petert  gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>>> Far be it for me to interfere on a post that is addressed to Duhng,
>>>> but I'm not sure that you're correct that a car may not be driven
>>>> if it does not have a current/valid VED.
>
>>> It can be - in certain very limited circumstances.
>
>> They being?
>
> To or from a pre-booked MOT, on tradeplates, and (I _think_) to a
> requested pre-registration inspection of an imported vehicle at a
> LVLO.

If a vehicle is being driven on tradeplates then it has VED as the plates 
are licenced.

"Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> To or from a pre-booked MOT, on tradeplates, and (I _think_) to a
>> requested pre-registration inspection of an imported vehicle at a LVLO.

> If a vehicle is being driven on tradeplates then it has VED as the
> plates are licenced.

The vehicle doesn't. The plates do.

On 20 Sep 2008 18:45:35 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>Petert  gurgled happily, sounding much
>like they were saying:
>
>>>> Far be it for me to interfere on a post that is addressed to Duhng,
>>>> but I'm not sure that you're correct that a car may not be driven if
>>>> it does not have a current/valid VED.
>
>>>It can be - in certain very limited circumstances.
>
>> They being?
>
>To or from a pre-booked MOT, on tradeplates, and (I _think_) to a 
>requested pre-registration inspection of an imported vehicle at a LVLO.

I think we're at cross purposes here - I agree that a car may be
driven on the road without valid VED (but see my reply below :-(
>
>>>> AIUI, the driver/owner of the vehicle may be prosecuted (by the DVLA,
>>>> not the police) for the offence, but the car may not be siezed at it
>>>> would be if it was uninsured
>
>>>Oh, yes, it can...
>
>> On what grounds?
>
>It ain't taxed. Clamp and/or seizure. They've been doing it a couple of 
>years now. Good.

Yes, you're correct - I had forgotten about this. A few builders vans
were clamped a few weeks ago having been spotted by a DVLA camera van
- probably working in a similar fashion to the polce ANPR kit
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

On 20 Sep, 07:53, Fod  wrote:
> On 20 Sep, 07:25, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Sep, 17:46, "Graculus" 
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.> > > > They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>
> > > > "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
> > > > kerb and hit his pushchair.
>
> > > > Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
> > > > crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.
>
> > > > The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
> > > > died soon after arriving.
>
> > > > A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
> > > > driving remains in custody..."
>
> > > > More:
>
> > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm
>
> > > And...?
>
> > > Someone breaks the law, she's arrested. The law will take its course.
> > > Nothing new there, then.
>
> > > Not forgetting the fact that cycles on pavements are also responsible for
> > > death and injury. Somehow, you conveniently forget to mention those cases.
>
> > Yes but cars are much more damaging and lethal. I have no doubt that
> > after this killer has been punished she will once again be allowed to
> > drive.
>
> > Here's an update on this disgusting incident.
>
> > 'Baby killed in front of mother outside school gates by woman drink-
> > driver 'trying to avoid having her car towed'...'
>
> > "...The woman driver was just ramming the car into the gates over and
> > over again. We all screamed at her to stop but she ignored us. All the
> > time Finlay was in the pram. It was getting more and more crushed
> > against a pillar...'
>
> > More:
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058214/Baby-killed-mother-ou...
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> Its odd that the other stories about this don't mention her ramming
> the gates multiple times but given that she was tanked up on drink and
> possibly drugs its a moot point.  And given that her tax disc had
> expired she shouldn't have been driving the car even if clean and
> sober.
>
> So the killer driver is to be condemned on two points.  ( Just so you
> donm't get confused and think I'm saying its the babys fault Doug, I
> know your sometimes easily confused).
>
Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
dominate this transport newsgroup. Presumably, these days when cars
are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to be
allowed out alone as they used to be. However, in this case that
excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because the child was not
only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside a
school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers virtually
everywhere. Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a
motorist recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged
room?
>
> Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
> ( this is illegal and she's been charged)
> Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.
>
But as I have pointed out, after she has been punished she will no
doubt be allowed to drive again, despite the enormity of her crime.
>
> It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
> had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
> drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
> to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
> people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
> this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
> while drunk.
>
Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered
enough from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it
for the rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure!
What about the parents of the dead child?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer motorists,
> the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who dominate this
> transport newsgroup.

As ever, you completely ignore the circumstances.

Can you really see no difference between kids playing chicken on fast 
trunk routes and a pissed-up fuckwit ramming a pram against gates?

> Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a motorist 
> recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged room?

It would have made no difference whatsoever to the causes of the crash. 
Which, incidentally, would have been entirely the driver's fault.

> Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
> their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered enough
> from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it for the
> rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure! What about
> the parents of the dead child?

You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of the kid 
vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you never did answer 
the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally blameless?

Adrian wrote:
> "Brimstone"  gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
>>> To or from a pre-booked MOT, on tradeplates, and (I _think_) to a
>>> requested pre-registration inspection of an imported vehicle at a
>>> LVLO.
>
>> If a vehicle is being driven on tradeplates then it has VED as the
>> plates are licenced.
>
> The vehicle doesn't. The plates do.

And thus the vehicle is considered to be covered for as long as the plates 
are being used on the vehicle.

Doug wrote:
> On 20 Sep, 07:53, Fod  wrote:
>> On 20 Sep, 07:25, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Sep, 17:46, "Graculus" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>> news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>>>>> "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
>>>>> kerb and hit his pushchair.
>>>>> Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
>>>>> crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.
>>>>> The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
>>>>> died soon after arriving.
>>>>> A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
>>>>> driving remains in custody..."
>>>>> More:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm
>>>> And...?
>>>> Someone breaks the law, she's arrested. The law will take its course.
>>>> Nothing new there, then.
>>>> Not forgetting the fact that cycles on pavements are also responsible for
>>>> death and injury. Somehow, you conveniently forget to mention those cases.
>>> Yes but cars are much more damaging and lethal. I have no doubt that
>>> after this killer has been punished she will once again be allowed to
>>> drive.
>>> Here's an update on this disgusting incident.
>>> 'Baby killed in front of mother outside school gates by woman drink-
>>> driver 'trying to avoid having her car towed'...'
>>> "...The woman driver was just ramming the car into the gates over and
>>> over again. We all screamed at her to stop but she ignored us. All the
>>> time Finlay was in the pram. It was getting more and more crushed
>>> against a pillar...'
>>> More:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058214/Baby-killed-mother-ou...
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>> Its odd that the other stories about this don't mention her ramming
>> the gates multiple times but given that she was tanked up on drink and
>> possibly drugs its a moot point.  And given that her tax disc had
>> expired she shouldn't have been driving the car even if clean and
>> sober.
>>
>> So the killer driver is to be condemned on two points.  ( Just so you
>> donm't get confused and think I'm saying its the babys fault Doug, I
>> know your sometimes easily confused).
>>
> Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
> motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
> dominate this transport newsgroup. 

A simplification made by a simpleton.

Presumably, these days when cars
> are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to be
> allowed out alone as they used to be. 

Rubbish & you know it.

However, in this case that
> excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because

What excuse?

  the child was not
> only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside a
> school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers virtually
> everywhere. Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a
> motorist recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged
> room?

So you are only interested in children not adults?

>> Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
>> ( this is illegal and she's been charged)
>> Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.
>>
> But as I have pointed out, after she has been punished she will no
> doubt be allowed to drive again, despite the enormity of her crime.

Thats how punishment works, if she had killed somebody with a knife are 
you saying that she should never hold a knife again?

>> It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
>> had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
>> drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
>> to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
>> people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
>> this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
>> while drunk.
>>
> Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
> their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered
> enough from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it
> for the rest of their lives, which is punishment enough.

Please provide relevant quote? Oh and I had noticed that you did not 
comment on what was posted.

  Yeah sure!
> What about the parents of the dead child?

You know the answer to that, I can't be bothered to repeat it.
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


-- 
Tony the Dragon

Adrian wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> 
>> Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer motorists,
>> the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who dominate this
>> transport newsgroup.
> 
> As ever, you completely ignore the circumstances.
> 
> Can you really see no difference between kids playing chicken on fast 
> trunk routes and a pissed-up fuckwit ramming a pram against gates?
> 
>> Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a motorist 
>> recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged room?
> 
> It would have made no difference whatsoever to the causes of the crash. 
> Which, incidentally, would have been entirely the driver's fault.
> 
>> Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
>> their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered enough
>> from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it for the
>> rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure! What about
>> the parents of the dead child?
> 
> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of the kid 
> vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you never did answer 
> the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally blameless?

Good point Adrian, Doug please come back to us on that one.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 21 Sep, 08:16, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer motorists,
> > the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who dominate this
> > transport newsgroup.
>
> As ever, you completely ignore the circumstances.
>
> Can you really see no difference between kids playing chicken on fast
> trunk routes and a pissed-up fuckwit ramming a pram against gates?
>
You cite an extreme example. Children have also been killed on
pedestrian crossings, on pavements, and on public roads by speeding
hit and run drivers. As I and others frequently point out, speed
limits are set too high in residential areas and particularly outside
schools.
>
> > Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a motorist
> > recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged room?
>
> It would have made no difference whatsoever to the causes of the crash.
> Which, incidentally, would have been entirely the driver's fault.
>
Yes, obviously, there are some circumstances where you and your
motoring chums cannot make any excuses at all for killer motorists.
>
> > Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
> > their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered enough
> > from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it for the
> > rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure! What about
> > the parents of the dead child?
>
> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of the kid
> vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you never did answer
> the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally blameless?
>
Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
complicated than that. As I recall I did deal with it anyway. You seem
to be having reading problem again.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 20 Sep, 07:53, Fod  wrote:
>> On 20 Sep, 07:25, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Sep, 17:46, "Graculus" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>> news:ec20fc9d-1aec-4ad4-b2d7-792a4ddf630e@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> They are not even safe on the pavements with killer motorists around.
>>>>> "A 15-month-old baby was killed in east London when a car mounted the
>>>>> kerb and hit his pushchair.
>>>>> Finlay Woods was with his mother and grandmother when a Toyota 4X4
>>>>> crashed in Cavendish Road, Chingford, on Thursday afternoon.
>>>>> The toddler, who lived nearby, was taken to hospital by ambulance but
>>>>> died soon after arriving.
>>>>> A 39-year-old woman arrested at the scene on suspicion of drinking and
>>>>> driving remains in custody..."
>>>>> More:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7624574.stm
>>>> And...?
>>>> Someone breaks the law, she's arrested. The law will take its course.
>>>> Nothing new there, then.
>>>> Not forgetting the fact that cycles on pavements are also responsible for
>>>> death and injury. Somehow, you conveniently forget to mention those cases.
>>> Yes but cars are much more damaging and lethal. I have no doubt that
>>> after this killer has been punished she will once again be allowed to
>>> drive.
>>> Here's an update on this disgusting incident.
>>> 'Baby killed in front of mother outside school gates by woman drink-
>>> driver 'trying to avoid having her car towed'...'
>>> "...The woman driver was just ramming the car into the gates over and
>>> over again. We all screamed at her to stop but she ignored us. All the
>>> time Finlay was in the pram. It was getting more and more crushed
>>> against a pillar...'
>>> More:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1058214/Baby-killed-mother-ou...
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>> Its odd that the other stories about this don't mention her ramming
>> the gates multiple times but given that she was tanked up on drink and
>> possibly drugs its a moot point.  And given that her tax disc had
>> expired she shouldn't have been driving the car even if clean and
>> sober.
>>
>> So the killer driver is to be condemned on two points.  ( Just so you
>> donm't get confused and think I'm saying its the babys fault Doug, I
>> know your sometimes easily confused).
>>
> Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
> motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
> dominate this transport newsgroup. P

Only in your fevered imagination.
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

More hypocrisy from Doug ...

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:168cffa3-80fb-46c1-a9f9-89bee21bb062@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Can you really see no difference between kids playing chicken on fast
>> trunk routes and a pissed-up fuckwit ramming a pram against gates?
>>
> You cite an extreme example.

And, of course, the things Doug posts are never extreme examples.

>>
>> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of the kid
>> vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you never did answer
>> the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally blameless?
>>
> Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
> complicated than that.

Yet Doug seems to pursue a very simplistic line in his ranting, not taking 
into account any of the complexities of a situation. Ih his simple world, if 
everyone followed his agenda, all will be sweetness and light.

On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
> Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
> motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
> dominate this transport newsgroup.

There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame.  Each
case needs to be looked individually.

> Presumably, these days when cars
> are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to be
> allowed out alone as they used to be.

Perhaps in London, its certainly not the case around here where
children are out playing most of the year.  ( even when its raining)

> However, in this case that
> excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because the child was not
> only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside a
> school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers virtually
> everywhere.

The same is true of cyclists.  Should we just make all schools
pedestrain zones and force the kids to walk there?

> Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a
> motorist recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged
> room?

Remember the house that was destroyed by a gas explosion/house fire/
etc that happened last week/month/year.  Houses are clearly
dangerous.  Should we be allowing children inside them?!?!  Cars
crashing into houses is a pretty rare occurance is the point I'm
making to you btw.

> > Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
> > ( this is illegal and she's been charged)
> > Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.
>
> But as I have pointed out, after she has been punished she will no
> doubt be allowed to drive again, despite the enormity of her crime.

You favour a system of cutting her limbs off or suchlike?

> > It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
> > had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
> > drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
> > to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
> > people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
> > this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
> > while drunk.
>
> Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
> their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered
> enough from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it
> for the rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure!
> What about the parents of the dead child?

You want to ban the parents from driving as well?

Fod

On 21 Sep, 11:35, Fod  wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
>
> > Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
> > motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
> > dominate this transport newsgroup.
>
> There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame.  Each
> case needs to be looked individually.
>
Someone wielding a lethal instrument in a public place, such as a car
however unintentionally, to kill a defenceless child should bear the
whole blame, not the child or the parent.
>
> > Presumably, these days when cars
> > are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to be
> > allowed out alone as they used to be.
>
> Perhaps in London, its certainly not the case around here where
> children are out playing most of the year.  ( even when its raining)
>
Don't you have residential areas?
>
> > However, in this case that
> > excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because the child was not
> > only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside a
> > school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers virtually
> > everywhere.
>
> The same is true of cyclists.  Should we just make all schools
> pedestrain zones and force the kids to walk there?
>
Cycles are not nearly as dangerous as cars, for obvious physical
reasons.
>
> > Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a
> > motorist recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged
> > room?
>
> Remember the house that was destroyed by a gas explosion/house fire/
> etc that happened last week/month/year.
>
What about it? Who was responsible? If no one it is not comparable to
a road killing.
>
> Houses are clearly
> dangerous.  Should we be allowing children inside them?!?!  Cars
> crashing into houses is a pretty rare occurance is the point I'm
> making to you btw.
>
They maybe rare but they happen and clearly illustrate the massive
lethal force of a car.
>
> > > Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs> > > ( this is illegal and she's been charged)
> > > Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.
>
> > But as I have pointed out, after she has been punished she will no
> > doubt be allowed to drive again, despite the enormity of her crime.
>
> You favour a system of cutting her limbs off or suchlike?
>
Nope. Just keep fining and/or imprisoning her if she is caught
driving, and crush her car every time.
>
> > > It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
> > > had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
> > > drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
> > > to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
> > > people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
> > > this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
> > > while drunk.
>
> > Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
> > their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered
> > enough from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it
> > for the rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure!
> > What about the parents of the dead child?
>
> You want to ban the parents from driving as well?
>
I was referring to their grief and loss.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 11:35, Fod  wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>> Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
>>> motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
>>> dominate this transport newsgroup.
>>
>> There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame. Each
>> case needs to be looked individually.
>>
> Someone wielding a lethal instrument in a public place, such as a car
> however unintentionally, to kill a defenceless child should bear the
> whole blame, not the child or the parent.

So you want to inflict punishment on an innocent person who is taking a 
responsible approach to the task of driving a motor vehicle but let the 
perpetrators get off scot free?

>>> Presumably, these days when cars
>>> are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to
>>> be allowed out alone as they used to be.
>>
>> Perhaps in London, its certainly not the case around here where
>> children are out playing most of the year. ( even when its raining)
>>
> Don't you have residential areas?

You claim to have lived in places other than London, were they all the same 
as London?

>>> However, in this case that
>>> excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because the child was
>>> not only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside
>>> a school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers
>>> virtually everywhere.
>>
>> The same is true of cyclists. Should we just make all schools
>> pedestrain zones and force the kids to walk there?
>>
> Cycles are not nearly as dangerous as cars, for obvious physical
> reasons.

If that were true then people would not have been killed by cyclists would 
they?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:ac0a113f-f0f3-4309-a3a7-2af339b6f789@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 21 Sep, 11:35, Fod  wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
>
> > Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
> > motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
> > dominate this transport newsgroup.
>
> There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame. Each
> case needs to be looked individually.
>
Someone wielding a lethal instrument in a public place, such as a car
however unintentionally, to kill a defenceless child should bear the
whole blame, not the child or the parent.

---

Is there any particular reason why you think that your opinion, even though 
groundless and utterly devoid of logic, should prevail? You are, after all, 
just one individual loon amongst a whole bunch of rational people (and I'm 
not restricting myself to people on this ng), who take a somewhat more 
realistic approach to things.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:30:42 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>On 21 Sep, 11:35, Fod  wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
>>
>> > Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
>> > motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
>> > dominate this transport newsgroup.
>>
>> There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame.  Each
>> case needs to be looked individually.
>>
>Someone wielding a lethal instrument in a public place, such as a car
>however unintentionally, 

The carriageway is a public place for kids to play on ? The police
used to stop us playing on the roads WIWAL

Still if you can't drive a car in a public place then that only leaves
private ones and they're not connected up. So that's a  sterile
argument.

Better if the kids play in the private places where the private owner
allows it, such as gardens, or public places set aside for kids to
play in, we call them playgrounds round here.

>to kill a defenceless child should bear the
>whole blame, not the child or the parent.
>>
>> > Presumably, these days when cars
>> > are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to be
>> > allowed out alone as they used to be.
>>
>> Perhaps in London, its certainly not the case around here where
>> children are out playing most of the year.  ( even when its raining)
>>
>Don't you have residential areas?

Yes. They are specially equipped with houses, gardens, schools and
playgrounds. Not a revolutionary idea.

We just don't let the kids play on carriageways cos it's dangerous and
no matter what you say parents are responsible for the safety of their
children. E.O.S.

>>
>> > However, in this case that
>> > excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because the child was not
>> > only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside a
>> > school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers virtually
>> > everywhere.
>>
>> The same is true of cyclists.  Should we just make all schools
>> pedestrain zones and force the kids to walk there?
>>
>Cycles are not nearly as dangerous as cars, for obvious physical
>reasons.
>>
>> > Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a
>> > motorist recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged
>> > room?
>>
>> Remember the house that was destroyed by a gas explosion/house fire/
>> etc that happened last week/month/year.
>>
>What about it? Who was responsible? If no one it is not comparable to
>a road killing.
>>
>> Houses are clearly
>> dangerous.  Should we be allowing children inside them?!?!  Cars
>> crashing into houses is a pretty rare occurance is the point I'm
>> making to you btw.
>>
>They maybe rare but they happen and clearly illustrate the massive
>lethal force of a car.
>>
>> > > Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
>> > > ( this is illegal and she's been charged)
>> > > Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.
>>
>> > But as I have pointed out, after she has been punished she will no
>> > doubt be allowed to drive again, despite the enormity of her crime.
>>
>> You favour a system of cutting her limbs off or suchlike?
>>
>Nope. Just keep fining and/or imprisoning her if she is caught
>driving, and crush her car every time.
>>
>> > > It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
>> > > had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
>> > > drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
>> > > to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
>> > > people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
>> > > this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
>> > > while drunk.
>>
>> > Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
>> > their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered
>> > enough from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it
>> > for the rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure!
>> > What about the parents of the dead child?
>>
>> You want to ban the parents from driving as well?
>>
>I was referring to their grief and loss.

Doug wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 11:35, Fod  wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>> Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
>>> motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
>>> dominate this transport newsgroup.
>> There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame.  Each
>> case needs to be looked individually.
>>
> Someone wielding a lethal instrument in a public place, such as a car
> however unintentionally, to kill a defenceless child should bear the
> whole blame, not the child or the parent.

Why?

I may have wielded a sword, I have never weilded a car.

>>> Presumably, these days when cars
>>> are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to be
>>> allowed out alone as they used to be.
>> Perhaps in London, its certainly not the case around here where
>> children are out playing most of the year.  ( even when its raining)
>>
> Don't you have residential areas?

And your point is?

>>> However, in this case that
>>> excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because the child was not
>>> only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside a
>>> school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers virtually
>>> everywhere.
>> The same is true of cyclists.  Should we just make all schools
>> pedestrain zones and force the kids to walk there?
>>
> Cycles are not nearly as dangerous as cars, for obvious physical
> reasons.
>>> Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a
>>> motorist recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged
>>> room?
>> Remember the house that was destroyed by a gas explosion/house fire/
>> etc that happened last week/month/year.
>>
> What about it? Who was responsible? If no one it is not comparable to
> a road killing.

I am glad you are looking at who was responsible for an incident.

>>  Houses are clearly
>> dangerous.  Should we be allowing children inside them?!?!  Cars
>> crashing into houses is a pretty rare occurance is the point I'm
>> making to you btw.
>>
> They maybe rare but they happen and clearly illustrate the massive
> lethal force of a car.

A lorry drove into a house near me last year, should we ban lorries?

>>>> Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
>>>> ( this is illegal and she's been charged)
>>>> Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.
>>> But as I have pointed out, after she has been punished she will no
>>> doubt be allowed to drive again, despite the enormity of her crime.
>> You favour a system of cutting her limbs off or suchlike?
>>
> Nope. Just keep fining and/or imprisoning her if she is caught
> driving, and crush her car every time.

Perhaps we should just hang her.

>>>> It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
>>>> had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
>>>> drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
>>>> to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
>>>> people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
>>>> this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
>>>> while drunk.
>>> Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
>>> their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered
>>> enough from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it
>>> for the rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure!
>>> What about the parents of the dead child?
>> You want to ban the parents from driving as well?
>>
> I was referring to their grief and loss.

OK, your point?
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 


-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 11:35, Fod  wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>> Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
>>> motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
>>> dominate this transport newsgroup.
>> There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame.  Each
>> case needs to be looked individually.
>>
> Someone wielding a lethal instrument in a public place, such as a car
> however unintentionally, to kill a defenceless child should bear the
> whole blame, not the child or the parent.
>>> Presumably, these days when cars
>>> are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to be
>>> allowed out alone as they used to be.
>> Perhaps in London, its certainly not the case around here where
>> children are out playing most of the year.  ( even when its raining)
>>
> Don't you have residential areas?
>>> However, in this case that
>>> excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because the child was not
>>> only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside a
>>> school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers virtually
>>> everywhere.
>> The same is true of cyclists.  Should we just make all schools
>> pedestrain zones and force the kids to walk there?
>>
> Cycles are not nearly as dangerous as cars, for obvious physical
> reasons.
>>> Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a
>>> motorist recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged
>>> room?
>> Remember the house that was destroyed by a gas explosion/house fire/
>> etc that happened last week/month/year.
>>
> What about it? Who was responsible? If no one it is not comparable to
> a road killing.
>>  Houses are clearly
>> dangerous.  Should we be allowing children inside them?!?!  Cars
>> crashing into houses is a pretty rare occurance is the point I'm
>> making to you btw.
>>
> They maybe rare but they happen and clearly illustrate the massive
> lethal force of a car.
>>>> Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
>>>> ( this is illegal and she's been charged)
>>>> Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.
>>> But as I have pointed out, after she has been punished she will no
>>> doubt be allowed to drive again, despite the enormity of her crime.
>> You favour a system of cutting her limbs off or suchlike?
>>
> Nope. Just keep fining and/or imprisoning her if she is caught
> driving, and crush her car every time.
>>>> It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
>>>> had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
>>>> drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
>>>> to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
>>>> people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
>>>> this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
>>>> while drunk.
>>> Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
>>> their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered
>>> enough from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it
>>> for the rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure!
>>> What about the parents of the dead child?
>> You want to ban the parents from driving as well?
>>
> I was referring to their grief and loss.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 

Would you care to reply to the question about the schoolkid hit by the bus?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 21 Sep, 15:30, Doug  wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 11:35, Fod  wrote:> On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
> > > motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
> > > dominate this transport newsgroup.
>
> > There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame.  Each
> > case needs to be looked individually.
>
> Someone wielding a lethal instrument in a public place, such as a car
> however unintentionally, to kill a defenceless child should bear the
> whole blame, not the child or the parent.

Read that case yet, Gollum, you old turd?  It would appear not from
the shit you continue to post here.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
>> > motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
>> > dominate this transport newsgroup.

>> As ever, you completely ignore the circumstances.
>>
>> Can you really see no difference between kids playing chicken on fast
>> trunk routes and a pissed-up fuckwit ramming a pram against gates?

> You cite an extreme example.

In other words "Hmm, you're right, maybe it's not that simple after 
all..."

> Children have also been killed on pedestrian crossings, on pavements, 
> and on public roads by speeding hit and run drivers.

Indeed they have. And nobody's claiming the driver is ALWAYS blameless. 
Only you seem to think blame can be determined solely by the mode of 
transport.

> As I and others frequently point out, speed limits are set too high in 
> residential areas and particularly outside schools.

Some are, some aren't. If there's a high risk of children being present 
on the road outside a school, though, it's very rare that you would be 
able to drive above roughly walking pace, anyway, because of the 
incredibly bad parking of the school run mums.

>> > Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a motorist
>> > recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged room?

>> It would have made no difference whatsoever to the causes of the crash.
>> Which, incidentally, would have been entirely the driver's fault.

> Yes, obviously, there are some circumstances where you and your motoring
> chums cannot make any excuses at all for killer motorists.

Don't be silly. Oh, wait, it's you. You can't help it.

>> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of the
>> kid vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you never did
>> answer the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally blameless?

> Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
> complicated than that.

In this instance, it is that simple. Was that child completely blame free?

> As I recall I did deal with it anyway. You seem to be having reading 
> problem again.

Hmmm. Your post would appear not to have reached my server. Perhaps you'd 
be so kind as to post a MessageID? I'll gladly apologise if you have 
answered that simple yes/no question with a simple yes or no, instead of 
evasive semantics.

On 21 Sep, 08:51, Doug  wrote:

> > You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of the kid
> > vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you never did answer
> > the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally blameless?
>
> Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
> complicated than that. As I recall I did deal with it anyway. You seem
> to be having reading problem again.

No you didn't.  Once again you lie, you lying old turd.

BrianW wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 08:51, Doug  wrote:
>
>>> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of
>>> the kid vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you
>>> never did answer the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally
>>> blameless?
>>
>> Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
>> complicated than that. As I recall I did deal with it anyway. You
>> seem to be having reading problem again.
>
> No you didn't.  Once again you lie, you lying old turd.

Errrrm, 'scuse me. Your sentiment I agree with but, in all fairness, turds 
do have some use.

On 21 Sep, 20:04, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
> > On 21 Sep, 08:51, Doug  wrote:
>
> >>> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of
> >>> the kid vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you
> >>> never did answer the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally
> >>> blameless?
>
> >> Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
> >> complicated than that. As I recall I did deal with it anyway. You
> >> seem to be having reading problem again.
>
> > No you didn't. �Once again you lie, you lying old turd.
>
> Errrrm, 'scuse me. Your sentiment I agree with but, in all fairness, turds
> do have some use.

They add Vitamin B12 to vegetables, according to Gollum.

BrianW wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 20:04, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> BrianW wrote:
>>> On 21 Sep, 08:51, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>>>> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of
>>>>> the kid vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you
>>>>> never did answer the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally
>>>>> blameless?
>>
>>>> Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
>>>> complicated than that. As I recall I did deal with it anyway. You
>>>> seem to be having reading problem again.
>>
>>> No you didn't. ?Once again you lie, you lying old turd.
>>
>> Errrrm, 'scuse me. Your sentiment I agree with but, in all fairness,
>> turds do have some use.
>
> They add Vitamin B12 to vegetables, according to Gollum.

Whereas Doug only adds useless crap to this NG.

Brimstone wrote:
> BrianW wrote:
>> On 21 Sep, 20:04, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>> BrianW wrote:
>>>> On 21 Sep, 08:51, Doug  wrote:
>>>>>> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of
>>>>>> the kid vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you
>>>>>> never did answer the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally
>>>>>> blameless?
>>>>> Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
>>>>> complicated than that. As I recall I did deal with it anyway. You
>>>>> seem to be having reading problem again.
>>>> No you didn't. ?Once again you lie, you lying old turd.
>>> Errrrm, 'scuse me. Your sentiment I agree with but, in all fairness,
>>> turds do have some use.
>> They add Vitamin B12 to vegetables, according to Gollum.
> 
> Whereas Doug only adds useless crap to this NG. 
> 
> 

So there are 'good turds' & 'bad turds'.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Tony Dragon"  wrote in message 
news:X4SdnRlqebxPN0vVnZ2dnUVZ8tXinZ2d@bt.com...
> Brimstone wrote:
>> BrianW wrote:
>>> On 21 Sep, 20:04, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>> BrianW wrote:
>>>>> On 21 Sep, 08:51, Doug  wrote:
>>>>>>> You seem to have gone very quiet in the thread with the video of
>>>>>>> the kid vaulting railings into the path of a bus. In fact, you
>>>>>>> never did answer the simple yes/no question - was the kid totally
>>>>>>> blameless?
>>>>>> Your simple yes/no questions are disingenuous cos life is much more
>>>>>> complicated than that. As I recall I did deal with it anyway. You
>>>>>> seem to be having reading problem again.
>>>>> No you didn't. ?Once again you lie, you lying old turd.
>>>> Errrrm, 'scuse me. Your sentiment I agree with but, in all fairness,
>>>> turds do have some use.
>>> They add Vitamin B12 to vegetables, according to Gollum.
>>
>> Whereas Doug only adds useless crap to this NG.
>
> So there are 'good turds' & 'bad turds'.

LOL

On 21 Sep, 15:30, Doug  wrote:
> On 21 Sep, 11:35, Fod  wrote:> On 21 Sep, 08:08, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > Well in the past, when children have been run over by killer
> > > motorists, the parents have been blamed by most of the motorists who
> > > dominate this transport newsgroup.
>
> > There are circumstances where the parents could be at blame.  Each
> > case needs to be looked individually.
>
> Someone wielding a lethal instrument in a public place, such as a car
> however unintentionally, to kill a defenceless child should bear the
> whole blame, not the child or the parent.

Well we already know we disagree on this.  I'd offer to agree to
disagree with you but we know what happened last time....

> > > Presumably, these days when cars
> > > are so prevalent and so fast, it is no longer safe for children to be
> > > allowed out alone as they used to be.
>
> > Perhaps in London, its certainly not the case around here where
> > children are out playing most of the year.  ( even when its raining)
>
> Don't you have residential areas?

Yes.  That would be where the kids are out playing.  We decided that
industrial areas were not such a good idea decades ago.

> > > However, in this case that
> > > excuse for a killer motorist cannot be used because the child was not
> > > only in the care of a parent but also on a pavement and outside a
> > > school, which proves they are no longer safe from drivers virtually
> > > everywhere.
>
> > The same is true of cyclists.  Should we just make all schools
> > pedestrain zones and force the kids to walk there?
>
> Cycles are not nearly as dangerous as cars, for obvious physical
> reasons.

Whats that got to do with the price of tea?  You are saying if
something is dangerous it shouldn't be allowed.  Now you've decided
that bikes are ok as they are less dangerous?  No.  If you ban
something for being dangerous then you ban all dangerous things.
Besides children are very vulnerable to bikes due to their lower mass
and height.

> > > Remember that house that was partly knocked down by a
> > > motorist recently? What if a child had been present in the damaged
> > > room?
>
> > Remember the house that was destroyed by a gas explosion/house fire/
> > etc that happened last week/month/year.
>
> What about it? Who was responsible? If no one it is not comparable to
> a road killing.

Again we disagree on this as I accept that some road killings don't
have anyone responsible.  ( rare though that may be)

> > Houses are clearly
> > dangerous.  Should we be allowing children inside them?!?!  Cars
> > crashing into houses is a pretty rare occurance is the point I'm
> > making to you btw.
>
> They maybe rare but they happen and clearly illustrate the massive
> lethal force of a car.

In that the car crashed and noone died?

> > > > Point one:  Driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs.
> > > > ( this is illegal and she's been charged)
> > > > Point two:  Driving an untaxed car.  Yep, thats not allowed either.
>
> > > But as I have pointed out, after she has been punished she will no
> > > doubt be allowed to drive again, despite the enormity of her crime.
>
> > You favour a system of cutting her limbs off or suchlike?
>
> Nope. Just keep fining and/or imprisoning her if she is caught
> driving, and crush her car every time.

So you are prosing a system that won't stop her from driving then?
Just post driving punishment.

> > > > It would appear that the driver had a business that was failing and
> > > > had an family arguement earlier that day.  Stress has probably led to
> > > > drinking with these tragic results.  Sadly such stress can also lead
> > > > to a condition known in the US as "going postal" where stressed out
> > > > people lose it and try and take down others with them.  I wonder if
> > > > this was a factor in this crash or if it was just going out of control
> > > > while drunk.
>
> > > Oh yes, that reminds me, the other excuse used by motorists here for
> > > their killer motorist chums is that the poor dears have suffered
> > > enough from the tragic incident they have caused and will regret it
> > > for the rest of their lives, which is punishment enough. Yeah sure!
> > > What about the parents of the dead child?
>
> > You want to ban the parents from driving as well?
>
> I was referring to their grief and loss.

Due to you removing their license?

Fod