Kill in a park and avoid prison. - Page 3

On Mar 29, 7:41 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
> >> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".
>
> >> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
> >> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> > What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?
>
> > Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
> > below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
> > would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
> > personal injury or serious damage to property
>
> ...and it mainly happens in respect of people who have passed tests of
> competence to drive and of whom it would, in general, be thought that
> they were not dangerous drivers (becuase, apart from anything else, they
> have no track record of causing death by dangerous).

Dangerous driving doesn't "happen" to anyone. As is quite clear from
the definition, it's something that a driver chooses to do.

James

JNugent wrote:

> Nick wrote:
>
>> The benefit is that it would send a message that dangerous driving is
>> considered serious, rather than just one of those things that could
>> happen to anyone.
>
> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to
> anyone".

No, it absolutely is not, and that is one of the myths we really must
counter. Yes, humans are fallible and everyone who drives makes mistakes at
times - but if you're making the sort of mistakes which could lead to other
people dying, it's time to hang up your ignition keys.

Dangerous driving - ever - is inexcusable.

> First step: realise that it can happen to you just as easily as to
> anyone else.

If you really believe that, stop driving. Now.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT), Paul Weaver
<usenet@isorox.co.uk> wrote:

>> My ride yesterday afternoon was spoilt by an accident outside Crofton
>> junior school in Petts Wood. Apparently a guy was run down and killed by
>> an old woman. The road is narrow, windy and had cars parked waiting to
>> pick up their kids. No way was it safe to drive at anything above 20.
>
>People have it driven in to their heads that 29 is good, 31 is bad.
>It's a sad reflection of the modern lazy way of enforcing decent road-
>using standards.

The message I keep on getting is that 20mph in a residential zone is
more appropriate than 30 or 40mph. Certainly 20mph should be an
absolute limit in a park.

james.annan@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:41 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".
>>>> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
>>>> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.
>>> Nonsense.
>>> What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?
>>> Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
>>> below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
>>> would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
>>> personal injury or serious damage to property
>> ...and it mainly happens in respect of people who have passed tests of
>> competence to drive and of whom it would, in general, be thought that
>> they were not dangerous drivers (becuase, apart from anything else, they
>> have no track record of causing death by dangerous).
>
> Dangerous driving doesn't "happen" to anyone. As is quite clear from
> the definition, it's something that a driver chooses to do.

This has all come up before.

Careless and/or dangerous driving can result simply from inattention or
distraction (hence, among other things, the ban on hand-held phones) and
it is dangerous to assume otherwise. In particular, don't be so arrogant
as to imagine that you are too good for it to happen to you. Every other
dangerous driver thought the same thing.

Simon Brooke wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Nick wrote:
>>
>>> The benefit is that it would send a message that dangerous driving is
>>> considered serious, rather than just one of those things that could
>>> happen to anyone.
>> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to
>> anyone".
>
> No, it absolutely is not, and that is one of the myths we really must
> counter. Yes, humans are fallible and everyone who drives makes mistakes at
> times - but if you're making the sort of mistakes which could lead to other
> people dying, it's time to hang up your ignition keys.
>
> Dangerous driving - ever - is inexcusable.
>
>> First step: realise that it can happen to you just as easily as to
>> anyone else.
>
> If you really believe that, stop driving. Now.

Ah yes... the usual ad-hominem response.

Obviously, you think you're too good to ever drive dangerously. That
being so, *you* are exactly the sort of person who should not drive,
since you believe that your own failings are too trivial to ever worry
about. I recognise my own failings - and yours.

Tom Crispin wrote:

> Paul Weaver <usenet@isorox.co.uk> wrote:

>>> My ride yesterday afternoon was spoilt by an accident outside Crofton
>>> junior school in Petts Wood. Apparently a guy was run down and killed by
>>> an old woman. The road is narrow, windy and had cars parked waiting to
>>> pick up their kids. No way was it safe to drive at anything above 20.
>> People have it driven in to their heads that 29 is good, 31 is bad.
>> It's a sad reflection of the modern lazy way of enforcing decent road-
>> using standards.

> The message I keep on getting is that 20mph in a residential zone is
> more appropriate than 30 or 40mph. Certainly 20mph should be an
> absolute limit in a park.

That has to depend on the sort of park and the sort of road. Some
A-roads go through parks (though I guess you mean relatively small,
urban, parks rather than National Parks).

From memory, unless vehicles were allowed north-south through Greenwich
Park, the area would be even more gridlocked than it already is. The
immediately neigbouring north-south routes have been badly hobbled,
meaning that there are no real alternative N/S routes (A207/A2) between
Deptford and Blackwall and the E/W routes are laughably inadequate.

I always think of the parks in Liverpool. Most are not on through
routes, but two always were. The Liverpool Ring Road (as originally
built and laid out) terminated on the north-east fringes of Sefton Park
and traffic could only reach the most southerly route in the city (the
A561) via that park. The route is still open to traffic today (luckily),
though the official Ring Road route has been diverted away to the east
via the A562 at Allerton. Providing better alternatives is always the
best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly isn't
anted.

JNugent writtificated

> This has all come up before.

Were you talking out of your **** then, too?

Many accidents and examples of careless driving result from a moment of
inattention. Being convicted for dangerous driving requires a certain
amount of driving like a twat as well.

JNugent writtificated

> Providing better alternatives is always the
> best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly isn't
> anted.

....is the wrong answer

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:38:49 +0000, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Paul Weaver <usenet@isorox.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> My ride yesterday afternoon was spoilt by an accident outside Crofton
>>>> junior school in Petts Wood. Apparently a guy was run down and killed by
>>>> an old woman. The road is narrow, windy and had cars parked waiting to
>>>> pick up their kids. No way was it safe to drive at anything above 20.
>>> People have it driven in to their heads that 29 is good, 31 is bad.
>>> It's a sad reflection of the modern lazy way of enforcing decent road-
>>> using standards.
>
>> The message I keep on getting is that 20mph in a residential zone is
>> more appropriate than 30 or 40mph. Certainly 20mph should be an
>> absolute limit in a park.
>
>That has to depend on the sort of park and the sort of road. Some
>A-roads go through parks (though I guess you mean relatively small,
>urban, parks rather than National Parks).
>
> From memory, unless vehicles were allowed north-south through Greenwich
>Park, the area would be even more gridlocked than it already is. The
>immediately neigbouring north-south routes have been badly hobbled,
>meaning that there are no real alternative N/S routes (A207/A2) between
>Deptford and Blackwall and the E/W routes are laughably inadequate.

Hahahah - you don't have a very good memory at all, do you?

The A207/A2 is an east-west route, not north-south. It flows
reasonable freely from Welling to Deptford.

The A208/A200 is a nightmare east-west route from Woolwich to
Deptford. Using the Park as an alternative is really no use as it
would involve a convoluted diversion of about 2 miles.

The A2/A102 flows freely south-north from the M25 to the Sun-in-Sands
roundabout where it grinds to a sluggish crawl to the Blackwall Tunnel
during the rush hour. Coming off the A2 at the Sun-in-Sands through
the park then along the sluggish A208 would be simply nuts.

The A2211 flows reasonably freely south-north between Lewisham and
Greenwich, though it can be a little slow where it crosses the A2, and
then again when it hits the Greenwich Gyratory. Again, using the park
is of little advantage.

What you neglect to recognise is that the road through Greenwich Park
is perpendicular to the Thames. Its only useful purpose as a through
road is an altenate link between the A2 and the A200, or for cyclists
using it to reach the Greenwich Foot Tunnel or the Thames Cycle Route.

Other more direct links between the A2 and A200 include Maze Hill and
Crooms Hill, both of which are traffic calmed.

>I always think of the parks in Liverpool. Most are not on through
>routes, but two always were. The Liverpool Ring Road (as originally
>built and laid out) terminated on the north-east fringes of Sefton Park
>and traffic could only reach the most southerly route in the city (the
>A561) via that park. The route is still open to traffic today (luckily),
>though the official Ring Road route has been diverted away to the east
>via the A562 at Allerton. Providing better alternatives is always the
>best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly isn't
>anted.

Therein lies your mistake. Trying to justify the use of Greenwich
Park as a fast commuter route by comparing it to a park road you know
in Liverpool. It makes you look ridiculous.

Mark T wrote:

> JNugent writtificated

>> This has all come up before.

> Were you talking out of your **** then, too?
> Many accidents and examples of careless driving result from a moment of
> inattention. Being convicted for dangerous driving requires a certain
> amount of driving like a twat as well.

Are you *totally* incapable of reading a thread?

The incident which this very thread is about arose, by common agreement
(by other posters - I have made no comment on it), out of - at worst - a
moment's inattention on the part of the driver. Only the most extremist
of posters have said anything different.

The driver has nevertheless been convicted of causing death by dangerous
driving.

That being so (and it is), is there any part of "Being convicted for
dangerous driving requires a certain amount of driving like a twat as
well" that you would care to rethink?

There *should* be...

Mark T wrote:

> JNugent writtificated

>> Providing better alternatives is always the
>> best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly isn't
>> anted.

> ...is the wrong answer

....because of the obvious typo?

Or because you think that others shouldn't travel?

JNugent writtificated

> That being so (and it is), is there any part of "Being convicted for
> dangerous driving requires a certain amount of driving like a twat as
> well" that you would care to rethink?

He didn't see the person coming down the hill, he didn't see the person
almost in front of his bumper, he didn't see the person as his body
impacted with the car. After that his windscreen was broken and he
couldn't see much at all.

This 'moments inattention' lasted a long time.

JNugent writtificated

>>> Providing better alternatives is always the
>>> best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly
>>> isn't anted.
>
>> ...is the wrong answer
>
> ...because of the obvious typo?

No.

> Or because you think that others shouldn't travel?

No.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:38:49 +0000, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Weaver <usenet@isorox.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> My ride yesterday afternoon was spoilt by an accident outside Crofton
>>>>> junior school in Petts Wood. Apparently a guy was run down and killed by
>>>>> an old woman. The road is narrow, windy and had cars parked waiting to
>>>>> pick up their kids. No way was it safe to drive at anything above 20.
>>>> People have it driven in to their heads that 29 is good, 31 is bad.
>>>> It's a sad reflection of the modern lazy way of enforcing decent road-
>>>> using standards.
>>> The message I keep on getting is that 20mph in a residential zone is
>>> more appropriate than 30 or 40mph. Certainly 20mph should be an
>>> absolute limit in a park.
>> That has to depend on the sort of park and the sort of road. Some
>> A-roads go through parks (though I guess you mean relatively small,
>> urban, parks rather than National Parks).
>>
>> From memory, unless vehicles were allowed north-south through Greenwich
>> Park, the area would be even more gridlocked than it already is. The
>> immediately neigbouring north-south routes have been badly hobbled,
>> meaning that there are no real alternative N/S routes (A207/A2) between
>> Deptford and Blackwall and the E/W routes are laughably inadequate.
>
> Hahahah - you don't have a very good memory at all, do you?
>
> The A207/A2 is an east-west route, not north-south. It flows
> reasonable freely from Welling to Deptford.

"Flows reasonably freely" meaning "like treacle most of the day" - and
the important point is that the N/S routes between them are wholly
inadequate.

> The A208/A200 is a nightmare east-west route from Woolwich to
> Deptford. Using the Park as an alternative is really no use as it
> would involve a convoluted diversion of about 2 miles.

Ah... did I get the road number wrong?

For "A207", read "A200/A206", ie, the lower route between Rotherhithe
and Woolwich, though for these purposes, I refer only to the stretch
between Deptford and Blackwall (ie, the bit where Greenwich Park lies to
the south). Mea culpa.

> The A2/A102 flows freely south-north from the M25 to the Sun-in-Sands
> roundabout where it grinds to a sluggish crawl to the Blackwall Tunnel
> during the rush hour. Coming off the A2 at the Sun-in-Sands through
> the park then along the sluggish A208 would be simply nuts.

Unless you were going to Deptford or Surrey Docks or Southwark, in which
case not turning off there would be the silly thing to do - wouldn't it?

Of course, traffic heading for the wide-open spaces of the
A2/A20/M20/M25/Dartford from Southwark/Rotherhithe has the "choice" of
the A2 (with horrific bottlenecks at New Cross, Deptford, Blackheath
Hill and the heath) or the "lower road" which flows better down to
Deptford but still dumps the traffic at the foot of Blackheath Hill just
in time for the slow queue across the heath itself.

A way to take advantage of the lower road and avoid Blackheath Hill
(which is well worth avoiding) is to continue via the Greenwich one-way
system and go south through the park, especially as it then avoids the
slow crawl toward Blackwall and lets traffic merge with the A2 to the
east of the narrow part of Blackheath itself. As a route, it makes a lot
of sense, whereas you seem to think it doesn't. Perhaps you think that
none of the people using it and similar routes are just irrational and
that only you are qualified to judge their best interests.

> The A2211 flows reasonably freely south-north between Lewisham and
> Greenwich, though it can be a little slow where it crosses the A2, and
> then again when it hits the Greenwich Gyratory. Again, using the park
> is of little advantage.

Is that the road which crosses the A2 just east (about six hundred feet
east) of Deptford? If so, would you recommend anyone intending to travel
east along the A2 to use it - and join the queue to ascend Blackheath Hill?

> What you neglect to recognise is that the road through Greenwich Park
> is perpendicular to the Thames.

Au contraire! Given that the main routes there are E/W, that is the
road's main attraction.

> Its only useful purpose as a through
> road is an altenate link between the A2 and the A200, or for cyclists
> using it to reach the Greenwich Foot Tunnel or the Thames Cycle Route.

Yes... and?

> Other more direct links between the A2 and A200 include Maze Hill and
> Crooms Hill, both of which are traffic calmed

....and badly-congested at rush hour because of the effect of that
traffic-calming and the effect of parked vehicles which cause gridlock.
The N/S routes are totally inadequate (as are the E/W routes, though you
seem to suggest that they aren't).

>> I always think of the parks in Liverpool. Most are not on through
>> routes, but two always were. The Liverpool Ring Road (as originally
>> built and laid out) terminated on the north-east fringes of Sefton Park
>> and traffic could only reach the most southerly route in the city (the
>> A561) via that park. The route is still open to traffic today (luckily),
>> though the official Ring Road route has been diverted away to the east
>> via the A562 at Allerton. Providing better alternatives is always the
>> best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly isn't
>> anted.

> Therein lies your mistake. Trying to justify the use of Greenwich
> Park as a fast commuter route by comparing it to a park road you know
> in Liverpool. It makes you look ridiculous.

The "park in Liverpool" lies on the city's ring road (as was). It was
meant to be used as a through route (though not for the last forty years
or so).

I know the road through Greenwich Park - I have used it. I would not
decribe it as "fast" and I'm not sure why you do.

It's a road. It's available to traffic. It's supposed to be used
lawfully. Had the driver in the recent incident complied with that, the
collision and death would not have occurred.

Mark T wrote:

> JNugent writtificated

>> That being so (and it is), is there any part of "Being convicted for
>> dangerous driving requires a certain amount of driving like a twat as
>> well" that you would care to rethink?

> He didn't see the person coming down the hill, he didn't see the person
> almost in front of his bumper, he didn't see the person as his body
> impacted with the car. After that his windscreen was broken and he
> couldn't see much at all.

> This 'moments inattention' lasted a long time.

I assume that's the nearest you'll come to a retraction of "Being
convicted for dangerous driving requires a certain amount of driving
like a twat as well".

That's your view. I make no comment upon it, except to say that it
doesn't seem to accord with most of the other views posted here on that
incident.