S
C
cupra
Guest
Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
I
On Jan 21, 7:16 pm, " cupra" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> >http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-c...
>
> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
Contempt of court, surely?
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> >http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-c...
>
> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
Contempt of court, surely?
M
Martin Dann
Guest
Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
The story is also on bike radar.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/jason-macintyre-death-driver-speaks-14093
Also there is a obituary by Richard Moore.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sport/My-friend-and-rival-died.3691564.jp
My friend and rival died in pursuit of Olympic dream - Scotland on Sunday
> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
The story is also on bike radar.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/jason-macintyre-death-driver-speaks-14093
Also there is a obituary by Richard Moore.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sport/My-friend-and-rival-died.3691564.jp
My friend and rival died in pursuit of Olympic dream - Scotland on Sunday
K
Kenneth Clements
Guest
"Sook MaCrunchie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
>
>Yeah right, a champion training on a cycle path?
Ken.
news
[email protected]...> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
>
>Yeah right, a champion training on a cycle path?
Ken.
T
Tosspot
Guest
cupra wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 7:16 pm, " cupra" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
>>>> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-c...
>>>>
>>> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
>>
>> Contempt of court, surely?
>
> Unwise, definately.
Clearly not compis mentis.
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 7:16 pm, " cupra" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
>>>> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-c...
>>>>
>>> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
>>
>> Contempt of court, surely?
>
> Unwise, definately.
Clearly not compis mentis.
C
cupra
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 21, 7:16 pm, " cupra" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
>>> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-c...
>>
>> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
>
> Contempt of court, surely?
Unwise, definately.
> On Jan 21, 7:16 pm, " cupra" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
>>> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-c...
>>
>> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
>
> Contempt of court, surely?
Unwise, definately.
N
Nick
Guest
Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
>
>
>
>
So it sounds as if Jason crashed into the van which would presumably
have made a dent. It also seems likely that he would have been going
quite fast if it was his speed that caused the injuries. Presumably at a
full on training speed in the 30 mph region rather than a 10 to 15 mph
that would really be fast for a path.
It would seem bizarre that a cyclist such as Jason would train on a
cycle path.
Interesting the comment that it took a few of them to help him into the
recovery position.
However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along soon.
> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
>
>
>
>
So it sounds as if Jason crashed into the van which would presumably
have made a dent. It also seems likely that he would have been going
quite fast if it was his speed that caused the injuries. Presumably at a
full on training speed in the 30 mph region rather than a 10 to 15 mph
that would really be fast for a path.
It would seem bizarre that a cyclist such as Jason would train on a
cycle path.
Interesting the comment that it took a few of them to help him into the
recovery position.
However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along soon.
E
Ekul Namsob
Guest
cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > <http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-cyc
> > le-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/>
>
> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
I'm not sure that it's full of inconsistencies but the claim that he
"was on the recently completed cycle path which runs parallel to the
road and a few yards off it" sounds unlikely. Was MacIntyre on a
training run at the time?
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > <http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-cyc
> > le-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/>
>
> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
I'm not sure that it's full of inconsistencies but the claim that he
"was on the recently completed cycle path which runs parallel to the
road and a few yards off it" sounds unlikely. Was MacIntyre on a
training run at the time?
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
E
Ekul Namsob
Guest
Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > <http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-cy
> > cle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/>
> So it sounds as if Jason crashed into the van which would presumably
> have made a dent. It also seems likely that he would have been going
> quite fast if it was his speed that caused the injuries. Presumably at a
> full on training speed in the 30 mph region rather than a 10 to 15 mph
> that would really be fast for a path.
>
> It would seem bizarre that a cyclist such as Jason would train on a
> cycle path.
>
> Interesting the comment that it took a few of them to help him into the
> recovery position.
>
> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along soon.
Well, until proven guilty, the driver should be seen as not guilty. He
would help his case a lot by insisting that he never said a word to the
paper.
Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > <http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-cy
> > cle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/>
> So it sounds as if Jason crashed into the van which would presumably
> have made a dent. It also seems likely that he would have been going
> quite fast if it was his speed that caused the injuries. Presumably at a
> full on training speed in the 30 mph region rather than a 10 to 15 mph
> that would really be fast for a path.
>
> It would seem bizarre that a cyclist such as Jason would train on a
> cycle path.
>
> Interesting the comment that it took a few of them to help him into the
> recovery position.
>
> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along soon.
Well, until proven guilty, the driver should be seen as not guilty. He
would help his case a lot by insisting that he never said a word to the
paper.
Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
J
JNugent
Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
>>
>>><http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-cy
>>>cle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/>
>
>
>>So it sounds as if Jason crashed into the van which would presumably
>>have made a dent. It also seems likely that he would have been going
>>quite fast if it was his speed that caused the injuries. Presumably at a
>>full on training speed in the 30 mph region rather than a 10 to 15 mph
>>that would really be fast for a path.
>>
>>It would seem bizarre that a cyclist such as Jason would train on a
>>cycle path.
>>
>>Interesting the comment that it took a few of them to help him into the
>>recovery position.
>>
>>However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along soon.
>
>
> Well, until proven guilty, the driver should be seen as not guilty.
Absolutely. I too am proud to be a member of the "Innocent *unless*
proven guilty crew" [my amendment and emphasis].
It's a far more moral stance then that of the "Guilty - why bother
with a trial?" crew.
> He would help his case a lot by insisting that he never said a word to
> the paper.
Are there rules about that?
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
>>
>>><http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-in-cy
>>>cle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/>
>
>
>>So it sounds as if Jason crashed into the van which would presumably
>>have made a dent. It also seems likely that he would have been going
>>quite fast if it was his speed that caused the injuries. Presumably at a
>>full on training speed in the 30 mph region rather than a 10 to 15 mph
>>that would really be fast for a path.
>>
>>It would seem bizarre that a cyclist such as Jason would train on a
>>cycle path.
>>
>>Interesting the comment that it took a few of them to help him into the
>>recovery position.
>>
>>However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along soon.
>
>
> Well, until proven guilty, the driver should be seen as not guilty.
Absolutely. I too am proud to be a member of the "Innocent *unless*
proven guilty crew" [my amendment and emphasis].
It's a far more moral stance then that of the "Guilty - why bother
with a trial?" crew.
> He would help his case a lot by insisting that he never said a word to
> the paper.
Are there rules about that?
J
JNugent
Guest
Nick wrote:
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
>
>> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So it sounds as if Jason crashed into the van which would presumably
> have made a dent. It also seems likely that he would have been going
> quite fast if it was his speed that caused the injuries. Presumably at a
> full on training speed in the 30 mph region rather than a 10 to 15 mph
> that would really be fast for a path.
>
> It would seem bizarre that a cyclist such as Jason would train on a
> cycle path.
>
> Interesting the comment that it took a few of them to help him into the
> recovery position.
>
> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along soon.
The exact site of the collision should be easily-established forensically.
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
>
>> http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So it sounds as if Jason crashed into the van which would presumably
> have made a dent. It also seems likely that he would have been going
> quite fast if it was his speed that caused the injuries. Presumably at a
> full on training speed in the 30 mph region rather than a 10 to 15 mph
> that would really be fast for a path.
>
> It would seem bizarre that a cyclist such as Jason would train on a
> cycle path.
>
> Interesting the comment that it took a few of them to help him into the
> recovery position.
>
> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along soon.
The exact site of the collision should be easily-established forensically.
N
Nick
Guest
JNugent wrote:
>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along
>> soon.
>
> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established forensically.
How?
>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along
>> soon.
>
> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established forensically.
How?
P
Paul - xxx
Guest
Ekul Namsob wibbled
> cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > > <http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-
> > > in-cyc le-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/>
> >
> > Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
>
> I'm not sure that it's full of inconsistencies but the claim that he
> "was on the recently completed cycle path which runs parallel to the
> road and a few yards off it" sounds unlikely. Was MacIntyre on a
> training run at the time?
Why mis-represent it? The actual line, and few words at the front were
"I think he was on the recently completed cycle path which runs
parallel to the road and a few yards off it." is NOT 'the claim' at
all.
--
Paul - ***
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
'98 Suzuki DR 200 Djebel 'Small but perfectly formed'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
> cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > > <http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/01/20/driver-
> > > in-cyc le-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/>
> >
> > Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
>
> I'm not sure that it's full of inconsistencies but the claim that he
> "was on the recently completed cycle path which runs parallel to the
> road and a few yards off it" sounds unlikely. Was MacIntyre on a
> training run at the time?
Why mis-represent it? The actual line, and few words at the front were
"I think he was on the recently completed cycle path which runs
parallel to the road and a few yards off it." is NOT 'the claim' at
all.
--
Paul - ***
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
'98 Suzuki DR 200 Djebel 'Small but perfectly formed'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
J
JNugent
Guest
Nick wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along
>>> soon.
>> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established
>> forensically.
> How?
There will have been wreckage and debris at that spot, as opposed to a
spot several yards away to one side or the other. AIUI, the sites of
fatal accidents are photographed by the police asap. If that driver is
just indulging in "wishful thinking", that will become clear.
> JNugent wrote:
>>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along
>>> soon.
>> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established
>> forensically.
> How?
There will have been wreckage and debris at that spot, as opposed to a
spot several yards away to one side or the other. AIUI, the sites of
fatal accidents are photographed by the police asap. If that driver is
just indulging in "wishful thinking", that will become clear.
N
Nick
Guest
JNugent wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along
>>>> soon.
>
>>> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established
>>> forensically.
>
>> How?
>
> There will have been wreckage and debris at that spot, as opposed to a
> spot several yards away to one side or the other. AIUI, the sites of
> fatal accidents are photographed by the police asap. If that driver is
> just indulging in "wishful thinking", that will become clear.
What wreckage, what debris. I think it is you that is indulging in
"wishful thinking" if you believe it is normally possible to determine
what actually happened with any degree of certainty. If it were possible
we would not have a debate about the need for an automatic presumption
of liability on the part of the motorist.
At present all the motorist needs to do is raise a small doubt, thus
making it practically impossible to convict in many circumstances.
> Nick wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be along
>>>> soon.
>
>>> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established
>>> forensically.
>
>> How?
>
> There will have been wreckage and debris at that spot, as opposed to a
> spot several yards away to one side or the other. AIUI, the sites of
> fatal accidents are photographed by the police asap. If that driver is
> just indulging in "wishful thinking", that will become clear.
What wreckage, what debris. I think it is you that is indulging in
"wishful thinking" if you believe it is normally possible to determine
what actually happened with any degree of certainty. If it were possible
we would not have a debate about the need for an automatic presumption
of liability on the part of the motorist.
At present all the motorist needs to do is raise a small doubt, thus
making it practically impossible to convict in many circumstances.
J
JNugent
Guest
Nick wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be
>>>>> along soon.
>>>> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established
>>>> forensically.
>>> How?
>> There will have been wreckage and debris at that spot, as opposed to a
>> spot several yards away to one side or the other. AIUI, the sites of
>> fatal accidents are photographed by the police asap. If that driver is
>> just indulging in "wishful thinking", that will become clear.
> What wreckage, what debris.
The wreckage of the bicycle and its debris, plus debris dislodged from
the pickup truck (dirt from the underside of the vehicle shaken loose
by the impact, splinters of paint, etc. They - as well as the position
of the injured rider - will all be located in such a way as to make
the position of the collision relatively clear - at the very least
sufficiently clear to be able to say whether it happened on the
carriageway or on a cycle track some feet or yards off to one side.
Surely you must have happened upon the scene of an RTA and seen all
that sort of stuff? You must know that a crash on a carriageway won't
look as though it happened some distance away, completely off it?
> I think it is you that is indulging in
> "wishful thinking" if you believe it is normally possible to determine
> what actually happened with any degree of certainty. If it were possible
> we would not have a debate about the need for an automatic presumption
> of liability on the part of the motorist.
What "need" is that?
And what's your problem? Do you fear that the council driver might be
right? If he's not, that'll be clear enough from the forensics.
> At present all the motorist needs to do is raise a small doubt, thus
> making it practically impossible to convict in many circumstances.
Well, you know what the legal test for a criminal conviction is
(supposed to be).
> JNugent wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be
>>>>> along soon.
>>>> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established
>>>> forensically.
>>> How?
>> There will have been wreckage and debris at that spot, as opposed to a
>> spot several yards away to one side or the other. AIUI, the sites of
>> fatal accidents are photographed by the police asap. If that driver is
>> just indulging in "wishful thinking", that will become clear.
> What wreckage, what debris.
The wreckage of the bicycle and its debris, plus debris dislodged from
the pickup truck (dirt from the underside of the vehicle shaken loose
by the impact, splinters of paint, etc. They - as well as the position
of the injured rider - will all be located in such a way as to make
the position of the collision relatively clear - at the very least
sufficiently clear to be able to say whether it happened on the
carriageway or on a cycle track some feet or yards off to one side.
Surely you must have happened upon the scene of an RTA and seen all
that sort of stuff? You must know that a crash on a carriageway won't
look as though it happened some distance away, completely off it?
> I think it is you that is indulging in
> "wishful thinking" if you believe it is normally possible to determine
> what actually happened with any degree of certainty. If it were possible
> we would not have a debate about the need for an automatic presumption
> of liability on the part of the motorist.
What "need" is that?
And what's your problem? Do you fear that the council driver might be
right? If he's not, that'll be clear enough from the forensics.
> At present all the motorist needs to do is raise a small doubt, thus
> making it practically impossible to convict in many circumstances.
Well, you know what the legal test for a criminal conviction is
(supposed to be).
I
iarocu
Guest
On 21 Jan, 15:29, JNugent
>
> Are there rules about that?
I think the rules cover people other than the accused or newspapers
etc and apply after proceeding have started. If the person involved
in an incident wants to make public comments about it I think it is
not illegal but perhaps unwise. .
I couldn't find any full defnition online but there is some info here.
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/Law/FOISA-EIRsGuidance/section26/paragraphC.asp
"Common law contempt of court would also cover publication of
information which would create a real risk of prejudice or impediment
to a fair trial or to the administration of justice where proceedings
are imminent or pending but not yet "active". 21 For example, it is
likely to be contempt of court for an authority which knows that
proceedings are about to be instituted against someone to disclose
information that is likely to prejudice those proceedings."
The newspaper article seems to be careful to give little other than
the basic facts except where quoting the driver.
Also if the driver has not been charged by the police but has instead
been reported to the Procurator Fiscal to consider whether there is
enough evidence to take proceedings then the contempt of court law
might not yet apply.
Iain
>
> Are there rules about that?
I think the rules cover people other than the accused or newspapers
etc and apply after proceeding have started. If the person involved
in an incident wants to make public comments about it I think it is
not illegal but perhaps unwise. .
I couldn't find any full defnition online but there is some info here.
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/Law/FOISA-EIRsGuidance/section26/paragraphC.asp
"Common law contempt of court would also cover publication of
information which would create a real risk of prejudice or impediment
to a fair trial or to the administration of justice where proceedings
are imminent or pending but not yet "active". 21 For example, it is
likely to be contempt of court for an authority which knows that
proceedings are about to be instituted against someone to disclose
information that is likely to prejudice those proceedings."
The newspaper article seems to be careful to give little other than
the basic facts except where quoting the driver.
Also if the driver has not been charged by the police but has instead
been reported to the Procurator Fiscal to consider whether there is
enough evidence to take proceedings then the contempt of court law
might not yet apply.
Iain
N
Nick
Guest
JNugent wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Nick wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be
>>>>>> along soon.
>
>>>>> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established
>>>>> forensically.
>
>>>> How?
>
>>> There will have been wreckage and debris at that spot, as opposed to
>>> a spot several yards away to one side or the other. AIUI, the sites
>>> of fatal accidents are photographed by the police asap. If that
>>> driver is just indulging in "wishful thinking", that will become clear.
>
>> What wreckage, what debris.
>
> The wreckage of the bicycle and its debris, plus debris dislodged from
> the pickup truck (dirt from the underside of the vehicle shaken loose by
> the impact, splinters of paint, etc. They - as well as the position of
> the injured rider - will all be located in such a way as to make the
> position of the collision relatively clear - at the very least
> sufficiently clear to be able to say whether it happened on the
> carriageway or on a cycle track some feet or yards off to one side.
>
Yeah right they will have CSI's Gil Grissom and team on the scene.
No doubt they will locate the spec of dust from the rare plant etc...
that shows the body was moved.
You live in a fantasy world.
> Surely you must have happened upon the scene of an RTA and seen all that
> sort of stuff? You must know that a crash on a carriageway won't look as
> though it happened some distance away, completely off it?
>
This distance is probably only a meter or two.
>> I think it is you that is indulging in "wishful thinking" if you
>> believe it is normally possible to determine what actually happened
>> with any degree of certainty. If it were possible we would not have a
>> debate about the need for an automatic presumption of liability on the
>> part of the motorist.
>
> What "need" is that?
>
The need to offer cyclist some protection from dangerous drivers.
In particular to provide a clear indication to the driver he would be
liable for an accident. This indication may make them modify their
behaviour. Something which appears to have happened where such laws have
been introduced.
> And what's your problem? Do you fear that the council driver might be
> right? If he's not, that'll be clear enough from the forensics.
>
The problem is that drivers know that they will be able to blag their
way out of an accident if their risky behaviour does kill someone.
You view of forensics appears to come straight from CSI and not reality.
>> At present all the motorist needs to do is raise a small doubt, thus
>> making it practically impossible to convict in many circumstances.
>
> Well, you know what the legal test for a criminal conviction is
> (supposed to be).
Yes a vacuous sound bite. No doubt you will pretend it has some deep
meaning while totally avoiding the actual purpose of the law.
> Nick wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Nick wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> However no doubt the innocent until proven guilty crew will be
>>>>>> along soon.
>
>>>>> The exact site of the collision should be easily-established
>>>>> forensically.
>
>>>> How?
>
>>> There will have been wreckage and debris at that spot, as opposed to
>>> a spot several yards away to one side or the other. AIUI, the sites
>>> of fatal accidents are photographed by the police asap. If that
>>> driver is just indulging in "wishful thinking", that will become clear.
>
>> What wreckage, what debris.
>
> The wreckage of the bicycle and its debris, plus debris dislodged from
> the pickup truck (dirt from the underside of the vehicle shaken loose by
> the impact, splinters of paint, etc. They - as well as the position of
> the injured rider - will all be located in such a way as to make the
> position of the collision relatively clear - at the very least
> sufficiently clear to be able to say whether it happened on the
> carriageway or on a cycle track some feet or yards off to one side.
>
Yeah right they will have CSI's Gil Grissom and team on the scene.
No doubt they will locate the spec of dust from the rare plant etc...
that shows the body was moved.
You live in a fantasy world.
> Surely you must have happened upon the scene of an RTA and seen all that
> sort of stuff? You must know that a crash on a carriageway won't look as
> though it happened some distance away, completely off it?
>
This distance is probably only a meter or two.
>> I think it is you that is indulging in "wishful thinking" if you
>> believe it is normally possible to determine what actually happened
>> with any degree of certainty. If it were possible we would not have a
>> debate about the need for an automatic presumption of liability on the
>> part of the motorist.
>
> What "need" is that?
>
The need to offer cyclist some protection from dangerous drivers.
In particular to provide a clear indication to the driver he would be
liable for an accident. This indication may make them modify their
behaviour. Something which appears to have happened where such laws have
been introduced.
> And what's your problem? Do you fear that the council driver might be
> right? If he's not, that'll be clear enough from the forensics.
>
The problem is that drivers know that they will be able to blag their
way out of an accident if their risky behaviour does kill someone.
You view of forensics appears to come straight from CSI and not reality.
>> At present all the motorist needs to do is raise a small doubt, thus
>> making it practically impossible to convict in many circumstances.
>
> Well, you know what the legal test for a criminal conviction is
> (supposed to be).
Yes a vacuous sound bite. No doubt you will pretend it has some deep
meaning while totally avoiding the actual purpose of the law.
R
Rob Morley
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, cupra
[email protected] says...
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
>
> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
>
"I think ... he was on the cycle path" implies that he didn't see a bike
coming towards him (half asleep, too busy waving to his mates pulling
out of the depot) and is trying to convince himself it wasn't his fault,
or that he saw the bike but misjudged its speed and he's lying about it.
[email protected] says...
> Sook MaCrunchie wrote:
> > http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/sc...cycle-star-tragedy-speaks-out-78057-20291121/
>
> Doesn't sound at all right - full of inconsistencies.
>
"I think ... he was on the cycle path" implies that he didn't see a bike
coming towards him (half asleep, too busy waving to his mates pulling
out of the depot) and is trying to convince himself it wasn't his fault,
or that he saw the bike but misjudged its speed and he's lying about it.
