BAH!

[wafflycat]

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/cont...gory=news&itemid=NOED21 Jul 2005 12:23:53:250



"A road safety charity today slammed a decision not to ban a teenage driver
who hit a young cyclist while distracted by the mobile phone he was
holding."

He also had a worn tyre...

""The child accepted that he had ridden out in front of Mr Bradford."

But Bradford had been holding his mobile phone which probably contributed to
him being unable to stop in time.

Mrs Tucker told the court: "He (Bradford) later said there was another child
in the road and he was between the devil and the deep blue sea as to which
child he hit.""

Perhaps if he had maintained his vehicle properly and paid attention to what
was going on, he may well have been able to stop in time, thus not hitting
anyone??

Cheers, helen s

 

[Mark Tranchant]

wafflycat wrote:

> Perhaps if he had maintained his vehicle properly and paid attention to
> what was going on, he may well have been able to stop in time, thus not
> hitting anyone??

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Whilst I abhor the use of mobile phones in cars, and poor maintenance,
there comes a point whereby even the most attentive driver won't avoid a
crash if a pedestrian or cyclist does something stupid.

That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the usual
amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown that he truly
could have avoided the accident, this is the correct verdict.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the usual
> amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown that he truly
> could have avoided the accident, this is the correct verdict.

No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
should be punished as if they hit someone.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Mick]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
>> usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
>> that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
>> verdict.
>
> No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
> should be punished as if they hit someone.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,
not what might have happened. It would be a dangerous day should we start
punishing people for what could have happened. I think we'd all be locked
up at some stage in our lives...

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:57 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,
>not what might have happened. It would be a dangerous day should we start
>punishing people for what could have happened.

That day is already here.

Sajid Badat did not blow up an aeroplane but was sentenced to 13
years. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1504770_1,00.html
has the background.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
> >> usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
> >> that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
> >> verdict.
> >
> > No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
> > should be punished as if they hit someone.
>
> We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,

You're saying that breaking the law isn't a crime unless someone is
injured?

Is that something you would propose for all law, or do you think it
should only aplly to motoring law?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
>> usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown that
>> he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
>> verdict.
>
> No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
> should be punished as if they hit someone.

Correction: if they hit someone, that's enough for jail time. Oh, and
_permanent_ license revocation. The phone and the tyre aggravate it, but
it is not acceptable to drive so you're at risk of hitting people.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]

 

[Mark Tranchant]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
>>>> usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
>>>> that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
>>>>verdict.

>>>No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
>>>should be punished as if they hit someone.

>> We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,

> You're saying that breaking the law isn't a crime unless someone is
> injured?

Absolutely not, but they should be punished for what they did. In this
case, the misdemeanour is using a phone whilst driving with a dodgy
tyre, and appropriate fines/points should be levied. *Only* if it can be
shown that this contributed to the accident should tougher sentencing arise.

Innocent until proven guilty *must* prevail.

> Is that something you would propose for all law, or do you think it
> should only aplly to motoring law?

All law. If I fail to maintain a tree on my property despite warnings
and a heavy branch blows down, I shouldn't get done for manslaughter
unless the branch actually does kill someone.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 22 Jul, Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Mark Tranchant <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> That may have been the case here - the youth should be fined the
> >>>> usual amount for the phone and tyre, but unless it can be shown
> >>>> that he truly could have avoided the accident, this is the correct
> >>>>verdict.
>
> >>>No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
> >>>should be punished as if they hit someone.
>
> >> We live in a society that punishes people for the crimes that did happen,
>
> > You're saying that breaking the law isn't a crime unless someone is
> > injured?
>
> Absolutely not, but they should be punished for what they did. In this
> case, the misdemeanour is using a phone whilst driving with a dodgy
> tyre, and appropriate fines/points should be levied. *Only* if it can be
> shown that this contributed to the accident should tougher sentencing arise.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty *must* prevail.

Indeed. I have proposed nothing remotely contrary to that. You are
arguing with a straw man - it's not really very clever.

(Incidently, innocent until proven guilty is not a universal precept
of UK law.)

Anyone guilty of driving a dangerously illegal vehicle, having been
proven guilty, should be punished to a degree comensurate with having,
through delibverate negligence, hit someone with that vehicle.

> > Is that something you would propose for all law, or do you think it
> > should only aplly to motoring law?
>
> All law. If I fail to maintain a tree on my property despite warnings
> and a heavy branch blows down, I shouldn't get done for manslaughter
> unless the branch actually does kill someone.

Right. So burglary is not an offence in your proposed legal system?
Fraud? Vandalism? All perfectly OK, as long as no-one is actually
physically injured.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 21 Jul, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > No, everyone driving illegal vehicles or using a phone when driving
> > should be punished as if they hit someone.
>
> Correction: if they hit someone, that's enough for jail time. Oh, and
> _permanent_ license revocation. The phone and the tyre aggravate it, but
> it is not acceptable to drive so you're at risk of hitting people.

No, that simply makes it a lottery. The legal system should not
tolerate deliberate wilful negligence that unnecessarily increases the
risk of killing people.

Driving with a bald tyre should be treated similarly to (say)
discharging a rifle down the high street. If someone did that and
somehow didn't kill anyone there'd be uproar if the system prosecuted
them only for (say) disturbing the peace.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|