P
PiledHigher said:
If reported on radio, wouldnt it normally be "cyclist collided with car" ? grrrr.
Sorry. grumpy this morning.
what time?
P
PiledHigher
Guest
T
The P
Guest
"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> PiledHigher Wrote:
>> Anyone know anything, apparently reported on the radio.
>
> If reported on radio, wouldnt it normally be "cyclist collided with
> car" ? grrrr.
>
> Sorry. grumpy this morning.
> what time?
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>
How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a driver
lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a weetbix
box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
message news:[email protected]...
>
> PiledHigher Wrote:
>> Anyone know anything, apparently reported on the radio.
>
> If reported on radio, wouldnt it normally be "cyclist collided with
> car" ? grrrr.
>
> Sorry. grumpy this morning.
> what time?
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
>
How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a driver
lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a weetbix
box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
B
blah
Guest
The P wrote:
>
> How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a driver
> lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a weetbix
> box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
>
> How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a driver
> lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a weetbix
> box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
the word "accident" is the greatest codswollop spin for any motorised cage occupied by a human crunching anything or anyone...blah said:
in the same vein that people get shot by guns and stabbed by knives, hit by kitchen rollers ... its just hutzpah ..like the jewish kid who killed his parents and asked the court for mercy in sentencing as he was now an "Orphan" !
P
Peter Signorini
Guest
"cfsmtb" wrote:
>
> blah Wrote:
>>
>> Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left
>> the
>> road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just
>> happened
>> to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
>
> On a similar theme, that recent bingle btw a 4WD and a crowded Melb
> market? WTF was going on there?
The driver was hospitalised and sounded like he may have had some sort of
seizure or heart attack. Police were investigating whether this was the
case. Sadly such things occasionally occur. My mother was driving and had a
heamorage in the brain, just before her death. Her foot involuntarily hit
the accelerator. Luckily it was near home, she just clipped a light pole,
the front stub axle broke and the car skidded across the road to come to a
halt against the kerb. No-one was nearby and she didn't hit anything head
on.
Hope all the people injured in the market are on the way to a speedy
recovery.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
>
> blah Wrote:
>>
>> Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left
>> the
>> road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just
>> happened
>> to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
>
> On a similar theme, that recent bingle btw a 4WD and a crowded Melb
> market? WTF was going on there?
The driver was hospitalised and sounded like he may have had some sort of
seizure or heart attack. Police were investigating whether this was the
case. Sadly such things occasionally occur. My mother was driving and had a
heamorage in the brain, just before her death. Her foot involuntarily hit
the accelerator. Luckily it was near home, she just clipped a light pole,
the front stub axle broke and the car skidded across the road to come to a
halt against the kerb. No-one was nearby and she didn't hit anything head
on.
Hope all the people injured in the market are on the way to a speedy
recovery.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
B
Bleve
Guest
rooman wrote:
> blah Wrote:
> > The P wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a
> > driver
> > > lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a
> > weetbix
> > > box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> >
> > Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
> > road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
> > to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
> the word *"accident"* is the greatest codswollop spin for any motorised
> cage occupied by a human crunching anything or anyone...
Accident :
1.
1. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one
resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
2. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to
his promotion.
3. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's
clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the
nature of something.
As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
it's an accident.
> blah Wrote:
> > The P wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a
> > driver
> > > lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a
> > weetbix
> > > box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> >
> > Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
> > road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
> > to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
> the word *"accident"* is the greatest codswollop spin for any motorised
> cage occupied by a human crunching anything or anyone...
Accident :
1.
1. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one
resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
2. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to
his promotion.
3. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's
clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the
nature of something.
As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
it's an accident.
P
PiledHigher
Guest
Bleve wrote:
> rooman wrote:
> > blah Wrote:
> > > The P wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a
> > > driver
> > > > lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a
> > > weetbix
> > > > box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> > >
> > > Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
> > > road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
> > > to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
>
> > the word *"accident"* is the greatest codswollop spin for any motorised
> > cage occupied by a human crunching anything or anyone...
>
> Accident :
>
> 1.
> 1. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one
> resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
> 2. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to
> his promotion.
> 3. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's
> clothing.
> 2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
> 3. Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the
> nature of something.
>
>
> As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
> it's an accident.
But if you are breaking the road rules then it is not an unexpected
event.
> rooman wrote:
> > blah Wrote:
> > > The P wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How about, a car came alive and went out of control (as opposed to a
> > > driver
> > > > lost control of their car as they had a licence they got out of a
> > > weetbix
> > > > box and don't know how to drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> > >
> > > Yep; it's usually reported like: "a man was injured as his car left the
> > > road and carreened through a shopping mall". Poor ******* just happened
> > > to be in the driver's seat when this inevitable event happened.
>
> > the word *"accident"* is the greatest codswollop spin for any motorised
> > cage occupied by a human crunching anything or anyone...
>
> Accident :
>
> 1.
> 1. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one
> resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
> 2. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to
> his promotion.
> 3. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's
> clothing.
> 2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
> 3. Logic. A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the
> nature of something.
>
>
> As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
> it's an accident.
But if you are breaking the road rules then it is not an unexpected
event.
D
Donga
Guest
Bleve:
>As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision, it's an accident.
How about if he did it deliberately and the cyclist ******/shat his
pants whilst lying on the ground wounded?
(sorry)
>As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision, it's an accident.
How about if he did it deliberately and the cyclist ******/shat his
pants whilst lying on the ground wounded?
(sorry)
B
Bleve
Guest
PiledHigher wrote:
> > As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
> > it's an accident.
>
>
> But if you are breaking the road rules then it is not an unexpected
> event.
I'd suggest that the vast majority of drivers driving at 5km/h over the
posted speed limit would not be expecting to have a collision because
of it. Even the drunken ******** doing 180km/h down a side street is
still having an accident if they crash. It's only not an accident if
they deliberatly crash.
Contributory negligence has to be taken into account, of course, when
it comes to setting appropriate penalties, but it's still (in the eyes
of a reasonable person) an accident unless there's intent.
Remember, to explain and to understand, is not to condone. Many many
people don't get that rather fundamental point.
> > As long as the driver of the car did not intend to cause a collision,
> > it's an accident.
>
>
> But if you are breaking the road rules then it is not an unexpected
> event.
I'd suggest that the vast majority of drivers driving at 5km/h over the
posted speed limit would not be expecting to have a collision because
of it. Even the drunken ******** doing 180km/h down a side street is
still having an accident if they crash. It's only not an accident if
they deliberatly crash.
Contributory negligence has to be taken into account, of course, when
it comes to setting appropriate penalties, but it's still (in the eyes
of a reasonable person) an accident unless there's intent.
Remember, to explain and to understand, is not to condone. Many many
people don't get that rather fundamental point.
Bleve said:
Just because the there is no intent doesn't mean it was an accident. If a certain type of behaviour could be "reasonably" judged to increase the potential for an incident, then it is negligence, and thus not "accidental". With the now long history of driver education (especially the collision speed differential that results from only small differences in initial speed----Wipe of 5), drivers in Victoria can no longer claim that they didn't think that driving over the speed limit, or driving too fast for the conditions was not going to increase the risk. If ride my bike along a footpath, even slowly and carefully, an bowl some old granny over, then it isn't an accident, event tough I was careful and lacked intent. If a driver drives too fast for the conditions, even it is below the speed limit, subsequent events may not be accidental. I think however, that most people don't follow this logic as it places "too much" onous on personal responsibility, which is ironic in this world of individualism.
Pat
Insurance companies and actuaries love the refusal of individuals to take responsibility for their own actions, it gives them great joy and allows them to blow premiums through the roof...of course this is in direct response to courts allowing this nonsense in actions for Tort.giantvaude said:
Our society is too soft on personal responsibility...and we all pay the price...and accepting motor vehicle collisions as "accidents" is also society's soft option ...yep we have a world of individuals, who will climb over their mother to make a buck off some one else, and cry foul when their own acts of rashness, idiocy or pure stupidity allow them to recover cash damages off some innocent person or organisation just because the "soft on responsibility" society/courts of today permit it!
It's a "paranoia litigia" and the curse of free enterprise, democracy and plain common sense. That same bloody-mindedness that drives cagers to tell cyclists to "get off the bloody road" !
When respect, fair play and personal responsibility for our own actions is more apparent maybe then will we ride the roads in greater safety, till then common sense where the "*********** are you?"
B
Bleve
Guest
giantvaude wrote:
> Just because the there is no intent doesn't mean it was an accident. If
> a certain type of behaviour could be "reasonably" judged to increase
> the potential for an incident, then it is negligence, and thus not
> "accidental". With the now long history of driver education (especially
> the collision speed differential that results from only small
> differences in initial speed----Wipe of 5), drivers in Victoria can no
> longer claim that they didn't think that driving over the speed limit,
> or driving too fast for the conditions was not going to increase the
> risk. If ride my bike along a footpath, even slowly and carefully, an
> bowl some old granny over, then it isn't an accident, event tough I was
> careful and lacked intent. If a driver drives too fast for the
> conditions, even it is below the speed limit, subsequent events may not
> be accidental. I think however, that most people don't follow this logic
> as it places "too much" onous on personal responsibility, which is
> ironic in this world of individualism.
It's still an accident, unless there is intent. That doesn't excuse
it, but it is still an accident unless there is intent.
Once again for the slow ... explaining does not mean condoning, and
just because something is accidental does (this is for you, rooman)
*NOT* mean it's an escape from being responsible for it.
Eg: When I was a kid, I broke a couple of windows by accident when
playing cricket or horsing around in a school corridor. I still had to
pay to fix them, so I still took responsibility for my action.
Make sense yet?
> Just because the there is no intent doesn't mean it was an accident. If
> a certain type of behaviour could be "reasonably" judged to increase
> the potential for an incident, then it is negligence, and thus not
> "accidental". With the now long history of driver education (especially
> the collision speed differential that results from only small
> differences in initial speed----Wipe of 5), drivers in Victoria can no
> longer claim that they didn't think that driving over the speed limit,
> or driving too fast for the conditions was not going to increase the
> risk. If ride my bike along a footpath, even slowly and carefully, an
> bowl some old granny over, then it isn't an accident, event tough I was
> careful and lacked intent. If a driver drives too fast for the
> conditions, even it is below the speed limit, subsequent events may not
> be accidental. I think however, that most people don't follow this logic
> as it places "too much" onous on personal responsibility, which is
> ironic in this world of individualism.
It's still an accident, unless there is intent. That doesn't excuse
it, but it is still an accident unless there is intent.
Once again for the slow ... explaining does not mean condoning, and
just because something is accidental does (this is for you, rooman)
*NOT* mean it's an escape from being responsible for it.
Eg: When I was a kid, I broke a couple of windows by accident when
playing cricket or horsing around in a school corridor. I still had to
pay to fix them, so I still took responsibility for my action.
Make sense yet?
D
Donga
Guest
Bleve:
>Eg: When I was a kid, I broke a couple of windows by accident when playing cricket or horsing around in a school corridor. I still >had to pay to fix them, so I still took responsibility for my action.
You got screwed, mate. They claimed on insurance as well!
;-)
>Eg: When I was a kid, I broke a couple of windows by accident when playing cricket or horsing around in a school corridor. I still >had to pay to fix them, so I still took responsibility for my action.
You got screwed, mate. They claimed on insurance as well!
;-)
P
Peter Signorini
Guest
"giantvaude" wrote:
> Just because the there is no intent doesn't mean it was an accident. If
> a certain type of behaviour could be "reasonably" judged to increase
> the potential for an incident, then it is negligence, and thus not
> "accidental". With the now long history of driver education (especially
> the collision speed differential that results from only small
> differences in initial speed----Wipe of 5), drivers in Victoria can no
> longer claim that they didn't think that driving over the speed limit,
> or driving too fast for the conditions was not going to increase the
> risk. If ride my bike along a footpath, even slowly and carefully, an
> bowl some old granny over, then it isn't an accident, event tough I was
> careful and lacked intent. If a driver drives too fast for the
> conditions, even it is below the speed limit, subsequent events may not
> be accidental. I think however, that most people don't follow this logic
> as it places "too much" onous on personal responsibility, which is
> ironic in this world of individualism.
You are confusing responsibility, negligence and intention.
If I am riding down the bike path at a moderate clip, say 20 kmh, and I come
around a curve to see a group of pedestrians massed on the path, coming
towards me. I haul on the brakes (it's a fairly easy stop), but at that
point my cable breaks. I career into the peds. scattering them like
nine-pins.
Am I responsible? Yes, principally. But the peds walking all over the path
were behaving unreasonably - it is a shared use trail after all.
Was I negligent? Probably not, but it may take a judge to determine. The
brake failure may have been unforeseeable.
Was my action intentional? Definitely not, I had no intention of running
down those pedestrians.
An event that causes a collision may involve a degree of negligence, but if
it is unintended it is still an accident. Otherwise it would be a deliberate
act, involving a charge of assault with a vehicle, attempted murder, or
murder.
This has been done. I recall about 10 years ago a driver in Sydney being
charged and convicted of murder. He drove his car across three lanes of
traffic to run down and kill a cyclist. The jury viewed his actions as
deliberate.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
> Just because the there is no intent doesn't mean it was an accident. If
> a certain type of behaviour could be "reasonably" judged to increase
> the potential for an incident, then it is negligence, and thus not
> "accidental". With the now long history of driver education (especially
> the collision speed differential that results from only small
> differences in initial speed----Wipe of 5), drivers in Victoria can no
> longer claim that they didn't think that driving over the speed limit,
> or driving too fast for the conditions was not going to increase the
> risk. If ride my bike along a footpath, even slowly and carefully, an
> bowl some old granny over, then it isn't an accident, event tough I was
> careful and lacked intent. If a driver drives too fast for the
> conditions, even it is below the speed limit, subsequent events may not
> be accidental. I think however, that most people don't follow this logic
> as it places "too much" onous on personal responsibility, which is
> ironic in this world of individualism.
You are confusing responsibility, negligence and intention.
If I am riding down the bike path at a moderate clip, say 20 kmh, and I come
around a curve to see a group of pedestrians massed on the path, coming
towards me. I haul on the brakes (it's a fairly easy stop), but at that
point my cable breaks. I career into the peds. scattering them like
nine-pins.
Am I responsible? Yes, principally. But the peds walking all over the path
were behaving unreasonably - it is a shared use trail after all.
Was I negligent? Probably not, but it may take a judge to determine. The
brake failure may have been unforeseeable.
Was my action intentional? Definitely not, I had no intention of running
down those pedestrians.
An event that causes a collision may involve a degree of negligence, but if
it is unintended it is still an accident. Otherwise it would be a deliberate
act, involving a charge of assault with a vehicle, attempted murder, or
murder.
This has been done. I recall about 10 years ago a driver in Sydney being
charged and convicted of murder. He drove his car across three lanes of
traffic to run down and kill a cyclist. The jury viewed his actions as
deliberate.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
The definition of accident is one then of context...there are many...all which suit whoever and whatever cirumstances that allow humans to include their actions whether intended or not to cause harm to persons or property...these are the very occasions of which we speak...humans are involved thus they are not accidents, an accident in the purest sense does not involve human intervention...we hide behind that word to excuse our actions.
One of the purest definitions of "accident" is IMHO this one:-
An unplanned event, unexpected and undesigned, which occurs suddenly and at definite place, being an event arising out of natural causes with no human intervention which could not have been prevented by reasonable care or foresight. Example flood, earthquake ...some choose to call these Acts of God , if that helps one understand at all.
So if you choose to accept an incident which is the result of an intervention by a human which causes harm, damage or destruction to persons or property an "accident" then live in denial all you wish, some solace may come to you...the world will not be a better place for it...
I prefer to call the incident a lesson...one from which we may all learn something, or not...some never learn and so be it, and the "incidents" keep coming, in the guise of man's claimed "accidents" and thus he goes to his mirky end never the wiser...
( goes off in search of a nice glass of red)
One of the purest definitions of "accident" is IMHO this one:-
An unplanned event, unexpected and undesigned, which occurs suddenly and at definite place, being an event arising out of natural causes with no human intervention which could not have been prevented by reasonable care or foresight. Example flood, earthquake ...some choose to call these Acts of God , if that helps one understand at all.
So if you choose to accept an incident which is the result of an intervention by a human which causes harm, damage or destruction to persons or property an "accident" then live in denial all you wish, some solace may come to you...the world will not be a better place for it...
I prefer to call the incident a lesson...one from which we may all learn something, or not...some never learn and so be it, and the "incidents" keep coming, in the guise of man's claimed "accidents" and thus he goes to his mirky end never the wiser...
( goes off in search of a nice glass of red)
P
Peter Signorini
Guest
"rooman" wrote:
>
> The definition of accident is one then of context...there are many...all
> which suit whoever and whatever cirumstances that allow humans to
> include their actions whether intended or not to cause harm to persons
> or property...these are the very occasions of which we speak...
You are a lawyer??
<snip>
> learn something, or not...some never learn and so be it, and the
> "incidents" keep coming, in the guise of man's claimed "accidents" and
> thus he goes to his mirky end never the wiser...
>
>
> ( goes off in search of a nice glass of red)
Sounds like you've had enough already.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
>
> The definition of accident is one then of context...there are many...all
> which suit whoever and whatever cirumstances that allow humans to
> include their actions whether intended or not to cause harm to persons
> or property...these are the very occasions of which we speak...
You are a lawyer??
<snip>
> learn something, or not...some never learn and so be it, and the
> "incidents" keep coming, in the guise of man's claimed "accidents" and
> thus he goes to his mirky end never the wiser...
>
>
> ( goes off in search of a nice glass of red)
Sounds like you've had enough already.
--
Cheers
Peter
~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
Similar threads
- Alex Potter
- UK and Europe
- Sir Ridesalot
- Road Cycling
- Sir Ridesalot
- Road Cycling 2 3
