Driver fined for killing cyclist.

[Marc]

Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:

> A WOMAN motorist has been ordered to pay £305 for driving without due care and attention following
> a collision in which an off-duty policeman died.

About the same sort of fine that a S Wales cyclist was given after a pedestrian died when the
cyclist hit him. The pedestrian's widow wasn't impressed either.

 

[Stevie D]

Clifford Griffiths wrote:

> I think that the quality of the argument in this thread has fallen short of the usual standard of
> the group because of the seriously

> gender into the argument in an inappropriate way. The implication is that it it women who are
> inattentive while men's speeding is far preferable - a very dubious premise.

It was not my intention to discriminate against women drivers. People who have followed my newsgrope
postings for a while will know that I use derogatory adjectives for males and females alike, usually
when I want to write "stupid f---ing turd that is not fit to be called a human being" but manage to
restrain myself.

I don't think men speeding are any safer than women speeding; I don't think women not watching where
they are going are any more dangerous than men not watching where they are going. I tend to use
masculine pronouns for any person or persons unknown - as in the case of the mystery driver doing 58
but paying attention - whereas of course the case in question involved a female driver, so I used
female pronouns. No extrapolation to the rest of the population was intended.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Jim Price]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:38:56 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>>Which incident(s) do you have in mind?
>>
>>All of them.
>
> So, the railways are responsible for people driving cars onto the railway? That might be an
> interesting one to try in court.

Go ahead, feel free, if thats what you want to interpret from what I said.

>>If I have to elaborate,
>
> You have to do nothing. What you want to do is up to you.

I'll be holding you to that in a line or two.

>>>Certainly with some the buck stops at John Major.
>>
>>So clearly you know what I mean. The buck passers have responsibility too, IMHO.
>
> You still have to come up with examples of which crashes railway executives were responsible for
> multiple deaths.

Um, I have to do I...

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

 

[Tony W]

"Clifford Griffiths" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I think that the quality of the argument in this thread has fallen

> language. To refer to the driver as a 'cow' and a 'bint' puts gender into the argument in an
> inappropriate way. The implication is that it it women who are inattentive while men's speeding is
> far preferable - a very
dubious
> premise.
>
> Without knowing all the circumstances it is difficult to comment on the appropriateness of
> sentences but it does seem to me that substantial bans are the way forward. I think that dangerous
> and inattentive drivers should have their licences taken away for substantial periods. I think
> that one year as some have suggested seems very short given that a death has resulted. But will we
> ever deal with the Daily Mail type views that
motoring
> offences are trivial even though they kill people while burgalries are terrible despite resulting
> in relatively few injuries.

I very much doubt that the quality of argument is lower than usual (could it get lower than usual?)

Broadly, argument has broken down in to the usual groupings:-

1. Disbelief at the lightness of sentence.

2. Disbelief that SMIDSY is a valid excuse.

3. Resigned acceptance that legal retribution for causing death with a motorcar is socially
acceptable.

4. Black humour.

I am sure many of us have had cars pulling out or turning in as if we were not there. (I've had two
such incidents in the last couple of months close enough for emergency braking and pooping the
pants). A minor adjustment to the timing and -- well, it doesn't bear thinking of.

I am sure that when this happens others also think 's/he was looking straight at me - how didn't
s/he see me?' or, in more paranoid moments, 'the ******* knew I was there and didn't give a ****'.
(And, in response

drivers than men so less likely to ignore a cyclist).

Why are cyclists not seen in these circumstances? Because the driver is not looking for a cyclist.
S/he is looking for a car or larger. Cyclists (and to a lesser extent motorcyclists) are 'filtered
out'. They may be looking too far up the road -- anticipating traffic travelling at higher speeds.
However it is rationalised it is inattention and negligence.

The sentence. Well it is very easy to demand hanging or more for this type of offence -- and let's
be very clear -- it must always be an offence to kill someone through negligent use of a lethal
weapon. Punishment should have several objectives:-

i. to provide a lesson to the perpetrator that their behaviour was not acceptable.

ii. to provide a signal to others that such behaviour is not acceptable.

iii. to provide the victim and their relatives & friends with reassurance that the legal system
appreciates their pain and is taking action to reduce the chance of similar illegal action
in the future.

iv. to provide the public with reassurance that the legal system takes such offences seriously.

I have no idea what an appropriate punishment is in this type of case. But I am sure that 305 quid
and a few points but no ban fails all four of the above. It tells me that killing a cyclist (or
pedestrian, motorcyclist etc.) is less bad than speeding, low value shop lifting or failing to have
a TV licence. FFS -- cycling on the pavement could result in a 1000 quid fine!!

(Here I am in danger of sounding complacent) -- you can be banned for a year for having 81 wotsits
of alcohol in your blood while 79 is deemed (though isn't in my book) acceptable. I have no problem
with the concept of a limit -- its sometimes the only rational, testable way of determining guilt.
On that basis a dead cyclist must be worth as much or more than, in effect, one more swig of
alcohol. If she had missed him (a matter of fractions of a second) there would be no case to answer.
She didn't so there is.

Sorry, in this case I don't know what a fair and reasonable punishment would be. But I am convinced
that the one imposed is not it,

Finally, a point which I do not think has been raised, what about compensation for the family? Will
this be done in the normal British way of the woman's insurance company offering 45p as the guy was
'old' (i.e. over
50) and in a relatively poorly paid job? Or will the American style ambulance chasers be on the case
for squillions?

T

 

[Gary Sinnott]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:23:11 +0100, [email protected] (Marc) wrote:

>Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A WOMAN motorist has been ordered to pay £305 for driving without due care and attention
>> following a collision in which an off-duty policeman died.
>
>About the same sort of fine that a S Wales cyclist was given after a pedestrian died when the
>cyclist hit him. The pedestrian's widow wasn't impressed either.

Still the taking of a life. In this instance, the cyclist should have been nailed, unless (and we
don't have much to go on here - more info...?) it was *wholly* the ped's fault.

Doesn't household insurance cover legal and damages claims on the person? Cyclists & pedestrians may
be covered under this. Not that I have any intention whatsoever of being involved in a, uh,
"collision", I think I'll be checking my policies this w/end. Then maybe seeing about separate
cover, if required.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:43:15 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> You still have to come up with examples of which crashes railway executives were responsible for
>> multiple deaths.
>
>Um, I have to do I...

Yes, if you wish to support your argument.

Whether you want to do that is up to you.

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

 

[Jim Price]

David Hansen wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:43:15 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>You still have to come up with examples of which crashes railway executives were responsible for
>>>multiple deaths.
>>
>>Um, I have to do I...
>
> Yes, if you wish to support your argument.

I wasn't looking for an argument. You don't seem to be looking for the meaning in what I'm saying,
so I see no point in engaging in one.

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:08:33 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I wasn't looking for an argument.

Nice try at twisting things, but I doubt if many will be fooled buy
it. A discussion has arguments. An argument is rather different. Those who want to can go back
through the thread and note the difference.

You argued that rail executives have got away with no penalty despite being responsible for multiple
deaths. To sustain that argument I suggested that you had to give an example. You have failed to
give one. Your argument looks empty.

You may have the last word.

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

 

[Jim Price]

David Hansen wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:08:33 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>I wasn't looking for an argument.
>
> Nice try at twisting things, but I doubt if many will be fooled buy
> it.

I wasn't trying to fool anyone either.

> A discussion has arguments. An argument is rather different.

Right, so lets have a discussion then. It looked like all you wanted was an argument from where I
was reading.

> Those who want to can go back through the thread and note the difference.

I can't see many people doing that.

> You argued that rail executives have got away with no penalty despite being responsible for
> multiple deaths. To sustain that argument I suggested that you had to give an example.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3053239.stm Q&A: Corporate manslaughter Network Rail and Balfour
Beatty have been charged with corporate manslaughter over the Hatfield rail crash of October 2000.

> You have failed to give one. Your argument looks empty.

You didn't even try to present a relevant one. This was what made your argument look like a troll to
me. Now I've accepted you're really after a discussion, you've got your example. I'm still mad about
the fact that the New Labour mob promised a law to address just this sort of thing in 1997 and
_still_ haven't got around to it. <FX:rant limitation device cuts in again>

> You may have the last word.

You can if you want.

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:42:45 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> You argued that rail executives have got away with no penalty despite being responsible for
>> multiple deaths. To sustain that argument I suggested that you had to give an example.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3053239.stm
>
>Network Rail and Balfour Beatty have been charged with corporate manslaughter over the Hatfield
>rail crash of October 2000.

That is not an example of rail executives getting away with no penalty. The legal proceedings have
hardly started, let alone come to any conclusion.

If the executives are not convicted then you might try advancing the argument that they got away
with it. However, at the moment all the facts have not been made public. When they are people can
draw their conclusions.

Before advancing such an argument I recommend those that try to make party political statements on
the basis of individual crashes to study the crashes at Bushey, Hither Green and Sevenoaks. Google
will produce the dates and discussion about these crashes, from there the interested can study any
of the standard books. That might give their arguments a depth of understanding.

>You didn't even try to present a relevant one.

There was no need. You made a statement, I asked you to give an example of it, you did not.

>I'm still mad about the fact that the New Labour mob promised a law to address just this sort of
>thing in 1997 and _still_ haven't got around to it.

They are party politicians. A bunch of lying scumbags, like their predecessors. This
shouldn't surprise anyone, especially at the moment when we see the Labour bunch being
exposed for what they are.

I can recall one of their predecessors saying that money would not be a problem in installing ATP
across the whole network, then it was quietly dropped before privatisation because nobody would buy
the railways with such a commitment in place.

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

 

[Jim Price]

David Hansen wrote:
>>Network Rail and Balfour Beatty have been charged with corporate manslaughter over the Hatfield
>>rail crash of October 2000.
>
> That is not an example of rail executives getting away with no penalty.

Did you actually read that? I quote from the article: "Great Western Trains was cleared of the
manslaughter of seven people who died in the Southall Train Crash in 1997." The getting away with it
bit seems pretty clear from that. In what way did the company (as that is the only body which can be
prosecuted under the current law) not get away with it? Do you seriously think that the priciple of
not applying new laws retrospectively will be abandonned in this case? (a very rare thing, but not
totally unheard of)

This looks like the rail executives got away with it with no individual penalty, and no direct
company penalty.

NB for those who can't be bothered to read the article, as this is straying seriously off topic,
some sort of piffling plea bargain seems to have been struck under the table in this case,
involving a fine which would sound serious to an individual, but easily get lost in these
companies accounts, and not affect the individuals responsible at all, given that they might well
be the people authorising the payment of the fine.

> The legal proceedings have hardly started, let alone come to any conclusion.

A part of my rant[1]. At the present rate of progress, the majority of the population will be using
teleportation for transport by the time anything meaningfull to the victims happens on this front.

> If the executives are not convicted then you might try advancing the argument that they got away
> with it. However, at the moment all the facts have not been made public. When they are people can
> draw their conclusions.

Excuse me, people can and do draw conclusions whenever they like. Other people are free to disagree
with them.

> Before advancing such an argument I recommend those that try to make party political statements on
> the basis of individual crashes to study the crashes at Bushey, Hither Green and Sevenoaks.

Why omit Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield? Oh, and by the way, I'm not making any kind of party political
statement. Currently, none of them have either my backing or my mandate.

> Google will produce the dates and discussion about these crashes, from there the interested can
> study any of the standard books. That might give their arguments a depth of understanding.

Do you honestly think that the emotions of the people affected by these disasters are going to be
calmed by reading the standard books?

>>You didn't even try to present a relevant one.
>
> There was no need.

I have to but you don't need to. Touche.

>>I'm still mad about the fact that the New Labour mob promised a law to address just this sort of
>>thing in 1997 and _still_ haven't got around to it.
>
> They are party politicians. A bunch of lying scumbags, like their predecessors. This shouldn't
> surprise anyone, especially at the moment when we see the Labour bunch being exposed for what
> they are.

There's something we agree on.

I do think, by the way, that if we are going to have this discussion here, perhaps changing the
thread title to include "off topic" might be an idea, or take this somewhere else (I don't mean
"outside").

Also, apart from my disgust at what seems to be happening (or not happening, as the case may be), I
can declare no other interest or involvement in the matter other than potentially lively
discussion, whereas you seem to have some other kind of stake. Would you care to let everyone know
what it might be?

[1]And remember it is a rant.
--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

 

[Marc]

Gary Sinnott <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> >> A WOMAN motorist has been ordered to pay £305 for driving without due care and attention
> >> following a collision in which an off-duty policeman died.
> >
> >About the same sort of fine that a S Wales cyclist was given after a pedestrian died when the
> >cyclist hit him. The pedestrian's widow wasn't impressed either.
>
> Still the taking of a life. In this instance, the cyclist should have been nailed, unless (and we
> don't have much to go on here - more info...?) it was *wholly* the ped's fault.
>
> Doesn't household insurance cover legal and damages claims on the person?

Not for fines.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:10:02 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Did you actually read that?

Yes.

>"Great Western Trains was cleared of the manslaughter of seven people who died in the Southall
>Train Crash in 1997."

Nothing to do with Hatfield. Had you wanted to discuss Southall it would have made sense to mention
it in your posting. Unlike some on Usenet I do not consider myself to be a mind reader.

Your constant swerves are mildly amusing, but don't make for a discussion.

>> study the crashes at Bushey, Hither Green and Sevenoaks.
>
>Why omit Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield?

I did not omit Hatfield. What I did say was that before making comments on it there would be merit
in studying the other three crashes I mentioned. You appear not to understand why I mentioned them
or you would see the connection. The three crashes involved trains being derailed at high speed on
track that was not properly looked after. These took place during two eras of British Rail and one
of their predecessors. The conclusion should be obvious.

Ladbroke Grove had an entirely different cause. I could give a list of similar crashes, but I doubt
if it would help.

>Do you honestly think that the emotions of the people affected by these disasters are going to be
>calmed by reading the standard books?

Another swerve. I made no comment on the emotion of those affected. Not having any great insight as
a psychologist I would hesitate to say much on the subject.

>I can declare no other interest or involvement in the matter other than potentially lively
>discussion, whereas you seem to have some other kind of stake. Would you care to let everyone know
>what it might be?

Nice try. Indeed it is a tactic that I have seen party politicians use more than once.

Taking your rant to some party political discussion group would probably be the best place for an,
"all rail executives are murderers", discussion. There are several groups under uk.politics. Should
you wish to discuss Southall or Hatfield sensibly then there is uk.railway.

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

 

[Jim Price]

David Hansen wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:10:02 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>"Great Western Trains was cleared of the manslaughter of seven people who died in the Southall
>>Train Crash in 1997."
>
> Nothing to do with Hatfield.

Irrelevant objection.

> Unlike some on Usenet I do not consider myself to be a mind reader.

Curious, as I hadn't even mentioned Hatfield by that point.

> Your constant swerves are mildly amusing, but don't make for a discussion.

Ditto from this end.

>>I can declare no other interest or involvement in the matter other than potentially lively
>>discussion, whereas you seem to have some other kind of stake. Would you care to let everyone know
>>what it might be?
>
> Nice try. Indeed it is a tactic that I have seen party politicians use more than once.

Its also a question. It is intended purely to try and understand where you are coming from. This is
not going to reach the level of a discussion if you aren't going to answer my questions, and
continue to feel you've scored points when all you have done is provide a good example of how to be
patronising (e.g. with the "nice try" quip").

> Taking your rant to some party political discussion group would probably be the best place for an,
> "all rail executives are murderers", discussion.

There you go, trying to make me defend a point I am not making. You have taken the earlier
discussion, which was about a law which has not been passed yet, so its name is not fixed in the
statute books, and extended it from me saying 'I believe its called something like "unlawful
killing"', to murder, which was not what I said at any point. I did say "manslaughter", and that is
the charge which the rail companies got away with at Southall, if the BBC are to be taken as
reliable. You have also tried to extend my original reference to rail executives who get away with
things to all rail executives. Both of these are prime examples of moving incorrectly from the
particular to the general in your assumptions about what I mean, and I see no point in arguing with
such ****.

While we're recommending books, I recommend you read "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Thoulless.

You obviously have a different agenda to me, and you have kept it well hidden. I conclude that we
may differ (I still don't know what your point is) on matters to do with railways, but you may well
be severely exagerating any differences, given the forms of your arguments in this post.

I no longer feel the need to continue to be mis-represented by your assumptions about what my ideas
on the rail industry are. I was going to suggest a different newsgroup to continue the discussion -
sci.logic. Then again, why not stay here and discuss bicycles, a subject in which we seem to have
much more in common?

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

 

[Gary Sinnott]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:08:26 +0100, [email protected] (marc) wrote:

>Gary Sinnott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> A WOMAN motorist has been ordered to pay £305 for driving without due care and attention
>> >> following a collision in which an off-duty policeman died.
>> >
>> >About the same sort of fine that a S Wales cyclist was given after a pedestrian died when the
>> >cyclist hit him. The pedestrian's widow wasn't impressed either.
>>
>> Still the taking of a life. In this instance, the cyclist should have been nailed, unless (and we
>> don't have much to go on here - more info...?) it was *wholly* the ped's fault.
>>
>> Doesn't household insurance cover legal and damages claims on the person?
>
>Not for fines.

Not fines - that's wholly down to the SMIDSY (of whatever type) in the dock - I meant damages. Can't
the family of the deceased make a claim there??

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------

 

[Marc]

Gary Sinnott <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> >
> >> >> A WOMAN motorist has been ordered to pay £305 for driving without due care and attention
> >> >> following a collision in which an off-duty policeman died.
> >> >
> >> >About the same sort of fine that a S Wales cyclist was given after a pedestrian died when the
> >> >cyclist hit him. The pedestrian's widow wasn't impressed either.
> >>
> >> Still the taking of a life. In this instance, the cyclist should have been nailed, unless (and
> >> we don't have much to go on here - more info...?) it was *wholly* the ped's fault.
> >>
> >> Doesn't household insurance cover legal and damages claims on the person?
> >
> >Not for fines.
>
> Not fines - that's wholly down to the SMIDSY (of whatever type) in the dock - I meant damages.
> Can't the family of the deceased make a claim there??

Which has no relation to the subjct under discussion

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:19:36 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I see no point in arguing with such ****.

Excellent. The resort to abuse.

>I was going to suggest a different newsgroup to continue the discussion

I have already suggested several.

Bye, bye Troll.

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

 

[Jim Price]

David Hansen wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:19:36 +0100 someone who may be Jim Price <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>I see no point in arguing with such ****.

Yet again cut out of context, I see. If managing to sqeeze insult, offense, and several forms of
invalid argument in to a single sentence, (which you've chosen not to defend) isn't describable as
****, then I don't know what is, or why we have the word in the dictionary.

> Excellent. The resort to abuse.

"Nice try", as you might say yourself. You really are putting the worst possible interpretation
on everything I say at every opportunity, and your trimming is attrocious. Here are 4 meanings of
the word **** from a dictionary. They may be slang, but are not necessarily abuse unless
interpretted that way:
# Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language. Cheap or shoddy material. Miscellaneous or disorganized
# items; clutter. Insolent talk or behavior.

Thats what I mean, although at this stage I've given up on expecting you to even try and see what I
mean, or put forward a cogent argument.

> Bye, bye Troll.

Ditto in return, again. I guess that means I'm withdrawing my acceptance that you weren't trolling
from earlier in the thread. Better still, I'm guessing this one may have run its course.

<FX: big gasp of relief from anyone who has read this far, followed by the sound of a punch and
judy tent being folded away, and a figure walking into the sunset muttering "irreconcilable
differences" under his
breath>.

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

 

[Gary Sinnott]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:15:19 +0100, [email protected] (Marc) wrote:

>Gary Sinnott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >
>> >> >> A WOMAN motorist has been ordered to pay £305 for driving without due care and attention
>> >> >> following a collision in which an off-duty policeman died.
>> >> >
>> >> >About the same sort of fine that a S Wales cyclist was given after a pedestrian died when the
>> >> >cyclist hit him. The pedestrian's widow wasn't impressed either.
>> >>
>> >> Still the taking of a life. In this instance, the cyclist should have been nailed, unless (and
>> >> we don't have much to go on here - more info...?) it was *wholly* the ped's fault.
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't household insurance cover legal and damages claims on the person?
>> >
>> >Not for fines.
>>
>> Not fines - that's wholly down to the SMIDSY (of whatever type) in the dock - I meant damages.
>> Can't the family of the deceased make a claim there??
>
>Which has no relation to the subjct under discussion

No relation? Explain...? (Maybe I wandered into a thread on which QR kit to buy or something?)

I see a paltry fine is levied in two different cases and nobody seems to give a rat's about those
left behind. (No offence intended and I'm not getting into anything deeper or more complex - I'm
sticking to this issue.) Quite a few of us go off full tilt about how shamefull it is that the law
didn't take the driver/whatever out and hang the sod, mostly justified but that's about it.

The family of the *victim* tend to be left with nothing but memories of the deceased and seeing a
driver losing about a week's pay. Is life that cheap? Granted, £££ won't bring the person back - but
there are still bills to pay, even if the victim had mortgage insurance, etc. I wouldn't like to be
the one to say, "Sorry missus, your husband's dead - killed by a **** on a bike. Said he didn't see
him. Ta-ta." - But that's how it seems to end up in essence.

I don't care if it's a tank driving over the front of a PSV, the **** in the Renault smearing a
cyclist or a rickety old cycle flattening a pedestrian (or *any* other combination you might think
of!) The question is still valid in this thread.

If motor insurance or criminal injuries payments would (partially?) cover damages, then what level
of financial protection does the family of the average-bloke-on-foot have against someone who is
just as dangerous on a bike? What level of protection has anyone in this kind of situation?

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------

 

[Steve]

Gary Sinnott wrote in message ...
> I see a paltry fine is levied in two different cases and nobody seems to give a rat's about those
> left behind.

The biggest problem with this thread is that no-one knows exactly how the collision happened and
they *seem* to be apportioning all the blame to the driver.

For all we know the officer may well have been cycling without due care, possibly undertaking a
lorry or something where he was invisible to the motorist, possibly even cycling too fast for the
circumstances and could have been a considerable contributing factor in this *accident*.

Because we don't know the full facts it's patently unfair to make all the judgements against the
driver. Personally I find it incredible that she got off so lightly if she was 100% to blame.