Kill in a park and avoid prison.



In article <1iegecl.aduicb1bkrq25N%
[email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
[email protected] says...
> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
> > [email protected]e says...
> >
> > > Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
> > > offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
> > > voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
> > > pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
> > > with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
> > > clinically depressed since the incident.

> >
> > Hardly the typical reckless selfish **** who would deserve to be banged
> > up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?

>
> That's not hysterical: it is a statement of fact. I suspect that
> 'Pleasant, remorseful bloke not sent to prison' would not attract many
> readers.
>

What's wrong with "non-custodial sentence for driver in fatal crash"?
 
Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <1iegecl.aduicb1bkrq25N%
> [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
> [email protected] says...
>> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
>>> [email protected]e says...
>>>
>>>> Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
>>>> offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
>>>> voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
>>>> pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
>>>> with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
>>>> clinically depressed since the incident.
>>> Hardly the typical reckless selfish **** who would deserve to be banged
>>> up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?

>> That's not hysterical: it is a statement of fact. I suspect that
>> 'Pleasant, remorseful bloke not sent to prison' would not attract many
>> readers.
>>

> What's wrong with "non-custodial sentence for driver in fatal crash"?
>


The obvious answer would be that it fails to convey the fact he caused
and was responsible for the death. He is a killer.

Driving in the way he did does seem to be exactly the action of a
reckless selfish ****. Swerving across the road would have been bad
enough on a normal road but in the middle of a park? Why was he driving
through the park anyway? In twenty five years living in the area I have
never driven my car through the park.

I for the life of me can't understand why you are trying to excuse him.
I fail to see why a few comments from his lawyer that could have come
off a generic script for this type of case make you think he is OK?
Allowing his religion to be used some kind of mitigating factor is just
disgusting, it seems to be based on the presumption he should be
punished less than an atheist? It seems to come from the same selfish
mentality as a man who uses a park as a rat run.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>> Wednesday.

>
> I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning him.
> I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving license
> back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver a better
> person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not persuaded
> that the community needs to be protected from this man in any way that just
> stopping him driving won't achieve.
>

Yes I accept prison would not protect the public or serve as a
deterrent. However it is often used as a measure of the seriousness of
the crime. By not sending him to jail the public is given the impression
this is not a particularly serious offence.
 
Tom Crispin wrote:
> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
> Wednesday.
>

So do we know which restaurant is his yet? I don't think either of the
two you mentioned are takeaways?
 
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:14:53 +0000, Nick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Rob Morley wrote:
>> In article <1iegecl.aduicb1bkrq25N%
>> [email protected]>, Ekul Namsob
>> [email protected] says...
>>> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
>>>> [email protected]e says...
>>>>
>>>>> Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
>>>>> offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
>>>>> voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
>>>>> pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
>>>>> with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
>>>>> clinically depressed since the incident.
>>>> Hardly the typical reckless selfish **** who would deserve to be banged
>>>> up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?
>>> That's not hysterical: it is a statement of fact. I suspect that
>>> 'Pleasant, remorseful bloke not sent to prison' would not attract many
>>> readers.
>>>

>> What's wrong with "non-custodial sentence for driver in fatal crash"?
>>

>
>The obvious answer would be that it fails to convey the fact he caused
>and was responsible for the death. He is a killer.
>
>Driving in the way he did does seem to be exactly the action of a
>reckless selfish ****. Swerving across the road would have been bad
>enough on a normal road but in the middle of a park? Why was he driving
>through the park anyway? In twenty five years living in the area I have
>never driven my car through the park.
>
>I for the life of me can't understand why you are trying to excuse him.
>I fail to see why a few comments from his lawyer that could have come
>off a generic script for this type of case make you think he is OK?
>Allowing his religion to be used some kind of mitigating factor is just
>disgusting, it seems to be based on the presumption he should be
>punished less than an atheist? It seems to come from the same selfish
>mentality as a man who uses a park as a rat run.


The Avenue is only open to motor traffic during the rush hour -
therefore the Royal Parks encourage its use as a rat run.
 
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:20:39 +0000, Nick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>> Wednesday.
>>

>So do we know which restaurant is his yet? I don't think either of the
>two you mentioned are takeaways?


I do not know if they offer takeaways. I expect they do.
 
Nick wrote:

> Tom Crispin wrote:


>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>> Wednesday.


> So do we know which restaurant is his yet? I don't think either of the

two you mentioned are takeaways?

And yet you were all for boycotting them.
 
Nick wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>>> Wednesday.

>>
>> I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning
>> him. I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving
>> license back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver
>> a better person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not
>> persuaded that the community needs to be protected from this man in any
>> way that just stopping him driving won't achieve.
>>

> Yes I accept prison would not protect the public or serve as a
> deterrent. However it is often used as a measure of the seriousness of
> the crime. By not sending him to jail the public is given the impression
> this is not a particularly serious offence.


I think that's an attitude we - as a society - need to grow out of.

Prison is ludicrously expensive. If you imprison this man, not only do you
wreck his life (probably permanently) and the lives of his immediate
family, you also harm his employees, who are innocent. You turn a
productive member of society into a social cripple, someone who will not
merely be expensive to keep in prison but also expensive to rehabilitate
when he leaves prison.

Qui bono?

I say again: the correct response in this sort of case is permanent
revocation of his driving license, together with a life sentence - which
recognises the severity of the offence - immediately suspended on license
provided the offender does not drive. That means, he can never drive again;
if he is ever caught driving, he can be immediately imprisoned without
reference to the courts.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.
 
On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".
>
> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.


Nonsense.

What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?

Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
personal injury or serious damage to property.

James
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".
>>
>> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
>> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.

>
> Nonsense.
>
> What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?
>
> Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
> below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
> would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
> personal injury or serious damage to property


....and it mainly happens in respect of people who have passed tests of
competence to drive and of whom it would, in general, be thought that
they were not dangerous drivers (becuase, apart from anything else, they
have no track record of causing death by dangerous).

I take it that those latter descriptors apply to you (they certainly
apply to me).

Did you have a separate point to make?
 
On Mar 29, 7:41 am, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".

>
> >> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
> >> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.

>
> > Nonsense.

>
> > What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?

>
> > Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
> > below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
> > would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
> > personal injury or serious damage to property

>
> ...and it mainly happens in respect of people who have passed tests of
> competence to drive and of whom it would, in general, be thought that
> they were not dangerous drivers (becuase, apart from anything else, they
> have no track record of causing death by dangerous).


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

James
 
JNugent wrote:

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

>
> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to
> anyone".


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

Dangerous driving - ever - is inexcusable.

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


If you really believe that, stop driving. Now.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.
 
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT), Paul Weaver
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> My ride yesterday afternoon was spoilt by an accident outside Crofton
>> junior school in Petts Wood. Apparently a guy was run down and killed by
>> an old woman. The road is narrow, windy and had cars parked waiting to
>> pick up their kids. No way was it safe to drive at anything above 20.

>
>People have it driven in to their heads that 29 is good, 31 is bad.
>It's a sad reflection of the modern lazy way of enforcing decent road-
>using standards.


The message I keep on getting is that 20mph in a residential zone is
more appropriate than 30 or 40mph. Certainly 20mph should be an
absolute limit in a park.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:41 am, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".
>>>> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
>>>> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.
>>> Nonsense.
>>> What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?
>>> Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
>>> below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
>>> would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
>>> personal injury or serious damage to property

>> ...and it mainly happens in respect of people who have passed tests of
>> competence to drive and of whom it would, in general, be thought that
>> they were not dangerous drivers (becuase, apart from anything else, they
>> have no track record of causing death by dangerous).

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


This has all come up before.

Careless and/or dangerous driving can result simply from inattention or
distraction (hence, among other things, the ban on hand-held phones) and
it is dangerous to assume otherwise. In particular, don't be so arrogant
as to imagine that you are too good for it to happen to you. Every other
dangerous driver thought the same thing.
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Nick wrote:
>>
>>> The benefit is that it would send a message that dangerous driving is
>>> considered serious, rather than just one of those things that could
>>> happen to anyone.

>> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to
>> anyone".

>
> No, it absolutely is not, and that is one of the myths we really must
> counter. Yes, humans are fallible and everyone who drives makes mistakes at
> times - but if you're making the sort of mistakes which could lead to other
> people dying, it's time to hang up your ignition keys.
>
> Dangerous driving - ever - is inexcusable.
>
>> First step: realise that it can happen to you just as easily as to
>> anyone else.

>
> If you really believe that, stop driving. Now.


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

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

> Paul Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:


>>> My ride yesterday afternoon was spoilt by an accident outside Crofton
>>> junior school in Petts Wood. Apparently a guy was run down and killed by
>>> an old woman. The road is narrow, windy and had cars parked waiting to
>>> pick up their kids. No way was it safe to drive at anything above 20.

>> People have it driven in to their heads that 29 is good, 31 is bad.
>> It's a sad reflection of the modern lazy way of enforcing decent road-
>> using standards.


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


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

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

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

> This has all come up before.


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

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

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


....is the wrong answer
 
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:38:49 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> Paul Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

>
>That has to depend on the sort of park and the sort of road. Some
>A-roads go through parks (though I guess you mean relatively small,
>urban, parks rather than National Parks).
>
> From memory, unless vehicles were allowed north-south through Greenwich
>Park, the area would be even more gridlocked than it already is. The
>immediately neigbouring north-south routes have been badly hobbled,
>meaning that there are no real alternative N/S routes (A207/A2) between
>Deptford and Blackwall and the E/W routes are laughably inadequate.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

> JNugent writtificated


>> This has all come up before.


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


Are you *totally* incapable of reading a thread?

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

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

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

There *should* be...