Motorist kills pedestrian

Quoted message said:

I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash

But that makes me think it was deliberate.

I think accident implies a lack of intent, rather than an act of God.

David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.

You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the girl?
How do you come to that conclusion from what's written in the article?

I note you omitted ""A man will be appearing in Dunfermline Sheriff Court in
connection with the incident," the spokeswoman added. " which suggests the
police may not be 'trying to minimise events" but may actually have more
information than you have on which to base a judgement.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Mark Thompson said:

I think accident implies a lack of intent, rather than an act of God.

A 'lack of intent' can cover a whole range of sins from momentary
inattention, to sustained reckless or negligent behaviour worthy of a
manslaughter charge.

R.

Paul - censored said:

David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.

You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the girl?

No - but they should know that it's an offence to drive on the
pavement, and that people tend to use the pavement for walking on. If
they do something illegal and kill someone as a result then it's not
"an accident".

"I shot this gun into the room - I wasn't aiming at anyone - so it's
entirely an accident that someone got killed"...

Paul Rudin vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.

You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the girl?

No - but they should know that it's an offence to drive on the
pavement,

So now you (I notice you're not the OP) think he was deliberately driving on
the pavement then?

Quoted message said:

"I shot this gun into the room - I wasn't aiming at anyone - so it's
entirely an accident that someone got killed"...

Different thing entirely ...

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think accident implies a lack of intent, rather than an act of God.

A 'lack of intent' can cover a whole range of sins from momentary
inattention, to sustained reckless or negligent behaviour worthy of a
manslaughter charge.

Yep, so accident fits the bill nicely, unless we learn the driver did mean
to do it.

David Hansen said:

We are always being told how dangerous cyclists are on pavements,
except when there are the magic white lines and blue signs. Well
here is an individual data point which illustrates the real dangers
pedestrians face.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1303172004&20041111095605
from which the following extracts are taken:

'A NINE-year-old girl died after she was struck by a car that
mounted the pavement outside a shop yesterday.

'Tamara McIntosh was standing outside a chip shop less than 50
metres from her front door at about 4pm, when a Suzuki four-wheel
drive car mounted the kerb and knocked down her and a friend.'

'Last night, Tamara’s father said he could not believe what had
happened to his daughter, who attended Inverkeithing Primary
School.'

'"It is just devastating. She was up on the pavement and it just
doesn’t make any sense. I have always worried about something
happening here because of the way some people drive."'

'A man, who asked not to be named, said: "The two wee girls were
just outside the chip shop and the car has come up and hit them. It
smashed into the chip shop window as well. It is just awful."'

'A spokeswoman for Fife Police said: "There has been a serious road
accident and a nine-year-old girl has died.'

I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.

One meaning of accident is "a misfortune or mishap, esp. one causing injury
or death" (Collins Concise 1993). This is unfortunate because of the
possible inference that such events are out of the control of the
participants.

"Road incident" would be a better descriptor.

Does anyone have any other ideas?
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Paul - censored said:

Paul Rudin vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...

> I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
> often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.

You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the girl?

No - but they should know that it's an offence to drive on the
pavement,

So now you (I notice you're not the OP) think he was deliberately driving on
the pavement then?

I don't think we have enough information from the report to know -
hence we don't know whether it's "accidental" or not.

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think accident implies a lack of intent, rather than an act of God.

A 'lack of intent' can cover a whole range of sins from momentary
inattention, to sustained reckless or negligent behaviour worthy of a
manslaughter charge.

Yep, so accident fits the bill nicely, unless we learn the driver did mean
to do it.

You misunderstand me - I was meaning to say that "accident" and "lack of
intent" are not 100% overlapping. Last weekend's rail crash, for
example: if it is the case that the driver was attempting suicide, then
there was probably a lack of intent on his part to kill anyone else;
however to describe it as an 'accident', when his actions were quite
deliberate and premeditated, seems to me to be wrong. Similarly, if
someone was to walk into a bank and fire a gun with the sole intent of
scaring the staff into coughing up money, but the bullet richoched and
killed someone, they would (quite rightly) be charged with murder or
manslaughter; the death would not be an 'accident'.

R.

Paul Rudin said:

Paul - censored said:

David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.

You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the girl?

No - but they should know that it's an offence to drive on the
pavement, and that people tend to use the pavement for walking on. If
they do something illegal and kill someone as a result then it's not
"an accident".

And the fact that the driver also ran into the shop wall doesn't
even admit the possibility to you that mounting the pavement might
have been unintentional? Or are you suggesting that he deliberately
mounted the pavement in order to intentionally hit the shop as well?

Fantastic - ESP is alive and well, how else could you be so sure of
the driver's intentions from the information you have?

--
Trevor Barton

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul - [censored]

(') said:

Paul Rudin vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...

> I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
> often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.

You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the
girl?

No - but they should know that it's an offence to drive on the
pavement,

So now you (I notice you're not the OP) think he was deliberately
driving on the pavement then?

If he did not deliberately mount the pavement (which I agree we have no
evidence that he did) he was at least driving with sufficient
negligence that he failed to avoid mounting the pavement, and that,
frankly, is equally culpable in my book. It shifts it from 'I intended
to kill this girl' to 'I don't much care whom I kill'.

When you are responsible for a ton of fast moving metal, no degree of
negligence is excusable (and yes, I do drive).

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul - [censored]

(') said:

Paul Rudin vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...

> I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
> often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.

You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the
girl?

No - but they should know that it's an offence to drive on the
pavement,

So now you (I notice you're not the OP) think he was deliberately
driving on the pavement then?

If he did not deliberately mount the pavement (which I agree we have no
evidence that he did) he was at least driving with sufficient
negligence that he failed to avoid mounting the pavement, and that,
frankly, is equally culpable in my book. It shifts it from 'I intended
to kill this girl' to 'I don't much care whom I kill'.

When you are responsible for a ton of fast moving metal, no degree of
negligence is excusable (and yes, I do drive).

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

On 11 Nov 2004 12:36:21 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

And the fact that the driver also ran into the shop wall doesn't
even admit the possibility to you that mounting the pavement might
have been unintentional?

We will see what the court case reveals.

However, if he had claimed that his tyre suddenly burst then I doubt
very much that he would be making such a rapid appearance at
Dunfermline Sheriff Court.

--
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.

Simon Brooke vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul - [censored]

(') said:

Paul Rudin vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

"Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> writes:

> David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...
>
>> I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
>> often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.
>
> You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the
> girl?

No - but they should know that it's an offence to drive on the
pavement,

So now you (I notice you're not the OP) think he was deliberately
driving on the pavement then?

If he did not deliberately mount the pavement (which I agree we have no
evidence that he did) he was at least driving with sufficient
negligence that he failed to avoid mounting the pavement, and that,
frankly, is equally culpable in my book. It shifts it from 'I intended
to kill this girl' to 'I don't much care whom I kill'.

Or, that he simply didn't intend to kill anyone at all ...

Perhaps the driver had a heart attack, for instance? Would any inference be
drawn that he was still intent upon killing someone?

Quoted message said:

When you are responsible for a ton of fast moving metal, no degree of
negligence is excusable (and yes, I do drive).

Believe me, I'm not trying to excuse the driver for negligence. All I'm
suggesting is that for someone to claim someone meant to kill another
person, based upon this newspaper report is taking things to the extreme,
and really shows a certain amount of bias and hatred. Certainly an
extremely blinkered view at the very least.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Paul - censored said:

Simon Brooke vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul - [censored]

(') said:

Paul Rudin vaguely muttered something like ...
> "Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>> David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...
>>
>>> I doubt if there is anything accidental about this crash, as is
>>> often the case the police appear to be trying to minimise events.
>>
>> You think the driver deliberately mounted the pavement to kill the
>> girl?
>
> No - but they should know that it's an offence to drive on the
> pavement,

So now you (I notice you're not the OP) think he was deliberately
driving on the pavement then?

If he did not deliberately mount the pavement (which I agree we have no
evidence that he did) he was at least driving with sufficient
negligence that he failed to avoid mounting the pavement, and that,
frankly, is equally culpable in my book. It shifts it from 'I intended
to kill this girl' to 'I don't much care whom I kill'.

Or, that he simply didn't intend to kill anyone at all ...

Perhaps the driver had a heart attack, for instance? Would any inference be
drawn that he was still intent upon killing someone?

Quoted message said:

When you are responsible for a ton of fast moving metal, no degree of
negligence is excusable (and yes, I do drive).

Believe me, I'm not trying to excuse the driver for negligence. All I'm
suggesting is that for someone to claim someone meant to kill another
person, based upon this newspaper report is taking things to the extreme,
and really shows a certain amount of bias and hatred. Certainly an
extremely blinkered view at the very least.

Some people might think that it was a deliberately perverted interpretation
of the information provided.
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Paul - censored said:

All
I'm suggesting is that for someone to claim someone meant to kill
another person, based upon this newspaper report is taking things to
the extreme, and really shows a certain amount of bias and hatred.
Certainly an extremely blinkered view at the very least.

Which is what we have come to expect from Mr Hansen - check back to the
Skateboarder murder thread (Those caring sharing motorists again) started by
DH on 20 October.

pk

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 11 Nov 2004 12:36:21 GMT someone who may be Trevor Barton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

And the fact that the driver also ran into the shop wall doesn't
even admit the possibility to you that mounting the pavement might
have been unintentional?

We will see what the court case reveals.

However, if he had claimed that his tyre suddenly burst then I doubt
very much that he would be making such a rapid appearance at
Dunfermline Sheriff Court.

There are a limited number of "arrestable" offences under the Road Traffic
Act which would lead to a driver (assuming the person who has been arrested
is the driver) appearing from custody. Causing death by dangerous driving is
not, in itself, an arrestable offence. Driving under the influence of
drink/drugs, being a disqualified driver or having stolen the vehicle would
be.

Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:29:10 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
"Road incident" would be a better descriptor.

Does anyone have any other ideas?

Crash. It says what happened and is entirely neutral.

--
Dave...

"Dave Kahn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:29:10 +0000, David Hansen wrote:
"Road incident" would be a better descriptor.

Does anyone have any other ideas?

Crash. It says what happened and is entirely neutral.

And wears out my keyboard less than the alternatives ;-)