Pavement motorist admits offence

David Hansen said:

I see from http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1458092007
that the motorist who killed one pedestrian and severely injured
another, while they were walking along the pavement, has admitted
culpable homicide. Sentencing will follow reports.

David, not only are you OT, but you are trolling again. Where does it
say that he was intentionally driving on the pavement???

After losing control, which the article states happened in this case,
where you end up is in the lap of the gods - so does not qualify in the
same way as a deliberate action.

Quoted message said:

The usual trolls in uk.toospot are very keen to tell us of the evils
of pavement cycling, but I have yet to hear of a case where a
pavement cyclist caused such injuries.

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Quoted message said:

This is by no means the only case either.

It isn't even /a/ case.

You'll have to try harder than that to justify deliberate, illegal,
pavement cycling.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Local scally nearly knocked my head off while blasting down the
pavement outside my house on a scooter a year or so back, only reason
it didnt cause injuries is because I heard it at the last minute and
stopped within inches.

Matt B said:

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Deliberate, dangerous pavement driving. It happens.

Death:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5360766.stm

Injury:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/index.asp?locID=989&docID=3557

Near miss:
http://archive.oxfordmail.net/1999/9/4/81440.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_10066.htm

So what would an apologist counter with, I wonder? "They weren't using
the pavement to get from A to B (unlike pavement cyclists), but
deliberately aimed at the victims, so it makes no difference whether
they were on the road or the pavement. And besides, it wasn't
deliberate, it was an act of passion over which they had no control. I
win!"

Over to you, TB.

Marc Brett said:

Matt B said:

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Deliberate, dangerous pavement driving. It happens.

And, if the evidence exists, is treated as deliberate aggression - as it
should be.

Quoted message said:

So what would an apologist counter with, I wonder?

An apologist for what? Counter what?

Quoted message said:

"They weren't using
the pavement to get from A to B (unlike pavement cyclists),

So they don't count either then - do they.

Quoted message said:

but
deliberately aimed at the victims, so it makes no difference whether
they were on the road or the pavement.

No. They were deliberate aggressive acts - and, on the whole, treated
accordingly - not merely as motoring offences.

Quoted message said:

And besides, it wasn't
deliberate, it was an act of passion over which they had no control.

Why wasn't it treated so then?

Quoted message said:

I win!"

Hardly - have you ever? ;-)

At least you appear to recognise the non-too-subtle difference between
the deliberate pavement cyclist and the actions that their apologists
here futilely offer as comparable.

Now try again - we were looking for accidental (i.e. /not/ deliberate)
injuries caused by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by motorists.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Marc Brett said:

Matt B said:

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Quoted message said:

Now try again - we were looking for accidental (i.e. /not/ deliberate)
injuries caused by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by motorists.

"Deliberate", or "/non/ deliberate"? How can anyone play the game if
the goalposts keep moving?

Marc Brett said:

Matt B said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:28 +0100, Matt B
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
> caused any injuries?

Quoted message said:

Now try again - we were looking for accidental (i.e. /not/
deliberate) injuries caused by the illegal deliberate use of the
pavement by motorists.

"Deliberate", or "/non/ deliberate"? How can anyone play the game if
the goalposts keep moving?

They are'nt.

Try reading:
Deliberate use of pavement resulting in non deliberate injuries.

Pretty simple really!

pk

Marc Brett said:

Matt B said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:28 +0100, Matt B
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
> caused any injuries?

Quoted message said:

Now try again - we were looking for accidental (i.e. /not/ deliberate)
injuries caused by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by motorists.

"Deliberate", or "/non/ deliberate"? How can anyone play the game if
the goalposts keep moving?

Stop wriggling, they are set in stone.

The challenge is clear: to find examples of accidental injuries caused
by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by pavement motorists.

--
Matt B

David Hansen said:

I see from http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1458092007
that the motorist who killed one pedestrian and severely injured
another, while they were walking along the pavement, has admitted
culpable homicide. Sentencing will follow reports.

The usual trolls in uk.toospot are very keen to tell us of the evils

What's uk.toospot? (I don't get it.)

paranoid bob said:

What's uk.toospot? (I don't get it.)

There was a typo in that. See:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Uk.transport

Matt B said:

The challenge is clear: to find examples of accidental injuries caused
by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by pavement motorists.

Deliberate pavement parking causes damage to pavements, which in turn
causes pedestrians to trip on the broken surface, which in turn keeps a
small army of nofeenowin solicitors in gravy. Sadly, it's the councils
who pay, not the vandals themselves.

Marc Brett <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Deliberate pavement parking causes damage to pavements, which in turn
causes pedestrians to trip on the broken surface, which in turn keeps a
small army of nofeenowin solicitors in gravy. Sadly, it's the councils
who pay, not the vandals themselves.

For councils read ratepayers i.e. you and me.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

On 12 Sep, 15:38, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I see fromhttp://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1458092007
that the motorist who killed one pedestrian and severely injured
another, while they were walking along the pavement, has admitted
culpable homicide. Sentencing will follow reports.

The usual trolls in uk.toospot are very keen to tell us of the evils
of pavement cycling, but I have yet to hear of a case where a
pavement cyclist caused such injuries.

This is by no means the only case either.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/article.php?sec=sport&id=729reveals
that another one, sentenced to "eight years", has been wandering
around the area of his crime less than three years after he killed a
pedestrian. Justice? Certainly not, it is disgusting. No wonder
people hold the whole "justice" system in contempt.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Is this post supposed to be some sort of justification of pavement
cycling as the lesser evil?

Chris Gerhard said:

paranoid bob said:

What's uk.toospot? (I don't get it.)

There was a typo in that. See:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Uk.transport

So anything Chapman doesn't agree with is considered to be [censored]?
Priceless!

Chris Gerhard said:

paranoid bob said:

What's uk.toospot? (I don't get it.)

There was a typo in that. See:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Uk.transport

Thanks.
So uk.transport should be called uk.cars.advocacy then?
;-)

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:36:16 -0700 someone who may be Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Is this post supposed to be some sort of justification of pavement
cycling as the lesser evil?

No. If I had intended to say that then I would have done so.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:36:16 -0700 someone who may be Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Is this post supposed to be some sort of justification of pavement
cycling as the lesser evil?

No. If I had intended to say that then I would have done so.

What exactly was its point then - trolling?

--
Matt B