Re: Four years for killer driver on a mobile.

[Duncan Smith]

On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>
> Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.

How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
he'd of worn a helmet?

>
> I never, ever understand how driving bans run concurrent with a
> custodial sentence- YOU CAN'T DRIVE IN PRISON!!!

She probably won't be in prison for very long - so can still still
catch the thick end of the ban in a year or two.

Regards,

Duncan

 

[Squashme]

On 29 Feb, 16:22, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>
> > Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.
>
> How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
> he'd of worn a helmet?
>
>
>
> > I never, ever understand how driving bans run concurrent with a
> > custodial sentence- YOU CAN'T DRIVE IN PRISON!!!
>
> She probably won't be in prison for very long - so can still still
> catch the thick end of the ban in a year or two.

Gosh, that's heartening!

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 29 Feb, 16:22, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>
> > Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.
>
> How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
> he'd of worn a helmet?
>
>
>
The helmet point is debatable, but
he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
light

 

[Señor Chris]

Sir Jeremy wrote:
> On 29 Feb, 16:22, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>>> Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.
>> How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
>> he'd of worn a helmet?
>>
>>
>>
> The helmet point is debatable, but
> he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
> light

And possibly also if the driver had been observing the speed limit. Oh
sorry - I forgot it's impossible to send a text while your eyes are
glued to the speedo.

 

[Tosspot]

Duncan Smith wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:16 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
>>
>> Gratuitous insertion of helmet comment obligatory.
>
> How many people will read that and think he would've lived if only
> he'd of worn a helmet?

Or indeed if he hadn't run a red light.

<snip>

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <3ff935c4-b252-4255-974b-c0c4f057dfb0
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Sir Jeremy
[email protected] says...

> The helmet point is debatable, but
> he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
> light
>
If he hadn't run the light she might have - there's nothing certain
about it.

 

[JNugent]

Rob Morley wrote:

> Sir Jeremy [email protected] says...

>> The helmet point is debatable, but
>> he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
>> light

> If he hadn't run the light she might have - there's nothing certain
> about it.

It wouldn't matter (to him) if she had "run a red light" (she didn't, as
far as any of us know). That's because they were travelling towards a
common point from two different directions.

He'd have been safe if he'd stopped for the red light as he was obliged
to. But of course, he knew better - or thought he did.

 

[DavidR]

"Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
> The helmet point is debatable, but
> he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
> light

He just made a judgement call that turned bad on himself. If his death
serves a purpose it is that bad driving can cause harm to others..

 

[Ekul Namsob]

DavidR <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>
> > The helmet point is debatable, but
> > he certainly would be alive today if he hadn't ridden through the red
> > light
>
> He just made a judgement call that turned bad on himself. If his death
> serves a purpose it is that bad driving can cause harm to others..

That is a one-sided view: his death could be used to suggest also that
bad cycling can harm bad cyclists.

Intelligent readers will note the use of the conditional in the previous
sentence. I am /not/ suggesting that the late cyclist was a bad one as I
haven't seen enough of the evidence to explain why he is claimed to have
run a red light.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>