Yet another speeding, uninsured, unlicenced, lying, killer motorist.

[Matt B]

John B wrote:
>
> I got drawn into one with [Matt B] over
> cycle-training recently, as it is a subject of particular interest to me,
> but eventually when the knot around him became too tight he ran away.

That's one way to interpret the course of events - I suppose. I OTOH,
thought we had brought that conversation to a conclusion with my last
post on it being late on Friday morning. Looking back though I see that
you replied shortly before midnight - some 12 or so hours later, long
after I'd packed-up for a lo<----->ng weekend. By the time I was back
on about Wednesday I'd obviously missed your reply amongst the 100s of
new posts - I'm sorry. However if you think there is more to be
discussed I'll happily open it up again. ;-)

> It
> gave some satisfaction, and surely that is one aspect of ngs ;-)

"John B" you can use ngs however you see fit. Ignore the bully's
attempts to stifle discussion. They like their views and opinions to
dominate. They cannot bear others going off-message. Notice how
despite their troll accusations, and strident proclamations of the
killfile being their closest companion, they do not miss a thing. Every
chance they get to attempt to disrupt other's discussions, which
obviously cannot include them (having declared holy kf), and bring the
limelight back to themselves they take.

> Trolls, like pet rats can sometimes be amusing animals.

I'm sure, but please don't include me in the troll category.

> FWIW I find myself almost as amused by those who try and set themselves up
> to police ngs as the Trolls. NetCops and Trolls are not that far apart in
> my esteem.

I'd say that the desperate tactics in this case, to discredit one
person's genuine views and opinions, are a disgrace.

Now back to the apparently unfinished business elsewhere... ;-)

--
Matt B

 

[Danny Colyer]

Roger Thorpe wrestled Troll B out of my killfile to respond to:
>> We all know of traffic light junctions that work better
>>when the lights are out.

with:
> On a bicycle or on foot such a thing does not exist.

On a bicycle such a thing certainly does exist. I ride through one
every morning on my way to work. It's always been a pleasure on the few
occasions when *all* of the lights have been out, less so for the week
when the lights were out in the direction that I was travelling but not
in the other directions.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Roger Thorpe]

Danny Colyer wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrestled Troll B out of my killfile to respond to:
>
>>> We all know of traffic light junctions that work better
>>> when the lights are out.
>
>
> with:
>
>> On a bicycle or on foot such a thing does not exist.
>
>
> On a bicycle such a thing certainly does exist. I ride through one
> every morning on my way to work. It's always been a pleasure on the few
> occasions when *all* of the lights have been out, less so for the week
> when the lights were out in the direction that I was travelling but not
> in the other directions.
>
AAAh another cyclist speaks.(for a change) I don't mind talking to you
at all.
Do you think that is exceptional? And would it be different if you were
traveling in another direction?
I'm sorry if I came over all dogmatic, but you know how troll B can push
one's buttons!
Roger Thorpe

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote on 22/02/2007 22:10 +0100:
>
>> He's in my killfile. But I haven't as yet killfiled everyone who follows
>> up to him, and today it was just too much. Sorry, everyone, I apologise.
>
> and twenty minutes later Simon Brooke wrote on 22/02/2007 22:33 +0100:
>
>> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
>> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but they aren't provided for cars. They're provided for
>> pedestrians. That's the law.
>>
>
> So much for the apology. By the way, how do you reply directly to a
> message that is in your kill file?

You follow the references from one that isn't. And yes, I shouldn't have.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by
; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or
; www-html. -- George Lund

 

[Danny Colyer]

I wrote:
>>On a bicycle such a thing certainly does exist. I ride through one
>>every morning on my way to work. It's always been a pleasure on the few
>>occasions when *all* of the lights have been out

and Roger Thorpe responded:
> AAAh another cyclist speaks.(for a change) I don't mind talking to you
> at all.
> Do you think that is exceptional? And would it be different if you were
> traveling in another direction?

I couldn't say whether it's exceptional. I /can/ describe it.

It's a T-junction on a busy suburban road just inside the Bristol ring
road (the junction of Tenniscourt Road with the A420, FWIW).
http://tinyurl.com/ywotqo links to Multimap.

In the morning I turn right out of Grimsbury Road (you can just make out
the word "GRIM" on the map that I've linked to) onto the A420. It's an
uphill start coming out of Grimsbury Road, but the A420 is then downhill
all the way to the ring road.

I imagine the lights being out probably wouldn't make much difference to
someone riding up the hill from the ring road, as there is a straight on
filter arrow that is on most of the time anyway (I usually ride home a
different way, though). For anyone heading West to East and either
going straight on or turning into Tenniscourt Road, or anyone turning in
either direction out of Tenniscourt Road, the traffic flow is noticeably
smoother and more spaced out when the lights are out.

The surprising thing is that it's also easier for me to turn right out
of Grimsbury Road when the lights are out. Usually I have to wait for
the lights to turn red, then wait for the traffic heading down the hill
to back up as far as the traffic island just uphill from the Grimsbury
Road junction (so that I can be sure no-one will come roaring down the
hill and turn right /into/ Grimsbury Road as I turn out of it), then
wait for a gap in the traffic coming up the hill, before turning onto
the A420 and riding down to the lights.

At rush hour the levels of traffic going in all directions seem to be
fairly similar. It might not work so well without lights if traffic
levels from different directions were vastly different, and it probably
wouldn't work if it was a crossroads.

> I'm sorry if I came over all dogmatic, but you know how troll B can push
> one's buttons!

BTDTBTTS.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Roger Thorpe]

Danny Colyer wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>>> On a bicycle such a thing certainly does exist. I ride through one
>>> every morning on my way to work. It's always been a pleasure on the
>>> few occasions when *all* of the lights have been out
>
>
> and Roger Thorpe responded:
>
>> AAAh another cyclist speaks.(for a change) I don't mind talking to you
>> at all.
>> Do you think that is exceptional? And would it be different if you
>> were traveling in another direction?
>
>
> I couldn't say whether it's exceptional. I /can/ describe it.
>
> It's a T-junction on a busy suburban road just inside the Bristol ring
> road (the junction of Tenniscourt Road with the A420, FWIW).
> http://tinyurl.com/ywotqo links to Multimap.
>
> In the morning I turn right out of Grimsbury Road (you can just make out
> the word "GRIM" on the map that I've linked to) onto the A420. It's an
> uphill start coming out of Grimsbury Road, but the A420 is then downhill
> all the way to the ring road.
>
> I imagine the lights being out probably wouldn't make much difference to
> someone riding up the hill from the ring road, as there is a straight on
> filter arrow that is on most of the time anyway (I usually ride home a
> different way, though). For anyone heading West to East and either
> going straight on or turning into Tenniscourt Road, or anyone turning in
> either direction out of Tenniscourt Road, the traffic flow is noticeably
> smoother and more spaced out when the lights are out.
>
> The surprising thing is that it's also easier for me to turn right out
> of Grimsbury Road when the lights are out. Usually I have to wait for
> the lights to turn red, then wait for the traffic heading down the hill
> to back up as far as the traffic island just uphill from the Grimsbury
> Road junction (so that I can be sure no-one will come roaring down the
> hill and turn right /into/ Grimsbury Road as I turn out of it), then
> wait for a gap in the traffic coming up the hill, before turning onto
> the A420 and riding down to the lights.
>
> At rush hour the levels of traffic going in all directions seem to be
> fairly similar. It might not work so well without lights if traffic
> levels from different directions were vastly different, and it probably
> wouldn't work if it was a crossroads.
>
>> I'm sorry if I came over all dogmatic, but you know how troll B can
>> push one's buttons!
>
>
> BTDTBTTS.
>
Thanks. As you say, on a crossrods it probably won't work well.
I do wonder just how large this traffic un-management area that our
troll likes could actually be before the drivers go bonkers.

'Tenniscourt Road' I wonder how that got it's name....

Roger Thorpe

 

[Danny Colyer]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> 'Tenniscourt Road' I wonder how that got it's name....

I reckon it came from The Tennis Court pub ;-)

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Matt B]

Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
> I do wonder just how large this traffic un-management area that [Matt B]
> likes could actually be before the drivers go bonkers.

FYI. From treehugger.com.[1]

<quote>

Drachten, a small Dutch city with around 50,000 residents has removed
almost all of its traffic lights. Major intersections have been
converted to roundabouts, smaller intersections just let drivers work
make decisions on their own. Basically, it's anarchy. Anarchy that has
completely eliminated dangerous crashes and road fatalities and created
a surge in bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Crashes still happen, but they have all been fender benders. The
architect of the project, Dr Hans Monderman explained, "We want small
accidents, in order to prevent serious ones in which people get hurt."
Instead of relying on a set of hard rules, drivers are asked to take
their safety, and the safety of others, into their own hands. The result
is that people are more aware, more careful and drive slower, but are
far less frustrated while driving. Bikes and walkers now rule the roads
and can pretty much travel non-stop around town

The Telegraph recently reported that residents are very pleased with the
program. Tony Ooorstward, a resident, says, "everybody is learning. I am
a walker and now you are the boss at the crossroads, everyone waits for
you. But at the same time pedestrians wait until there are a number
wanting to cross at the same time."

The anarchy in Drachten is being expanded. Their last three traffic
lights will be removed in the next two years, and, in some places, road
paint is being removed as well.

Anarchy seems to breed courtesy, in Holland at least, and at the very
least, it increases awareness. Maybe this is the first step toward an
actual blended transportation system, where bikes pedestrians and cars
treat each other with appropriate respect. An act as simple as removing
an object that everyone hates anyway could be a solution to a lot of our
problems.

</quote>

Note particularly the comments:

"Anarchy that has completely eliminated dangerous crashes and road
fatalities and created a surge in bicycle and pedestrian traffic."

"Instead of relying on a set of hard rules, drivers are asked to take
their safety, and the safety of others, into their own hands."

"Bikes and walkers now rule the roads and can pretty much travel
non-stop around town"

"I am a walker and now you are the boss at the crossroads, everyone
waits for you."

"Anarchy seems to breed courtesy"

I'll understand, but never-the-less still be offended if you choose not
to reply. ;-)

[1] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/traffic_lights.php

--
Matt B

 

[Tony Raven]

Danny Colyer wrote on 23/02/2007 22:06 +0100:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>> 'Tenniscourt Road' I wonder how that got it's name....
>
> I reckon it came from The Tennis Court pub ;-)
>

I thought it was named after a particularly successful police raid where
they arrested two short of a dozen criminals ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Nigel Randell]

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On 22 Feb, 11:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
>>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>>> relation to the following:
>>>
>>> 1. Expecting all those who drive a car to have first, under their own
>>> initiative, passed a driving test.
>>> 2. Expecting all those who drive a car to be conscientious enough to
>>> have insured themselves appropriately.
>>> 3. Giving the de facto priority on all non-motorway roads to those using
>>> them in motor vehicles.
>>> 4. Expecting all those who drive a car to be able to do it courteously
>>> and skilfully, and with appropriate respect for other road users.
>>> 5. Expecting all "vulnerable" road users to keep out of the path of
>>> motor traffic at their own peril.
>>> 6. Relying on punishment "after the event" as a deterrent to others,
>>> rather than prevention and elimination of crashes - we are only treating
>>> the symptoms and leaving the disease to fester unabated.
>>>
>>> The system we have ignores the "human factor", it treats motorists as
>>> automatons - and we are reaping the rewards of that disastrous approach
>>> in our road casualty figures.
>>>
>>> We need to start considering _sustainable_ road safety measures - those
>>> which deliver results without relying on stricter and stricter
>>> enforcement of more and more unrealistic regulations.
>>>
>>> What do we actually want - less road casualties /or/ more convicted
>>> motorists?
>>
>> It is sometimes better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to
>> say something foolish and remove all possible doubt.
>
> Are our roads safe? Are all those who drive capable of so-doing? Are
> other (possibly more enlightened) countries reaping the benefits of
> re-humanising road use - by removing all "safety measures" and relying on
> human nature to prevail?

If you are relying on human nature then you are in more trouble than you
think. Sadly.

--

Nigel

 

[Simon Dean]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
>>> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php
>>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
>>>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>>>> relation to the following:
>>> Well, seeing it's cars that are causing the problem, let's ban cars
>>> then.
>> Is it the cars, or is it the drivers?
>
> It's the cars. If the drivers were running down the street holding steering
> wheels in their hands and making 'brum... brum...' noises, they wouldn't
> kill anyone. It's like the NRA mantra, 'guns don't kill people, people
> kill people'. Yeah, we've heard it. If all the thieves in London were
> running around pointing two fingers at people and saying 'bang! bang!'
> there's be a good few people still alive.
>

You can take away a mans means to kill, but you can't take away his will.

If he doesn't have a gun, and wants to kill someone, well, maybe he'll
take a knife. No knife? How about a crowbar? Broken glass? Bare hands
and strangle someone?

You're arguments are simplistic and devoid of merit.

Fact of the matter, a car driven responsibly shouldn't kill anybody and
those that do (unless it's some kind of negligence on the victims part,
ie, they were suicidal or whatever), then the car driver should get the
full force of the law.

Cya
Simon

 

[Simon Dean]

BIG_ONE wrote:
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I
>> have hit a pedestrian on my bike(once only)
>
> I did this once, wasn't either of our faults. I had been raining & I
> was heading down quite a steep hill with panniers full of shopping. He
> was coming towards me round a corner (on the road ... but there was a
> building site occupying the pavement) I was already decelerating so
> quickly came to a stop, he reacted equally fast & put out his hands &
> they landed on my handle bars ... we both stood there laughing ...
> wished each other a good day and went on our ways. Not even shook up.
>
> I hit a dog once when driving ... 'it just ran out' ... it wasn't
> injured & ran back to its master, but was visibly shook up, I had to
> abandon the car and walk to the nearest pub, I was a wreck for
> hours... but it could easily have been worse through no fault of my
> own, I won't blame a dog & blaming the owner just avoids the problem
> that cars are very dangerous

Why not?

Rope is very dangerous when made into a noose.

Who should we blame for people who kill themselves, the rope or the victim?

Stupid dog runs out decides to run into you...

Say, rivers are very dangerous, all it takes is for a child to fall into
a river who can't swim and they drown (happened to someone I knew in my
childhood, though they didn't drown, but could easily have), but lets
blame the river... the river must be the problem...

Maybe the dog should have been on a lead, or behind closed doors instead
of roaming the streets.

 

[Simon Dean]

spindrift wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 15:55, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
>>> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
>>>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>>>> relation to the following:
>>> Well, seeing it's cars that are causing the problem, let's ban cars then.
>> Is it the cars, or is it the drivers? If it is the drivers we need to
>> understand what it is that has changed, and affects their behaviour so
>> adversely when they are driving. We don't see the same faults in the
>> same people when they are walking. Now what is the main difference?
>> Ah!!! Eureka!!! They are HEAVILY regulated when driving, and not left
>> to rely on their own devices - unlike when walking. Let's set up some
>> studies to see if over-regulation could be the root cause. Ah, hang on,
>> hasn't some foreigner already thought of that and found it to be
>> precisely the cause. Mmmm.
>>
>> --
>> Matt B
>
> "Now what is the main difference? "
>
> Err, drivers are surrounded by a ton of steel and, as in this example,
> face derisory penalties for killing someone. In any driver/vulnerable
> road user collision the driver has far more protection and may suffer
> a scratched wing or bloodstained bonnet as opposed to a lose of life
> or mobility.
>
> Besides, you are misrepresenting the Drachten example, misrepresenting
> the results (casualties HAVE NOT been eliminated) and misapplying the
> example to a collision that DID NOT take place at a junction.
>
>
>

I do sometimes wonder if he's got a point... It's like I suppose, what
would happen if we started prosecuting people for jaywalking, or for not
using approved designated pedestrian crossings? I mean, we're all
thinking safety here, so why not enforce it by more laws, restrictions
and threat of penalty?

The government is thinking for its people.

It's been seen countless times where people just stand at the side of
the road by a pedestrian crossing to push the button. Even in the middle
of the night when there's nothing on the road, and they'll wait. They'll
stuffing wait. They'll even cross the road just because there's a green
man on when there's a fire engine or police car with flashing lights and
sirens screaming down the road (oh, yeah, speed kills, naughty police
man, oh, erm, if the police can do it, then why can't a few members of
the public learn to use speed responsibly????)...

People aren't thinking anymore.

But when you put that level of control and manipulation on people, some
people actually stand up and say "Hang on, do we actually need to do this?".

Cya
Simon

 

[Simon Dean]

dkahn400 wrote:
> On Feb 23, 7:50 am, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Im not for pro-speeding, but I am for sensible speed limits. I also
>> see nothing wrong (although illegal), I see nothing wrong with
>> exceeding the posted speed limit provided it is safe.
>
> I'm sure the drivers who squeeze past me at 35 mph most days in the
> 20 mph section in Hampton are convinced that it's safe. And it is -
> for them.

I can't comment. I'd have to see their competences and the road layouts...

>
>> They seem oblivious to the 30 sign, and they seem to think wherever
>> they are, 40 is the answer. They travel without regard to safety,
>> others, or anything around them. "Im alright jack".
>>
>> I wouldn't mind if they just thought about the 30 sign and tapped
>> the brakes a few times in preparation to consider the area they
>> will be driving through. But no. Blissful ignorance, each and every
>> time.
>
> I think you're illustrating an important point here. I believe
> unaware drivers are possibly the most dangerous.

Exactly...

>
>> Im pro-safe-speed, but Im not pro-jackass-accident-unsafe-speed...
>> But all these people arguing against the speed limit, I don't see
>> them arguing to do it unsafely?
>
> As a driver moving along a road are you really in a better position
> to assess all the hazards than the traffic engineers who determine
> the safe limits?

Thing is though, it's not just about traffic engineers determining the
safe speed. There's Im sure a load of politics involved and calming the
unintelligible mobs.

>
>> I was once taught, when overtaking, stick your foot down, get past
>> as quickly as possible. This means having to exceed the speed limit
>> every now and again to actually ensure safety.
>
> What's wrong with simply waiting until it's safe to overtake without
> breaking the speed limit?
>

Nothing. And that's exactly what I do. When Im trundling down the road,
I always wait until I have a good clear distant vision with plenty
opportunity to overtake. But it was something instilled in me to get
past as fast I can.... Not to mention there's always some joker who when
you go to overtake decides actually, you're not going to overtake and
speeds up to shut you out...

Even overtaking a milk float, instead of dawdling past them, I was
taught to get past quickly rather than risk someone coming round the
corner at an inappropriate speed and risking an accident.

Safe speed for me does not necessarily mean breaking the limit. I do
believe in a lot of instances, that 30 mph is actually too fast for
quite a lot of roads and situations. But in that same regards, I believe
that there are some roads that are underrated.

Safe Speed to me means that you should be aware of everything around
you. You should be prepared to stop safely and quickly, if you do not
know what's round the corner, you shouldn't be going round there as fast
as possible.

I was thinking earlier about the necessity of speed limits.

It strikes me that there is very little need apart from for "lowest
common denominator" but in that case, why aren't speed limits past
schools set to 20mph?

There are those couple of offences of driving without due care and
attention, etc, where it shouldn't matter what speed you're driving, if
you're driving recklessly then quite right you should be punished. But
of course, reckless, and careless, aren't that quantifiable. But speed
limits are. It's easier to achieve a conviction on this.

 

[Tim Hall]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:26:47 +0000, Simon Dean
<[email protected]> wrote:


>>
>
>Nothing. And that's exactly what I do. When Im trundling down the road,
>I always wait until I have a good clear distant vision with plenty
>opportunity to overtake. But it was something instilled in me to get
>past as fast I can.... Not to mention there's always some joker who when
>you go to overtake decides actually, you're not going to overtake and
>speeds up to shut you out...

So you could lift your foot off the accelerator and let them go.
>
>Even overtaking a milk float, instead of dawdling past them, I was
>taught to get past quickly rather than risk someone coming round the
>corner at an inappropriate speed and risking an accident.
>

If you're overtaking near a corner where that might happen, you're
overtaking in a dangerous manner.


Tim

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Simon Dean
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
>> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
>>>> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php
>>>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as
>>>>> it
>>>>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>>>>> relation to the following:
>>>> Well, seeing it's cars that are causing the problem, let's ban cars
>>>> then.
>>> Is it the cars, or is it the drivers?
>>
>> It's the cars. If the drivers were running down the street holding
>> steering wheels in their hands and making 'brum... brum...' noises, they
>> wouldn't kill anyone. It's like the NRA mantra, 'guns don't kill people,
>> people kill people'. Yeah, we've heard it. If all the thieves in London
>> were running around pointing two fingers at people and saying 'bang!
>> bang!' there's be a good few people still alive.
>
> You can take away a mans means to kill, but you can't take away his will.
>
> If he doesn't have a gun, and wants to kill someone, well, maybe he'll
> take a knife. No knife? How about a crowbar? Broken glass? Bare hands
> and strangle someone?

Killing someone with a gun is done at a distance. You don't get splattered
with gore, and the person you're trying to kill doesn't get to hit you
back. Also, killing someone with a blunt instrument takes a lot of
strength. Take away the guns, and killing becomes physically much more
difficult, and very much more risky.

Similarly, take away the car, and drivers actually find it very difficult
to kill people. They may still want to, but it isn't nearly so easy.

> Fact of the matter, a car driven responsibly shouldn't kill anybody and
> those that do (unless it's some kind of negligence on the victims part,
> ie, they were suicidal or whatever), then the car driver should get the
> full force of the law.

I'm beginning to doubt whether human beings are capable of controlling
modern cars with an appropriate level of responsibility. And obviously
they should get what you call 'the full force of the law'.

It's interesting that when a British driver kills a Cypriot on a moped in a
cycle lane on Cyprus, that's exactly what he gets. This young nurse is
going to get off with a fine.

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

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

 

[Simon Dean]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> It's interesting that when a British driver kills a Cypriot on a moped in a
> cycle lane on Cyprus, that's exactly what he gets. This young nurse is
> going to get off with a fine.
>

My position on that is that she should get the full extent of the law
thrown at her. She's killed someone. Full stop.

She's driven without a full license, in otherwords she hasn't passed the
required test required to tell her whether she is capable of driving a
car safely.

There is no excuse for her actions, but I fall short of the mob
mentality of wishing her to get sacked or hounded out of a job.

It's a cliche, but she'll have to live with the knowledge that she
killed someone for the rest of her life. Realising she is quite a young
nurse, if one has been to hospital recently, one realises the
anti-social demands placed on its staff where some do a full evening
shift to 12, go home, and come back in the morning about 6am... for
another eight hours or whatever. She's probably been advised to not say
anything by her solicitor. So im not going to criticise her for that.

Cya
Simon

 

[Simon Dean]

Tim Hall wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:26:47 +0000, Simon Dean
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Nothing. And that's exactly what I do. When Im trundling down the road,
>> I always wait until I have a good clear distant vision with plenty
>> opportunity to overtake. But it was something instilled in me to get
>> past as fast I can.... Not to mention there's always some joker who when
>> you go to overtake decides actually, you're not going to overtake and
>> speeds up to shut you out...
>
> So you could lift your foot off the accelerator and let them go.

Ahh yes, then it turns into that stupid game of cat and mouse... you
slow down, they then slow down, you go to overtake again, they speed
up... Amount of people who do this on the motorway etc....

When people start driving like that, I also figure that they're some
sort of ass****, so I try to get rid of them as soon as possible...

>> Even overtaking a milk float, instead of dawdling past them, I was
>> taught to get past quickly rather than risk someone coming round the
>> corner at an inappropriate speed and risking an accident.
>>
>
> If you're overtaking near a corner where that might happen, you're
> overtaking in a dangerous manner.

Hrm... I see what you're saying... Let me ask then, parked car on a
blind corner, as if often the case down residential streets, what do you
do? Sit there for hours? knock a couple of doors asking them to move
their car?

I know I for one slow down before overtaking, and I check, and make sure
a car isn't coming the other direction. As soon as I get onto the
other side of the road though, I give it a quick squirt to get past and
onto my side of the road.

Is that unsafe?

 

[Richard Bates]

Simon Dean wrote:
> There is no excuse for her actions, but I fall short of the mob
> mentality of wishing her to get sacked or hounded out of a job.

What if she was a shoplifter? Would you still let her remain on the
nurse register?

What if she assaulted somebody? Would you still let her remain on the
nurse register?

What if she was a paedophile? Would you still let her remain on the
nurse register?

What if she was a mad-axe-murderer? Would you still let her remain on
the nurse register?

What if she performed a nursing procedure for which she had not been
trained and deemed safe,and subsequently killed somebody? Would you
still let her remain on the nurse register?

What if she willingly circumvented the law and drove a car without
having been trained and deemed safe, and subsequently killed somebody?

In any case, do we know that she *was* a nurse? She may have been a
healthcare assistant, student, or any other health professional you care
to mention.

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Richard Bates twisted the electrons to say:
> What if she performed a nursing procedure for which she had not been
> trained and deemed safe,and subsequently killed somebody? Would you
> still let her remain on the nurse register?

That's actually a vaguely awkward one, since it would depend very much on
the circumstances. If they did $DEED in a hospital where there was easy
access to $QUALIFIED_PERSONS then that's one thing, if they come across a
situation in the street and are the only remotely qualified person in the
area then that could well be an entirely different matter ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...