On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 7:48:25 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2013 12:53, Pristine Bruise wrote:

John Benn wrote:



"Pristine Bruise" wrote in message

...

Bertie Wooster wrote:



On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:29:57 +0100, "Mrcheerful"

wrote:



Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:12:40 +0100, "Mrcheerful"

wrote:



JNugent wrote:

PW Lee in another newsgroup (and referring to a driver who had been

involved in a traffic accident):



QUOTE:

Why is he not being charged with both failure to stop after the

initial collision and dangerous driving?

He's clearly guilty of both.

ENDQUOTE



How about High Treason as well?



QUOTE:

And there is some evidence that he routinely breaks the law by

driving the wrong way along this one-way street as a shortcut - no

doubt cctv footage could be reviewed to substantiate that.

ENDQUOTE



I'd be all for that being done routinely and significant penalties

being dealt out to offenders.



Anyone care to hazard a submission on what class of vehicular

traffic most often ignores one-way working?



A psycholist told me that stories such as this only make the news

because of their extreme rarity, so the answer is NOT cars.



When was the last time you heard of a cyclist injuring three people

before crashing into a brick wall and a bus?





You are evading the question asked, how unusual.



But you had already answered the question, with, what I can only

assume, is something you can support with data.



Anyway, why should anyone want to equally compare breaking the law in

this way when it is considered a far greater crime to motor, rather

than cycle, the wrong way through a one-way system?



If you kill someone while on a bicycle, the law will treat you in exactly

the same way as if you were driving a car or lorry.



Exactly as it should be, but the potential to kill someone is less

when cycling than driving.



In that case, the cyclist should be punished more severely, since he

cannot so easily plead that it was just one of those things.



IOW, he's more likely to have been trying to do it, or at least to have

been far more reckless as to whether or not it happened.

Wrong. The motorist should be punished more severely because, knowing that his vehicle was far more likely to kill, he still drove recklessly, with full awareness that, in the event of an "accident", he would be well protected by his chosen vehicle but his victim might not have that advantage. Sadly motorists think that, because they have bought an advantage over others, their privilege should extend to an immunity from the foreseeable negative consequences of this advantage.

Motorists seem to think that the bull and the china shop can be equally to blame, and indeed wish to blame the china more for its negligent fragility, and the shop for being sited where a bull might wish to travel.