On May 29, 10:17*pm, Squashme wrote:
On 29 May, 21:01, FrengaX wrote:
On May 29, 6:34*pm, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
news:1ubMn.15870$dN2.3151@hurricane...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...r/10189702.stm
With all respect to everyone concerned, I would like to point out that if
the bus was not travelling quite so fast, it may not have needed to brake so
hard, and therefore the poor person may still be alive.
I further realise that drivers generally like someone to blame and this view
may be unpopular.
Lower speed limits save lives.
And many bus drivers DLCs
As you obviously seem to know how fast the bus was travelling at the
time, please do enlighten us. And then explain what would have been a
more appropriate speed, considering you have a complete understanding
of the area and circumstances.
Obviously, as a general point, non-lethal speed would have been a
better choice
That's nearly as unhelpful as mileburner's comment. What's a non-
lethal speed, in general? Zero would work, but not very viable. Not
knowing the circumstances of the injury sustained which led to the
passenger's death, how can you tell that it wasn't a freak of
unfortunate circumstances at a speed that would normally not result in
fatalities?