Cyclist killers in local paper.

Steven,

I have been giving your assertions a little thought over the day, there
being little else to do...and whilst it may be relatively easy to
demonstrate that the human mind is easily capable of overriding the
inbuilt protective mechanisms and exhibiting near suicidal behaviour,
that demonstration may not address your assessment of the reason why
that appreciation of danger needs to be so much higher than the level
which you previously regarded as adequate,
I.E.

If you could somehow show that, at some point, either or both of
them actually realised that their driving was probably going to result in a crash,
then you would be able to remove the incident from the domain of 'accidents'.

and which has been demonstrated to a level where we can say that they -
on a balance of probabilities knew that their actions were dangerous and
were more likely than not, if a collision occured, going to result in
serious injury to one or other of the parties involved.

Please justify your assertion that they needed to have suicidal
disregard of their own safety.

Sniper8052

"Sniper8052(L96A1)" wrote in message
o.uk...

Sorry to butt in so late in the argument

I have been giving your assertions a little thought over the day, there
being little else to do...and whilst it may be relatively easy to
demonstrate that the human mind is easily capable of overriding the inbuilt
protective mechanisms and exhibiting near suicidal behaviour,

@@@@@
that demonstration may not address your assessment of the reason why that
appreciation of danger needs to be so much higher than the level which you
previously regarded as adequate,
I.E.

Could you possibly rephase that, or provide more context, (after the @@@@@),
as I can't make out what you're trying to say?

If you could somehow show that, at some point, either or both of
them actually realised that their driving was probably going to result in
a crash,
then you would be able to remove the incident from the domain of
'accidents'.

and which has been demonstrated to a level where we can say that they - on
a balance of probabilities knew that their actions were dangerous and were
more likely than not, if a collision occured, going to result in serious
injury to one or other of the parties involved.

Surely, though, that hasn't been demonstrated.

However, if we assume that it has, then (if I can interpret what you said
correctly), you are actually saying in the paragraph above is that (on a
balance of probabilities) they /did/ know they were likely to kill
themselves.

Please justify your assertion that they needed to have suicidal disregard
of their own safety.

Surely, you have just shown that yourself?

On a more general point, I understand why you don't like to think of this
incident as an accident, but as others have said, if you start denying that
the legally accepted reason for their demise, "accidental death" was
accurate, you need to ask yourself exactly where you are going to draw the
line.

A lot of people have come up with some very emotional analysies of this: One
driver was disqualified, the other never had a license. One of the cars was
unroadworthy, they were racing, they did up to 80 mph.

But which of these reasons is critical in your saying that this particular
accident wasn't in fact an accident?

Suppose both drivers held valid, unsuspended lciences - accident then?
Then, suppose that both cars were in roadworth condition - accident then?
Then, suppose that it there was only one driver, and he was speeding because
he was late for an important (to him) appointment - accident then?

Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 70 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 60 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 50 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 40 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 31 mph - accident then?

You see the emotional context of this argument means that if it suceeds, the
practical, everyday use of the word accident is lost.

Graham wrote:
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" wrote in message
o.uk...

Sorry to butt in so late in the argument

I have been giving your assertions a little thought over the day, there
being little else to do...and whilst it may be relatively easy to
demonstrate that the human mind is easily capable of overriding the inbuilt
protective mechanisms and exhibiting near suicidal behaviour,

@@@@@
that demonstration may not address your assessment of the reason why that
appreciation of danger needs to be so much higher than the level which you
previously regarded as adequate,
I.E.

Could you possibly rephase that, or provide more context, (after the @@@@@),
as I can't make out what you're trying to say?

If you could somehow show that, at some point, either or both of
them actually realised that their driving was probably going to result in
a crash,
then you would be able to remove the incident from the domain of
'accidents'.

and which has been demonstrated to a level where we can say that they - on
a balance of probabilities knew that their actions were dangerous and were
more likely than not, if a collision occured, going to result in serious
injury to one or other of the parties involved.

Surely, though, that hasn't been demonstrated.

However, if we assume that it has, then (if I can interpret what you said
correctly), you are actually saying in the paragraph above is that (on a
balance of probabilities) they /did/ know they were likely to kill
themselves.

Please justify your assertion that they needed to have suicidal disregard
of their own safety.

Surely, you have just shown that yourself?

On a more general point, I understand why you don't like to think of this
incident as an accident, but as others have said, if you start denying that
the legally accepted reason for their demise, "accidental death" was
accurate, you need to ask yourself exactly where you are going to draw the
line.

A lot of people have come up with some very emotional analysies of this: One
driver was disqualified, the other never had a license. One of the cars was
unroadworthy, they were racing, they did up to 80 mph.

But which of these reasons is critical in your saying that this particular
accident wasn't in fact an accident?

Suppose both drivers held valid, unsuspended lciences - accident then?
Then, suppose that both cars were in roadworth condition - accident then?
Then, suppose that it there was only one driver, and he was speeding because
he was late for an important (to him) appointment - accident then?

Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 70 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 60 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 50 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 40 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 31 mph - accident then?

You see the emotional context of this argument means that if it suceeds, the
practical, everyday use of the word accident is lost.

Graham,

There is extensive reverence to context within my previous posts, I
would ask you to read through those to understand the fabric of the
debate more fully. The posting which you query requests Steven to
demonstrate his reasons why he has raised the level of awareness from,

reasonably shown to have known or expected an incident such as, or
similar to, the incident which occured,

to

Expected that their actions would result in their own or another's
death...and expecting their actions would result in their own deaths
continued.

I consider the last argument is untenable so have asked Steven to
demonstrate relevence through debate.

It is only necessary to demonstrate that the pair were' more likely
than not, on the balance of probability and to a reasonable standard
aware that their actions were dangerous and likely to result in a
collision for their continued actions to be shown as reckless of the
concequences. If a person knows their actions are dangerous and is
reckless of the concequences any negative result cannot be classed as
an accident. In this case their actions were so clearly reckless that
any reasonable person would expect them to be aware of that danger.

Sniper8052

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
ups.com...

There is extensive reverence to context within my previous posts, I
would ask you to read through those to understand the fabric of the
debate more fully.

Could you not use more normal quoting techniques?

Otherwise your stuff just looks like aimless ramblings, and it's quite an
interesting debate.


reasonably shown to have known or expected an incident such as, or
similar to, the incident which occured,

to

Expected that their actions would result in their own or another's
death...and expecting their actions would result in their own deaths
continued.

Yes, I can see where your confusion lies.

I presume Stevan will enlighten you on your mistake.

It is only necessary to demonstrate that the pair were' more likely
than not, on the balance of probability and to a reasonable standard
aware that their actions were dangerous and likely to result in a
collision for their continued actions to be shown as reckless of the
concequences
..
Erm, says who?

If a person knows their actions are dangerous and is
reckless of the concequences any negative result cannot be classed as
an accident.

Although it usually is. People know that if the speed or drink/drive they
will have accidents, but they still do it, and they still have them, and
they are still called accidents.

In this case their actions were so clearly reckless that
any reasonable person would expect them to be aware of that danger.

The law seems to disagree with you!


I notice that you've not even attempted to answer the question that I have
reinserted below.

It's no good wanting to redefine a commonly understood word, without
addressing the practicalities of dealing with that redefinition, if you want
anyone to take you seriously.

Reinserted question.
--------------------

On a more general point, I understand why you don't like to think of this
incident as an accident, but as others have said, if you start denying that
the legally accepted reason for their demise, "accidental death" was
accurate, you need to ask yourself exactly where you are going to draw the
line.

A lot of people have come up with some very emotional analysies of this: One
driver was disqualified, the other never had a license. One of the cars was
unroadworthy, they were racing, they did up to 80 mph.

But which of these reasons is critical in your saying that this particular
accident wasn't in fact an accident?

Suppose both drivers held valid, unsuspended lciences - accident then?
Then, suppose that both cars were in roadworth condition - accident then?
Then, suppose that it there was only one driver, and he was speeding because
he was late for an important (to him) appointment - accident then?

Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 70 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 60 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 50 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 40 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 31 mph - accident then?

You see the emotional context of this argument means that if it suceeds, the
practical, everyday use of the word accident is lost.

Graham wrote:
"Sniper8052" wrote in message
ups.com...


There is extensive reverence to context within my previous posts, I
would ask you to read through those to understand the fabric of the
debate more fully.


Could you not use more normal quoting techniques?

Otherwise your stuff just looks like aimless ramblings, and it's quite an
interesting debate.



reasonably shown to have known or expected an incident such as, or
similar to, the incident which occured,

to

Expected that their actions would result in their own or another's
death...and expecting their actions would result in their own deaths
continued.


Yes, I can see where your confusion lies.

I presume Stevan will enlighten you on your mistake.


It is only necessary to demonstrate that the pair were' more likely
than not, on the balance of probability and to a reasonable standard
aware that their actions were dangerous and likely to result in a
collision for their continued actions to be shown as reckless of the
concequences

.
Erm, says who?


If a person knows their actions are dangerous and is
reckless of the concequences any negative result cannot be classed as
an accident.


Although it usually is. People know that if the speed or drink/drive they
will have accidents, but they still do it, and they still have them, and
they are still called accidents.


In this case their actions were so clearly reckless that
any reasonable person would expect them to be aware of that danger.


The law seems to disagree with you!


I notice that you've not even attempted to answer the question that I have
reinserted below.

It's no good wanting to redefine a commonly understood word, without
addressing the practicalities of dealing with that redefinition, if you want
anyone to take you seriously.

Reinserted question.
--------------------

It's no good wanting to redefine a commonly understood word, without
addressing the practicalities of dealing with that redefinition, if you want
anyone to take you seriously.



A lot of people have come up with some very emotional analysies of this: One
driver was disqualified, the other never had a license. One of the cars was
unroadworthy, they were racing, they did up to 80 mph.

But which of these reasons is critical in your saying that this particular
accident wasn't in fact an accident?

Suppose both drivers held valid, unsuspended lciences - accident then?
Then, suppose that both cars were in roadworth condition - accident then?
Then, suppose that it there was only one driver, and he was speeding because
he was late for an important (to him) appointment - accident then?

Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 70 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 60 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 50 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 40 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 31 mph - accident then?

You see the emotional context of this argument means that if it suceeds, the
practical, everyday use of the word accident is lost.




Graham,

Could you not use more normal quoting techniques?

How so?

Otherwise your stuff just looks like aimless ramblings, and it's quite an
interesting debate.

Aimless is something no defence lawyer has ever called any of my
statements...

Expected that their actions would result in their own or another's
death...and expecting their actions would result in their own deaths
continued.


Yes, I can see where your confusion lies.

I presume Stevan will enlighten you on your mistake.

Do you mean you think my argument is confused or that Steven's argument
has merit?

It is only necessary to demonstrate that the pair were' more likely
than not, on the balance of probability and to a reasonable standard
aware that their actions were dangerous and likely to result in a
collision for their continued actions to be shown as reckless of the
concequences

Erm, says who?

Steven actually, that's why I want him to explain his new assertion that
they,

Expected that their actions would result in their own or another's
death...and expecting their actions would result in their own deaths
continued.

You ask,

... People know that if the speed or drink/drive they
will have accidents, but they still do it, and they still have them, and
they are still called accidents.

Do you not call such actions reckless? Although it might be claimed
that the action of alcohol within the system diminishes reasoning and
this could be a justification for using the term accident.

Any reasonable person would say that to wilfully drink and drive was an
act of reckless disregard for oneself and others. That the consequences
of such actions are well known and that in disregarding those
consequences the driver knew the danger they were placing themselves and
others in.

The fact that this is referred to as an 'accident' does not show that
the use of the word is correct, just that convention is being used to
describe an incident with out thought as to the circumstances of that
incident. It is no more accidental than if I knowingly placed a loaded
gun against a persons head and squeezed the trigger.

In this case their actions were so clearly reckless that
any reasonable person would expect them to be aware of that danger.


The law seems to disagree with you!

No the law does not, they were convicted of causing death by dangerous
driving. Dangerous driving is defined as,

1) Driving is such a manner that falls far below what would be expected
of a competent and careful driver; and
2) It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in
that way would be dangerous

ergo they were reckless and their conviction shows that the law holds
that any competent and careful driver, who is assumed to have reasonable
behavioural patterns, would also reach that conclusion.

There is a discussion to make a new law of unintentional killing which
might have been an appropriate charge had it been in place. There is
also a proposal, which I support, that any driver who has not passed his
test or is banned and who is involved a collision on the road be charged
with dangerous driving.

It's no good wanting to redefine a commonly understood word, without
addressing the practicalities of dealing with that redefinition, if you want
anyone to take you seriously.

The fact that the word has been hijacked to now mean something it never
meant to me as a child or in my adult life does not mean that I wish to
redefine it. Rather it means that those who use it now in a manner
which ascribes a meaning other than, an act with no apparent cause, do
so incorrectly. If there is clear cause there can be no 'accident' only
effect.
The practicality of 're-claiming' this word to mean what it is meant to
mean is that people would have to think a little before using a term in
a context that is not apposite to the circumstances.

Killed by a speeding driver...

not

Killed in an accident with a speeding driver...

If the word were only used as it is meant to be for describing those
incidents without apparent cause or 'as of god' then perhaps there would
be a change in the perception of the acceptability of careless and
reckless behaviour on our roads and in general life.

A lot of people have come up with some very emotional analysies of this: One
driver was disqualified, the other never had a license. One of the cars was
unroadworthy, they were racing, they did up to 80 mph.

But which of these reasons is critical in your saying that this particular
accident wasn't in fact an accident?

As I said before these are all aggravating factors which bear to the
point that this was not an accident. One must ask what the 'reasonable
man' would class the combination of factors as resulting in. Would a
'reasonable man' expect there to be serious consequences of driving a
motor vehicle on a road, at speed, where the car was unroadworthy and
when the driver had not passed a test? The answer has to be 'Yes'.

If a 'reasonable man' would expect those consequences then the law and
common sense dictate that we ascribe that realisation to those persons
driving at the time of the incident unless it can be shown that they
were of a sufficiently clinically reduced mental capacity that they
could not appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Suppose both drivers held valid, unsuspended lciences - accident then?

Yes, the action of driving at 80+mph is sufficient that a 'reasonable
man' would be expected to know it was dangerous and fell well below the
standard expected of a careful and competent driver.

Then, suppose that both cars were in roadworth condition - accident then?

Yes, the condition of the car is relevant to recklessness before the act.

Then, suppose that it there was only one driver, and he was speeding because
he was late for an important (to him) appointment - accident then?

If a driver behaves in a manner which is clearly reckless, I.E.
speeding, jumping red lights, driving against traffic... no matter the
reason and is involved in a collision it is not an accident. That it
may be justified at court as to why that person was driving in that
manner is immaterial it is an effect with known cause.

Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 70 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 60 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 50 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 40 mph - accident then?
Then, suppose he'd "only" done up to 31 mph - accident then?

You are seeking to apply an arbitrary rule to this which cannot be so
applied ask yourself given the circumstances would a 'reasonable man'
have expected those consequences? I would suggest that if a careful and
competent driver could not avoid a collision when 1mph above the speed
limit then that collision could not 'reasonably' have been expected to
be avoidable at 30mph and it is the full circumstances of the collision
which will dictate whether it is an accident or not.

Sniper8052

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:58:50 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)"
wrote:

BIG Snip

Sniper, you are onto a loser here, mate.

People who drive recklessly do it because they seriously overestimate
their driving skills. They don't do it because they expect to have an
accident and don't care.

As to the meaning of accident, I'm over police retirement age, and
people have been calling things that happen through negligence
accidents for as long as I can remember. I think it started in the
late 1800s when refering to train crashes.

If you're a policeman, you know perfectly well that people are
sucessfully prosecuted for various offences as a result of accidents,
so calling something an accident doesn't let anyone off the hook.


BTW, I'm wondering why you refuted the suggestion that the law
disagreed with you on whether the incident was an accident or not.
Surely if it was not regarded as an accident, they would have been
charged with manslaughter at the very least?

Just out of interest, what was the legal verdict as registered by the
coroner's court?

Chas wrote:

Surely if it was not regarded as an accident, they would have been
charged with manslaughter at the very least?

(Presumably) only if the CPS thought there was a realistic chance of
conviction with the manslaughter charge. They don't go around charging
people with crime X just because they think they did X; they need a
decent amount of evidence first. Sadly that's all too hard to come by
in driving cases.

Just look at Gary Hart, the guy who caused the Selby rail crash. Do
you think he would've been convicted if there wasn't the evidence that
he was chatting to his girlfriend until 5am or whatever it was the night
before?

R.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:58:50 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)"
wrote:

Could you not use more normal quoting techniques?

How so?

Quote only what is necessary to give context to what you're saying.

Dead simple. Most people manage it.

With this post, for example, you've quoted the entire post that you were
replying to, then quoted it again. Why?

Otherwise your stuff just looks like aimless ramblings, and it's quite an
interesting debate.

Aimless is something no defence lawyer has ever called any of my
statements...

Do you habitually repeat the last 10 minutes of what has happened in court when
asked a question?

Or refuse to answer any questions until he's asked them all, then answer them in
one block?

The reason I had intended to stop debating with you was because your quoting
methods made it too boring to continue. (Plus you habit of obsessing about
tangential matters).

Expected that their actions would result in their own or another's
death...and expecting their actions would result in their own deaths
continued.


Yes, I can see where your confusion lies.

I presume Stevan will enlighten you on your mistake.

Do you mean you think my argument is confused or that Steven's argument
has merit?

He's noticed that you are comparing statements from different contexts.

It is only necessary to demonstrate that the pair were' more likely
than not, on the balance of probability and to a reasonable standard
aware that their actions were dangerous and likely to result in a
collision for their continued actions to be shown as reckless of the
concequences

Erm, says who?

Steven actually, that's why I want him to explain his new assertion that
they,

I have never said that. Please provide the message ID where you believe I said
that.

... People know that if the speed or drink/drive they
will have accidents, but they still do it, and they still have them, and
they are still called accidents.

Do you not call such actions reckless?

Of course they're reckless. Because if you drink and drive you are more likely
to have an accident. Also if you speed.

The fact that this is referred to as an 'accident' does not show that
the use of the word is correct

That's where you are confused about how English works.

You can check back for an explanation.

If it was just spokesmen for driver's pressure groups, and defence barristers,
who used the word 'accident' in this context, then you would have a case for
claiming the use was wrong.

However, a wide selection of the public, legal profession and media use the word
in that way, so it's correct usage. Sorry, that's just the way English works.

It is no more accidental than if I knowingly placed a loaded
gun against a persons head and squeezed the trigger.

Of course not, because you must expect a very specific outcome as the prime
result of your action.

In the US where they have thousands of accidental gun deaths each year, most of
them seem to be caused by people behaving *extremely* irresponsibly with
firearms. They are still accepted as accidents though.

In this case their actions were so clearly reckless that
any reasonable person would expect them to be aware of that danger.

And any reasonable person would have expected them not to do it.

These two were not reasonable and did not adequately consider the possible
results of what they were doing. Thus they failed to expect the outcome. Thus it
was an accident.

The law seems to disagree with you!

No the law does not,

Yes it does. I note you sidestepped the point that if the law *hadn't*
considered it an accident, they would have been charged with murder (or
manslaughter).

ergo they were reckless and their conviction shows that the law holds
that any competent and careful driver, who is assumed to have reasonable
behavioural patterns, would also reach that conclusion.

Indeed, and thus they were punished for the accident they caused.

There is a discussion to make a new law of unintentional killing which
might have been an appropriate charge had it been in place. There is
also a proposal, which I support, that any driver who has not passed his
test or is banned and who is involved a collision on the road be charged
with dangerous driving.

All very interesting, but irrelevant.

It's no good wanting to redefine a commonly understood word, without
addressing the practicalities of dealing with that redefinition, if you want
anyone to take you seriously.

The fact that the word has been hijacked to now mean something it never
meant

Hijacked?

I don't think so.

Can you provide evidence that some special interest group acted in some
tendentious manner that caused the majority to start using it in what you claim
is the 'incorrect way'?

to me as a child or in my adult life does not mean that I wish to
redefine it.

Oh, but it does.

You want to redefine it to mean something other than what most people consider
it to mean at the moment.

You might like to consider this from the site of The Royal Society for the
Prevention of Accidents:

|RoSPA History: Following a public meeting in Caxton Hall in 1916 it was decided to elect
|a London "Safety First" Council to tackle the 'alarming increase in traffic accidents,

They've been called that for at least 89 years. How old are you, anyway?

Rather it means that those who use it now in a manner
which ascribes a meaning other than, an act with no apparent cause, do
so incorrectly.

No. Learn and understand how English usage works!

If there is clear cause there can be no 'accident' only
effect.
The practicality of 're-claiming' this word to mean what it is meant to
mean

A word isn't "meant to mean" anything. It means what people use it to mean.
That's how language works. True the meaning of words changes, and looking at the
OED, the word 'accident' originally meant: "An occurrence, incident, event.".

This use is now obsolete, but if you want to use words as you think they were
"meant" to be meant, why not go back to *that* definition?

If the word were only used as it is meant to be for describing those
incidents without apparent cause or 'as of god' then perhaps there would
be a change in the perception of the acceptability of careless and
reckless behaviour on our roads and in general life.

Completely unnecessary.

People know that if they act negligently or recklessly and cause accidents, they
will be called to account and punished for their behaviour.

As I said before these are all aggravating factors which bear to the
point that this was not an accident.

Even though it *was* an accident.

One must ask what the 'reasonable
man' would class the combination of factors as resulting in. Would a
'reasonable man' expect there to be serious consequences of driving a
motor vehicle on a road, at speed, where the car was unroadworthy and
when the driver had not passed a test? The answer has to be 'Yes'.

But these weren't "reasonable men". That's why they are in jail.

If a 'reasonable man' would expect those consequences then the law and
common sense dictate that we ascribe that realisation to those persons
driving at the time of the incident unless it can be shown that they
were of a sufficiently clinically reduced mental capacity that they
could not appreciate the consequences of their actions.

But these weren't "reasonable men". That's why they are in jail.

-----

Snip of argument that is very similar to the one that Ian SMith would never
answer during the debate on interpretting the dictionary.

Your problem, sniper, and that of those who hold your line, is that you are
trying to change a common word: 'accident', that has a well known and accepted
(by most people) meaning, into a technical word that cannot be used without
technical analysis of the incident involved.

You can continue to campaign with Guy and others for people to stop using the
word in the way it's been used for probably well over a century. I won't wish
you luck in your quest because I think it's stupid and pointless, and is wasting
time and effort that could *far* better be spent trying to get people to
*behave* better, rather than obsessing about the minutia of how a simple common
word is used.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:01:49 +0100, Richard
.address.uk wrote:

Chas wrote:

Surely if it was not regarded as an accident, they would have been
charged with manslaughter at the very least?

(Presumably) only if the CPS thought there was a realistic chance of
conviction with the manslaughter charge. They don't go around charging
people with crime X just because they think they did X; they need a
decent amount of evidence first. Sadly that's all too hard to come by
in driving cases.

Just look at Gary Hart, the guy who caused the Selby rail crash. Do
you think he would've been convicted if there wasn't the evidence that
he was chatting to his girlfriend until 5am or whatever it was the night
before?

True enough, but surely if there is not enough evidence for a court to convict
someone of the more serious offence, then it is not for sniper, or any of the
other "not an accident" brigade to find them guilty out of court.

In this country you are presumed innocent until *proven* guilty.

In order for this not to be deemed an accident, it would be necessary to *prove*
that the offenders *expected* to kill or seriously injure someone.

I can see no evidence of that whatsoever. A *great* deal of assertion, but no
actual *evidence*.

Of course, they *should* have expected it (and thus stopped their reckless
activity), but they didn't, and they had an accident. And they were punished
because they failed to do what they should have done.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:01:49 +0100, Richard
.address.uk wrote:

Chas wrote:

Surely if it was not regarded as an accident, they would have been
charged with manslaughter at the very least?

(Presumably) only if the CPS thought there was a realistic chance of
conviction with the manslaughter charge. They don't go around charging
people with crime X just because they think they did X; they need a
decent amount of evidence first. Sadly that's all too hard to come by
in driving cases.

That's a fair point, I suppose, but if the police and CPS with all
their resources cannot show that a manslaughter charge could be
proved, surely it isn't for someone on a cycling newsgroup to second
guess them.

If it was as cut and dried as Sniper makes out they /would/ have been
charged with a more serious offence.

Frankly, I think all this "let's not call accidents accidents any
more" is just a fools errand.

Surely everyone knows /perfectly/ well that accidents are not always
the results of blameless activity.