|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote: No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service (and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous cyclist-hating whacko on usenet. You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing. The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of there having been no offence committed. As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion. What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no prosecution = no offence. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:08:48 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote: Mrcheerful wrote: No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service (and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous cyclist-hating whacko on usenet. You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing. The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of there having been no offence committed. As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion. What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no prosecution = no offence. Ok, let me get this straight. There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision. The driver is charged and convicted of both dangerous driving and assault for the subsequent beating of the fallen cyclist - and YOU think the cyclist commited a crime. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:53:45 -0300, Tim McNamara wrote:
The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of there having been no offence committed. As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion. What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no prosecution = no offence. Ok, let me get this straight. There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision. The driver is charged and convicted of both dangerous driving and assault for the subsequent beating of the fallen cyclist - and YOU think the cyclist commited a crime. Well, the cyclist must have something to provoke the driver. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 23/07/2014 19:53, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:08:48 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote: Mrcheerful wrote: No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service (and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous cyclist-hating whacko on usenet. You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing. The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of there having been no offence committed. As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion. What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no prosecution = no offence. Ok, let me get this straight. There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision. Stop there. There was no report of a collision. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:25:07 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 23/07/2014 19:53, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:08:48 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote: Mrcheerful wrote: No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service (and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous cyclist-hating whacko on usenet. You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing. The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of there having been no offence committed. As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion. What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no prosecution = no offence. Ok, let me get this straight. There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision. Stop there. There was no report of a collision. Car overtakes cyclist. Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand. Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have occured? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 23/07/2014 21:41, Phil W Lee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:25:07 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 23/07/2014 19:53, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:08:48 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote: Mrcheerful wrote: No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service (and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous cyclist-hating whacko on usenet. You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing. The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of there having been no offence committed. As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion. What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no prosecution = no offence. Ok, let me get this straight. There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision. Stop there. There was no report of a collision. Car overtakes cyclist. Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand. Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have occured? Which bit of "There was no report of a collision" is too difficult for you to understand? And why don't you post under your real name instead of someone else's? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:00:20 +0100, JNugent wrote:
The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of there having been no offence committed. Ok, let me get this straight. There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision. Stop there. There was no report of a collision. Car overtakes cyclist. Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand. Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have occured? Which bit of "There was no report of a collision" is too difficult for you to understand? "The fact that no collision was reported is no indication whatsoever of there having been no collision occuring." |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 24/07/2014 02:07, Sig wrote:
JNugent wrote: The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of there having been no offence committed. Ok, let me get this straight. There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision. Stop there. There was no report of a collision. Car overtakes cyclist. Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand. Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have occured? Which bit of "There was no report of a collision" is too difficult for you to understand? "The fact that no collision was reported is no indication whatsoever of there having been no collision occuring"... ....is a good example of a non-sequitur. It seems that you also are having difficulty in understanding straightforward English. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
"Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 16:49, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. It is completely relevant. We still don't even know whether the mirror was actually damaged (incredibly unlikely for reasons given earlier). All that is known is that the driver made an unsafe overtake, contact occurred and the driver got out and attacked the cyclist. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 24/07/2014 09:31, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 16:49, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. It is completely relevant. We still don't even know whether the mirror was actually damaged (incredibly unlikely for reasons given earlier). All that is known is that the driver made an unsafe overtake, contact occurred and the driver got out and attacked the cyclist. We only have one person's word that the overtake occurred unsafely, and the person saying it is very likely to be biased. We have the evidence that contact occurred as a result of the cyclist's actions, from the cyclist himself. The driver got out to ask for compensation for his damaged vehicle, the cyclist failed to do so and this lead to violence by the driver, if there were number plates for the bicycle then it would have been straightforward to initiate an insurance claim. I still think that the cyclist was lucky with the other person involved, since similar incidents have lead to far worse endings. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A bicycle would never do this much damage | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 8 | July 29th 13 05:58 PM |
Who is liable for the damage? | NM | UK | 381 | October 30th 09 08:23 PM |
Criminal Damage? | Jim Newman | UK | 0 | December 9th 08 09:23 AM |
rim damage asymetric hop? | Steven S | Techniques | 6 | June 9th 07 09:53 PM |
Tire Damage? | Roy Zipris | Techniques | 2 | July 26th 05 03:25 AM |