Pavement motorists wreck house for second time!

Doug wrote:
On Jun 6, 9:59 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:15 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

If _your_ principle is right that upping the punishments for
motorists would reduce the incidence of their 'crimes', then it
must logically be true too for all of those offences you now say,
having had what seems to be a Damascene conversion, you no longer
support.

Again, see above. The crimes you keep on banging on about usually do
not involve deaths or serious injuries, unlike those caused by
drivers.

Most car accidents don't either. You're deluding yourself if you
think otherwise.

They are not 'accidents' they are crashes or collisions, most of which
are due to loss of driver control and are much more dangerous than
bicycles on pavements.

They still don't usually involve death or serious injuries. Why can't
you keep to the point?

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the point, which is whether
increased penalties such as you propose reduce the incidence of the
associated crimes or not. You seem to think, rather strangely, that
this principle only applies to things you personally don't like. My
question is, why doesn't it apply to them all?

It's a simple point. Do answer it.

What you still don't get is the question of proportionality. In some
case punishments are draconian and others much too light or non-
existent, as with road crimes.

It's a principle applicable to all crime. Do increased punishments
decrease crime? Keep it short, Doug, yes or no?

Sometimes motorists are allowed to kill with impunity, using some
excuse or other like yours, so-called 'accidents'.

Why are you resorting to silly semantics? Because you have no answer.

On Jun 9, 8:56*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 6, 9:59 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:15 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
If _your_ principle is right that upping the punishments for
motorists would reduce the incidence of their 'crimes', then it
must logically be true too for all of those offences you now say,
having had what seems to be a Damascene conversion, you no longer
support.

Again, see above. The crimes you keep on banging on about usually do
not involve deaths or serious injuries, unlike those caused by
drivers.

Most car accidents don't either. You're deluding yourself if you
think otherwise.

They are not 'accidents' they are crashes or collisions, most of which
are due to loss of driver control and are much more dangerous than
bicycles on pavements.

They still don't usually involve death or serious injuries. *Why can't
you keep to the point?

The point you keep on trying to avoid is that pavement motorists are
more dangerous than pavement cyclists.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the point, which is whether
increased penalties such as you propose reduce the incidence of the
associated crimes or not. You seem to think, rather strangely, that
this principle only applies to things you personally don't like. My
question is, why doesn't it apply to them all?

It's a simple point. Do answer it.

What you still don't get is the question of proportionality. In some
case punishments are draconian and others much too light or non-
existent, as with road crimes.

It's a principle applicable to all crime. *Do increased punishments
decrease crime? *Keep it short, Doug, yes or no?

You are still failing to differentiate. Why?

Sometimes motorists are allowed to kill with impunity, using some
excuse or other like yours, so-called 'accidents'.

Why are you resorting to silly semantics? *Because you have no answer.

If it seems silly to you it is because you do not understand, or are
pretending not to.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:56 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

It's a principle applicable to all crime. Do increased punishments
decrease crime? Keep it short, Doug, yes or no?

You are still failing to differentiate. Why?

Why can't you answer a simple question directly?

Norman Wells wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:56 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

It's a principle applicable to all crime. Do increased punishments
decrease crime? Keep it short, Doug, yes or no?

You are still failing to differentiate. Why?

Why can't you answer a simple question directly?

He never does. My question to Doug (still unanswered from months ago) If a
cyclist rides into a stationary car or the side of a lorry trailer, how can
either incident be blamed upon the vehicle's driver (or most recent driver)
?