No helmet contributed to cyclist death

The sheriff said Mrs Fyffe "wasn't to blame in any way for the accident", but
added: "She was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to
her death."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-22397918

Motorist banned for five years.

That seems a proportionate sentence to me.

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 12:30:36 UTC+1, Judith wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-22397918

Motorist banned for five years.

That seems a proportionate sentence to me.

So what would he have to do to get a life ban?

On 25/07/2013 12:35, wrote:
On Thursday, 25 July 2013 12:30:36 UTC+1, Judith wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-22397918

Motorist banned for five years.

That seems a proportionate sentence to me.

So what would he have to do to get a life ban?

What does *anyone* have to do to get a lifetime ban?

Become blind? Develop a serious case of MS? Be old and infirm? Be
stricken by a brain tumour?

A friend of mine had the latter happen to him, but after his operation
and treatment (and by sheer determination), he got his licence back.

On 25/07/2013 20:15, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Thu, 25 Jul 2013 04:35:42 -0700
(PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, 25 July 2013 12:30:36 UTC+1, Judith wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-22397918

Motorist banned for five years.

That seems a proportionate sentence to me.

If it was an actual (jail) sentence, it would be.
Removing his driving privilege seems to be a matter of basic risk
management, and should not really be regarded as punishment.

So what would he have to do to get a life ban?

He's done it - repeated unlawful killing.
There is nothing he could do which would convince me that he is a fit
person to hold a driving licence in the future, having twice
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he isn't.
Allowing him to drive again after the first killing was an
infringement of his second victims right to life, and was therefore
illegal.

Yes, but you don't actually sit in that jurisdiction, M'Lud.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
considered Thu, 25 Jul 2013 04:35:42 -0700


Allowing him to drive again after the first killing was an
infringement of his second victims right to life, and was therefore
illegal.

LOL!

On 26/07/2013 10:45, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
considered Thu, 25 Jul 2013 04:35:42 -0700


Allowing him to drive again after the first killing was an
infringement of his second victims right to life, and was therefore
illegal.

LOL!

He didn't *mean* it to be funny.

On 27/07/2013 02:57, Phil W Lee wrote:

"Mentalguy2k8" :
"Phil W Lee" wrote:
:

Allowing him to drive again after the first killing was an
infringement of his second victims right to life, and was therefore
illegal.

LOL!

Can you explain how it can possibly be legal to allow a person to
drive who has already proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are a
threat to life when they do?

Something is legal when there is no law against it and/or when the law
provides that it be done (either will do).

I'm surprised you couldn't work that out, but clearly, you couldn't,
which is shocking for such an esteemed member of the legal profession as
you make out, M'Lud.

It undermines the entire basis of having a licensing system.

What *is* the "entire basis of having a licensing system"?

Please be clear.

Of course, I doubt you can explain it, because you are too stupid to
understand things like "unacceptable risk".

I am as certain as one can be of anything that the other poster could
have provided the same response.