Pavement motorist admits offence

I see from http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/in...?id=1458092007
that the motorist who killed one pedestrian and severely injured
another, while they were walking along the pavement, has admitted
culpable homicide. Sentencing will follow reports.

The usual trolls in uk.toospot are very keen to tell us of the evils
of pavement cycling, but I have yet to hear of a case where a
pavement cyclist caused such injuries.

This is by no means the only case either.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/arti...c=sport&id=729 reveals
that another one, sentenced to "eight years", has been wandering
around the area of his crime less than three years after he killed a
pedestrian. Justice? Certainly not, it is disgusting. No wonder
people hold the whole "justice" system in contempt.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
I see from http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/in...?id=1458092007
that the motorist who killed one pedestrian and severely injured
another, while they were walking along the pavement, has admitted
culpable homicide. Sentencing will follow reports.

David, not only are you OT, but you are trolling again. Where does it
say that he was intentionally driving on the pavement???

After losing control, which the article states happened in this case,
where you end up is in the lap of the gods - so does not qualify in the
same way as a deliberate action.

The usual trolls in uk.toospot are very keen to tell us of the evils
of pavement cycling, but I have yet to hear of a case where a
pavement cyclist caused such injuries.

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

This is by no means the only case either.

It isn't even /a/ case.

You'll have to try harder than that to justify deliberate, illegal,
pavement cycling.

--
Matt B

On 12 Sep, 15:48, Matt B wrote:
Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Local scally nearly knocked my head off while blasting down the
pavement outside my house on a scooter a year or so back, only reason
it didnt cause injuries is because I heard it at the last minute and
stopped within inches.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:28 +0100, Matt B
wrote:


Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Deliberate, dangerous pavement driving. It happens.

Death:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5360766.stm

Injury:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/ind...989&docID=3557

Near miss:
http://archive.oxfordmail.net/1999/9/4/81440.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/144_10066.htm

So what would an apologist counter with, I wonder? "They weren't using
the pavement to get from A to B (unlike pavement cyclists), but
deliberately aimed at the victims, so it makes no difference whether
they were on the road or the pavement. And besides, it wasn't
deliberate, it was an act of passion over which they had no control. I
win!"

Over to you, TB.

Marc Brett wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:28 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Deliberate, dangerous pavement driving. It happens.

And, if the evidence exists, is treated as deliberate aggression - as it
should be.

So what would an apologist counter with, I wonder?

An apologist for what? Counter what?

"They weren't using
the pavement to get from A to B (unlike pavement cyclists),

So they don't count either then - do they.

but
deliberately aimed at the victims, so it makes no difference whether
they were on the road or the pavement.

No. They were deliberate aggressive acts - and, on the whole, treated
accordingly - not merely as motoring offences.

And besides, it wasn't
deliberate, it was an act of passion over which they had no control.

Why wasn't it treated so then?

I win!"

Hardly - have you ever? ;-)

At least you appear to recognise the non-too-subtle difference between
the deliberate pavement cyclist and the actions that their apologists
here futilely offer as comparable.

Now try again - we were looking for accidental (i.e. /not/ deliberate)
injuries caused by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by motorists.

--
Matt B

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:16:06 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Marc Brett wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:28 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Now try again - we were looking for accidental (i.e. /not/ deliberate)
injuries caused by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by motorists.

"Deliberate", or "/non/ deliberate"? How can anyone play the game if
the goalposts keep moving?

Marc Brett wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:16:06 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Marc Brett wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:28 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Now try again - we were looking for accidental (i.e. /not/
deliberate) injuries caused by the illegal deliberate use of the
pavement by motorists.

"Deliberate", or "/non/ deliberate"? How can anyone play the game if
the goalposts keep moving?

They are'nt.

Try reading:
Deliberate use of pavement resulting in non deliberate injuries.

Pretty simple really!

pk

Marc Brett wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:16:06 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Marc Brett wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:28 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Have you ever heard of a case where a deliberate pavement motorist
caused any injuries?

Now try again - we were looking for accidental (i.e. /not/ deliberate)
injuries caused by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by motorists.

"Deliberate", or "/non/ deliberate"? How can anyone play the game if
the goalposts keep moving?

Stop wriggling, they are set in stone.

The challenge is clear: to find examples of accidental injuries caused
by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by pavement motorists.

--
Matt B

paranoid bob wrote:

What's uk.toospot? (I don't get it.)



There was a typo in that. See:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Uk.transport

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:15:47 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

The challenge is clear: to find examples of accidental injuries caused
by the illegal deliberate use of the pavement by pavement motorists.

Deliberate pavement parking causes damage to pavements, which in turn
causes pedestrians to trip on the broken surface, which in turn keeps a
small army of nofeenowin solicitors in gravy. Sadly, it's the councils
who pay, not the vandals themselves.