|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:
It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either the same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't. If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving on pavements? Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a massive difference. Mike P |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote: It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either the same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't. If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving on pavements? Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a massive difference. Mike P Doug, can you tell us, do you cycle on the footway, a yes or no answer would be ok. -- Tony Dragon |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
On 26 Sep, 09:19, "Bill" wrote:
"PeterG" wrote in message ... On Sep 26, 8:16 am, Doug wrote: A bicycle on a pavement could not possibly cause as much carnage as this car and yet cycling on pavements is all we ever hear about. "Seven children were being treated in hospital after a car ploughed into a school group in a village. A 40-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving following the incident in Worlingham, Suffolk, this afternoon. A police spokeswoman said two of the children, were seriously injured, with one having two broken legs. 8 children injured after car hit them in Worlingham The youngsters, aged nine or ten, were hit by the car as they stood outside All Saints' Church in the village shortly before 2pm. A 21- year-old man going to a funeral at the time of the incident was also hurt... ...School headteacher Mike Croft said the youngsters were year five pupils on a supervised walk aimed at introducing them to the local area. He said around 20 pupils - plus a female teacher and female teaching assistant - were walking past the village church on a pavement when the accident happened shortly before 2pm..." Read mohttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hildren-injure... -- UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. So you are saying that the motorist delibratly drove on the pavement? PeterG On the Anglia News last night that suggestion was made. *The accident occured outside a church where a funeral was taking place and it was mooted that she mounted the pavement to get round the funeral vehicles. *I can't say it for a fact, but I am sure that more details will eventually come out. Bill Apparently the funeral itself was for a road crash victim. So it goes. Of course, if the school had taken the children around the village in a couple of cars they would have avoided all this, err, wouldn't they? It makes yer think. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote: It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either the same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't. If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving on pavements? Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a massive difference. So you mean:- "Lost control" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault "Involuntarily" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault It must be comforting to the victims, and to motorists, of course. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:17:33 -0700, GutterCyclist wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote: It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either the same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't. If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving on pavements? Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a massive difference. So you mean:- "Lost control" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault "Involuntarily" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault That's clearly not what I meant. It must be comforting to the victims, and to motorists, of course. You are apparently as much of a ****wit as Bollen. Mike P |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
GutterCyclist wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote: It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either the same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't. If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving on pavements? Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a massive difference. So you mean:- "Lost control" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault "Involuntarily" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault It must be comforting to the victims, and to motorists, of course. Would you say there is a difference in a cyclist deciding to ride on the footway & a cyclist who hit a pothole & while regaining control rode on the footway? -- Tony Dragon |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
GutterCyclist wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote: It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either the same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't. If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving on pavements? Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a massive difference. So you mean:- "Lost control" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault "Involuntarily" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault A court might decide that the loss of control was the driver's fault (especially and obviously if it occurred due to a blameworthy defect in the vehicle or due to blameworthy incapacity on the part of the driver, such as being under the influence of drink or drugs), but there would not usually be any question of the vehicle's being on the footway deliberately. Or there might be no blame attached to the driver (eg, if he was suddenly injured in a crash or hit by a missile, was faced with having to serve to avoid something suddenly appearing in his path or his vehicle was deflected from its intended path by a collision). But you already know all this. It must be comforting to the victims, and to motorists, of course. Trying to pretend that black is white and vice-versa is obviously comforting to arrogant footway cyclists; that much is certain. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
On 27 Sep, 11:44, GutterCyclist wrote:
On 26 Sep, 09:19, "Bill" wrote: "PeterG" wrote in message .... On Sep 26, 8:16 am, Doug wrote: A bicycle on a pavement could not possibly cause as much carnage as this car and yet cycling on pavements is all we ever hear about. "Seven children were being treated in hospital after a car ploughed into a school group in a village. A 40-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving following the incident in Worlingham, Suffolk, this afternoon. A police spokeswoman said two of the children, were seriously injured, with one having two broken legs. 8 children injured after car hit them in Worlingham The youngsters, aged nine or ten, were hit by the car as they stood outside All Saints' Church in the village shortly before 2pm. A 21- year-old man going to a funeral at the time of the incident was also hurt... ...School headteacher Mike Croft said the youngsters were year five pupils on a supervised walk aimed at introducing them to the local area. He said around 20 pupils - plus a female teacher and female teaching assistant - were walking past the village church on a pavement when the accident happened shortly before 2pm..." Read mohttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hildren-injure... -- UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. So you are saying that the motorist delibratly drove on the pavement? PeterG On the Anglia News last night that suggestion was made. *The accident occured outside a church where a funeral was taking place and it was mooted that she mounted the pavement to get round the funeral vehicles. *I can't say it for a fact, but I am sure that more details will eventually come out. Bill Apparently the funeral itself was for a road crash victim. So it goes. Of course, if the school had taken the children around the village in a couple of cars they would have avoided all this, err, wouldn't they? It makes yer think. No children can be killed inside cars as well as outside them. In fact, transporting children at high speeds in an inadequately controlled car is a highly dangerous practice. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
On 27 Sep, 12:46, Tony Dragon wrote:
GutterCyclist wrote: On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote: It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either the same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Children injured on pavement by motorist.
On 27 Sep, 15:51, JNugent wrote:
GutterCyclist wrote: On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote: On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote: It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either the same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two pavement deaths by killer motorist who also destroyed a wall | Doug[_3_] | UK | 31 | February 27th 09 06:25 PM |
[OT] Pavement rage. | Martin[_2_] | UK | 1 | August 27th 08 03:28 AM |
Pavement motorist admits offence | David Hansen | UK | 14 | September 14th 07 04:21 PM |
Motorist drives along pavement | David Hansen | UK | 96 | April 6th 06 06:45 PM |
Get on the pavement! | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 49 | June 26th 05 09:34 AM |