Yet another car smashed into a house.

On 03/06/2011 10:28, Mrcheerful wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:07:09 +0100,
wrote:

On 03/06/2011 09:31, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:21:24 +0100,
wrote:

Doug wrote:

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-13632970

Let's look at the facts in full shall we:

man gets drunk at party
drunk man has row / fight at the party
drunk man lies to friend to obtain car keys
drunk man crashes into house next door to party
drunk man is arrested the scene
drunk man refuses / is unable to complete a breath test
man is prosecuted for culpable and reckless driving
man receives an interim driving ban (full sentencing is deffered
until later this month for background reports)
man has lost his job (he was a van driver)
motor insurance covers the cost of the repairs to the houses that
were damaged

Are there any of those facts with which you don't agree?

Which steps in that process would you like to remove?

What additional steps do you think should be present?

Doctors should be required to take blood samples from unconscious or
incapable of consent drivers at the request of a senior police
officer for testing for blood/alcohol, so long as it won't impede
the suspect's treatment.

I bet he was only using his unconsciousness as an excuse, eh?

No - but it is absurd that drunk drivers can get off a charge of drunk
driving by doctors saying they are incapable of giving consent to a
blood/alcohol test.

they don't get off, failing to provide is effectively the same as giving an
over the limit sample. Taking blood without consent is illegal unless it is
needed to save the subject's life.



Paramedics can't take blood from, or treat anyone who refuses consent,
even if their life is at risk. The strategy is too wait till they pass
out & ask again :-)

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 03/06/2011 18:03, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 03/06/2011 06:56, Doug wrote:
They just keep on happening don't they. You are not safe even in your
own home from motorists and their car-weapon,

rubbish snipped

UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

I would like to report that I dropped a hammer today, it fell on the
garden and damaged a rose, can you imagine what would have happened if a
cyclist was hiding under that rose.


Hammer weapons should be banned.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

On 03/06/2011 18:43, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
...


motorists and their car-weapon,

"car-weapon" LOL.... you're starting to sound like Millie Tant in the
Viz comic.

More like Malcolm & Cressida Wright-Prat.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR.

wrote:
On 03/06/2011 10:28, Mrcheerful wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:07:09 +0100,
wrote:

On 03/06/2011 09:31, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:21:24 +0100,
wrote:

Doug wrote:

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-13632970

Let's look at the facts in full shall we:

man gets drunk at party
drunk man has row / fight at the party
drunk man lies to friend to obtain car keys
drunk man crashes into house next door to party
drunk man is arrested the scene
drunk man refuses / is unable to complete a breath test
man is prosecuted for culpable and reckless driving
man receives an interim driving ban (full sentencing is deffered
until later this month for background reports)
man has lost his job (he was a van driver)
motor insurance covers the cost of the repairs to the houses that
were damaged

Are there any of those facts with which you don't agree?

Which steps in that process would you like to remove?

What additional steps do you think should be present?

Doctors should be required to take blood samples from unconscious
or incapable of consent drivers at the request of a senior police
officer for testing for blood/alcohol, so long as it won't impede
the suspect's treatment.

I bet he was only using his unconsciousness as an excuse, eh?

No - but it is absurd that drunk drivers can get off a charge of
drunk driving by doctors saying they are incapable of giving
consent to a blood/alcohol test.

they don't get off, failing to provide is effectively the same as
giving an over the limit sample. Taking blood without consent is
illegal unless it is needed to save the subject's life.



Paramedics can't take blood from, or treat anyone who refuses consent,
even if their life is at risk. The strategy is too wait till they
pass out & ask again :-)

I was chatting to a policeman once who had worked in an East End area that I
knew well, he had been called to a disturbance in 'The Telegraph' a man had
received a blow to the head from a machete, he had a large lump of head
missing, but refused to leave and sat there drinking till he passed out,
then the ambulance staff could take him and the bit of head away. That hard
man image eh?

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Jun 3, 3:49*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Would you like to meet Doug? *You could sit next to him and talk to him.
The nice lady will be round soon with some tea and tablets.

After she has finished tending your needs of course.


Oh hello, hello - it's the holiday maker - still having a fantastic time I
see.

Simple really.

--
Simple Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
This includes exceeding the speed limit past three schools. A total disregard for the well-being of vulnerable road users.
The actions of a true psycholist.

On 03/06/2011 20:20, wrote:
On 03/06/2011 09:08, francis wrote:
On Jun 3, 6:56 am, wrote:
They just keep on happening don't they.

Well no they don't, but you know that.

You are not safe even in your
own home

I feel quite safe, and I am sure the stats will back me up, have you
got those stats?
I'm sure you must have them because of all your postings.

from motorists and their car-weapon,

Where do you buy these car weapons, who makes them, can you provide a
link.

There is the elderly Austin AK47, the BMW MP5, the Fiat Uzi....

You forgot
http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/...35-drakken.htm

On Jun 3, 12:43*pm, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:26:04 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Do you remember what you wrote? Or why you wrote it?
I wrote:

I expect the daily number of pedestrian road deaths in Europe greatly
outnumbers those killed by e-coli.

Interestingly, and somewhat off-topic, conspiracy theorists are
claiming that people allied to the meat industry have deliberately and
wrongly attributed the e-coli to vegetables, when in fact it is due to
meat.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/06/480373.html

My point was that the e-coli deaths are getting a huge amount of air
time and, presumably, investigation. The daily pedestrian deaths get
little air time, and probably far less investigation.

Back on topic, obviously the Precautionary Principle should be applied
equally to road deaths as it is to any other cause of death. The
difference being, however, that in the case of road deaths the cause
is not sought to be eliminated but instead the victims are told to
seek their own protection. Hence the world-wide slaughter on our roads
continues apace.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On Jun 3, 12:43 pm, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:26:04 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Do you remember what you wrote? Or why you wrote it?
I wrote:

I expect the daily number of pedestrian road deaths in Europe greatly
outnumbers those killed by e-coli.

Interestingly, and somewhat off-topic, conspiracy theorists are
claiming that people allied to the meat industry have deliberately and
wrongly attributed the e-coli to vegetables, when in fact it is due to
meat.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/06/480373.html

Nonsense. It comes from ****. And because **** is widespread, anything can
be contaminated with it.

Organic vegetable produce is in fact a very likely carrier. You see, ****
is organic and natural, and therefore regarded by some lunatics as
wholesome, pure and sustainable. It is therefore used widely in organic
production. If it's not the cause of the German outbreak, it will be the
cause of some other before long. It's absolutely inevitable.


My point was that the e-coli deaths are getting a huge amount of air
time and, presumably, investigation. The daily pedestrian deaths get
little air time, and probably far less investigation.

Back on topic, obviously the Precautionary Principle should be applied
equally to road deaths as it is to any other cause of death.

Shouldn't the precautionary principle also apply to all vegetables? Surely
they should all be removed from the shelves until long term studies over
several years have proved that they're safe?

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 06:10:48 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Tom Crispin considered Fri, 03 Jun 2011
12:49:40 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 10:28:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:07:09 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 03/06/2011 09:31, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:21:24 +0100,
wrote:

Doug wrote:

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-13632970

Let's look at the facts in full shall we:

man gets drunk at party
drunk man has row / fight at the party
drunk man lies to friend to obtain car keys
drunk man crashes into house next door to party
drunk man is arrested the scene
drunk man refuses / is unable to complete a breath test
man is prosecuted for culpable and reckless driving
man receives an interim driving ban (full sentencing is deffered
until later this month for background reports)
man has lost his job (he was a van driver)
motor insurance covers the cost of the repairs to the houses that
were damaged

Are there any of those facts with which you don't agree?

Which steps in that process would you like to remove?

What additional steps do you think should be present?

Doctors should be required to take blood samples from unconscious or
incapable of consent drivers at the request of a senior police
officer for testing for blood/alcohol, so long as it won't impede
the suspect's treatment.

I bet he was only using his unconsciousness as an excuse, eh?

No - but it is absurd that drunk drivers can get off a charge of drunk
driving by doctors saying they are incapable of giving consent to a
blood/alcohol test.

they don't get off, failing to provide is effectively the same as giving an
over the limit sample. Taking blood without consent is illegal unless it is
needed to save the subject's life.

No.

A friend of mine was well over the legal limit for driving when he
crashed and wrote off his Citron DS.

He was taken to Addenbrokes Hospital. The police were told that he
could not give consent for a blood sample for testing. It was two days
before he came out of his coma. When interviewed he told police that
he couldn't recall the crash. There was not sufficient evidence to
charge him with a crime.

Had the police been able to take a blood sample at a convienient time
after the crash without risk to his safety, they would have been able
to charge him with drunk driving.

Could they not have charged him with failure to provide a specimen?

That is a particularly daft question.

How could he be charged with failure to provide a specimen when he
wasn't asked to provide a specimen, and he wasn't asked to provide a
specimen because he was unconscious.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 11:09:49 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 06:10:48 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:


Could they not have charged him with failure to provide a specimen?

That is a particularly daft question.

How could he be charged with failure to provide a specimen when he
wasn't asked to provide a specimen, and he wasn't asked to provide a
specimen because he was unconscious.



Have you not experienced Mr Lee and his understanding of legal matters before?

--
If the *******s won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
Phil W Lee 6 February 2011