Another cyclist killed

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:46:33 -0700, Doug wrote:

That way there would be at least some element of fairness applied to
vulnerable road victims who are constantly at risk from drivers and not
the other way around.

I do not agree that bike riders are "constantly" at risk from drivers.



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

On Jul 15, 8:51*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:05 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:52 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2012 21:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:15:55 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
news:66q008hd5quof7qi2n5ltrtpvnq948jq5p@4ax. com...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:03:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 18:37, Judith wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

snip

So introduce strict liability for such crashes, as in the
Netherlands.

Please could you explain what you mean by "strict liability"
in this context.

He means blaming someone who wasn't to blame and absolving the
blameworthy party/ies.

No.

It means that the trained and licenced road user is to blame
unless they can prove otherwise.

Do you think that is fair? I don't.

It seems to deliver better road safety in the Netherlands.

Does it?

Don't you think the fact that the standard of cycling in NL
(including the level of compliance with traffic law) is simply far
higher than it is here has something to do with that?

It is the much better recognition of cycling in NL as a satisfactory
mode of transport that has everything to do with it.

What seems unfair is that so many licenced road users seem to kill
with impunity.

In a just system, only the guilty are punished.

Exactly. Our system is unjust when it comes to not punishing guilty
road users.

Punishing the innocent is a
sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.

So is not punishing the guilty.

Find someone guilty (beyond any
reasonable doubt is the standard required, BTW), then you can
change his supposed "impunity" into "punity".

Don't you think that actually killing someone is beyond reasonable
doubt? In most cases, if it happened anywhere except on a road, it
would be punished appropriately.

But that won't do, will it?

You want to punish the innocent and let some of the guilty off (all
based on choice of transport mode).

That is what is happening right now. Some of those who kill on our
roads are being let off, using vulnerable victim blaming or the
false concept of an 'accident' as excuses. Anyone in charge of heavy
machinery on our roads should be held fully responsible for any harm
it causes.

Rhiannon Bennett, deliberately killed by a cyclist, he got a fine
only, was that fair?

Many drivers also get fines only so your point is?


can you point to a similar case with a car?

Why do you keep on asking silly questions?

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

On Jul 15, 9:00*am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 15/07/2012 07:37, Doug wrote:









On Jul 14, 9:00 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 14/07/2012 07:04, Doug wrote:

On Jul 13, 10:52 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2012 21:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:15:55 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
news:66q008hd5quof7qi2n5ltrtpvnq948jq5p@4ax. com...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:03:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 18:37, Judith wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

snip

So introduce strict liability for such crashes, as in the Netherlands.

Please could you explain what you mean by "strict liability" in this
context.

He means blaming someone who wasn't to blame and absolving the blameworthy
party/ies.

No.

It means that the trained and licenced road user is to blame unless
they can prove otherwise.

Do you think that is fair? *I don't.

It seems to deliver better road safety in the Netherlands.

Does it?

Don't you think the fact that the standard of cycling in NL (including the
level of compliance with traffic law) is simply far higher than it is here
has something to do with that?

It is the much better recognition of cycling in NL as a satisfactory
mode of transport that has everything to do with it.

What seems unfair is that so many licenced road users seem to kill with impunity.

In a just system, only the guilty are punished.

Exactly. Our system is unjust when it comes to not punishing guilty
road users.

Punishing the innocent is a
sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.

So is not punishing the guilty.

Find someone guilty (beyond any
reasonable doubt is the standard required, BTW), then you can change his
supposed "impunity" into "punity".

Don't you think that actually killing someone is beyond reasonable
doubt? In most cases, if it happened anywhere except on a road, it
would be punished appropriately.

But that won't do, will it?

You want to punish the innocent and let some of the guilty off (all based on
choice of transport mode).

That is what is happening right now. Some of those who kill on our
roads are being let off, using vulnerable victim blaming or the false
concept of an 'accident' as excuses. Anyone in charge of heavy
machinery on our roads should be held fully responsible for any harm
it causes.

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

Many years ago I stopped my van at a zebra crossing & a cyclist ran into
the back of me, he had pulled onto the main road after checking no
traffic was coming but forgot to look forward.

According to you it was my fault, do you think that's fair?

How badly hurt were you? Did the matter ever go to court?


No I wasn't hurt & there was no court case, but what has that to do with
who was to blame?

Blame should also be related to harm caused. Can you not see how
unfair and unethical it is to blame a cyclist for their own death when
they are hit by a car and where the driver remains unharmed?

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

Doug wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:00 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 15/07/2012 07:37, Doug wrote:









On Jul 14, 9:00 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 14/07/2012 07:04, Doug wrote:

On Jul 13, 10:52 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2012 21:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:15:55 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:03:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 18:37, Judith wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

snip

So introduce strict liability for such crashes, as in the
Netherlands.

Please could you explain what you mean by "strict
liability" in this context.

He means blaming someone who wasn't to blame and absolving
the blameworthy party/ies.

No.

It means that the trained and licenced road user is to blame
unless they can prove otherwise.

Do you think that is fair? I don't.

It seems to deliver better road safety in the Netherlands.

Does it?

Don't you think the fact that the standard of cycling in NL
(including the level of compliance with traffic law) is simply
far higher than it is here has something to do with that?

It is the much better recognition of cycling in NL as a
satisfactory mode of transport that has everything to do with it.

What seems unfair is that so many licenced road users seem to
kill with impunity.

In a just system, only the guilty are punished.

Exactly. Our system is unjust when it comes to not punishing
guilty road users.

Punishing the innocent is a
sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.

So is not punishing the guilty.

Find someone guilty (beyond any
reasonable doubt is the standard required, BTW), then you can
change his supposed "impunity" into "punity".

Don't you think that actually killing someone is beyond reasonable
doubt? In most cases, if it happened anywhere except on a road, it
would be punished appropriately.

But that won't do, will it?

You want to punish the innocent and let some of the guilty off
(all based on choice of transport mode).

That is what is happening right now. Some of those who kill on our
roads are being let off, using vulnerable victim blaming or the
false concept of an 'accident' as excuses. Anyone in charge of
heavy machinery on our roads should be held fully responsible for
any harm it causes.

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

Many years ago I stopped my van at a zebra crossing & a cyclist
ran into the back of me, he had pulled onto the main road after
checking no traffic was coming but forgot to look forward.

According to you it was my fault, do you think that's fair?

How badly hurt were you? Did the matter ever go to court?


No I wasn't hurt & there was no court case, but what has that to do
with who was to blame?

Blame should also be related to harm caused. Can you not see how
unfair and unethical it is to blame a cyclist for their own death when
they are hit by a car and where the driver remains unharmed?

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

if the crash is caused by the cyclist then it is the cyclist's fault and
therefore he should be blamed, there is nothing unfair about that. If the
crash is caused by the motorist then he will be blamed. If both are to
blame, then both will bear the blame, what is unethical about that?

What is unethical and unfair is to assume that the driver of a motor vehicle
is always responsible no matter what and therefore to blame for any crash
involving a cyclist no matter what the circumstances.

I understand that in countries with a 'driver always to blame' policy there
are many false claims made against motorists, simply because without
witnesses they will lose. The trick is to sit at the side of a quiet road
and record vehicles with single occupant, reg. no. and time, then make a
claim that they caused you to fall off and wreck your expensive bike. Can
you see how that situation would be unethical and unfair on the motorist?

Doug wrote:
On Jul 15, 8:51 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:05 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:52 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2012 21:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:15:55 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:03:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 18:37, Judith wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

snip

So introduce strict liability for such crashes, as in the
Netherlands.

Please could you explain what you mean by "strict liability"
in this context.

He means blaming someone who wasn't to blame and absolving
the blameworthy party/ies.

No.

It means that the trained and licenced road user is to blame
unless they can prove otherwise.

Do you think that is fair? I don't.

It seems to deliver better road safety in the Netherlands.

Does it?

Don't you think the fact that the standard of cycling in NL
(including the level of compliance with traffic law) is simply
far higher than it is here has something to do with that?

It is the much better recognition of cycling in NL as a
satisfactory mode of transport that has everything to do with it.

What seems unfair is that so many licenced road users seem to
kill with impunity.

In a just system, only the guilty are punished.

Exactly. Our system is unjust when it comes to not punishing
guilty road users.

Punishing the innocent is a
sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.

So is not punishing the guilty.

Find someone guilty (beyond any
reasonable doubt is the standard required, BTW), then you can
change his supposed "impunity" into "punity".

Don't you think that actually killing someone is beyond reasonable
doubt? In most cases, if it happened anywhere except on a road, it
would be punished appropriately.

But that won't do, will it?

You want to punish the innocent and let some of the guilty off
(all based on choice of transport mode).

That is what is happening right now. Some of those who kill on our
roads are being let off, using vulnerable victim blaming or the
false concept of an 'accident' as excuses. Anyone in charge of
heavy machinery on our roads should be held fully responsible for
any harm it causes.

Rhiannon Bennett, deliberately killed by a cyclist, he got a fine
only, was that fair?

Many drivers also get fines only so your point is?


can you point to a similar case with a car?

Why do you keep on asking silly questions?

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

I ask questions that you do not want to answer and there is nothing silly
about it, can you point to a similar case to the Rhiannon Bennett one, only
where a car was involved, rather than a bicycle ?

On 16/07/2012 07:34, Doug wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:00 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 15/07/2012 07:37, Doug wrote:









On Jul 14, 9:00 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 14/07/2012 07:04, Doug wrote:

On Jul 13, 10:52 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2012 21:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:15:55 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:03:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 18:37, Judith wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:

snip

So introduce strict liability for such crashes, as in the Netherlands.

Please could you explain what you mean by "strict liability" in this
context.

He means blaming someone who wasn't to blame and absolving the blameworthy
party/ies.

No.

It means that the trained and licenced road user is to blame unless
they can prove otherwise.

Do you think that is fair? I don't.

It seems to deliver better road safety in the Netherlands.

Does it?

Don't you think the fact that the standard of cycling in NL (including the
level of compliance with traffic law) is simply far higher than it is here
has something to do with that?

It is the much better recognition of cycling in NL as a satisfactory
mode of transport that has everything to do with it.

What seems unfair is that so many licenced road users seem to kill with impunity.

In a just system, only the guilty are punished.

Exactly. Our system is unjust when it comes to not punishing guilty
road users.

Punishing the innocent is a
sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.

So is not punishing the guilty.

Find someone guilty (beyond any
reasonable doubt is the standard required, BTW), then you can change his
supposed "impunity" into "punity".

Don't you think that actually killing someone is beyond reasonable
doubt? In most cases, if it happened anywhere except on a road, it
would be punished appropriately.

But that won't do, will it?

You want to punish the innocent and let some of the guilty off (all based on
choice of transport mode).

That is what is happening right now. Some of those who kill on our
roads are being let off, using vulnerable victim blaming or the false
concept of an 'accident' as excuses. Anyone in charge of heavy
machinery on our roads should be held fully responsible for any harm
it causes.

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

Many years ago I stopped my van at a zebra crossing & a cyclist ran into
the back of me, he had pulled onto the main road after checking no
traffic was coming but forgot to look forward.

According to you it was my fault, do you think that's fair?

How badly hurt were you? Did the matter ever go to court?


No I wasn't hurt & there was no court case, but what has that to do with
who was to blame?

Blame should also be related to harm caused.

Utter rubbish.

Can you not see how
unfair and unethical it is to blame a cyclist for their own death when
they are hit by a car and where the driver remains unharmed?


If the cyclist is to blame for his death, why should the driver be blamed.

According to your 'logic'.

If a cyclist causes his own death & he driver is not harmed, then it is
the drivers fault.

If the cyclist causes his own death & the driver is harmed, then it is
not the drivers fault.

If a cyclist jumps a red light on a level crossing & is killed by the
train, it is the train drivers fault.

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

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 22:17:17 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:


And would you call that fair & just, I would not.

I agree with you.

On 16/07/2012 07:34, Doug wrote:

Blame should also be related to harm caused. Can you not see how
unfair and unethical it is to blame a cyclist for their own death when
they are hit by a car and where the driver remains unharmed?

If the collision is the cyclist's own fault, it is absolutely fair to blame
him for it - he is the one to blame.

No useful purpose would be served by blaming someone whose fault it was not,
and fairness would have been thrown out of the window.

Fairness is one thing. Where you get "ethics" from is anyone's guess, because
the word has no function within the concept of blame.

On 16/07/2012 07:34, Doug wrote:


Blame should also be related to harm caused. Can you not see how
unfair and unethical it is to blame a cyclist for their own death when
they are hit by a car and where the driver remains unharmed?

That has to be the most ****ing stupid thing your feeble twisted mind
has ever come up with.

If the cyclist caused the accident he is to blame, the driver is
entirely innocent.
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Monday, July 16, 2012 7:34:44 AM UTC+1, Doug wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:00*am, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> On 15/07/2012 07:37, Doug wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 9:00 am, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >> On 14/07/2012 07:04, Doug wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 13, 10:52 pm, JNugent > wrote:
> >>>> On 13/07/2012 21:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:15:55 +0100, "John Benn"
> >>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Bertie Wooster" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:66q008hd5quof7qi2n5lt ...
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:03:53 +0100, JNugent >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 13/07/2012 18:37, Judith wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> <snip>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> So introduce strict liability for such crashes, as in the Netherlands.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Please could you explain what you mean by "strict liability" in this
> >>>>>>>>> context.
>
> >>>>>>>> He means blaming someone who wasn't to blame and absolving the blameworthy
> >>>>>>>> party/ies.
>
> >>>>>>> No.
>
> >>>>>>> It means that the trained and licenced road user is to blame unless
> >>>>>>> they can prove otherwise.
>
> >>>>>> Do you think that is fair? *I don't.
>
> >>>>> It seems to deliver better road safety in the Netherlands.
>
> >>>> Does it?
>
> >>>> Don't you think the fact that the standard of cycling in NL (including the
> >>>> level of compliance with traffic law) is simply far higher than it is here
> >>>> has something to do with that?
>
> >>> It is the much better recognition of cycling in NL as a satisfactory
> >>> mode of transport that has everything to do with it.
>
> >>>>> What seems unfair is that so many licenced road users seem to kill with impunity.
>
> >>>> In a just system, only the guilty are punished.
>
> >>> Exactly. Our system is unjust when it comes to not punishing guilty
> >>> road users.
>
> >>>> Punishing the innocent is a
> >>>> sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.
>
> >>> So is not punishing the guilty.
>
> >>>> Find someone guilty (beyond any
> >>>> reasonable doubt is the standard required, BTW), then you can change his
> >>>> supposed "impunity" into "punity".
>
> >>> Don't you think that actually killing someone is beyond reasonable
> >>> doubt? In most cases, if it happened anywhere except on a road, it
> >>> would be punished appropriately.
>
> >>>> But that won't do, will it?
>
> >>>> You want to punish the innocent and let some of the guilty off (all based on
> >>>> choice of transport mode).
>
> >>> That is what is happening right now. Some of those who kill on our
> >>> roads are being let off, using vulnerable victim blaming or the false
> >>> concept of an 'accident' as excuses. Anyone in charge of heavy
> >>> machinery on our roads should be held fully responsible for any harm
> >>> it causes.
>
> >>> -- .
> >>> A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.
>
> >> Many years ago I stopped my van at a zebra crossing & a cyclist ran into
> >> the back of me, he had pulled onto the main road after checking no
> >> traffic was coming but forgot to look forward.
>
> >> According to you it was my fault, do you think that's fair?
>
> > How badly hurt were you? Did the matter ever go to court?
>
>
> No I wasn't hurt & there was no court case, but what has that to do with
> who was to blame?
>
Blame should also be related to harm caused. Can you not see how
unfair and unethical it is to blame a cyclist for their own death when
they are hit by a car and where the driver remains unharmed?

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

Blame should be related to who is blameworthy. Can you not see how
unfair and unethical it is to blame a person for a death when
they are in noway to blame?