Cyclist with no lights or reflectors killed

On 12/08/2013 09:11, Martin Brown wrote:

On 10/08/2013 19:12, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:50:02 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 10/08/2013 11:25, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not it was dark at the time.
Do you have to celebrate every cyclist that gets killed?


I'm sorry - what on earth do you mean "celebrate"? Which particular
words have
I used which lead to that conclusion?

The thread title above and several previous posts of yours here like
your recent distasteful "cyclist killed = good result for motorist".

"Good result" was a reference to the driver not having been found guilty
of CDBDD and imprisoned.

An acquitted murder suspect might well use the same phrase, and no-one
would bat an eyelid.

Anyway, was that even a Judith thread?

It isn't Judith's style.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:01:25 +0100, Jeff wrote:

On 12/08/2013 15:41, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:46:28 +0100, Jeff wrote:


One of the regular readers here : Anchor Lee - is a Barista - he may be able to
help you.

Not unless you want a cup of coffee!!!

Jeff


Indeed - many say that that is all he is capable of: he certainly has some odd
views on the laws of the land:

But if he is a 'Barista' then making coffee is his trade not the law!!

Jeff


I think you should tell him that - next time he posts here

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/2013 11:25, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not it was dark at the time.
Do you have to celebrate every cyclist that gets killed?

For my money anyone eating, reading maps newspapers or texting whilst
driving is guilty of careless driving if they only hit street furniture or
barriers and dangerous driving if they kill or injure someone.

Someone invisible.

On 12/08/2013 18:48, John Benn wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/2013 11:25, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not it was dark at the time.
Do you have to celebrate every cyclist that gets killed?

For my money anyone eating, reading maps newspapers or texting whilst
driving is guilty of careless driving if they only hit street furniture or
barriers and dangerous driving if they kill or injure someone.

Someone invisible.

Only to the sort of car driver that closes their eyes when they see a
hazard. It was around sunset when this pillock piled into the cyclist.
His eating the sandwich whilst driving was the fundamental cause of the
accident - the lack of reflectors or rear lights on the bike was a very
convenient "get out of jail free" card for a grossly negligent motorist.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, 12 August 2013 15:44:46 UTC+1, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 05:20:23 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Monday, August 12, 2013 11:11:53 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:







"The pedals were not fitted with amber reflectors as legally required after



sunset."







The scoff-law cyclist probably contributed to his own demise.





Or probably not:



"But police vehicle examiner Phil Balderstone said the bike’s light had probably been on at the time of the crash but was faulty because it had been damaged. He could not be sure if the damage was caused before or after the crash."





A father, a firefighter, a respected member of the community,





I'm sorry - is that relevant?



The lights were "probably on" - there must there be a good chance that they

were "probably not on" then.

It's saying "It seems highly likely that the light was on, working and showing correctly and in accordance with UK-law, but as I was not there to see with my own eyes at the time, I can not attest to that with 100% certainty." You may wish to read something more into this, and it seems you have.

On 10/08/2013 22:56, Alex Heney wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:50:02 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 10/08/2013 11:25, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not it was dark at the time.
Do you have to celebrate every cyclist that gets killed?

For my money anyone eating, reading maps newspapers or texting whilst
driving is guilty of careless driving if they only hit street furniture
or barriers and dangerous driving if they kill or injure someone.

Whether it is careless driving (section 3 RTA) or dangerous driving
(section 2 RTA) has nothing to do with results.

If somebody gets killed that turns a section 2 offence into section
1, or a section 3 offence into section 2B. But it doesn't change
careless into dangerous.

What constitutes "dangerous" vs "careless" driving then in the RTA?
Momentary lapse vs persistent reports of bad driving prior to impact?

I ask because we have an interesting one locally where from time to time
visiting Americans leaving a hotel are injected onto the A19 dual
carriageway against the traffic. Is that dangerous or careless driving?
(it is hellishly dangerous for the legitimate Southbound traffic)

Same for overtaking on a blind bend, entering a roundabout going around
the wrong way or reversing down a motorway slip road are they careless
or dangerous. I am curious to establish where the threshold lies...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 12/08/2013 17:31, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:01:25 +0100, Jeff wrote:

On 12/08/2013 15:41, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:46:28 +0100, Jeff wrote:


One of the regular readers here : Anchor Lee - is a Barista - he may be able to
help you.

Not unless you want a cup of coffee!!!

Jeff


Indeed - many say that that is all he is capable of: he certainly has some odd
views on the laws of the land:

But if he is a 'Barista' then making coffee is his trade not the law!!

Jeff


I think you should tell him that - next time he posts here


Well you were the one that claimed that he was a 'Barista' !!!

Jeff

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:08:12 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

What constitutes "dangerous" vs "careless" driving then in the RTA?
Momentary lapse vs persistent reports of bad driving prior to impact?

IIUC careless driving is something that a person did(or failed to do)
unintentionally, whilst dangerous driving was caused by something the
driver did(or failed to do) deliberately. Not sure about the
distinction between "reckless" and "dangerous" however.

--
Cynic

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:22:38 +0100, Jeff wrote:

On 12/08/2013 17:31, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:01:25 +0100, Jeff wrote:

On 12/08/2013 15:41, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:46:28 +0100, Jeff wrote:


One of the regular readers here : Anchor Lee - is a Barista - he may be able to
help you.

Not unless you want a cup of coffee!!!

Jeff


Indeed - many say that that is all he is capable of: he certainly has some odd
views on the laws of the land:

But if he is a 'Barista' then making coffee is his trade not the law!!

Jeff


I think you should tell him that - next time he posts here


Well you were the one that claimed that he was a 'Barista' !!!

Jeff




Woooooosh

On 13/08/2013 12:36, Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:08:12 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

What constitutes "dangerous" vs "careless" driving then in the RTA?
Momentary lapse vs persistent reports of bad driving prior to impact?

IIUC careless driving is something that a person did(or failed to do)
unintentionally, whilst dangerous driving was caused by something the
driver did(or failed to do) deliberately. Not sure about the
distinction between "reckless" and "dangerous" however.

You're right on the distinction between "careless" (inattention) and
"dangerous" (falling well below the standard of driving required, out of
deliberate choice).

In law, the concept of recklessness is one which is applied to the
commission of an act which might or might not have a particular outcome,
in circumstances demonstrating an indifference as to whether that
possible outcome occurs. An example is throwing a brick over a high
garden fence. Statistically, it probably won't hit the greenhouse, but
it might, and since the thrower knows it might and throws it just the
same, he is acting recklessly. That's a description straight of the
textbook, more or less.