Cyclist mows down another cyclist and scarpers

Justin wrote:
On 1 jun, 11:58, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Justin" wrote in message

...

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off.
Were it to be due to the lack of identity marks, we would not read
of hit and runs by cars.

If cars weren't identifiable, we wouldn't read about hit-and-runs by
cars? That makes no sense.

Try again.
Assume (for the purposes of this post) that the reason for this
cyclist skipping off was the lack of identity marks. The implication
is that he would not have skipped if those marks were to have been
applied to his bicycle.
If that reasoning were correct, one would not expect to read about so
many instances of drivers "hitting and running" - cars all have, after
all, identity marks.

Consider the relatively small number of bicycles on the road, then consider
how often they clear off sharpish from the damage and injury they have
caused, particularly when they have mown down a pedestrian.

If all bicycles on the road had clear identifying marks it is likely that
more lawbreakers would be apprehended.

On 01/06/2013 11:21, Justin wrote:

"Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Justin" wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:
Justin wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote:

Same old story, down a hill too fast, ploughs into another cyclist
causing serious injury and the lack of identity marks means he skips
off sharpish.

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off.

Perhaps he did not have fridge-freezer insurance?

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off. Nor
do I.

OK, so why don't you list a few reasons why he "skipped off" after causing a
serious injury to another cyclist, that a court may accept as mitigation?

Why should I? I have posted nothing about mitigation, nothing about a
court case and nothing condoning the action.
I only posted that it is not possible for a contributor to this worthy
forum to know what the reason was for this cyclist skipping off. The
fact that you are asking me what the reason could have been is proof
of that lack of knowledge.

Theoretically at least, it would never be possible for a court to know
why anyone (let's say a driver) left the scene of an accident.

But it is still the case that failing some injury and being carted off
in ambulance, leaving the scene ("failing to stop") would result in a
conviction because there would be no *reasonable* doubt that the
scarpering was done in a effort to avoid detection. The jury or bench
would simply exercise common sense and ask themselves what possible
legitimate reason there could have been.

On 01/06/2013 11:26, Mrcheerful wrote:
Justin wrote:
On 1 jun, 11:58, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Justin" wrote in message

...

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off.
Were it to be due to the lack of identity marks, we would not read
of hit and runs by cars.

If cars weren't identifiable, we wouldn't read about hit-and-runs by
cars? That makes no sense.

Try again.
Assume (for the purposes of this post) that the reason for this
cyclist skipping off was the lack of identity marks. The implication
is that he would not have skipped if those marks were to have been
applied to his bicycle.
If that reasoning were correct, one would not expect to read about so
many instances of drivers "hitting and running" - cars all have, after
all, identity marks.

Consider the relatively small number of bicycles on the road, then consider
how often they clear off sharpish from the damage and injury they have
caused, particularly when they have mown down a pedestrian.

If all bicycles on the road had clear identifying marks it is likely that
more lawbreakers would be apprehended.

Indeed.

Not all of them, but more of them.

"Justin" wrote in message
...
On 1 jun, 11:58, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Justin" wrote in message

...

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off. Were
it to be due to the lack of identity marks, we would not read of hit
and runs by cars.

If cars weren't identifiable, we wouldn't read about hit-and-runs by
cars?
That makes no sense.

Try again.
Assume (for the purposes of this post) that the reason for this
cyclist skipping off was the lack of identity marks. The implication
is that he would not have skipped if those marks were to have been
applied to his bicycle.
If that reasoning were correct, one would not expect to read about so
many instances of drivers "hitting and running" - cars all have, after
all, identity marks.

So it wouldn't be a case of "we would not read of hit and runs by cars" but
"we would read about less instances of hit and runs by cars". It's much more
understandable when you use the right words in the right order.

On 1 June, 11:17, Justin wrote:
On 1 jun, 11:58, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:

"Justin" wrote in message

...

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off. Were
it to be due to the lack of identity marks, we would not read of hit
and runs by cars.

If cars weren't identifiable, we wouldn't read about hit-and-runs by cars?
That makes no sense.

Try again.
Assume (for the purposes of this post) that the reason for this
cyclist skipping off was the lack of identity marks. The implication
is that he would not have skipped if those marks were to have been
applied to his bicycle.
If that reasoning were correct, one would not expect to read about so
many instances of drivers "hitting and running" - cars all have, after
all, identity marks.

What has a cyclist doing a runner got to do with any motorists, an
attempt to divert the blame perhaps?

On 1 jun, 16:40, ennemm wrote:
On 1 June, 11:17, Justin wrote:





On 1 jun, 11:58, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:

"Justin" wrote in message

...

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off. Were
it to be due to the lack of identity marks, we would not read of hit
and runs by cars.

If cars weren't identifiable, we wouldn't read about hit-and-runs by cars?
That makes no sense.

Try again.
Assume (for the purposes of this post) that the reason for this
cyclist skipping off was the lack of identity marks. The implication
is that he would not have skipped if those marks were to have been
applied to his bicycle.
If that reasoning were correct, one would not expect to read about so
many instances of drivers "hitting and running" - cars all have, after
all, identity marks.

What has a cyclist doing a runner got to do with any motorists, an
attempt to divert the blame perhaps?

The comparison was between identifiable and non-identifiable vehicles.
No attempt to shift blame, just to show that being identifiable does
not stop people leaving the svene of an accident

"Justin" wrote in message
...

On 1 jun, 16:40, ennemm wrote:
On 1 June, 11:17, Justin wrote:





On 1 jun, 11:58, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:

"Justin" wrote in message

...

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off.
Were
it to be due to the lack of identity marks, we would not read of hit
and runs by cars.

If cars weren't identifiable, we wouldn't read about hit-and-runs by
cars?
That makes no sense.

Try again.
Assume (for the purposes of this post) that the reason for this
cyclist skipping off was the lack of identity marks. The implication
is that he would not have skipped if those marks were to have been
applied to his bicycle.
If that reasoning were correct, one would not expect to read about so
many instances of drivers "hitting and running" - cars all have, after
all, identity marks.

What has a cyclist doing a runner got to do with any motorists, an
attempt to divert the blame perhaps?

The comparison was between identifiable and non-identifiable vehicles.
No attempt to shift blame, just to show that being identifiable does
not stop people leaving the svene of an accident

Is svene a Dutch word?

On 1 jun, 18:00, "Partac" wrote:
"Justin" *wrote in message

...

On 1 jun, 16:40, ennemm wrote:





On 1 June, 11:17, Justin wrote:

On 1 jun, 11:58, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:

"Justin" wrote in message

...

You have no information regarding the reason that he skipped off.
Were
it to be due to the lack of identity marks, we would not read of hit
and runs by cars.

If cars weren't identifiable, we wouldn't read about hit-and-runs by
cars?
That makes no sense.

Try again.
Assume (for the purposes of this post) that the reason for this
cyclist skipping off was the lack of identity marks. The implication
is that he would not have skipped if those marks were to have been
applied to his bicycle.
If that reasoning were correct, one would not expect to read about so
many instances of drivers "hitting and running" - cars all have, after
all, identity marks.

What has a cyclist doing a runner got to do with any motorists, an
attempt to divert the blame perhaps?

The comparison was between identifiable and non-identifiable vehicles.
No attempt to shift blame, just to show that being identifiable does
not stop people leaving the svene of an accident

Is svene a Dutch word?
No. I am typing on a phone and my fingers are too large for the keys.
I meant scene. Sorry.
The s and v are next to each other.

"Justin" wrote in message
...

No. I am typing on a phone and my fingers are too large for the keys.
I meant scene. Sorry.


The s and v are next to each other.

On what keyboard layout are the "S" and "V" next to each other?

On 1 jun, 19:14, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Justin" wrote in message

...

No. I am typing on a phone and my fingers are too large for the keys.
I meant scene. Sorry.
The s and v are next to each other.

On what keyboard layout are the "S" and "V" next to each other?

The c and the v. Sorry