Car deliberately used as a weapon.

On 06/04/2011 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:03 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:

Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years. How
often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?

You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge for
motorists when a suitable one already exists?

So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought if
it was actually dangerous.

Speed limits are specific to using a road

No they're not, you see. As I think you very well know, speed limits do
not apply to cyclists. They apply specifically to motorists.

Speed limits also apply to the type of vehicle with reduced limits for
vans and HGVs.

So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists when a
suitable one already exists", which is just what you were criticising.
So, why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?

Quite simply, drivers cannot be trusted to drive at a reasonably safe
speed. They cannot even be trusted to drive at a legal speed.

On 06/04/2011 09:59, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 06/04/2011 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
....
So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists when a
suitable one already exists", which is just what you were criticising.
So, why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?

Quite simply, drivers cannot be trusted to drive at a reasonably safe
speed. They cannot even be trusted to drive at a legal speed.


The Road Research Laboratory recommended against viewing speed limits as
a way to keep traffic at or below the set speed. In their view, speed
limits serve two main purposes:

First, they reduce the number of vehicles that grossly exceed the set
speed, as compared to the same road witout a speed limit. Their examples
of 'grossly exceeding' quite closely match the ACPO recommendations as
to the speeds above which prosecution should automatically follow.

Second, they tend to keep traffic travelling at similar speeds. Large
speed differentials were identified as a significant contributory factor
in a series of motorway aaccidents in the early 1960s and, while sports
car testing might have been the excuse, that was the reason we got a
national speed limit.

Colin Bignell

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c2_1200064819


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Apr 6, 9:07*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:03 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:
Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years. How
often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?

You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge for
motorists when a suitable one already exists?

So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought if
it was actually dangerous.

Speed limits are specific to using a road

No they're not, you see. *As I think you very well know, speed limits do not
apply to cyclists. *They apply specifically to motorists.

Speed limits only apply to roads.

So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists when a
suitable one already exists", which is just what you were criticising. *So,
why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?

Who said they should be and how is it relevant?

The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would have
been quite adequate and where the use of a car as a weapon would be
recognised instead of being ignored.

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

On Apr 6, 8:55*am, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public and in a
stop and search most of those on your list would be considered highly
suspicious by the police. When the police pull a car, however, they do
not think "Ah! This car looks highly suspicious and could be used to
ram someone".

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

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

It is when it's used to attack someone.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Makes you wonder how chefs get to work, eh?

and in a stop and search most of those on your list would be considered
highly suspicious by the police.

Not if you had a perfectly valid reason to be carrying one.

When the police pull a car, however, they do not think "Ah! This car
looks highly suspicious and could be used to ram someone".

ITYF that most people stopped whilst driving have a perfectly valid
reason to have a car on them.

Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:07 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:

Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years.
How often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?

You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge for
motorists when a suitable one already exists?

So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought
if it was actually dangerous.

Speed limits are specific to using a road

No they're not, you see. As I think you very well know, speed limits
do not apply to cyclists. They apply specifically to motorists.

Speed limits only apply to roads.

So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists when
a suitable one already exists", which is just what you were
criticising. So, why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?

Who said they should be and how is it relevant?

The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would have
been quite adequate

So too, exactly, is speeding as an offence. Don't you think therefore that
all speed limits should be abolished as being 'soft'. Other existing laws
like those against murder or GBH are quite adequate surely?

Stop evading the point.

Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Absolute nonsense. Why don't you go away and actually read the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?

"Norman Wells" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Absolute nonsense. Why don't you go away and actually read the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?

You're surely not suggesting that Duhg should _acquaint himself with
facts and reality_ are you?

On Apr 7, 9:00*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Absolute nonsense. *Why don't you go away and actually read the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?-

Don't be silly, Norman. Why on earth would Duhg break the habit of a
lifetime and actually learn some facts? If he did as you say, he
might end his incredible record of being 100% wrong, 100% of the time,
and that would never do, would it?