Another car hits wall. Nowhere is safe from these insane drivers.

Roger Thorpe wrote:
Couldn't we just invoke some sort of "law of reasonableness" here?

The motorist should take reasonable measures to protect themselves,the
pedestrian and other road users.
The cyclist should take reasonable measures to protect themselves,the
pedestrian and other road users.
The pedestrian should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
other pedestrians and road users.

The degree of reasonable measures expected is proportional to the
mental abilities and agility of the person.

and

The usenet poster should assume that other posters are making
reasonable claims unless explicitly stated otherwise.

If Doug "did" reasonable this thread would not have started.

"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

The usenet poster should assume that other posters are making
reasonable claims unless explicitly stated otherwise.

If Doug "did" reasonable this thread would not have started.

If Doug "did" reasonable, uk.* usenet groups would be a very different
place going back a lot of years...

Roger Thorpe wrote:
Couldn't we just invoke some sort of "law of reasonableness" here?

The motorist should take reasonable measures to protect themselves,the
pedestrian and other road users.
The cyclist should take reasonable measures to protect themselves,the
pedestrian and other road users.
The pedestrian should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
other pedestrians and road users.

In case anybody feels left out you should add:-
All road users should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
& all other road users.
But I expect you would mean this as well.


The degree of reasonable measures expected is proportional to the mental
abilities and agility of the person.

You mean to the best of their abilities.

and

The usenet poster should assume that other posters are making reasonable
claims unless explicitly stated otherwise.



Most do, but some posters wish to make unreasonable claims.
--

Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Couldn't we just invoke some sort of "law of reasonableness" here?

The motorist should take reasonable measures to protect themselves,the
pedestrian and other road users.
The cyclist should take reasonable measures to protect themselves,the
pedestrian and other road users.
The pedestrian should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
other pedestrians and road users.

In case anybody feels left out you should add:-
All road users should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
& all other road users.
But I expect you would mean this as well.


The degree of reasonable measures expected is proportional to the
mental abilities and agility of the person.

You mean to the best of their abilities.

and

The usenet poster should assume that other posters are making
reasonable claims unless explicitly stated otherwise.



Most do, but some posters wish to make unreasonable claims.

It's beginning to sound as if we're building a reasonableness manifesto.

"A spectre is haunting Usenet—the spectre of reasonableness. All the
powers of trolldom have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this
spectre......"

--
Roger Thorpe

....you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

On 25 June, 17:37, Tony Dragon wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Couldn't we just invoke some sort of "law of reasonableness" here?

The motorist should take reasonable measures to protect themselves,the
pedestrian and other road users.
The cyclist should take reasonable measures to protect themselves,the
pedestrian and other road users.
The pedestrian should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
other pedestrians and road users.

In case anybody feels left out you should add:-
All road users should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
& all other road users.
But I expect you would mean this as well.



The degree of reasonable measures expected is proportional to the mental
abilities and agility of the person.

You mean to the best of their abilities.



and

The usenet poster should assume that other posters are making reasonable
claims unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Most do, but some posters wish to make unreasonable claims.
--

Of course what all of this ignores is the relative destructiveness of
different vehicles at different speeds.

A ped or cyclist ramming a car is highly unlikely to injure the driver
in any way but a motorist ramming them at speed is bound to cause some
injury or even death. That is why drivers are more culpable, because
they are more harmful.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
On 25 June, 17:37, Tony Dragon wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Couldn't we just invoke some sort of "law of reasonableness" here?

The motorist should take reasonable measures to protect
themselves,the pedestrian and other road users.
The cyclist should take reasonable measures to protect
themselves,the pedestrian and other road users.
The pedestrian should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
other pedestrians and road users.

In case anybody feels left out you should add:-
All road users should take reasonable measures to protect themselves
& all other road users.
But I expect you would mean this as well.



The degree of reasonable measures expected is proportional to the
mental abilities and agility of the person.

You mean to the best of their abilities.



and

The usenet poster should assume that other posters are making
reasonable claims unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Most do, but some posters wish to make unreasonable claims.
--

Of course what all of this ignores is the relative destructiveness of
different vehicles at different speeds.

A ped or cyclist ramming a car is highly unlikely to injure the driver
in any way but a motorist ramming them at speed is bound to cause some
injury or even death.

Thus illustrating the need for the vulnerable to exercise proper caution,
obey the rules and be ready to take avoinding action in the event that
someone else makes a mistake..

That is why drivers are more culpable, because
they are more harmful.

The only person who is culpable Doug is the one who made the mistake. The
person who runs into the road without looking is the culpable one, not the
poor driver suddenly confronted with a person that he has no chance of
avoiding.

But that doesn't suit your "it's not my fault" agenda does it Doug?

Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 23 June, 17:57, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 23 June, 17:42, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
He was unable to brake in time, which is loss of proper control.

I that the same as being unable to brake in time (which is the
loss of proper control) if a car pulls in front of you?

Of course. The only difference being that if I don't brake in time
I won't kill the driver and more likely will injure myself. Quite
different to a car hitting me. See previous posts about momentum
etc.

So you now accept that, according to your view of things, it was you
who was responsible for the collision in which you failed to avoid
the car turning right across your path

Nope. The car rammed into my side and the driver admitted he hadn't
seen me. How many more times must I tell you?

I hadn't forgotten, but so what?

According to your view of the child running into the road (presumably
because he hadn't seen the car approaching) the car driver with full
priority was responsible because he failed to stop and mitigate the
child's error. Thus in the incident where you were hit by the car the
responsibility was yours to stop and so mitigate the car driver's
error of failing to see you.

Unless you're working to a double standard Doug?

in that you were travelling too fast to avoid him and
thus your injuries were self inflicted?

I was cycling slowly.

Obviously not, otherwise you would have been able to stop and avoid
the collision thus mitigating the driver's error.

No response Doug?

Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 23 June, 08:56, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 22 June, 19:09, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 22 June, 10:51, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Bod wrote:
Bod wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
He might be a careless child but in the perpetrator/victim
scenario he is the perpetrator.

My interpretation of 'perpetrator' is: someone who perpetrates
wrondoing.I wouldn't class the child (in your scenario) as a
perpetrator.

I quote (Oxford dictionary): Carry out or commit(a
harmful,illegal or immoral action).

The full OED says, "A person who perpetrates something, esp. a
crime or evil deed." Note that the crime or eveil deed is only
an "especially". One can perpetrate a deed which is beneficial.

http://dictionary.oed.com/

However, this is quibbling over a word rather that dealing with
the facts of the matter which is that a person ran into the
road, caused a collision, got hurt and is therefore both the
cause of the incident and the victim of it.

No the cause was a driver perpetrator who was going to fast to
respond to the unexpected appearance of a child victim in the
road. The comments in this thread are a classic example of a very
nasty culture of victim blaming which allows drivers to kill
people with impunity.

When you used to drive a car, what speed did you drive at, was at
or about the speed limit (or faster) or was it sufficiently slowly
that you could always stop in the event of an unexpected
appearance of a child in the road? For example, if you were
driving along a road on which 60mph was permitted did you drive at
or about 60mph or did you drive at 5mph?

You are misunderstanding again.

I'm understanding far better than you are.

Apparently not.

If I was driving too fast to be able
to stop in time and consequently killed someone I would expect to
be punished accordingly, instead of my victim being blamed for
being killed by me.

So there you are, bimbling along a country road at a nice
comfortable speed with nothing except a car parked in a layby with
the family sitting on the verge enjoying a picnic when a child
dashes into the road. What speed should you have been travelling at
and what act have you committed that requires you to be punished?

A speed which would enable you to stop in time when confronted with
the unexpected under those conditions and the very serious act
committed is one of killing a child.

Which would be what speed, expressed in miles per hour?

Regardless of speed limits, which should be much lower
anyway, anyone driving within the speed limit should be held
responsible for any loss of control of their vehicle which causes
them to kill or injure someone, particularly a vulnerable road
user.

But in this scenario the driver didn't lose control so why should he
be held responsible?

He was unable to brake in time, which is loss of proper control.

Which authority stipulates that?

No response Doug?

Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 21 June, 10:21, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 21 June, 09:14, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 20 June, 19:38, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I would suggest that 'obligation of safety' is inversely
proportional to momentum, therefore the individual can increase
the safety of others by adopting a lighter, slower vehicle or
by walking.
I think you mean "proportional", whereby more momentum carries a
greater obligation, but - yet again - you ignore the fact that
everybody else is saying that ALL road users carry an ABSOLUTE
obligation.

If it was absolute they would never travel on roads at all, for
fear of causing death or injury to other road users.

In which case nobody would travel on the roads, is that your wish?

With that in mind, what you're really saying is that the
AVOIDANCE of any obligation is inversely proportional to
momentum, whereby road users with low momentum are OK to not
give much of a ****.

What this relates to is degree of blame and culpability on roads,
the greater the momentum of the vehicle causing the crash the
greater the blame and culpability of the person controlling it,
whether it be a human body, a bicycle, a car or a truck. A simple
mathematical formula, based on momentum, could be devised to
apportion blame prior to a court hearing, instead of the present
arbitrary victim blaming which is often allowed to take place.

I see you are changing your mind (slowly), you are now referring
to the vehicle causing the accident (this vehicle could be a human
body) If there is going to be a court hearing, surely apportioning
blame is predijuical to the hearing?

Quite but this is what happens already. Problem is the blame is
often wrongly applied to the vulnerable victim, for political,
pragmatic and insurance reasons.

Can you provide an example of blame being wrongly applied to the
"vulnerable victim"?

There have been numerous examples in the past which you seem to have
conveniently forgotten,

I suffer from a very poor short term memory, it's a result of my
health problems.

including my own example where I was wrongly
blamed by the police in their written statement shortly after I had
been taken to hospital.

Did the police actually blame you or did they write a statement based
n what you told them and ask you to sign it?

Also, the subject of victim blaming crops up
frequently here and on other newsgroups.

Please provide some examples. If it happens frequently then it should
be very easy to find a few cases.

No response Doug?

Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 20 June, 00:03, "MrBitsy" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...
On 19 June, 08:23, Tony Dragon wrote:

The obligation of safety should be the same for all.

But drivers kill cyclists and not the reverse. Therefore drivers
should have a much greater obligation of safety towards cyclists.

You always state the obvious, and I doubt anyone would disagree that
a driver should drive safely, paying due regard to others they will
meet on a journey. The point is this - cyclists are softer than a
vehicle, so will likely come off worse in a collision. A cyclist
should not base thair own safety on the obligation of others. If
they do, they increase the risk of a collision happening to them.

Only when both sides take an active role in safety, will the
collision risk lessen.

Given then that drivers should have a much greater obligation of
safety towards cyclists, when a collision occurs victim blaming
should be avoided and instead replaced by killer/injurer blaming.

How about blaming the person responsible, even when they are the one
who has come off worse? What useful purpose does apportioning blame
serve?
Rather than apportion blame, what's wrong with establishing the
cause/s of the incident and finding ways to prevent it happening
again?

No response Doug?