# "Somehow I got too close to him..."



## briantrumpet (22 Oct 2016)

Yet another case of a jury not having the guts to give a guilty verdict on a driver:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....country-lane/story-29829794-detail/story.html

"Thomas told the jury she was on her way to post Christmas cards but was not in a hurry and was a careful driver with no points on her licence.She said she had only beeped twice to let the bicyclist know she was there and had not driven too close to the bicycle deliberately. She said she had learned to drive on the very road where the accident happened, which is narrow and bendy and known locally as Curly Lane. She said:"The cyclist proceeded down the lane. It was obvious he was taking the racing line and trying to straighten out the corners. Somehow I got too close to him and the side of my car hit the back of his bicycle. I did not think I was that close. I was shocked and surprised. I lost sight of him and the bicycle because he fell over. I was going very slowly. I must have been closer to him than I thought I was. I was aware he was shouting but it did not seem to me he was screaming or in a lot of pain. I don't know why I carried on but as soon as I realised what I had done I turned around and came back." She said she had made a remark about mirrors but she was not angry. She said she had asked the police about whether the rider had been breath tested and their response was to breathalyse her."


----------



## TheJDog (22 Oct 2016)

What the...


----------



## Roadrider48 (22 Oct 2016)

How can you not think you are not too close to the cyclist and then hit them?
She must be half blind!


----------



## briantrumpet (22 Oct 2016)

Roadrider48 said:


> How can you not think you are not too close to the cyclist and then hit them?
> She must be half blind!


They sound like the excuses of a driver who was actually thinking "Bloody cyclist getting in my way.... won't stop and let me squeeze through... toot, toot, toot.... still in my way.... let's see if I can squeeze through anyway.... "


----------



## Keith Oates (22 Oct 2016)

After reading 'the express and echo' report she should at least be banned from driving for some time and also pay for damages to the rider and the bike.!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tin Pot (22 Oct 2016)

"
Thomas <the accused> allegedly drove on but returned shortly afterwards and said:"You were in my way, don't you have mirrors?".

She left again but passed the scene on her way home when she saw three police cars and stopped to ask an officer: "Has he been breathalysed yet?""


Hanging is too good for them.


----------



## Apollonius (22 Oct 2016)

And the jury did not convict. This is justice?


----------



## PeteXXX (22 Oct 2016)

_Thomas, of Bolham, near Tiverton, denies dangerous driving but has admitted the lesser offence of careless driving._
The prosecution has a week to decide if it wants a retrial. Hopefully, it does!


----------



## swee'pea99 (22 Oct 2016)

Apollonius said:


> And the jury did not convict. This is justice?


"Bloody cyclists."


----------



## briantrumpet (22 Oct 2016)

PeteXXX said:


> _Thomas, of Bolham, near Tiverton, denies dangerous driving but has admitted the lesser offence of careless driving._
> The prosecution has a week to decide if it wants a retrial. Hopefully, it does!


The problem is that so many trials like this have ended up with dangerous driving prosecutions ending up with careless driving convictions (even when people have died) that they might think it's not worth the expense and effort. And so the message that it's OK kill cyclists is reinforced...


----------



## BrynCP (22 Oct 2016)

> It was obvious he was taking the racing line and trying to straighten out the corners



So 1) Why didn't she hold back, and 2) I do this, but mostly to make sure I am seen and can see around the corners before it's too late. Nothing to do with "racing line".

I think perhaps they should have breathalysed the jury with that decision.


----------



## raleighnut (22 Oct 2016)

runs a cyclist off the road and drives off and the jury don't think she's guilty.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Oct 2016)

He's taking the racing line and straightening out the corners yet while she still thought she was travelling slowly she caught up and sideswiped him. 

God knows what she considers driving fast then?


----------



## Lonestar (22 Oct 2016)

Never heard racing line before.More like a sensible primary position.


----------



## davidphilips (22 Oct 2016)

I did not think I was that close. I was shocked and surprised. if there was any real justice she should be shocked and surprised again with a prison sentence only then would the message of cycle awareness start to prevail.


----------



## Drago (22 Oct 2016)

I can't see the problem whatever line he takes. The width of her car is taking all these lines at once and she's oblivious to it.


----------



## GGJ (22 Oct 2016)

Obviously the Exeter jury are of the anti-cycling brigade


----------



## Apollonius (22 Oct 2016)

The assumption is that the car driver has rights to do whatever, and that the cyclist has none. What can we do?


----------



## DCLane (22 Oct 2016)

In other words he was blocking her way down a narrow lane. She was in a hurry and because he didn't stop and let her by when she repeatedly hooted at him she simply shoved him out of the way and went past without a care in the world.

Except when the police were there when obviously it was all his fault.


----------



## fossyant (22 Oct 2016)

Nothing surprises me. Folk who leave the scene should have the book thrown at them. They are full of excuses.

All he can do is make a big dent on her insurance !


----------



## briantrumpet (22 Oct 2016)

DCLane said:


> In other words he was blocking her way down a narrow lane. She was in a hurry and because he didn't stop and let her by when she repeatedly hooted at him she simply shoved him out of the way and went past without a care in the world.
> 
> Except when the police were there when obviously it was all his fault.


If only you'd done the summing up...


----------



## Ajax Bay (22 Oct 2016)

Persuade the Mid Devon Star to report this (as well), drawing on the court proceedings, so her neighbours can inform themselves.


----------



## uclown2002 (22 Oct 2016)

Beyond parody...............


----------



## Lonestar (22 Oct 2016)

Drago said:


> I can't see the problem whatever line he takes. The width of her car is taking all these lines at once and she's oblivious to it.



Well I meant my comment in the wrong way.Motorists will tend to squeeze past if you are too far to the left.How many Billion times has this been done?

Bet this one would have tried it as well.

It's a strange comment "I wasn't in a hurry" probably having the opposite meaning.

This is why I don't trust motorists,they will try anything as well as cyclists in the CS 2 cycle lane.


----------



## mjr (22 Oct 2016)

Apollonius said:


> The assumption is that the car driver has rights to do whatever, and that the cyclist has none. What can we do?


Ask all your friends and family to ask all their friends to pass cyclists wide because stories like this are scary?


----------



## Stinboy (22 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Ask all your friends and family to ask all their friends to pass cyclists wide because stories like this are scary?



I don't have any friends and 80% of my family are under 10 years of age so don't drive


----------



## davidphilips (22 Oct 2016)

mjr said:


> Ask all your friends and family to ask all their friends to pass cyclists wide because stories like this are scary?



good advice, know what i think is a lot worse than someone in a vehicle passing to close, someone like Thomas who was driving to close behind the cyclist if the cyclist had fell of for any reason? well i know i really hate it when some nit drives really close behind me i would rather they just overtook me, when this happens to me and the driver stays behind me for any time i just slow right down and even stop.


----------



## mjr (22 Oct 2016)

davidphilips said:


> well i know i really hate it when some nit drives really close behind me i would rather they just overtook me, when this happens to me and the driver stays behind me for any time i just slow right down and even stop.


Good point. There's been some coverage recently of 1.5m overtaking width gap, but maybe we need similar reminders to motorists that they should stay at least 2 seconds behind until they pull out to overtake?


----------



## raleighnut (22 Oct 2016)

What I don't get is if the guy was descending a twisty road and taking a 'racing line' is how the woman managed to catch him up in a car without doing a 'Sabine Scmidtz' impersonation, before I broke my leg (in a non-cycling accident BTW) I'd have beaten just about anything downhill on a road with bendy bits.

Sounds to me like she stuck the car up the inside of him (whilst braking for a bend) in a stupid attempt to 'get past' leaving him with no space to get round a corner..............................................acceptable on a race track (with run off) but no way to drive on a public highway.


----------



## briantrumpet (23 Oct 2016)

The cynical part of me also wonders if the 'carer' bit is there as an excuse to say that she couldn't possible carry on her saint-like work without being able to drive her car, hoping the bit that she drives her car into cyclists can be overlooked...


----------



## mjr (23 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> The cynical part of me also wonders if the 'carer' bit is there as an excuse to say that she couldn't possible carry on her saint-like work without being able to drive her car, hoping the bit that she drives her car into cyclists can be overlooked...


Was she trying to create more work for people in her career?


----------



## Drago (23 Oct 2016)

Shame she didn't care as devotedly for people on 2 wheels.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Oct 2016)

One of the biggest issues is the problem that often it is the act, not the consequence that is considered in the Court


The consequences can and in the past have been seen as irrelevant to the actual case

Go round a blind bend at 70mph and get away with it........you are committing exactly the same offence as going round a blind bend at 70mph and clipping a pedestrian or cyclist you haven't seen


----------



## briantrumpet (23 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> Go round a blind bend at 70mph and get away with it........you are committing exactly the same offence as going round a blind bend at 70mph and clipping a pedestrian or cyclist you haven't seen


That reminds me of a time a nurse overtook me at speed on a completely blind RH bend (in other words, her line of sight was even worse than mine) on one of those country roads without a white line that can _just_ squeeze two cars past each other. Fortunately for all of us nothing was coming the other way, otherwise we'd all have been in the papers.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> That reminds me of a time a nurse overtook me at speed on a completely blind RH bend (in other words, her line of sight was even worse than mine) on one of those country roads without a white line that can _just_ squeeze two cars past each other. Fortunately for all of us nothing was coming the other way, otherwise we'd all have been in the papers.



Which in turn reminds me of a drunk driver who was killed when he drove down the wrong side of the A19 trunk road and collided head-on with a nurse coming the other way in a VW Golf.

She survived, although was clearly limping when she came to court to give evidence at the inquest.

To be fair to the drunk's widow, she had the good grace to apologise to the nurse for what her husband had done.

I think the widow felt partly responsible because her husband had taken to the road after they had had a row.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Oct 2016)

I can't remember the exact details, but there was a Nurse who was caught speeding several times and exceeded the 12 points

She pointed out that as a Senior Sister in a neurological theatre she was an integral part of the team to the point that if she could not drive, then cases would have to be delayed or cancelled

She kept her license and it was in the local press

She was in fact a junior member of staff and had no key role, and someone shopped her to the NMC for unprofessional conduct - they investigated and she was suspended


----------



## jarlrmai (24 Oct 2016)

Where are these courts that are just taking defendants word for it?


----------



## TrishnBonnie (24 Oct 2016)

Apollonius said:


> The assumption is that the car driver has rights to do whatever, and that the cyclist has none. What can we do?


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Oct 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> Where are these courts that are just taking defendants word for it?



The case in question was a trial at crown court.

The defendant would have given her occupation, and the fact that she was of previous good character and had no driving convictions, as part of her evidence.

She will have been cross-examined, but realistically only about her evidence of the incident itself.

Prosecutors will have had access to her record, so that's a matter of checkable fact.

Stuff like her occupation, marital status, etc is taken on trust, but one might think as evidence it's very peripheral to the case which is all about her standard of driving.


----------



## briantrumpet (24 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> The case in question was a trial at crown court.
> 
> The defendant would have given her occupation, and the fact that she was of previous good character and had no driving convictions, as part of her evidence.
> 
> She will have been cross-examined, but realistically only about her evidence of the incident itself.


I suppose that if she falsely testified about her occupation in order to try to get off (or a lighter sentence), that is perjury? Courts take a dimmer view of that than killing cyclists...


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 Oct 2016)

raleighnut said:


> acceptable on a race track (with run off)



It's not even acceptable there!

Shocking driving, and an even worse attitude


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> I suppose that if she falsely testified about her occupation in order to try to get off (or a lighter sentence), that is perjury? Courts take a dimmer view of that than killing cyclists...



Giving false evidence is perjury, which people are sometimes charged with.

If you think about it, perjury happens all the time at a trial.

Person A says one thing, Person B says the opposite - both cannot be true so someone is lying, and usually wilfully so rather than being honestly mistaken.

But in this case it's a red herring, she will be a carer if that's what she said she was.

Something else that doesn't really matter, but in the interests of accuracy: 'carer' is capable of different meanings.

I've used the the term 'occupation', but I don't know that, when she said 'carer' to the jury she may have meant she's a carer for an elderly relative.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (24 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Which in turn reminds me of a drunk driver who was killed when he drove down the wrong side of the A19 trunk road and collided head-on with a nurse coming the other way in a VW Golf.
> 
> She survived, although was clearly limping when she came to court to give evidence at the inquest.
> 
> ...



Should have to blow into a tube to start a car, instead of turning a key. Would solve lots of issues.


----------



## briantrumpet (24 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> But in this case it's a red herring, she will be a carer if that's what she said she was.


I was thinking about the post about someone claiming to be a Senior Sister when she was nothing of the sort. Agreed, in the OP case, a 'carer' covers a wide range of situations.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> I was thinking about the post about someone claiming to be a Senior Sister when she was nothing of the sort.



That referred to mitigation at sentence which is a different kettle of fish because it has an impact on level of sentence.

We are at the jury stage with this one.

Were you a juror, would you take much account of what she did for a living one way or the other?

I wouldn't, my focus would be on trying to assess whether she drove dangerously or not.


----------



## oldroadman (24 Oct 2016)

Has anyone reading this had the experience of waiting behind a bike when driving for a safe overtake when a proper (I recall the Eddy Merckx comment - when passing give a rider space to fall off) gap - 2 metres or so - is available. Then chummy behind is all over the back bumper hooting, gesticulating the usual self-abuser sign, pushing to "make progress" and getting fed up being slowed for a few seconds. Inevitably after the safe overtake they seem to skim the rider and at the first opportunity rush past other vehicles. It's a world of "me first and stuff the rest" ever since the loadsofmoney boys and girls of the 80's and 90's were seen as heroes by certain politicians. despite getting a bit older I'm glad I grew up and started riding when things were generally a bit better mannered and safer.


----------



## mickle (24 Oct 2016)

TrishnBonnie said:


> View attachment 148988





Wow, that's primary and then some!


----------



## briantrumpet (24 Oct 2016)

mickle said:


> Wow, that's primary and then some!


Oh dear - I do enough riding in France that I wondered what you were on about for a few moments...


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Oct 2016)

oldroadman said:


> Has anyone reading this had the experience of waiting behind a bike when driving for a safe overtake when a proper (I recall the Eddy Merckx comment - when passing give a rider space to fall off) gap - 2 metres or so - is available. Then chummy behind is all over the back bumper hooting, gesticulating the usual self-abuser sign, pushing to "make progress" and getting fed up being slowed for a few seconds. Inevitably after the safe overtake they seem to skim the rider and at the first opportunity rush past other vehicles. It's a world of "me first and stuff the rest" ever since the loadsofmoney boys and girls of the 80's and 90's were seen as heroes by certain politicians. despite getting a bit older I'm glad I grew up and started riding when things were generally a bit better mannered and safer.



Sad but true.

I've never been badly boosted on a bike, but when following one in my car I have been bollocked by the driver behind for leaving too much space and for not squeezing past the cyclist.


----------



## TrishnBonnie (24 Oct 2016)

I was riding along with panniers, camping gear, pip in the front basket and Bonnie trotting alongside (on a cycling/jogging lead attached to my waist) lots of cars overtaking giving plenty of room when a woman driver beeped behind, Bonnie jumped out of her skin but is used to traffic so kept going....she then stopped ahead and said where was I going she would take the dogs for me, very insistant and she had previously stopped going the opposite way and said the same thing and I'd said no thank you. I wasn't so polite the second time.

As if I'd hand my dogs over and wave them off


----------



## Tin Pot (24 Oct 2016)

How does a citizen complain to the justice system?


----------



## briantrumpet (24 Oct 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> How does a citizen complain to the justice system?


With difficulty, as 'the justice system' has so many parts.

At the moment the practical outcomes are sending entirely the wrong message to people driving potentially lethal modes of transport, so it's really in the hands of the politicians who can shift laws and sentencing guidelines to make adjustments, whether in the laws themselves, or in sentencing guidelines. The message at the moment is that it's relatively OK to kill with your car through inattention.


----------



## briantrumpet (24 Oct 2016)

User said:


> Although it has to have the potential to have a substantive material effect on the outcome for it to be perjury - not every lie under oath is considered perjury.


Quite so, otherwise the whole process would grind to a halt. But blatantly lying about one's occupation to get leniency I would imagine would not be so readily overlooked by a judge.


----------



## mjr (24 Oct 2016)

oldroadman said:


> Has anyone reading this had the experience of waiting behind a bike when driving for a safe overtake when a proper (I recall the Eddy Merckx comment - when passing give a rider space to fall off) gap - 2 metres or so - is available. Then chummy behind is all over the back bumper hooting, gesticulating the usual self-abuser sign, pushing to "make progress" and getting fed up being slowed for a few seconds.


Stop. Get out of car. Point at chummy behind and signal for him to stop. Open boot. Lift boot floor. Remove wheel brace. Close boot. Walk to chummy behind. Smash windscreen with wheel brace. Return to car at a canter and drive off.

Yeah, I know it probably wouldn't end well, one way or another, but I can dream!


----------



## Drago (24 Oct 2016)

Or just turn up the stereo and ignore chummy.


----------



## wheresthetorch (24 Oct 2016)

One of my favourites when being tailgated is to very obviously move the driver's mirror round to a 90 degree angle, making it obvious I can no longer see them!


----------



## DaveReading (25 Oct 2016)

GGJ said:


> Obviously the Exeter jury are of the anti-cycling brigade



Well not all of them, or they would have been able to return a verdict. They weren't.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2016)

I can never understand the concept of perjury

On the simplest basis where someone deliberately gives a systematic false testimony then -fine


However in all the cases where someone defends themselves with a lie... why is that not perjury?


----------



## Buddfox (25 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> I can never understand the concept of perjury
> 
> On the simplest basis where someone deliberately gives a systematic false testimony then -fine
> 
> ...



Common sense? Unless we are expecting all guilty defendants to just 'fess up at the start of the case, then we can presume at some point they are lying. Wasting a bunch of money for a perjury prosecution to add a few months to someone's sentence is not going to act as a deterrent on this, I wouldn't have thought.


----------



## raleighnut (25 Oct 2016)

Buddfox said:


> Common sense? Unless we are expecting all guilty defendants to just 'fess up at the start of the case, then we can presume at some point they are lying. Wasting a bunch of money for a perjury prosecution to add a few months to someone's sentence is not going to act as a deterrent on this, I wouldn't have thought.


I think they add that bit on for pleading 'not guilty', people do seem to get a lighter sentence if they plead guilty at the start.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2016)

Buddfox said:


> Common sense? Unless we are expecting all guilty defendants to just 'fess up at the start of the case, then we can presume at some point they are lying. Wasting a bunch of money for a perjury prosecution to add a few months to someone's sentence is not going to act as a deterrent on this, I wouldn't have thought.




So at what point does lying become perjury?


----------



## briantrumpet (26 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> So at what point does lying become perjury?


I would guess that most of the conflicting testimonies would be hard to _prove_ that it wasn't faulty memory (I'm reading a book at the moment, The Idiot Brain, which is dealing with how our brains alter memories without our consent, plus, of course, there's The Invisible Gorilla). I think where it turns into perjury when someone makes a definitive statement about personal circumstances where they have with forethought tried to mislead the judge and jury, either in the case itself, or in the sentencing.


----------



## DaveReading (26 Oct 2016)

raleighnut said:


> I think they add that bit on for pleading 'not guilty', people do seem to get a lighter sentence if they plead guilty at the start.



Other way round. The sentence that is handed down is reduced if the defendant has pleaded guilty, with the amount of the reduction dependent on how early the guilty plea is received. 

Some defendants only change their plea to guilty on the day of the trial, having waited in the hope that witnesses might not show up and the case then collapses.


----------



## mjr (26 Oct 2016)

DaveReading said:


> Some defendants only change their plea to guilty on the day of the trial, having waited in the hope that *witnesses might not show up* and the case then collapses.


I have visions of defendants' supporters hanging around cycle routes in their cars...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (26 Oct 2016)

All the usual signs: aggression, hooting, tailgating, verbal abuse, leaving the scene. Then the last ditch "he must be drunk" to shift the blame before coming up with that load of bullshit. If a jury can't see through that load of twaddle they should be hung!


----------



## Poacher (26 Oct 2016)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> All the usual signs: aggression, hooting, tailgating, verbal abuse, leaving the scene. Then the last ditch "he must be drunk" to shift the blame before coming up with that load of bullshit. If a jury can't see through that load of twaddle they should be hung!


Er..yes, the jury _was _hung.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Oct 2016)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> All the usual signs: aggression, hooting, tailgating, verbal abuse, leaving the scene. Then the last ditch "he must be drunk" to shift the blame before coming up with that load of bullshit. If a jury can't see through that load of twaddle they should be hung!



The defendant admitted careless driving, which the jury knew.

Their task was to decide if the driving was not merely careless, but dangerous - in the legal context of the word.

That's not such an easy task given that you are trying to interpret the difference between two legal definitions which themselves are a bit woolly.


----------



## jarlrmai (26 Oct 2016)

careless and dangerous are such subjective terms it's beyond me why we have laws that are based on peoples definition of them.


----------



## Profpointy (26 Oct 2016)

User said:


> I actually believe that the definitions of the two offences are actually quite sufficient. The problem is that driving standards have become so poor that the norm itself has moved...



I do feel that it is especially true for hitting (or killing) cyclists. The Clarksonites / Daily Mail constant repetition of "wobblin about all over the place" "don't pay any effin road tax" and too frequently "they make a mess if you run them over but it serves them right" has an isideous influence on what people believe. "lycra lout" is now no longer someone's husband or daughter but a sub-human mere nuisance


----------



## briantrumpet (26 Oct 2016)

User said:


> the norm itself has moved...


But the Norm never moves!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (27 Oct 2016)

How easy can it be? A driver doesn't 'somehow' hit every lamp post on the way to post Xmas cards. Driver used the horn to bully then shunted him out of the way.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (27 Oct 2016)

Poacher said:


> Er..yes, the jury _was _hung.



With real ropes? Cool!


----------



## Stinboy (29 Oct 2016)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> With real ropes? Cool!



That would be hanged.

I am a fully paid up member of the pedantic grammar police


----------



## briantrumpet (29 Oct 2016)

Stinboy said:


> That would be hanged.
> 
> I am a fully paid up member of the pedantic grammar police


Ah, is that the same as a paid-up member? 

I know from experience that being a pedant has its perils...


----------



## Phaeton (29 Oct 2016)

Stinboy said:


> That would be hanged.


Education required I always wondered why somebody was hanged & not hung


----------



## briantrumpet (29 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> Education required I always wondered why somebody was hanged & not hung


I guess that the 'hanged' meaning gives a clear indication of the fate of the deaded person. (That form/meaning has been around since the 15th century, BTW.)


----------



## Tin Pot (29 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> So at what point does lying become perjury?



When the falsehood is material to the judicial proceeding, and is made deliberately and whilst under oath.

Essentially.


----------



## Stinboy (29 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> Ah, is that the same as a paid-up member?
> 
> I know from experience that being a pedant has its perils...



I'll get me coat


----------



## Phaeton (29 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> I guess that the 'hanged' meaning gives a clear indication of the fate of the deaded person. (That form/meaning has been around since the 15th century, BTW.)


I was thinking of in the past tense, they are still referred to as hanged, not hung, always thought it strange, but then grammar is not my forte


----------



## briantrumpet (29 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> I was thinking of in the past tense, they are still referred to as hanged, not hung, always thought it strange, but then grammar is not my forte


'Hang', of course, is the common form of the present tense, but the differentiation of the past tense (hung/hanged) helps give clarity to the person's fate without using extra words. And if you want to get in the subjunctive as well, you can say "...that he be hanged".


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Oct 2016)

Stinboy said:


> I am a fully paid up member of the pedantic grammar police



Luckily not a member of the punctuation police, otherwise you would have to turn yourself in.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (30 Oct 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> Luckily you are not a member of the punctuation police, otherwise you would have to turn yourself in.


----------



## Buddfox (30 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> I was thinking of in the past tense, they are still referred to as hanged, not hung, always thought it strange, but then grammar is not my forte



I was taught that the difference arises depending on whether the verb is referring to a thing or a person. So if you are talking about a picture, or a coat, or a towel, then it is 'hung', but if you are talking about a person then you use 'hanged'.


----------



## Drago (30 Oct 2016)

User said:


> It is just a convention.


----------



## briantrumpet (30 Oct 2016)

Buddfox said:


> I was taught that the difference arises depending on whether the verb is referring to a thing or a person. So if you are talking about a picture, or a coat, or a towel, then it is 'hung', but if you are talking about a person then you use 'hanged'.


I think you've been taught wrongly, in that case. The OED definition of 'hanged': "Put to death by hanging by the neck." I other words of you tied someone's legs together and hung them from a tree, they haven't been hanged from the tree, but hung. (Apologies for the connotations of the imagery.)


----------



## Buddfox (30 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> I think you've been taught wrongly, in that case. The OED definition of 'hanged': "Put to death by hanging by the neck." I other words of you tied someone's legs together and hung them from a tree, they haven't been hanged from the tree, but hung. (Apologies for the connotations of the imagery.)



Fair enough


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> I think you've been taught wrongly, in that case. The OED definition of 'hanged': "Put to death by hanging by the neck." I other words of you tied someone's legs together and hung them from a tree, they haven't been hanged from the tree, but hung. (Apologies for the connotations of the imagery.)




There was also the tradition of the Gibbet. 

Here the punishment continued beyond death where the body was "preserved" and left as a reminder to others who would commit similar offences. Again the body was "hung"


----------



## briantrumpet (30 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> There was also the tradition of the Gibbet.
> 
> Here the punishment continued beyond death where the body was "preserved" and left as a reminder to others who would commit similar offences. Again the body was "hung"


Isn't that what they did to people who put the arms of their sunglasses inside their helmet straps?


----------



## Apollonius (30 Oct 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> Isn't that what they did to people who put the arms of their sunglasses inside their helmet straps?


Massively off topic, so apologies for that, but there is a good reason for having the arms on the outside. It prevents the glasses digging into the eye if you have an off. They just go off on their own.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> I can't remember the exact details, but there was a Nurse who was caught speeding several times and exceeded the 12 points
> 
> She pointed out that as a Senior Sister in a neurological theatre she was an integral part of the team to the point that if she could not drive, then cases would have to be delayed or cancelled
> 
> ...



Perjury surely?


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Oct 2016)

400bhp said:


> Perjury surely?



Ironically that was the essential reason for her suspension

She gave misleading evidence about her Nursing under oath and that was considered sufficient to remove her registration and stop her practicing


----------



## briantrumpet (9 Feb 2017)

£450 and eight points. Knocked him off ('accident', of course) and drove over his hand. http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....ear-tiverton/story-30124888-detail/story.html


----------



## DaveReading (9 Feb 2017)

"During a short court case Mr Harper said Thomas had hooted repeatedly and driven close behind him before the accident and when she returned shortly after the crash said: 'You were in my way, don't you have mirrors?' "


----------



## Tin Pot (9 Feb 2017)

briantrumpet said:


> £450 and eight points. Knocked him off ('accident', of course) and drove over his hand. http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....ear-tiverton/story-30124888-detail/story.html



The law once again failing to protect its citizens.

What would likely be the sentence if someone was in someone's way on the street and wouldn't move out of the way. If that someone then knocked them to the floor and smashed their hand in with a hammer. Then came back a while later and abused them.

Would it be a £450 fine?


----------



## briantrumpet (9 Feb 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> The law once again failing to protect its citizens.
> 
> What would likely be the sentence if someone was in someone's way on the street and wouldn't move out of the way. If that someone then knocked them to the floor and smashed their hand in with a hammer. Then came back a while later and abused them.
> 
> Would it be a £450 fine?


Quite so. If she had driven according to the Highway Code (i.e., carefully, and what she is licensed to do), there would have been no 'accident'. The bar, yet again, is clearly too low. There is no real disincentive to driving like a dick around cyclists and injuring/killing them.


----------

