anyone know this cyclist?

[glenn forger]

https://helenblackman.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/what-you-and-yours-did/

 

[Tin Pot]

Seriously? That's a tad melodramatic, isn't it?

They have a long history of printing lies to demonise cyclists. Wyatt is a good example, the paper eventually printed a correction after Wyatt claimed her mum had been attacked twice by cyclists. The Mail also labeled a cyclist as a hit and runner when no running whatsoever took place. They've done that twice. Simon Hoggart also claimed to have been attacked by a rider but offered zero evidence (he claimed the rider was doing thirty mph). It was the Mail that described a rider killed by a driver on the wrong side of the road as a "novice cyclist" when she was nothing of the kind. It was the Mail that allows comments that describe riders as "vermin" and "parasites" and threaten to deliberately run over cyclists. It was Simon Heffer in the Mail who called for cyclist registration, it was the Mail that chucks a few terrorism terms at those who ride their bikes to work, saying among them are ‘extremists’, ‘hard-line militants’ and ‘fundamentalists’.

Daily Mail's Honest Citizen

Daily Mail's Fundamentalist Terrorist

 

[Lemond]

https://helenblackman.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/what-you-and-yours-did/

Where do you dig these numpties up? Keep em coming. Hilarious stuff.

 

[HBlack]

Even a numpty can track back a link to their blog though

 

[Profpointy]

So, you would describe a drunk-driving collision as an "accident"?

yes, just as I'd call falling over and hitting your head while drunk an accident. The intent / culpability was being drunk driving, which should be severely punished. The accident resulting was a ( likely )outcome, but not the intent. A non accident is if someone knocks you off on purpose - drunkenly or otherwise.

If "accident" isn't an acceptable word, we need a new word. "incident" won't do, as it would cover a road rage shouting match with no harm done or a punch up, or car conked out blocki g the road. "collision" doesn't cover falling off or skidding into a field.

Police use these terms for a reason as they don't want to pre-judge

 

[Profpointy]

https://helenblackman.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/what-you-and-yours-did/

This is well worth reading. Eloquent and intelligent.

 

[glenn forger]

yes, just as I'd call falling over and hitting your head while drunk an accident. The intent / culpability was being drunk driving, which should be severely punished. The accident resulting was a ( likely )outcome, but not the intent. A non accident is if someone knocks you off on purpose - drunkenly or otherwise.

If "accident" isn't an acceptable word, we need a new word. "incident" won't do, as it would cover a road rage shouting match with no harm done or a punch up, or car conked out blocki g the road. "collision" doesn't cover falling off or skidding into a field.

Police use these terms for a reason as they don't want to pre-judge

Interesting, so if a drunk person threw a fire extinguisher off a roof and killed someone you'd describe the death as an accident?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Interesting, so if a drunk person threw a fire extinguisher off a roof and killed someone you'd describe the death as an accident?

Yes, I guess.

It's the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder. The outcome is the same, the intent is wholly different.

 

[Profpointy]

Interesting, so if a drunk person threw a fire extinguisher off a roof and killed someone you'd describe the death as an accident?

I think that's crossed the line just a bit, as the "intent" was to throw it, albeit not hit someone.

But "accidentally" dropping a fire extinguisher off a roof whilst dicking around might be an accident

 

[midlife]

An accident is not necessarily negligence .......... said Lord Denning of the Rolls

Shaun

 

[Profpointy]

An accident is not necessarily negligence .......... said Lord Denning of the Rolls

Shaun

Quite, but nor is an accident necessarily not-negligence

 

[glenn forger]

I think that's crossed the line just a bit, as the "intent" was to throw it, albeit not hit someone.

But "accidentally" dropping a fire extinguisher off a roof whilst dicking around might be an accident

You mean the fire extinguisher chucker deliberately propelled a heavy metal object where it was likely there would be people?

 

[glenn forger]

Yes, I guess.

It's the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder. The outcome is the same, the intent is wholly different.

Any death on the roads where the driver is liable should be manslaughter.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Any death on the roads where the driver is liable should be manslaughter.

I entirely agree, as it pretty much fits the definition perfectly.

 

[Profpointy]

Any death on the roads where the driver is liable should be manslaughter.

I do agree with that. Plenty of people are convicted of manslaughter for seemingly quite minor mistakes or at least major mistakes without any malice or in-a-sense intent, whilst gross idiocy driving tends to be far more leniently treated.

Trouble is, juries are reluctant to convict even for (mere) driving offences, eg that poor Polish girl killed by an overtaking doctor - got off entirely.