The family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Wobblers

Euthermic
Location
Minkowski Space
So if you know the area, you should have no problem understanding how a cyclist dressed in dark clothing, with no lights and no reflectors wouldn't stand out...and that you can drive along that stretch of road and see a dead badger, fox or deer almost every day of the week.

A person on a bike is much larger than a badger - or a deer. This particular motorist had already managed to succeed in not crashing into a large number of unlit cars on her journey - many of which are black - so the "can't see something dark" excuse lacks credence. So I ask again: was there something wrong with her headlights?
 

Lemond

Senior Member
Location
Sunny Suffolk

animals have that really annoying habit of running out in front of cars. It's not like they just sit there in the middle of the road where they are easy to see and avoid.
 

Wobblers

Euthermic
Location
Minkowski Space
Why go back and check if you thought you had hit an animal? Besides, as was pointed out previously, this is an unlit dual carriageway with no places to stop safely.

So you're now suggesting that it's perfectly fine to leave an animal that you've hit to die or suffer? Far less a human being? You show a remarkable lack of compassion, so it's more than a little hypocritical to bang on about morality (and in any case the risk to others is very small).
 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
The legal system is - at least supposedly - based on a system of ethics. That is why it has support from the general public. I suppose I ought not to be surprised that a lawyer doesn't comprehend that. Or that you should try to deflect the argument in this manner.
And, of course, any ''Samaritan'' law could only be introduced to reflect the aim of introducing a law that fits with a moral purpose, and fits in with a common moral code, in this case, the active protection of the victim. Because - damned morality - that's what the law should be about.
 

Wobblers

Euthermic
Location
Minkowski Space
animals have that really annoying habit of running out in front of cars. It's not like they just sit there in the middle of the road where they are easy to see and avoid.

That cyclist did not "run out in front of cars". He was there to be seen, on the road. Where headlights would have picked him out. Have you any other strawman arguments?
 

Lemond

Senior Member
Location
Sunny Suffolk
A person on a bike is much larger than a badger - or a deer. This particular motorist had already managed to succeed in not crashing into a large number of unlit cars on her journey - many of which are black - so the "can't see something dark" excuse lacks credence. So I ask again: was there something wrong with her headlights?

Unlit cars? What are you talking about? The accident happened at around 11:30pm.
 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
So someone drives into something they can't see on a road where they can't stop because of the danger of other people driving into them so they drive on? That's not driving, that's being driven *along the road they erroneously thought they were driving along.

EDIT: *and blindly so.
 

Lemond

Senior Member
Location
Sunny Suffolk
I'm just at a loss to know why you feel the need to jump through so many hoops to defend her. Perhaps you have had a similar accident yourself?

Nope. Not at all. You might need to go back a few pages, but you'll see how and why this particular incident started to be discussed.
 
Top Bottom