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

[Wobblers]

Actually, I doubt she passed a parked car for miles. She was on a dual carriageway.

Yes, I'm sure she never ever passed a parked car at night in her entire life....

Any other desperately weak arguments for us? And was there something wrong with her headlights?

 

[Lemond]

What I have on my bike is utterly irrelevant. Was there something wrong with her headlights?

Thought so. So you're not stupid enough to ride at night without lights and reflectors. Could that be because you figure you'll be harder to see if you didn't?

 

[glenn forger]

Really? Why?

Cos you stated that a driver who killed a cyclist, ran away and didn't bother to call an ambulance had "done nothing wrong".

 

[jarlrmai]

You see a badger / dog / fox in your headlights and you hit it and you don't stop fair enough, I still think you should stop to see if it needs to be put down. If you don't know what you hit then you surely MUST stop just incase it you hit a person no matter how unlikely it seems, I have been in a car which hit a medium sized dog, a person on a bike weighing quite a lot more and higher up would have been a very noticeable collision and not something you would just drive on.

 

[Wobblers]

Thought so. So you're not stupid enough to ride at night without lights and reflectors. Could that be because you figure you'll be harder to see if you didn't?

You do realise that CC doesn't have an award category for the most unpleasant troll I hope?

Was there something wrong with her headlights?

 

[Dan B]

Is it not the case that you are legally required to report having hit a dog while driving? If so, how on earth are you going to be able to do so if you don't even know whether it was a dog?

 

[Lemond]

Because you seem to be unusually keen to exonerate drivers and blame cyclists at every opportunity, which is odd for someone calling himself "Lemond" and posting on a cycling forum and implies that you have some sort of personal agenda operating. But as McWobble keeps pointing out, your arguments are pretty feeble and you are mostly just making yourself look like a bit of an unpleasant prat, so I think I'll leave it there.

Sorry, no agenda here. And I'm not trying to exonerate anyone. I've commented on two specific instances where the drivers in question were exonerated by the legal system and have defended the legitimate reasons for those outcomes.

 

[Lemond]

Was there something wrong with her headlights?

How would I know? But I think it's safe to assume that the police will have checked?

 

[Lemond]

If you were ever hit by a car, say crossing a road at night, would you prefer it if
a) The driver stopped, called for help, and marked your location with hazard lights.
Or
b) left you in a dark road to get run over some more?

You might not believe this, but I've been hit by a car twice and in both instances the driver didn't stop. Bumps and bruisers both times, so I count myself extremely lucky. But neither of those instances, nor your hypothetical, have anything to do with the incident we have been discussing.

I happen to believe, given the circumstances, that the police were right not to charge the lady in question, and long may they be allowed to investigate and make these determinations. I don't believe that drivers involved in fatal collisions should be arrested, charged and possibly remanded by default as others suggest.

 

[Lemond]

Ok, obviously you would want to belive that a driver would come to your aid if they knocked you down. But in instance the driver honestly believed that she had hit an animal, not another human being. As did the police.

So, if you thought you had hit a fox or badger, why would you stop and check? More importantly, where on that stretch of road would you stop? There is nowhere safe to stop, there's nowhere to turnaround.

 

[Lemond]

Apologies, I appear to be repeating myself.

You know why.: Given all of the factors in play, it was a reasonable assumption for her to have made.

 

[spen666]

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.

I do comprehend that, hence why I wrote what I did.

Acting in an immoral way is not something you can be arrested for. Breaking the law is something that you can be arrested for.

Your idea of what is moral is different from someone elses, hence the reason why it would be wrong to allow people to be arrested for acting immorally rather than for breaking a law

 

[Tin Pot]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

 

[Wobblers]

How would I know? But I think it's safe to assume that the police will have checked?

It's funny, where I cycle there are no streetlights - but quite a few runners and unlit cyclists. I don't have any trouble spotting them with my measly 220 lumens - even on fast 40 mph descents. So here you are, trying to tell me that this motorist was unable to see an unlit cyclist with 4000 lumens of headlights on a road with considerably better sight lines. It rather sounds like she wasn't paying attention - or her lights were defective. Both are offences.

 

[Wobblers]

I do comprehend that, hence why I wrote what I did.

Acting in an immoral way is not something you can be arrested for. Breaking the law is something that you can be arrested for.

Your idea of what is moral is different from someone elses, hence the reason why it would be wrong to allow people to be arrested for acting immorally rather than for breaking a law

You are claiming that the legal system is both better than and superior to a code of ethics. A moment's reflection should be sufficient to understand both are wrong. Would you prefer someone not to run you down - and leave you to die through fear of getting caught or through an understanding that it is wrong?