Another day, another dead cyclist, another pathetic sentence

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I think that the straight answer to the question


'Does the law treat killing a cyclist seriously enough?'

is probably no, and for the same reason as killing a pedestrian; as a society we seem to believe that these accidents are inevitable.

I'd go further and suggest the police don't even investigate cyclists's deaths or violence on the roads properly:




http://cyclistneedshelp.blogspot.com/20 ... uilty.html

And why do you think that's the case (ignoring the police part)?

Do you think the law treats any road deaths seriously enough (other car users, cyclists, pedestrians)?

Do you think it's possible to practically reduce road-deaths to zero?

Do you think that if the penalty for killing someone on the road was 12 years in prison that would make any difference?

You misunderstand how this forum, and human relationships for that matter, work if you post abuse and then demand answers to questions I've already addressed.

Google "Vision Zero Sweden" to see how having a stated aim of reducing road deaths to zero can have spectacular results.

And stop abusing people you disagree with.

Why won't you answer the questions?

Dilema is a troll and deserves what he asks for.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I think that the straight answer to the question


'Does the law treat killing a cyclist seriously enough?'

is probably no, and for the same reason as killing a pedestrian; as a society we seem to believe that these accidents are inevitable.

I'd go further and suggest the police don't even investigate cyclists's deaths or violence on the roads properly:




http://cyclistneedshelp.blogspot.com/20 ... uilty.html

And why do you think that's the case (ignoring the police part)?

Do you think the law treats any road deaths seriously enough (other car users, cyclists, pedestrians)?

Do you think it's possible to practically reduce road-deaths to zero?

Do you think that if the penalty for killing someone on the road was 12 years in prison that would make any difference?

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I think that the straight answer to the question


'Does the law treat killing a cyclist seriously enough?'

is probably no, and for the same reason as killing a pedestrian; as a society we seem to believe that these accidents are inevitable.

I'd go further and suggest the police don't even investigate cyclists's deaths or violence on the roads properly:




http://cyclistneedshelp.blogspot.com/20 ... uilty.html

Read the thread properly before asking questions I've already dealt with.

W1

You've dealt with only the first part- you've just said "no" - well why do you think that, and what would you prefer? What would make you happy brekkie?

Why are you so scared of giving and explaining your own opinion? Because you can't find anything to copy & paste to answer my speccific questions? Come on brekie, think up something yourself:

Do you think the law treats any road deaths seriously enough (other car users, cyclists, pedestrians)? brekkie - no

Do you think it's possible to practically reduce road-deaths to zero? brekkie - no answer

Do you think that if the penalty for killing someone on the road was 12 years in prison that would make any difference? brekkie - no answer

How about a few more:

What should the penalty be (in your opinion)?

What do you think prison is for (and does it work)?

You rant and rave about this, surely you've got some solutions and suggestions?

mybreakfastconsisted

Try, please at least try, to cut down on the abuse.

Any culpable killer driver gets a life driving ban. No ifs, no buts, they had a chance to demonstrate they are a capable driver and they failed.

I'd also scrap the fines and introduce short bans.

Any driver on a mobile has the mobile confiscated. No ifs, no buts.

Any uninsured driver has the car impounded there and then.

I'd see Section 59 implemented a lot more, anyone using a vehicle to intimidate or threaten or bully or harass loses the car.

Presumed Liability introduced so any cyclist who collides with a pedestrian is presumed at fault, and the same principal replicated all the way up the chain.

20 mph limits on all urban residential roads enforced by humps, camers and ANPR to detect other crimes as well as speeding. These are proven to reduce casualties:

Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of:

— Total accidents -56 per cent

— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent

— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent

— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent

— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 57ap80.htm

And, since you seem reluctant to use Google:

Does the Vision Zero work?

Does the Vision Zero work? The Swedish Experience

The Vision Zero approach to road safety is highly effective. Sweden has one of the world’s lowest traffic-related fatality rates - and the statistics clearly show that safety does not compromise mobility. On the contrary, increased mobility actually depends on effective road safety.

More traffic, fewer fatalities

Traffic volume and fatality rates are partly linked to changes in economic growth. But we can clearly see that road deaths have continued to decrease despite a steady rise in traffic. This chart shows the growth in traffic volume (blue) and recorded traffic fatalities (yellow) from 1950 to the present day.

Huge potential

There are other positive effects. Fatalities involving unprotected pedestrians in Sweden have fallen by almost 50% in the last five years. The number of children killed in traffic accidents has also been cut. In 2008 the first traffic death involving a child did not occur until 22 October that year. And yet, the untapped potential remains huge. In Sweden, we could cut the death toll by a further 90% if we could eliminate technical system failures, failure to wear seat belts, speeding and drink driving - from 5 deaths per 100,000 to 0.5. This is what the Vision Zero is about: looking forward and creating strategies to take safety to new levels.

http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/en/ ... zero-work/

Aiming at Zero Road Deaths produces spectacular results. There is no room for complacency as long as every school class in this country will see a member killed or seriously injured on the roads, and the single most common cause of death for children under 14 in this country is the motor car.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

...stuff.

Now that is what makes debate interesting - opinions and ideas, not rehashed unattributed copy & pastes. I don't agree with all of your suggestions, but I do agree with many (with some limitations). For example I like the idea of confiscating someone's mobile. But I find S.59 to be law enforcement at it's most gross. Ditto I find presumed liability a dangerous and legally frightening theory.

However what I'd be really interested in is your express opinions on the questions I raised because what this thread is about is the penalties for killer drivers.

dilemna

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

...stuff.

Now that is what makes debate interesting - opinions and ideas, not rehashed unattributed copy & pastes. I don't agree with all of your suggestions, but I do agree with many (with some limitations). For example I like the idea of confiscating someone's mobile. But I find S.59 to be law enforcement at it's most gross. Ditto I find presumed liability a dangerous and legally frightening theory.

However what I'd be really interested in is your express opinions on the questions I raised because what this thread is about is the penalties for killer drivers.

And you have the nerve to call me a troll :roll: ! You have been downright rude making nasty personal slurs toward MBC who I have to say has showed remarkable restraint to your onslaught of derision and petty insults. Have you ever heard play the ball not the man? Simply being rude to people who disagree with you is not very attractive.

W1

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

...stuff.

Now that is what makes debate interesting - opinions and ideas, not rehashed unattributed copy & pastes. I don't agree with all of your suggestions, but I do agree with many (with some limitations). For example I like the idea of confiscating someone's mobile. But I find S.59 to be law enforcement at it's most gross. Ditto I find presumed liability a dangerous and legally frightening theory.

However what I'd be really interested in is your express opinions on the questions I raised because what this thread is about is the penalties for killer drivers.

And you have the nerve to call me a troll :roll: ! You have been downright rude making nasty personal slurs toward MBC who I have to say has showed remarkable restraint to your onslaught of derision and petty insults. Have you ever heard play the ball not the man?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I twisted logic in the helmet debate.

As for your posts on this thread - poor but blatent trolling, and you know it.

dilemna

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

...stuff.

Now that is what makes debate interesting - opinions and ideas, not rehashed unattributed copy & pastes. I don't agree with all of your suggestions, but I do agree with many (with some limitations). For example I like the idea of confiscating someone's mobile. But I find S.59 to be law enforcement at it's most gross. Ditto I find presumed liability a dangerous and legally frightening theory.

However what I'd be really interested in is your express opinions on the questions I raised because what this thread is about is the penalties for killer drivers.

And you have the nerve to call me a troll :roll: ! You have been downright rude making nasty personal slurs toward MBC who I have to say has showed remarkable restraint to your onslaught of derision and petty insults. Have you ever heard play the ball not the man?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I twisted logic in the helmet debate.

As for your posts on this thread - poor but blatent trolling, and you know it.

What an arrogant unpleasant sod you are. Have a little more respect and sensitivity to those reading this thread who might be related to or be friends of cyclists who have been killed or very seriously injured on the roads. I am sure your family and friends would like to see any errant driver who knocked you down whilst you were cycling (you do cycle don't you?) killing you or leaving you in a PVS, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced with the full force of the law. I find your assertion that these types of accidents just happen or that they are inevitable, nothing but offensive. The majority of responses to the thread title agree that the sentence was not severe or for long enough.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

...stuff.

Now that is what makes debate interesting - opinions and ideas, not rehashed unattributed copy & pastes. I don't agree with all of your suggestions, but I do agree with many (with some limitations). For example I like the idea of confiscating someone's mobile. But I find S.59 to be law enforcement at it's most gross. Ditto I find presumed liability a dangerous and legally frightening theory.

However what I'd be really interested in is your express opinions on the questions I raised because what this thread is about is the penalties for killer drivers.

Patronising?

Check.

Personal attacks?

Check. What are you talking about "unattributed quotes"?

Why do you repeatedly ignore the posts I've made about killer drivers and then claim I haven't mentioned them?

You're trolling, and you're not very good at it, saying "I disagree" without saying why is daft.

Making up quotes other people have never said is dishonest.

Demanding answers I've already given is trolling.

W1

dilemna wrote:

What an arrogant unpleasant sod you are. Have a little more respect and sensitivity to those reading this thread who might be related to or be friends of cyclists who have been killed or very seriously injured on the roads. I am sure your family and friends would like to see any errant driver who knocked you down whilst you were cycling (you do cycle don't you?) killing you or leaving you in a PVS, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced with the full force of the law. I find your assertion that these types of accidents just happen or that they are inevitable, nothing but offensive. The majority of responses to the thread title agree that the sentence was not severe or for long enough.

If you've bothered to read the thread, rather than just troll it, you'd have noticed that I did too.

What the thread is about is what we consider to be a justifiable punishment for a driver killing a cyclist - what you've done is to make pointless comments which add nothing. In fact you made a poor joke on page 1 of this thread. And the rest of your posts in this thead added nothing except trolling. So you're not in any position to talk about sensitvity or respect, are you?

So you're not going to back up your accusation on the helmet thread - how unsurprising. And now you're making another unfounded accusation. I've never said in this thread that these types of accidents are inevitable, but again, you'll duck out of actually providing any evidence to support your accusation no doubts.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Why do you repeatedly ignore the posts I've made about killer drivers and then claim I haven't mentioned them?

You're trolling, and you're not very good at it, saying "I disagree" without saying why is daft.

Making up quotes other people have never said is dishonest.

Demanding answers I've already given is trolling.

If you're going to continue to ignore the questions (which you haven't answered, at least not that I have seen) then we're not actually going to understand each others perspectives (which, if you actually dealt directly with what I'd asked - rather than answering what you'd like to have been asked - we might actually agree on).

I'm not demanding anything, but if you've answered these exact questions before then it won't be hard for you to answer them again, will it? And if you don't want to answer them just say so, it's no skin off my nose but it does say a lot about you.

So are we going to get a straight answer or not?

Oh, and to add - I'm sorry if you feel my response was patronising. It genuinely wasn't my intention. And I am happy to go into details as to why I disagree with some of your solutions, but perhaps you can address what I asked first?.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

......

20 mph limits on all urban residential roads enforced by humps, camers and ANPR to detect other crimes as well as speeding. These are proven to reduce casualties:.....

Unless of course you are in need of an ambulance which can'rt get to you in time because of speed humps OR you have a spinal injury and are paralysed for life caused by ambulance transporting you going over a speed hump.

Spped humps can cause more problems than they cure and their implementation needs to be on an individual basis after considering BOTH sides of the issue - ie the negative consequences as well as the benefits

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Try, please at least try, to cut down on the abuse.....

Its a little hypocritical isn't it from the man who has been banned from this forum more times than anyone else

You seem oblivious to your own use of abuse, but call other for abusing you if they simply disagree with your view of life

Drysuitdiver

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

......

20 mph limits on all urban residential roads enforced by humps, camers and ANPR to detect other crimes as well as speeding. These are proven to reduce casualties:.....

Unless of course you are in need of an ambulance which can'rt get to you in time because of speed humps OR you have a spinal injury and are paralysed for life caused by ambulance transporting you going over a speed hump.

Spped humps can cause more problems than they cure and their implementation needs to be on an individual basis after considering BOTH sides of the issue - ie the negative consequences as well as the benefits

exactly.

even the narrow wheelbase humps are no good as WVM and mental 7.5 tonne driver can still abuse them.


Pinchpoints are even worse and cause problems for cyclists as we get even closer overtakes by the impatient barstewards

mybreakfastconsisted

Drysuitdiver wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

......

20 mph limits on all urban residential roads enforced by humps, camers and ANPR to detect other crimes as well as speeding. These are proven to reduce casualties:.....

Unless of course you are in need of an ambulance which can'rt get to you in time because of speed humps OR you have a spinal injury and are paralysed for life caused by ambulance transporting you going over a speed hump.

Spped humps can cause more problems than they cure and their implementation needs to be on an individual basis after considering BOTH sides of the issue - ie the negative consequences as well as the benefits

exactly.

even the narrow wheelbase humps are no good as WVM and mental 7.5 tonne driver can still abuse them.


Pinchpoints are even worse and cause problems for cyclists as we get even closer overtakes by the impatient barstewards

I agree about pinchpoints, but the "Speed bumps delay ambulances and cause injuries" is an urban myth :




http://london.greenparty.org.uk/news/417

mybreakfastconsisted

The London Ambulance Service deny making the claim that road humps cost 500 lives a year in London;·

The London Ambulance Service had no detailed research to support a claim that road humps cost lives through delays

;Evidence from serving ambulance crews pointed to congestion as the main reason for delays.·


;Road humps are a cheap and effective way of reducing speeds on residential roads.



Ibid.

davmaggs

please, no-one else reply to this nut. Logging in with different usernames just to keep this thread going is mad enough, but the hopeless copy and pasting is verging on illness. Sadly it keeps drawing in others who think that reason will work.

Don't feed the trolls.

mybreakfastconsisted

davmaggs wrote:

please, no-one else reply to this nut. Logging in with different usernames just to keep this thread going is mad enough, but the hopeless copy and pasting is verging on illness. Sadly it keeps drawing in others who think that reason will work.

Don't feed the trolls.

I haven't got any other user names and I don't think I'm ill or a nut or a troll.

The "speed bumps kill" myth seems to have gained a life of its own, I think just posting the link wouldn't have made it clear where the myth came from, I can just post the links if that would be easier?

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can just post the links if that would be easier?

God yes.

Shame you're not going to answer my questions though.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can just post the links if that would be easier?

God yes.

Shame you're not going to answer my questions though.

What questions do you think I've missed?

You asked what I'd to improve road safety, what I'd do with drivers who kill, what could make the roads safer. As far as I can see I've given you the answers, what do you think I've missed?

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can just post the links if that would be easier?

God yes.

Shame you're not going to answer my questions though.

What questions do you think I've missed?

You asked what I'd to improve road safety, what I'd do with drivers who kill, what could make the roads safer. As far as I can see I've given you the answers, what do you think I've missed?

I asked these, and I'd be interested in your opinions, not quotes from other people:

Do you think it's possible to practically reduce road-deaths to zero?

Do you think that if the penalty for killing someone on the road was 12 years in prison that would make any difference?

What should the penalty be [for killing someone whilst driving](in your opinion)?

What do you think prison is for (and does it work)?

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I can just post the links if that would be easier?

God yes.

Shame you're not going to answer my questions though.

What questions do you think I've missed?

You asked what I'd to improve road safety, what I'd do with drivers who kill, what could make the roads safer. As far as I can see I've given you the answers, what do you think I've missed?

I asked these, and I'd be interested in your opinions, not quotes from other people:

Do you think it's possible to practically reduce road-deaths to zero?

Do you think that if the penalty for killing someone on the road was 12 years in prison that would make any difference?

What should the penalty be [for killing someone whilst driving](in your opinion)?

What do you think prison is for (and does it work)?

I've answered all these, I referred you to Vision Zero, you repeated the question, so I linked straight to the website.

I told you what I'd do with killer drivers. Prison is for punishment and rehabilitation and deterrent.

Please don't pretend I haven't covered these questions at length.

To repeat myself, the Swdes acknowledge zero road deaths is unachievable, I've already said this, but I pointed out, twice, that they've achieved spectacular results.

Have you actually been reading my replies to you?

Can you see my reference to the Swedish initiative above, that's how the whole issue of speed bumps arose in the first place, I don't see how you could have missed it.

W1

So your answers are:

Do you think it's possible to practically reduce road-deaths to zero? look at Sweden - so, in other words, no, it's not possible.

Do you think that if the penalty for killing someone on the road was 12 years in prison that would make any difference? no response

What should the penalty be [for killing someone whilst driving](in your opinion)? I can't find your response to this

What do you think prison is for (and does it work)? punishment and rehabilitation and deterrent - but does it work for killer drivers?

mybreakfastconsisted

1/

For the third time, the Swedes acknowledge zero road deaths are probably unachievable, but having it as an aim has massively reduced deaths and in juries, particularly among children. So, would you oppose similar measures simply because, as you keep parroting, zero road deaths is probably unachievable?

2/

Yes, it would, but I don't know where you've got 12 years from, I've never suggested anything like that, you are asking me to defend something I've never said.

3/

Read the thread, I've explicitly said what the penalty for killer drivers who are culpable should be, you can use the search facility on the word "culpable" but please stop saying I haven't answered when I have.

4/

Yes, of course, since they are unable to drive and would also have a life ban so would not pose a danger on the roads. I've said this three times now. Plus, you are ignoring the deterrent aspect, would driving standards rise if the law was applied better? The existing law I mean, so that claiming SMIDSY would not be the get-out-of-jail card it is now?

Take Denmark. The Danes cycle far further than the Brits and yet cycling is TWENTY TIMES safer in Denmark than here. Can you explain this? Take Germany, similar levels of car ownership to the UK but many more miles cycled by the Germans. Cycling in Berlin is a revelation, the courtesy afforded cyclists is astonishing!
No surprise that more people cycle in Denmark and Germany. It’s the layout and traffic rules that make the difference.
Britain has one of the worst road safety records in Europe.
It is well known that drivers are responsible for over 90% of all road accidents crashes, so why does the Department for Transport choose not to deal with the real issue?

Why is the UK one of only five countries in Europe which does not have a law of presumed liability?

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

3/

Read the thread, I've explicitly said what the penalty for killer drivers who are culpable should be, you can use the search facility on the word "culpable" but please stop saying I haven't answered when I have.

"a life driving ban" - that's all you've proposed, and more charges for corporate manslaughter.

So no prison, no fine, nothing but a lifetime ban? Just so I understand you correctly, as you seem so unwilling to expressly answer the question.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

3/

Read the thread, I've explicitly said what the penalty for killer drivers who are culpable should be, you can use the search facility on the word "culpable" but please stop saying I haven't answered when I have.

"a life driving ban" - that's all you've proposed, and more charges for corporate manslaughter.

So no prison, no fine, nothing but a lifetime ban? Just so I understand you correctly, as you seem so unwilling to expressly answer the question.

To be fair, it's a daft question.

Neither of us would enjoy living under a "One size fits all" legal system.

Think about it, are you really suggesting the penalty ought to be the same for:

1/ A middle aged man who suffers a heart attack and collides with a cyclist who later dies

and

2/

A drunk driver doing 50 in a 30 who kills a school child at 3pm.

You've previously repeated your 12 year tariff, one that nobody else has suggested, so stridently insisting on an answer to an unanswerable question isn't helpful.

For what it's worth in both cases I'd support a life ban, in the latter case I'd suggest a life term, same as for manslaughter. To say the drunk driver "didn't mean" to kill anyone is disingenuous, the child's death was no "accident" because the drunk driver coluntarily and of his own volition carried out a number of acts that made a death extremely likely.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

3/

Read the thread, I've explicitly said what the penalty for killer drivers who are culpable should be, you can use the search facility on the word "culpable" but please stop saying I haven't answered when I have.

"a life driving ban" - that's all you've proposed, and more charges for corporate manslaughter.

So no prison, no fine, nothing but a lifetime ban? Just so I understand you correctly, as you seem so unwilling to expressly answer the question.

To be fair, it's a daft question.

Neither of us would enjoy living under a "One size fits all" legal system.

Think about it, are you really suggesting the penalty ought to be the same for:

1/ A middle aged man who suffers a heart attack and collides with a cyclist who later dies

and

2/

A drunk driver doing 50 in a 30 who kills a school child at 3pm.

You've previously repeated your 12 year tariff, one that nobody else has suggested, so stridently insisting on an answer to an unanswerable question isn't helpful.

For what it's worth in both cases I'd support a life ban, in the latter case I'd suggest a life term, same as for manslaughter. To say the drunk driver "didn't mean" to kill anyone is disingenuous, the child's death was no "accident" because the drunk driver coluntarily and of his own volition carried out a number of acts that made a death extremely likely.

I picked 12 years for exactly that reason - it's the "life term" mimimum tarrif. And I only had to repeat myself because you kept dodging the question!

You'd ban someone who had a heart attack from driving for life? What about someone who sneezed and lost control?

But scrap the hypotheitcal extremes - what would you consider appropriate as a penalty for someone who kills another road user, who is wholly culpable, but who didn't break any other particular law i.e. no speeding, no drink driving. Death by careless for example, with no mitigating or aggratvating circumstances. They didn't intend to do it, and they weren't being grossly reckless. It's not an unanswerable question, because I'm asking for your opinion. And I'm not suggesting anything, just asking.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

3/

Read the thread, I've explicitly said what the penalty for killer drivers who are culpable should be, you can use the search facility on the word "culpable" but please stop saying I haven't answered when I have.

"a life driving ban" - that's all you've proposed, and more charges for corporate manslaughter.

So no prison, no fine, nothing but a lifetime ban? Just so I understand you correctly, as you seem so unwilling to expressly answer the question.

To be fair, it's a daft question.

Neither of us would enjoy living under a "One size fits all" legal system.

Think about it, are you really suggesting the penalty ought to be the same for:

1/ A middle aged man who suffers a heart attack and collides with a cyclist who later dies

and

2/

A drunk driver doing 50 in a 30 who kills a school child at 3pm.

You've previously repeated your 12 year tariff, one that nobody else has suggested, so stridently insisting on an answer to an unanswerable question isn't helpful.

For what it's worth in both cases I'd support a life ban, in the latter case I'd suggest a life term, same as for manslaughter. To say the drunk driver "didn't mean" to kill anyone is disingenuous, the child's death was no "accident" because the drunk driver coluntarily and of his own volition carried out a number of acts that made a death extremely likely.

I picked 12 years for exactly that reason - it's the "life term" mimimum tarrif. And I only had to repeat myself because you kept dodging the question!

You'd ban someone who had a heart attack from driving for life? What about someone who sneezed and lost control?

But scrap the hypotheitcal extremes - what would you consider appropriate as a penalty for someone who kills another road user, who is wholly culpable, but who didn't break any other particular law i.e. no speeding, no drink driving. Death by careless for example, with no mitigating or aggratvating circumstances. They didn't intend to do it, and they weren't being grossly reckless. It's not an unanswerable question, because I'm asking for your opinion. And I'm not suggesting anything, just asking.

Apologies, I thought I'd made it clear it's impossible to decide a sentence in these hypotheticals you keep throwing at me.

What, exactly, is the example you are thinking of?

spen666

Another thread ruined

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Apologies, I thought I'd made it clear it's impossible to decide a sentence in these hypotheticals you keep throwing at me.

What, exactly, is the example you are thinking of?

"Death by careless for example, with no mitigating or aggratvating circumstances". I can make up a story based on a real life example if you'd like?

I'm asking for your opinion on what you would think to be a reasonable punishment, it really isn't that hard, unless you really are unable to come to a view of your own.

This is your pet topic MBC, why do you keep trying to avoid giving an opinion?