Another day, another dead cyclist, another pathetic sentence

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

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?

Because you are asking me to sit in judgment on a case you refuse to tell me anything about. Ask anyone to decide what sentence is appropriate in a case you won't tell them anything about, I doubt you get a different answer.

What, exactly, is the case you are thinking of/

The OP?

Can you think of a good reason why Ms Roberts should be allowed back behind a wheel?

snailracer

"Justice" is subjective. Some people want a lynching as an example to others, some an eye-for-an-eye, some say having to live with the guilt is enough, some say prison is for rehab, not punishment, etc.

No surprise forummers can't agree about it, and we never will.

cycladianpirate

W1 wrote:

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?

That is, of course, a valid point, but it's also about the simple fact that every case is truly different. Those who do not have experience of the criminal courts will be amazed how facts that look remarkably similar on paper come across very differently when people give live evidence.

Everyone who has ever ridden a bike will know how utterly mindless some drivers can be. For myself, when I read about another pointless death on the road, I invariably cast my mind back to the last idiot who overtook me with inches to spare or didn't see me before pulling out and transpose that sort of lunacy onto the driver involved in the case I'm reading about - it's only natural, but it does cloud your judgment.

It's a trite observation, but, unless you know all the facts of the case, drawing conclusions from media reports is a dangerous business.

That said, one thing that cannot be seriously in issue is that this country is a haven for motorists and a nightmare for those who can be bothered to get from A to B under their own steam.

d87heaven

This ^^^ makes it worthwhile reading through all the argumentitive drivel and personality clashes.

W1

cycladianpirate wrote:

That is, of course, a valid point, but it's also about the simple fact that every case is truly different. Those who do not have experience of the criminal courts will be amazed how facts that look remarkably similar on paper come across very differently when people give live evidence..

It's a trite observation, but, unless you know all the facts of the case, drawing conclusions from media reports is a dangerous business.
.

That's absolutely correct - hence why there is no point linking to a specific case.

But equally there's no need to have every fact in a hypothetical example in order to reach an opinion as to what a suitable punishment should be.

There will be varying answers depending on perspective and attitude to the criminal justice system. Which is why it's strange that MBC just isn't able to profer even an opinion about what a "normal" person who causes a death through making a minor mistake deserves as a punishment. But he is happy to post repeatedly about the law not dealing with road deaths properly.

notsoblue

This might be OT by now, but its an incredible video that illustrates clearly why the uk has so far to go.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86p ... ata_player

Can you imagine the same thing happening in this country? Look at how much sympathy car drivers get in this very thread, on a forum full of cycle enthusiasts!

notsoblue

Link via BikeSnobNYC btw
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... lease.html

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

cycladianpirate wrote:

There will be varying answers depending on perspective and attitude to the criminal justice system. Which is why it's strange that MBC just isn't able to profer even an opinion about what a "normal" person who causes a death through making a minor mistake deserves as a punishment. But he is happy to post repeatedly about the law not dealing with road deaths properly.

That's because you haven't provided an example, you keep asking me to pass judgement on an example you refuse to provide. More than one person has pointed out the idiocy of this.

Who, exactly, do you want me to pass sentence on?

mybreakfastconsisted

notsoblue wrote:

This might be OT by now, but its an incredible video that illustrates clearly why the uk has so far to go.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86p ... ata_player

Can you imagine the same thing happening in this country? Look at how much sympathy car drivers get in this very thread, on a forum full of cycle enthusiasts!

Oh my word, that's like an alternative universe!

Outstanding!


W1, that's a real example, it actually happened, it's not one of your vague hypotheticals, any opinions?

mybreakfastconsisted

She's got lovely legs by the way.

dilemna

..... and not a helmet or RLJer in sight. It must be a parallel universe.

I think this is staged. If not there are some sick people on the roads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkkJe3_S ... ature=fvwp

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

There will be varying answers depending on perspective and attitude to the criminal justice system. Which is why it's strange that MBC just isn't able to profer even an opinion about what a "normal" person who causes a death through making a minor mistake deserves as a punishment. But he is happy to post repeatedly about the law not dealing with road deaths properly.

That's because you haven't provided an example, you keep asking me to pass judgement on an example you refuse to provide. More than one person has pointed out the idiocy of this.

Who, exactly, do you want me to pass sentence on?

No-one has pointed out any idiocy - all that has been said is that there are a range of perspectives. I'd be interested to know where in that range you lie.

How about yourself, missing a blindspot check and killing a motorcyclist on the motorway? Or any other possible example of "Death by careless for example, with no mitigating or aggratvating circumstances" (third time).

What would you give yourself as punishment?

What do you think you deserve?

It's clear that you can't even have an opinion unless you have something to copy and paste, or unless you use extreme hypotheticals.

It's obvious that you won't answer, not that you can't. Which somewhat undermines your ranting and raving, but does explain the copy + paste obsession.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Look at how much sympathy car drivers get in this very thread, on a forum full of cycle enthusiasts!

More empathy than sympathy, bearing in mind that a lot of us drive. it seems, however, that a number of us either do not drive, or drive completeley faultlessly. Which is odd, because no-one is faultless.

To be clear, empathy with drivers, not the driver in the OP. Before Dilema fails to read again.

tailwindhome

Somebody please make it stop.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Look at how much sympathy car drivers get in this very thread, on a forum full of cycle enthusiasts!

More empathy than sympathy, bearing in mind that a lot of us drive. it seems, however, that a number of us either do not drive, or drive completeley faultlessly. Which is odd, because no-one is faultless.

To be clear, empathy with drivers, not the driver in the OP. Before Dilema fails to read again.

No comment on the video, you just picked out the one bit of my post that you could disagree with.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Look at how much sympathy car drivers get in this very thread, on a forum full of cycle enthusiasts!

More empathy than sympathy, bearing in mind that a lot of us drive. it seems, however, that a number of us either do not drive, or drive completeley faultlessly. Which is odd, because no-one is faultless.

To be clear, empathy with drivers, not the driver in the OP. Before Dilema fails to read again.

No comment on the video, you just picked out the one bit of my post that you could disagree with.

Can't see the video at work, so can only comment on the bit I disagree with!

DonDaddyD

I think the 100 of yrs old legal system in this Country has evolved into what it is today to prevent pointless willy waving battles that we are seeing right now.

I like the fact that the legal system and the casting of judgement isn't solely determined by one persons largely uninformed view (media reports and mad Ctrl C/Ctrl V skills aren't shite compared to the actual case files).

I like the fact that both sides are able to defend themselves and judgement (criminal courts) is often determined through the process of examining the evidence in order to eliminate any 'reasonable doubt'.

I like that precedent exists within the legal system.

Yes, I may have a personal opinion when a crime befalls me. I.e. "The person who stole my bike seat should be hanged". But I accept that 1) there is no precedent for that. 2) My view is emotionally charged, subjective and is not representative of the laws accepted by this society.

So while I may have my very singular view, there really isn't no point arguing over it in the legal context.

Personally, I do not think a mandatory lifetime ban should be applied to any driver found over the limit or who is involved in an accident and/or collision, which they cause, without first considering all the evidence. But then once the real evidence (not mad ctrl c/ctrl v media evidence) has been considered a precedent may have been set which should be followed for the sake of legal consistency.

I am not a Lawyer.