At last, someone faces the consequences !

[Cab]

There probably needs to be a crime of 'assault using a vehicle with intention of causing bodily harm' ?

I'd say not. We just need clear guidance for the police, CPS and judges that when used as a weapon, a vehicle is a weapon, one that can do a heck of a lot of damage. It really is quite simple, if you intentionally hit someone with a vehicle then you are assulting them with a deadly weapon. We shouldn't need a specific piece of legislation for that.

If that was clarified then we would presumably see less people admitting to a lesser charge of dangeorus driving; if all that has to be proved is intent to hit someone (or scare the living daylights out of them, which because people scared like that do make mistakes and go under the wheels of that vehicle or another one!) then you couldn't say 'no your honour, I wasn't trying to kill that person, I was only driving dangerously', because the latter would be taken as an admission of a very serious assault.

 

[Cab]

There probably needs to be a crime of 'assault using a vehicle with intention of causing bodily harm' ?

I'd say not. We just need clear guidance for the police, CPS and judges that when used as a weapon, a vehicle is a weapon, one that can do a heck of a lot of damage. It really is quite simple, if you intentionally hit someone with a vehicle then you are assulting them with a deadly weapon. We shouldn't need a specific piece of legislation for that.

If that was clarified then we would presumably see less people admitting to a lesser charge of dangeorus driving; if all that has to be proved is intent to hit someone (or scare the living daylights out of them, which because people scared like that do make mistakes and go under the wheels of that vehicle or another one!) then you couldn't say 'no your honour, I wasn't trying to kill that person, I was only driving dangerously', because the latter would be taken as an admission of a very serious assault.

 

[Arch]

And interestingly, why has no-one yet objected to

Quote:
The High Court in Edinburgh heard yesterday that it was fortunate he was wearing a helmet when he was knocked to the ground.

?

Well. it probably was fortunate.

They always have to bung a helmet reference in, it's the only 'bit of a bike' most journalists recognise...

 

[Arch]

And interestingly, why has no-one yet objected to

Quote:
The High Court in Edinburgh heard yesterday that it was fortunate he was wearing a helmet when he was knocked to the ground.

?

Well. it probably was fortunate.

They always have to bung a helmet reference in, it's the only 'bit of a bike' most journalists recognise...

 

[Tynan]

take your victims as you find them, anyway, it's a plain statement of fact, what's the problem?

 

[Tynan]

take your victims as you find them, anyway, it's a plain statement of fact, what's the problem?

 

[bonj2]

It'd be interesting to see what the anti-prison brigade (User482, simon l& 1/2 et al) think of this.

 

[bonj2]

It'd be interesting to see what the anti-prison brigade (User482, simon l& 1/2 et al) think of this.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

O yaar Chaudhry, insaan banno! Akal di kat nay hairga! Pairdla kyou maryasee? Fuddu!!
Translation:
Oi Chaudhry, don't be a mentalist! You haven't got an ounce of sense! Why attack the cyclist? You c*nt!!

i take it elmer fudd is more amusing in that language

 

[alecstilleyedye]

O yaar Chaudhry, insaan banno! Akal di kat nay hairga! Pairdla kyou maryasee? Fuddu!!
Translation:
Oi Chaudhry, don't be a mentalist! You haven't got an ounce of sense! Why attack the cyclist? You c*nt!!

i take it elmer fudd is more amusing in that language

 

[Maz]

i take it elmer fudd is more amusing in that language

it's punjabi - the name Chaudhry (the van driver) is typically Pakistani in origin, hence me and Yorkshiregoth speaking the lingo.

 

[Maz]

i take it elmer fudd is more amusing in that language

it's punjabi - the name Chaudhry (the van driver) is typically Pakistani in origin, hence me and Yorkshiregoth speaking the lingo.

 

[User482]

It'd be interesting to see what the anti-prison brigade (User482, simon l& 1/2 et al) think of this.

I'm not anti-prison.

I do think that a lot of custodial sentences aren't necessarily appropriate, but in this case we have an attempt to kill or at least severely maim. Which is the sort of crime we should be reserving prison spaces for. I've never understood why punishments for serious driving offences are less severe than comparable offences with other types of weapon.

 

[User482]

It'd be interesting to see what the anti-prison brigade (User482, simon l& 1/2 et al) think of this.

I'm not anti-prison.

I do think that a lot of custodial sentences aren't necessarily appropriate, but in this case we have an attempt to kill or at least severely maim. Which is the sort of crime we should be reserving prison spaces for. I've never understood why punishments for serious driving offences are less severe than comparable offences with other types of weapon.