SMIDSY becoming enshrined in law.

[dawesome]

Dawesome, in your post #100 you say
"Not true. Again. In the vast majority of vehicle/cyclist RTCs it is the DRIVER who is at fault,not the cyclist."
In your post #125 you say
"It is usually the driver who is at fault in cyclist/vehicle collisions."

Are you softening your stance, having shown us that "police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases," ?

No. Those figures are skewed too when there are two witnesses and one's dead. The trouble with the complete cock-up the legal system have made of this case is that "SMIDSY" is being made into a Get-out-of-jail card. That's it. That's all you have to say, and nothing happens.

What's the point of having vehicle safety in driving tests when the rulebook goes out of the window after a tragedy? What's the point of having indicators if drivers are too stupid to use them properly?

 

[Recycler]

Which parts do you dispute? Are you saying the Huffington version of the story is dishonest? How? It reports the facts, are you saying the facts are wrong?

You see, you and sandman have a habit of posting the equivalent of "that's rubbish!" You never actually say what you mean. What's "laughable" about any of this?

I refer you to #138.
answer awaited.

 

[dawesome]

Which part of my argument is "laughable" please? Something in the Huffington link? Why can't you say?

 

[Recycler]

Which part of my argument is "laughable" please? Something in the Huffington link? Why can't you say?

Once more I say refer to #138.
If you wish to discuss things in a civilsed way then say so. If you want to simply trade insults then I'm really not interested in what you have to say.

Final time of asking. Civilised discussion or mutual hurling of abuse?
Your call.
Answer awaited.

 

[Alun]

No. Those figures are skewed too when there are two witnesses and one's dead. The trouble with the complete cock-up the legal system have made of this case is that "SMIDSY" is being made into a Get-out-of-jail card. That's it. That's all you have to say, and nothing happens.

What's the point of having vehicle safety in driving tests when the rulebook goes out of the window after a tragedy? What's the point of having indicators if drivers are too stupid to use them properly?

You quoted those figures less than an hour ago, why did you do that only to now say that they are skewed?

 

[dawesome]

Once more I say refer to #138.
If you wish to discuss things in a civilsed way then say so. If you want to simply trade insults then I'm really not interested in what you have to say.

Final time of asking. Civilised discussion or mutual hurling of abuse?
Your call.
Answer awaited.

I thought asked you perfectly politely, sorry if you got a different impression.

Sorry.

Did you think something in the Huffington link was "laughable"? What were you referring to please?

 

[dawesome]

You quoted those figures less than an hour ago, why did you do that only to now say that they are skewed?

Because you're the first person to ask about them.

Do you think saying SMIDSY should be treated as an admission of dangerous driving? Or "blinded by the sun" which I've seen twice recently I think. That's basically meaning driving at a lethal speed as you cannot see in front of the car?

 

[dawesome]

Of course, the RAF officer:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...RAF-officer-Tom-Barrett-escapes-jail-sun.html

 

[Alun]

Because you're the first person to ask about them.

Do you think saying SMIDSY should be treated as an admission of dangerous driving? Or "blinded by the sun" which I've seen twice recently I think. That's basically meaning driving at a lethal speed as you cannot see in front of the car?

Are you saying that you quote figures and then say that they are skewed when someone asks about them? Did you know that they were skewed when you quoted them?
I don't think SMIDSY is an acceptable excuse in an accident, but I don't think that someone should be convicted of dangerous driving on that evidence alone.
"Blinded by the sun" is not relevant to this thread, and I can see no reason to mention it other than to distract attention from the dodgy figures that you have used.

 

[marafi]

As they always say with HGV, buses and yes even a taxis stay behind don't filter through.

 

[dawesome]

I don't think SMIDSY is an acceptable excuse in an accident, but I don't think that someone should be convicted of dangerous driving on that evidence alone.

And this case? A driver who took a faulty vehicle on the roads, a vehicle that is massively over-represented in fatalities despite forming only a small percentage of the entire traffic on the roads. He didn't know the route, was faffing about with the indicators and turned the opposite way when he KNEW he couldn't see down the nearside?

 

[Alun]

And this case? A driver who took a faulty vehicle on the roads, a vehicle that is massively over-represented in fatalities despite forming only a small percentage of the entire traffic on the roads. He didn't know the route, was faffing about with the indicators and turned the opposite way when he KNEW he couldn't see down the nearside?

I don't think we have enough evidence to charge the driver with "dangerous driving" at the moment I wonder what the inquest will reveal.

I don't think that "a vehicle that is massively over-represented in fatalities despite forming only a small percentage of the entire traffic on the roads." or " He didn't know the route." or even " was faffing about with the indicators." should form the main thrust of any potential prosecution either.

Why have you not denied knowing that your figures were skewed when you quoted them?

 

[dawesome]

You don't think the operators of dangerous machines should take extra care? I didn't say I know the figures are skewed, I can't know that for sure, but you must admit the police only have the evidence they see and hear. And people will lie if they think they are in trouble. In every court case one side must be lying. This driver failed to take basic care. What message do you think this gives unscrupulous hgv lorry operators? It's a cut-throat industry, undercut by Poles, paid by the load so there's a natural incentive to cut corners, take risks, speed. Do you think that some low-life scaffolding lorry firm or tipper lorry firm can read about what happened and think "I can even drive with missing mirrors, kill someone, and get away with it"? Mirrors or cctv costs less than £100. Less than the cost of most bikes.

 

[PK99]

. In every court case one side must be lying. .

That is not actually so: a case can turn on different recollections of fact or interpretations of the law

 

[dawesome]

In any criminal court case? In any two different accounts of the same story.