downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
See post 60: the reason for this is the driver was not convicted for causing the collision.
In that case you'd expect a mistrial, or retrial ruling.
See post 60: the reason for this is the driver was not convicted for causing the collision.
I would suggest that your experiences would not generate the same response with others had they experienced the same as you.
I don't agree, when you get behind the wheel of a car, you are in a potentially lethal machine. The greatest penalty for driving wrecklessly is death - hence so many road fatalities every year. People drive like idiots despite the risk to themselves, their passengers and other road users and pedestrians.But it would price/remove the incompetent and reckless off the road. Would you apply the same logic to an airline pilot that "made a mistake" and killed hundreds? Or a caterer that poisoned people through negligence in their hygiene practice?
People know full well they can get away with driving without care and attention, thats why we see the speeders so often
In that case you'd expect a mistrial, or retrial ruling.
No. The court found there was no evidence the driver was at fault for the collision. So no conviction for that, thus no penalty for that.
No, they didn't.
There is likely to be a memorial ride for Tom at some point if anyone is interested.
Keep me updated.