This is an unusual case.
Car driver stupidly pulls up on main road to read a map.
Several vehicles forced to pull up behind to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic.
Motorcyclist swerves to miss line of parked vehicles, and is killed when she hits a van coming in the other direction.
Map reading car driver is charged with causing death by dangerous driving, even though she was parked at the time.
Pleads guilty to lesser charge of causing death by careless driving.
tinyurl.com/3483kbh
|
bit.ly/9cEsrg
The accident site, from what I can gather in the newspaper report.
|
The death is a real tragedy.
I wish it didn't take as drastic consequences for action to be taken against stupid drivers of the non speeding variety.
|
I reckon that that verdict's fair enough. Too many people do silly things which inconvenience others. I accept that the defendent never intended to cause anybody and injury, let alone cause a fatality, but her actions ultimately ended someone's life and as such she deserved to be brought to account.
A horrible scenario and one which we all hope will never happen to us. Thing is, it just might...
|
|
Had a driver stop halfway round a roundabout to read a map;didn't seem to know what he was doing wrong!!
|
Strange verdict!
When all cars were waiting behind, why the motorcycle wanted to do otherwise??
The motorcycle went in the lane of oncoming traffic and got hit. End of.
Nevertheless a sad incident.
|
>> Strange verdict!
As I understand it, the stopped Astra caused several cars to take evasive action. The motorcylist appears to have hit the rear corner of one of the cars.
In a ideal world, the motorcyclist should have been able to stop in time, but for whatever reason she did not. Technically, when you hit another vehicle from the rear you are at fault. However, had the motorist not pulled over in a silly place this incident would never have happened.
>> Nevertheless a sad incident.
Very much agreed.
|
Difficult to tell from the brief reports, there's obviously more to it than we can see, M...
It seems quite common these days, but usually its people stopping to answer their mobile rather than read a map... I've seen plenty of examples of bad (and sometimes dangerous) parking by such people... why they can't just go a bit further until they find somewhere safe is beyond me...
|
To be fair though, the kind of person that assesses the current situation while driving along and determines that:
a) i might be lost
b) there is no place to turn around here
c) i have a map so i can figure out whether im going the wrong way
d) there is no place to pull over here
Then decides the best course of action would be to pull over here and read the map, is exactly the same person who accelerates through the brick wall adjacent to the parking space in the car park, exactly the same person who while stopped in traffic which is beginning to move off then accelerates in reverse into the front of you, exactly the same person who turns right from the left lane of a roundabout, exactly the same person who is leaning up against the steering wheel while talking on bluetooth handsfree trying to negotiate a merge into traffic and is completely oblivious to anything past the windscreen wipers and routinely causes mayhem by merging at a point where yes they can fit but to do so would be stupidity.
But one thing i can guarantee, is that person will very very rarely, if ever, go above the speed limit, and if they ever do, it'll only be on motorways.
So for the speed kills crowd, what are you proposing to do with this breed of numpty.
Rant over for the day ;-)
|
>> When all cars were waiting behind, why the motorcycle wanted to do otherwise??
>>
>> The motorcycle went in the lane of oncoming traffic and got hit. End of.
That is what I would have thought too. The write-up doesn't explicitly say that the motorbike tried to overtake
"As a vehicle waited to pull out, a motorcycle hit its rear corner, throwing rider Alison Wendy Maughan into the road, where she was hit by an oncoming van."
but I guess that is the case, because she would only hit the rear corner if she were trying to overtake.
Obviously a stupid act by the convicted driver, but what actually turned it from stupid to dangerous was the actions of drivers and riders trying to overtake.
At least it is a non-custodial sentence.
|
>> At least it is a non-custodial sentence.
Yes, a custodial sentence would not have served any useful purpose here. The convicted driver knows that they have done wrong, and needs no reminding of the fact.
It was very noble of the deceased's relatives to state they did not wish the driver to be jailed.
|
|
hobby is on the money in my opinion
|
The sight lines don't look too bad from Dave's link, but I suspect the motorcyclist may have come across the line of parked vehicles unexpectedly.
Instinct caused her to swerve to the right to miss them, she clipped one and was thrown into the oncoming carriageway.
Some chain of events, and a reminder to us all to be careful where we stop.
It's tempting to brand the car driver an idiot, but on a quiet country road it would be easy to think stopping would be OK for a minute or so.
|
She could have easily broken down in the same spot and the same chain of events occurred. People do get lost and do do things they wouldn't normally do. Stay back and only go by when it is safe to do so. Sounds like impatient too close following cars were the real problem with an inattentive motorcyclist. Motorcyclist should have been able to stop in the distance she could see to be clear on her side of the road! Astra driver did pull up on a long straight, well away from the roundabout. Had she pulled up on a bend I could have understood. This was a long clear straight.
There's obviously some information missing as doing a driver for causing death by careless driving seems rather serious for someone pulling over to read a map. Yes there might have been better places to choose but she was lost! She wouldn't have known where the better places were because she was lost!
Would it have been better if she had remained moving and read the map while she drove?? She probably thought she was doing the right thing. Pull over on a road where you can see quite well and find out where you are. Only due to some dopey motorcyclist does it make the news. If it sets the precedent that you are responsible for other people's poor choices then are HGV drivers going to be prosecuted for death by careless driving every time an impatient car overtakes them and has a fatal collision?
|
Okay say you broke down at the same spot and the same scenario arose. Should you convict that driver for the same offence?
It wasn't an urban clearway, she was entitled to stop at the side of the road for whatever reason, even though an annoyance to others, me included, the onus was on the traffic behind her to adjust their driving accordingly to overtake safely. It wasn't as if she stopped on a bend or a bridge. The google picture above seems to show a straight piece of road. The poor MC in this case sadly misjudged somehow and tragically lost her life
I was amazed that the driver of the car was charged with this death. Then what about the vehicle who finally hit her or the driver she clipped initially. Why not them.
Sorry teabelly, you beat me to it.
Last edited by: Cpt. Flack on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 11:56
|
>> The google picture above seems to show a straight piece of road
But with "no overtaking" white lines. If you "drive" up and down the road a little way on Street View you can see that the road undulates, and the incident seems to have happened at a blind brow. It's not clear precisely where the incident occurred (the news report gives it as 300m north of the roundabout) so if the map-reading driver had stopped just after the crest then following traffic would have had less warning of the obstruction - if they had stopped just before then the following traffic would have been forced into a risky passing manoeuvre.
The court reached the right decision IMO, the car driver chose to stop where she did without considering the risks presented by the road layout, and unfortunately on this particular occasion those actions precipitated a death.
Last edited by: Dave_TD {P} on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 12:09
|
From the HC
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it *unless it is safe* and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, *provided the road is clear*, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
If the road was NSL and you couldn't see safely to overtake then I would have said there were two safer options: call the police so they can direct traffic or sit on the Horn until the silly moo moved off. The only way of being reasonably certain it was safe to overtake would be if the vehicles in the other carriageway were visibly allowing you through. Not being able to see another car wouldn't have meant it was safe under these circumstances.
Vehicles coming the other way could have also helped by stopping to let some of the other traffic through.
|
>> It wasn't an urban clearway, she was entitled to stop at the side of the
>> road for whatever reason,
Not if it blocks the raod... which it did as others had to stop to get past her... and there's that white line in the middle of the road as well which you shouldn't park opposite...
If she had broken down then there's not a lot anyone could have done... but I'd say from that photo that was not a suitable place to stop to check a map... we'll have to agree to disagree, CF and TB!
|
It's a similar scenario to that which we saw some time ago on HJ. In that case the vehicles were moving and the biker, wanting to overtake the line of cars took no account that the tail car might also want to do the same, and did so, forcing the biker into oncoming traffic where, sadly, he met his end.
A stupid bit of parking, certainly, but how many of us have done the same in a strange land, I know I have.
I've always considered, when on the bike, that the onus is on me to keep 'me' out of trouble.
Nobody else is going to do it.
Hanging back and looking ahead at a developing situation arising is so important.
A devastating event for all involved....but a fair verdict and sentence, I think.
Ted
|
|
Certainly tragic that the motorbiker lost her life due to someone's thoughtless parking. But being charged with causing death by dangerous driving whilst parked does seem bonkers. Was the car parked illegally, for example on a clearway? What if it had instead broken down at the same spot? There must be more to this than what at first appears to be a fatal unforced error by the motobiker, failing to observe and take appropriate action at an unexpected obstruction. What am I missing here?
|
|
I see from posts in the last few minutes that this was probably an insane place to stop, placing others at risk from needing to cross a solid line on a blind summit, or something similar. This tips the balance.
|
Dave TD's mention of solid white lines maybe a missing piece in the jigsaw. Highway code rule 240 prohibits (MUST NOT) parking where these are in place.
|
Street View seems to flatten the landscape out. I was going to post a view down a terrific rollercoaster of a hill over on the B660 thread but on Street View it just looked like a gentle slope. I think the same is happening here - from the white lines on the road it must be a blind crest with poor sight lines but that is not readily apparent from the pictures.
The accident happened at 9.30am on the second Saturday in July in open countryside, heading north (away from the sun) on a main A-road - where would your mind be if you were there? The minds of the drivers of the bunched-up traffic behind the map-reading driver would have been filled with thoughts of weekend activities, holidays and families - the unexpected obstacle would have been a momentary blip in their day, until events took a tragic turn for the worse.
Last edited by: Dave_TD {P} on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 12:48
|
I'm not in a position to root through the Highway Code, but I understood stopping is banned on open roads such as this one.
It may even be national speed limit, in which case I'm certain you are not supposed to stop.
That's why if you break down there's all that stuff about warning triangles.
|
Warning triangles? In the UK??
Used one in France once, years ago, after an accident. When I went back to collect it before moving off, I had trouble finding it. It had been run over.
|
>>242
>>You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes
>>any unnecessary obstruction of the road.
As I understand it, the google camera is mounted maybe 6-8 feet above the road surface? Therefore it will have a better view than the average car driver.
As there is a solid white line on the northbound side up to the brow of the hill, and then one on the southbound side after the brow of the hill, it looks as though it may well be a downright stupid place to stop.
If you do stop on a road like this, you have to make sure that you are visible from behind for a good distance, and that anybody passing you would be able to do so easily - i.e. there are clear sightlines.
Lost? Keep on going until there is somewhere safe to stop - she could have turned off right up the lane.
|
>> I'm not in a position to root through the Highway Code, but I understood stopping
>> is banned on open roads such as this one.
>>
>> It may even be national speed limit, in which case I'm certain you are not
>> supposed to stop.
>>
Nope to both above.
|
>> I'm not in a position to root through the Highway Code, but I understood stopping
>> is banned on open roads such as this one.
>>
>> It may even be national speed limit, in which case I'm certain you are not
>> supposed to stop
Well! Do you actually *drive* in the UK?
|
...Well! Do you actually *drive* in the Uk?...
Hopefully nowhere near you if you think it's alright to stop on a country A-road.
|
>> ...Well! Do you actually *drive* in the Uk?...
>>
>> Hopefully nowhere near you if you think it's alright to stop on a country A-road.
It may be unadvisable, but its not banned. The whole rural bus service would grind to a halt if it were.
|
>> ...Well! Do you actually *drive* in the Uk?...
>>
>> Hopefully nowhere near you if you think it's alright to stop on a country A-road.
OK, I will assume you've only recently qualified.
Yes, it is OK to stop on a country "A" road, unless there's a specific restriction in force, or you stop in a place that's likely to cause danger to other road users.
|
...OK, I will assume you've only recently qualified...
And I will assume you are being ignorant by attempting to patronise me.
Now, Fotherington Tomas, that makes two assumptions.
One of them is incorrect - which is it?
I'll give you a clue: I've held a full driving licence for more than 30 years and I was driving agricultural vehicles for six years before that.
|
>> And I will assume you are being ignorant by attempting to patronise me.
I don't see why you get your knickers in such a twist by just making a mistake, albeit about something basic that you've clearly been ignorant of for over 30 years. Just say "Oh, I didn't know, I've increased my driving knowledge" or something.
|
...that you've clearly been ignorant of for over 30 years...
It's not over 30 years, it's more than.
Over means above.
Something you've clearly been ignorant of for more than a little while.
Last edited by: ifithelps on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 15:12
|
Gentlemen PLEASE............can we call a truce?
Pat
|
>> Gentlemen PLEASE............can we call a truce?
Handbags at dawn, eh, Pat ?
Ted
|
...Handbags at dawn, eh, Pat ?...
No chance, I'll not be up that early.
|
>> Dave TD's mention of solid white lines maybe a missing piece in the jigsaw. Highway
>> code rule 240 prohibits (MUST NOT) parking where these are in place.
>>
Only double white lines (strangely) and it doesn't look like there are double lines if the location given in the report is accurate.
|
Bill Payer>> Only double white lines (strangely) and it doesn't look like there are double lines if
>> the location given in the report is accurate.
But there ARE double white lines at the point (if the googlemaps location is correct).
|
>> But there ARE double white lines at the point (if the googlemaps location is correct).
Nope, unbroken line to the left, and broken line to the right as we look at it, which means that there is no overtaking going up the hill, but is permissable going down the hill.
There is no hazard line on the nearside either.
|
>> >> But there ARE double white lines at the point (if the googlemaps location is correct).
>>
>> Nope, unbroken line to the left, and broken line to the right as we look at it,
I think, and I'll admit to being unclear here, that whether they're solid or broken, they're still double white lines.
|
|
Possibly right I suppose.
|
I scratched my head over the reference to 'double' white lines as well. AIUI it is the solid line that conveys a meaning and double/single is only only about whether the restriction applies on one or both sides.
Might have time this evening to look up the legislation but I'm wondering if it's a mistake that's slipped through.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 14:54
|
The Highway Code does say, in rule 240, "You MUST NOT stop or park on:"
"a road marked with double white lines, except to pick up or set down passengers"
..so the car could have been lawfully stopped for a period of time and the accident may well have still occurred.
|
Stopping in the carriageway in a thoughtless or selfish manner is a very annoying thing to do and quite often dangerous. One sees it all the time. So many drivers are incapable of putting two wheels on the kerb or verge without damaging their ornate alloy wheels or underinflated £200 tyres that they imagine they have a right to do it. Personally I think they should all be jailed.
Saw a minicab stopped in the middle of Harrow Road the other evening. The driver was waiting for a punter for several minutes, and was plainly scared to go in the bus lane. Prat. Ought to have been taken off the road.
|
>> Stopping in the carriageway in a thoughtless or selfish manner is a very annoying thing
>> to do and quite often dangerous.
Of course it is. However, it's possible to stop in a thoughtful and considerate manner, which the person referred to in the OP did not seem to do.
>> One sees it all the time. So many drivers are incapable of putting two wheels on the
>> kerb or verge
True, although "putting two wheels on the kerb" often equated to parking in the pavement, which is very annoying, and can be dangerous.
The person referred to in the OP could indeed have carried on to find a gateway or likely piece of verge.
|
>> "putting two wheels on the kerb" often equated to parking in the pavement, which is very annoying, and can be dangerous.
Oh good God. I forgot we had hot-under-the-collar pavement wonks with thousand-page byelaw lists under their arms.
Which would you rather FT, a dead biker or an annoyed pavement wonk? Honestly...
|
>> Oh good God. I forgot we had hot-under-the-collar pavement wonks with thousand-page >> byelaw lists under their arms.
People that obstruct the pavement should be dealt with very severely.
|
totally agree
anyone who pushes a pram
has ever had to push a wheel chair
or need the aid of sticks would also agree
|
Putting two wheels on the footpath/verge often makes a more dangerous obstruction as it's often not 100% obvious if you can get through (rarely room for a lorry) and can need those travelling the opposite way to move over so there might be even greater potential for an accident.
It certainly has that effect where the school run mums and dads do it on the path outside our kids school. Parking like that just interferes with both traffic and children on the path... stupid.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 10:21
|
>> >> "putting two wheels on the kerb" often equated to parking in the pavement, which
>> is very annoying, and can be dangerous.
>>
>> Oh good God. I forgot we had hot-under-the-collar pavement wonks with
>> thousand-page byelaw lists under their arms.
Byelaws? Don't you know your Highway Code either?
>> Which would you rather FT, a dead biker or an annoyed pavement wonk? Honestly...
Don't be so silly, this has nothing to do with the OP.
|
See? Pavement wonks. Didn't realise there were so many.
I didn't realise we were talking about 'parking'. I thought the OP was about 'stopping'.
Perhaps you are all thinking about little narrow pavements.
Anyway you are wonks.
|
>> I didn't realise we were talking about 'parking'. I thought the OP was about 'stopping'.
Hm. OK, I'll let you off this time. Don't let me catch you actually parking on the pavement, though, or it'll be the Head Wonk's office at 9:20 for corrective treatment. Don't mumble, boy.
|
I don't think anyone is disputing that you can stop if circumstances force you (such as a breakdown), but you shouldn't stop on a NSL road where you force other cars to have to cross a solid white line for something as trivial as checking a map.
Common Sense... you'd have thought... and it seems the Courts agree.
Last edited by: hobby on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 15:49
|
yes hobby common sense
its something solely lacking in todays society
ive been miles out of my way before now to turn round in a safe place
always have
|
>> ive been miles out of my way before now to turn round in a safe place
>> always have
Me too bb. What is it that prevents people from taking the simple easy option of going round the block? Do they grudge the fuel and wear and tear, or are they just afraid of getting lost and never being seen again?
You see these perfectly respectable looking young women doing 14-point u-turns on busy urban main road bends. You want to track down their driving instructors, fathers and boy friends and torture them all slowly to death on TV.
|
Bill Payer >> The Highway Code does say, in rule 240, "You MUST NOT stop or park on:"
>> "a road marked with double white lines, except to pick up or set down passengers"
>>
>> ..so the car could have been lawfully stopped for a period of time and the
>> accident may well have still occurred.
Probably not legally, because of Rule 242 in the Highway Code. (And I don't think "leave" means "get out of the passenger seat".)
>>242
>>You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes
>>any unnecessary obstruction of the road.
|
|
Can't believe still noone's given Dave_TD a green thumb for the google maps location ;-) It's great when you get better insight into a news story.
|
Bill Payer & Zero & Brompton>>I scratched my head over the reference to 'double' white lines as well. AIUI it is the solid
>>line that conveys a meaning and double/single is only only about whether the restriction
>>applies on one or both sides.
>>Might have time this evening to look up the legislation but I'm wondering if it's a mistake
>>that's slipped through.
Seems very clear to me. If there is one solid line down the road, then there is either another solid line, or a dotted line - hence DOUBLE white lines.
If there is no solid line down the road, then there is only a SINGLE white line.
What would you prefer HM Gov't call it where there is a solid and a dotted? A ONE-AND-A-HALF?
Do you actually drive in the UK? ;)
Happy to be corrected, of course, by those who think that you get double dotted lines, or a single solid line.
Now, ifithelps, would you really never, ever stop on a country road? There is nothing in the Highway Code to preclude this. (I note you've suddenly changed this to country A road, but again, there is nothing to preclude this - and some country A roads are perfectly conducive to stopping.
|
I took a little diversion on the way back from the caravan to have a look at this stretch of road.
For information:
It's straight, a slight incline, and I reckon the road markings at 300m are single, long broken white lines, although they are very worn.
These become double - unbroken on her side, and broken on the other.
Given that we only have approximate measurements, she might have stopped opposite either.
In my opinion it is dangerous to stop there because:
1. Even though the sight lines from the roundabout are good, it's generally a fast road and most drivers would not expect to see a parked car and would easily be up to speed by the time they reached it.
2. It's not far from the brow of the hill, so making someone overtake at that point is asking them to risk a collision with a driver coming the other way.
A competent and careful driver would not stop there, hence the offence of careless driving is made out.
...Now, ifithelps, would you really never, ever stop on a country road?...
Not here I wouldn't - there's a lane on the right, another on the left, and a large layby over the brow of the hill.
Last edited by: ifithelps on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 18:13
|
But the question is, should the motorcyclist have seen the cars stopped?
Everyone assumes the parker carried 100% blame. The cars managed to stop, why not the biker?
|
|
We don't know... but the Court did, and they deemed her responsible for the crash despite her not actually being involved in the collission... thats enough for me...
|
She pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of death by careless driving, after the judge gave an indication that he would not impose a custodial sentence for such a plea.
In certain circumstances, defending barristers can ask the judge what the likely sentence will be if the client pleads guilty.
It's as close as we get in this country to plea bargaining.
The device is known as a Goodyear indication - nothing to do with tyres, that was the name of the defendant the first time it was used.
See page two of this document:
www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/compendium_update_nov05.pdf
|
>>>> Everyone assumes the parker carried 100% blame. The cars managed to stop, why not the
>>>> biker?
>> We don't know... but the Court did, and they deemed her responsible for the crash
>> despite her not actually being involved in the collission... thats enough for me...
Even if you ignore the plea bargain issue, a finding that somebody was responsible wouldn't mean that they were 100% responsible.
If she hadn't stopped the accident wouldn't have happened, but also if the bike had overtaken with more caution it wouldn't have happened.
|
>> Everyone assumes the parker carried 100% blame. The cars managed to stop, why not the
>> biker?
>>
Possibly why the court let the driver off:
1. The more serious charge
2. A custodial sentence
|
Quite simple
Highway Code Rule 243
"DO NOT stop or park
* near a school entrance
* anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
* at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
* on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing
* opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
* NEAR THE BROW OF A HILL or hump bridge
* opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
* where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
* where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles
* in front of an entrance to a property
* on a bend
* where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities
except when forced to do so by stationary traffic."
My Capitals
Switch in the solid line indicates the crest of a hill. Hence the charge.
If I think I am lost I keep going until I find a safe place to stop or turn round, it can be miles. You don't need to be familiar with the road, in fact it only happens where I am NOT familiar with the road.
Motorcyclist also at fault but beyond the courts reach.
|
By my estimate, 300m north of the roundabout is roughly where the line changes from a broken centreline to a solid line north bound towards the crest.
If she stopped by the solid line I think she's been very harshly dealt with for a parking offence.
If she stopped opposite the broken line, I'd say the prosecution was totally unwarranted, subject only to facts not apparent in the report.
The accident to the motorcyclist, some cars back by the sound of it, seems far too remote from the action to be laid at the door of the car driver.
A lot of people stop or park on A roads, and a lot of car drivers and motorcyclists have to wait behind them for oncoming traffic. This was not simple cause and effect in my opinion.
I will say the A68 is not a quiet byway, and I would certainly have found a place to get off the road, if only out of self-preservation, but if stupidity and selfishness were crimes half the country would be locked up as repeat offenders.
|
...if stupidity and selfishness were crimes...
Carelessness is a crime for a driver.
In other words, had there been no accident and had a police car came across her, she could have been summonsed for careless driving - max penalty a fine and a few points.
|
& if the motorcyclist had survived...
the motorcyclist may well also have been up in court for careless/dangerous driving.
People forget that taking control of a motorvehicle is no safer than taking charge of a loaded shotgun.
|
>> & if the motorcyclist had survived...
>>
>> the motorcyclist may well also have been up in court for careless/dangerous driving.
>>
Yes. I rather wonder if they felt they had to take someone to court and the biker unfortunately wasn't an option?
I do generally feel that punishing the consequences of an accident (ie the death) rather than the offence itself, is wrong. If she'd be spotted by Police then maybe a telling off, or possibly an obstruction charge, but the biker's demise was surely down to the biker?
|
>> If she stopped by the solid line I think she's been very harshly dealt with
>> for a parking offence.
IIRC the solid line offence has to be enforced by the police not the Council and carries points, so not a simple as a yellow line. But as others say if she entered a guilty plea on the basis of legal advice that's good enough for me.
|
There are one heck of a lot of assumptions being made by several people... the court knew the facts and she was found gullty... so what do you all know that the court doesn't?!
Or are you guessing...
Last edited by: hobby on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 21:29
|
>> There are one heck of a lot of assumptions being made by several people... the
>> court knew the facts and she was found gullty..
No she wasn't - it was a plea bargain. She was however declared not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
Very harsh in my opinion. She could not possibly have foreseen the accident (I won't even say consequences). You could probably park there 1,000 times without incident; a long way from driving into a bus queue or speeding through a housing estate.
Subject of course, as you say, to the assumption that we have the material facts, which is no worse than assuming that we don't, for the purposes of discussion.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 21:42
|
Sorry, but I feel that your's and others are mere speculation... the court had the facts and found her guilty... that proves that she had parked badly, probably dangerously (even illegally)... and whilst you may wish to try to put some blame on the motorcyclist it was her that was to blame for the accident happenning. As I said you are guessing or speculating. She was found guilty, end of.
Last edited by: hobby on Mon 12 Jul 10 at 21:49
|
Yes I am speculating. But I repeat, the court did not find her guilty.
She pleaded guilty to the charge of which she was convicted, in order to be found not guilty of the more serious offence.
Had she pleaded not guilty to all charges, she might have been acquitted, but she was (I am speculating again) advised not to take the chance.
|
>> illegally)... and whilst you may wish to try to put some blame on the motorcyclist
>> it was her that was to blame for the accident happenning. As I said you
>> are guessing or speculating. She was found guilty, end of.
So how did the cars stop and not the biker?
|
>> So how did the cars stop and not the biker?
Speculating again but I suspect a line of vehicles all at the edge of their thinking/braking distances and too focussed on the vehicle in front. Tragically, the space ran out for the last one.
|
Exactly, Zero. Personal responsibility for your own driving or riding seem to be somewhat low in the riders mind. None of us know what was in her mind, she may have been pre-occupied with the prospect of a good ride out followed by meeting freinds.
If the convicted driver had been a road maintenance driver, legally attending to his business and coned off, this still may have happened .
You stop on the hard shoulder to do road maintenance and someone ploughs into you, who's at fault ? Stop in the same place to have a pee and the same thing happens, who's fault then ?
I think 'dangerous parking ' would have been a better charge, if it's still on the statute.
Ted
|
silence of the cams i think brompt has the answer to your question rather than zero
-Tragically, the space ran out for the last one.--------
-----
|
|
There's a subtle but important difference in the way most folks react when they come across a broken down car (or roadworks cones, or a road sweeper) vs. someone fannying about.
|
>> There's a subtle but important difference in the way most folks react when they come
>> across a broken down car (or roadworks cones, or a road sweeper) vs. someone fannying
>> about.
There may well be, but really there shouldn't be. There is an obstruction and you have to take responsibility for getting around it safely.
If you don't, because of irritation or any other reason, that doesn't really increase the culpability of the person causing the obstruction.
On the issue of guilt (I know you didn't mention that Craig - just putting it all into a single response), the fact that she pleaded guilty shouldn't be taken as any kind of evidence that she would have been found guilty during a trial. Rather, it only shows that she wanted to accept the plea bargain, than go to trial.
Pure speculation again, but I would wager that she would have actually gotten off, because the cause and effect of her actions were too remote. Sure, she caused an obstruction, but the rider's actions look like they had much more of an effect.
Before anybody jumps on me, in the absence of an actual guilty verdict (rather than a guilty plea) it is just as speculative to say that she was culpable that to say that she wasn't.
|
>> the cause and effect of her actions were too remote
In a similar vein, I sideswiped and wrote off a car 10 years ago after happening upon a situation where several motorists (including myself) had made the wrong choices at the wrong times* - after about 6 months of waiting to find out if I would be charged with Careless Driving I received a No Further Action letter from Thames Valley Police.
*here bit.ly/9QRbhT
10pm; First car had exited roundabout, got 50 yards and decided they had taken wrong exit, therefore stopped in Lane 1 and engaged reverse; Second car had just left supermarket, omitted to switch lights on and stopped abruptly behind first car in the dark; Me in spanky new W-reg Iveco Ford Cargo exited roundabout, spotted dithering cars in lane 1 and swung out to lane 2; Second car (unlit) manoeuvred out into lane 2 and collided with my side bars which snagged and cannoned said unlit car into first reversing car; cue lots of crunching noises and £8835 damage to second car. My driving time was approx 8 hours straight at this point...
|
Note for future... Must remember that a Guilty Plea is different to a Guilty Verdict... one means that she's guilty, the other means she's not... Mmmm.
And here's me thinking that if she's admitted guilt, even in a plea bargain, that still means that she is guilty... even if it was for a "lesser" crime...
( BTW Please don't try to explain the variances of Guilt, I really don't want to know... ;-) )
|
>> And here's me thinking that if she's admitted guilt, even in a plea bargain, that
>> still means that she is guilty... even if it was for a "lesser" crime...
>>
We don't know what went on. A cyclist crashed into the front of my wife's car and was quite badly hurt. He claimed he'd been coming from her right and she'd pulled out. She got done for careless driving and pled guilty. She wouldn't even discuss defending it. I've seen the same thing with other women drivers.
Court decisions are very random - in the original case, because someone died there's every possibility the court could have convicted on death by dangerous driving. She'd have been looking at going to prison. So she will have been advised, and it will have been agreed up front, that she would plead guilty to the lesser charge of death by careless driving. The CPS must have doubtful about winning the case or they wouldn't have agreed to the lesser charge.
So she pled guilty and the court accepted that, therefore she is guilty. That doesn't mean it was the right decision though, and that a full examination of the facts before the court wouldn't have resulted in her being found not guilty.
|
On my 20ml A/B-road commute this morning I came across the following stopped vehicles on the main road which needed me to stop or pass in less than ideal circumstances...
Transit and digger excavating roadside drain. Heating oil delivery tanker. Breakdown truck obviously looking for a difficult address. Lorry and trailer loaded with hay. Two large tractors together by a field. On some I was the first to arrive and with others there was alread a queue behind them.
Like the map reading lady in question all of these vehicles provided a degree of hazard. In every circumstance I regarded it as entirely my responsibility to be driving at a speed appropriate to the distance I could see, to judge the level of hazard and anticipate how my speed should be modified to safely negotiate the stopped vehicle.
Like others I can only think the lady admitted the lesser charge due to a fear of the small chance she could go to prison on the greater charge.... a gamble that was obviously one she couldn't face.
The fact that the close family of the deceased asked she should not go to prison speaks volumes.
|
unfortunately every vehicle you saw fenlander was huge and all the vehicles in question have extra hazard markings fitted so they are more visible
even your lowly tractor would have a flashing beacon
plus you live in the fens and know the area so know where the yumps are
the lady on the bike died in unfamiliar territory and has said made an error of judgement by clipping a car that had to stop due to an inconsiderate car driver in front who stopped on a fast road without consideration for other road users
ive said before but will say again,i must come from a younger generation who were born with common sense because self preservation says to me dont stop on a standard A road unless your car due to catastrophic mechanical damage deems it necessary (even then when this used to happen to me i got the car/van off the highway for everyones safety)
no offence..........
|
As it happens they were large which made it *much* harder to see round them to judge what was beyond. Are you really saying drivers can be forgiven for not seeing things smaller than a lorry/van with hazard markings.
Where do you stand on Fiat Pands, cyclists etc?
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 10:26
|
|
im saying that they were easier to see even if the driver was mr magoo
|
>> Note for future... Must remember that a Guilty Plea is different to a Guilty Verdict...
>> one means that she's guilty, the other means she's not... Mmmm.
Yes, it is completely different. Might not tie in with the conclusion that you wanted to reach, but that's the way it goes.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 11:41
|
>> Might not tie in with the conclusion that you wanted
>> to reach, but that's the way it goes.
>>
I'd say that comment more relates to those who are speculating on the bikers' part in it than mine... she admitted guilt... even if the biker was partly at fault, the fact remains that if she hadn't parked where she did it wouldn't have happenned... other examples aren't really relevent, she shouldn't have stopped there for the purpose she did, and that was upheld by the courts...
I'll leave you to it now as we are clearly going round in circles with others wishing to blame someone else for some reason I can't fathom.
|
>> I'd say that comment more relates to those who are speculating on the bikers' part
>> in it than mine... she admitted guilt... even if the biker was partly at fault,
>> the fact remains that if she hadn't parked where she did it wouldn't have happenned...
>> she shouldn't have stopped there for the purpose she did,
>> and that was upheld by the courts...
All the courts did was accept her guilty plea (which they had to do) and then give her a non-custodial sentence. Doesn't sound like a damning indictment to me.
>> I'll leave you to it now as we are clearly going round in circles with
>> others wishing to blame someone else for some reason I can't fathom.
With respect, you are the one going round in circles, it has been explained at length why a guilty plea is very different from a finding of guilty based upon the facts, and why people often plead guilty even when there is a very good chance that they would not be found guilty.
You don't seem to offer anything is response apart from sarcasm (for example, your "mmmm" earlier), and just repeating that if she pleaded guilty she must be guilty (which is just a complete misunderstanding of the process of pleading guilty).
I know you want to reach a conclusion that she was at great fault here, and you are free to believe that, but you aren't going to convince many people with sarcasm and being dismissive of very rational arguments.
EDIT: Oh, and saying "please don't try to explain the variances of Guilt, I really don't want to know..." - sounds very mush like somebody who doesn't want the small matter of facts to get in the way of his conclusion.
God created all living things...oh, and don't try to explain Evolution to me... I really don't want to know :)
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 12:11
|
God created all living things...oh, and don't try to explain Evolution to me... I really don't want to know :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i6.photobucket.com/albums/y246/smartiesx3/DogLaughing.gif
|
I haven't got any strong feelings one way or the other, iih, I just don't understand the need for people to go looking elsewhere to blame someone else... it was a tragic accident, the car driver admitted she was at fault and will no doubt have to live with it for the rest of her life... so why the need to try to put blame on others is beyond me... I just don't see the reason for speculation about others involvement when unles we have the full facts we can't possibly comment, and may even be making comments that could well be wrong, unneccessarliy besmirtching their name in the process.
(I felt your reply needed me to clarify my position, but thats definitely my last word on it)
|
>> I haven't got any strong feelings one way or the other, iih, I just don't
>> understand the need for people to go looking elsewhere to blame someone else... it was
>> a tragic accident, the car driver admitted she was at fault and will no doubt
>> have to live with it for the rest of her life... so why the need
>> to try to put blame on others is beyond me...
Becuase if you hit a stationary object on a road, you have to shoulder some of the blame.
|
>> the car driver admitted she was at fault and will no doubt
>> have to live with it for the rest of her life... so why the need
>> to try to put blame on others is beyond me... I just don't see the
>> reason for speculation about others involvement when unles we have the full facts we can't
>> possibly comment, and may even be making comments that could well be wrong, unneccessarliy besmirtching
>> their name in the process.
You are probably right that all this speculation is wrong of us, but personally think that applies to both parties (i.e. the driver and the rider).
It is the case that people often do read too much into a guilty plea. It is technically an admission of guilt, of course, but there are good reasons why people who do not think they are at fault would plead guilty.
People are often told "you will most likely get off, but juries can be fickle, and if the jury goes against you, you will likely do X years in prison, but if you plead to the lesser charge there is no chance of prison"
People will often take the guilty plea, so, in itself, it is no real proof of anything - just that people don't like going to prison.
|
>> I just don't see the reason for speculation about others involvement when unles we have >> the full facts we can't possibly comment,
Internet forums would barely exist if people didn't comment!
My concern over this is a "there but the Grace of God go I" type of thing. It could have been me that stopped (I hope I wouldn't do that, but who knows - in my job I often have colleagues following me and we might get separated at roundabouts and I'll wait for them).
Or it could be a member of family that stopped.
I'd be pretty unhappy if I or they carried the blame for the rest of their lives because a biker was unable to stop themselves or navigate around some stopped vehicles.
|
|
I think I'm with you there, BP. I can't help wishing the case had gone to trial with a not guilty plea on the death by dangerous driving charge - and been thrown out. There's no doubt that stopping in a stupid place indirectly resulted in the tragic death of the biker, but the key word is 'indirectly'.
|
A guilty plea to a given charge, and a guilty verdict to the same charge, are the same thing. You are found guilty of the charge in both cases. One by self admission, one by proof -- the method is (relatively, except sentencing) unimportant.
There aren't subdivisions or levels of guilt. It's black and white at court judgement time. When the court finds you guilty (based on your guilty plea) you are just as guilty as the other person who pleaded not guilty but was proven guilty and thus also found guilty by the court.
Up here we've got "not proven" which is a true 3rd outcome, you were guilty but noone was able to prove it so you will go free.
|
>> A guilty plea to a given charge, and a guilty verdict to the same charge,
>> are the same thing.
You are right on the basis that the person is still classified as guilty, but there is a very importance difference in the context of this discussion.
The guilty plea has been used, in this discussion, as proof that the driver was culpable - but it is absolutely not proof of that.
If the facts had gone before a jury and the jury had looked at those facts and found her guilty, then you could use the fact that the jury found her guilty as reasonable proof that she was in fact guilty.
None of that happens with a guilty plea, and there are many reasons why somebody would plead guilty, even if they did not feel that they were. That is why they are fundamentally different (although yes, you would be recorded as being guilty in both cases).
The only indication that the court gave, of its impression of culpability, was the sentencing, which was very light.
|
>> The guilty plea has been used, in this discussion, as proof that the driver was culpable - but it is absolutely not proof of that.
You're constructing a legal framework in your mind which doesn't exist in the real world. The proof (EDIT: after judgement), real or not, presented or not, has no value. The only thing of value is the judgement, guilty, or not guilty. Discard all notion of "strength" of the proof.
It doesn't matter what would have happened if coco the clown ran the court and there were lap dogs on the jury. The court has found this person guilty based on the facts laid before it (the person's admission of guilt). NB: the court found the person guilty, not the person found themselves guilty, it's not up to them to decide.
Once found guilty by the court, you are as guilty of the offence as guilty can be. There are no shades of gray and there is no concept of how strongly the defendant was proven guilty.
It's a line in the sand, "beyond reasonable doubt". Doesn't matter if you're a little bit past that line or a large amount past that line. Equally as guilty in both cases and it doesn't serve the public interest to further distinguish.
She wasn't found "medium gray / strength 4" guilty and the charge wasn't "grade 3 causing death by careless driving". She was found guilty (unqualified, just guilty) of causing death by careless driving (again unqualified, just straight, plain old causing death by careless driving).
I can't help but feel picking holes in a proven and respected legal framework is foolish, i can't even figure out what the point of doing it is.
Last edited by: CraigP on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 19:00
|
I understand your argument Craig but a court is itself a post-event construct and can't change what happened and where true responsibility lies - it can only "judge", and guilt is a judgement, not a fact. Courts have been known to overturn earlier judgements; what actually happened doesn't change.
Thousands of innocent people plead guilty every year, for fear of something worse.
Reducto ad absurdum, are you guilty of nothing unless you are so labelled by a court?
|
>> I can't help but feel picking holes in a proven and respected legal framework is
>> foolish, i can't even figure out what the point of doing it is.
I think you're being a bit simplistic with your legal analysis, because it does matter how the court came to its decision if are to learn from its decision for our own driving.
It seems that there were not double white lines at the point of the accident therefore (unless you are a bit iffy on your Highway Code) it was reasonably acceptable to park there. It seems the courts did not take a very serious view of the offence, letting the driver off with between 80 and 300 hours of community service.
Of course there are shades of grey in the sense of how guilty you are - these are shown in the sentencing.
|
...It seems that there were not double white lines at the point of the accident therefore (unless you are a bit iffy on your Highway Code) it was reasonably acceptable to park there...
Wrong, Mapmaker.
It is not acceptable at all to park there - it is careless driving - ask the defendant in this case.
Careless driving is not an absolute offence, it's a matter of someone's judgment.
If you park anywhere on an open country road, it could be deemed as careless/dangerous.
So the safest course is not to stop on such roads.
It's in Iffy's Highway Code, and I bet this defendant wishes she'd read a copy.
Nice attempt at a snidy dig, by the way, but I'm afraid your post lacks intellectual integrity.
|
>> Nice attempt at a snidy dig, by the way, but I'm afraid your post lacks
>> intellectual integrity.
Oh, do dry up. Lose the paranoia. I'm off for a beer, I should do likewise IIWY.
|
>If you park anywhere on an open country road, it could be deemed as careless/dangerous.
Ok so you have just deemed every postman, every bus driver, every mikman, every taxi, every delivery driver as murderers,
Of course its acceptable to park on open country roads. If it wasnt rules would be in place to stop it. There are no such rules in iffys highway code.
|
|
Before the bunfight over 'parking' gets too hot can I ask a question; Do we know how long the perp had been stopped for before the first impact? ?
|
...Do we know how long the perp had been stopped for before the first impact? ?...
A minute or two, if that, as far as I know.
That would fit, because I think there were three vehicles behind her, and the road is well-used, even on a Saturday morning.
|
...If it wasnt rules would be in place to stop it...
The rule in place is that a passing police officer could deem the parking to be careless driving, which is what has happened in this case.
To me, it follows the risk of being done for careless or dangerous driving exists if you park a mile further down the road or a mile further back.
|
>> >> The guilty plea has been used, in this discussion, as proof that the driver
>> was culpable - but it is absolutely not proof of that.
>>
>> You're constructing a legal framework in your mind which doesn't exist in the real world.
>> The proof (EDIT: after judgement), real or not, presented or not, has no value. The
>> only thing of value is the judgement, guilty, or not guilty. Discard all notion of
>> "strength" of the proof.
No I'm not. I have already agreed with you that, yes, as far as the legal process is concerned they are still guilty, because they pleaded guilty.
The logical (not legal) mistake that you are making, and has been made several times above, is to suggest that because they pleaded guilty, that it proves they were actually responsible for the accident.
Once again, people plead guilty for numerous reasons, it doesn't actually prove they were at fault.
I could be put on trial for a murder that I didn't commit, I could be advised that my alibi is weak and that my fingerprints were at the scene and that I would be considered to have motive. I might be advised that I should plead guilty to manslaughter, and I would get off with 2 years.
If I decided that, yes, I would plead guilty, then I would indeed be considered guilty, but it wouldn't change the fact that I was not actually responsible for the killing.
Exactly the same here. Because she pleaded guilty is absolutely not proof that she was responsible, any more than me pleading guilty to manslaughter is proof that I killed anybody.
What exactly is it that you don't get about that?
Once again...if the argument is "she must be responsible because she pleaded guilty", then that argument is deeply flawed.
Just one more time, because I haven't gotten through before, a guilty plea will mean that you will be treated as guilty, BUT is absolutely does not mean that you were responsible.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 13 Jul 10 at 21:26
|
>> The court has found this person guilty based
>> on the facts laid before it (the person's admission of guilt). NB: the court found
>> the person guilty, not the person found themselves guilty, it's not up to them to
>> decide.
BTW you are wrong here too. The prosecution decides which charges it wants to bring, and decides if it will accept a guilty plea by the defendant.
The court absolutely does not find the person guilty by using the plea guilty plea as a "fact" in the case. Because the prosecution is happy to accept the plea and the defendant is happy to plead, there is no trial.
All the court does then is decide upon the sentence, and in this case it was non-custodial. That is what I mean when I say that the only decision that the court made on the facts is that they gave a very light sentence.
|
>> Up here we've got "not proven" which is a true 3rd outcome, you were guilty
>> but noone was able to prove it so you will go free.
"Not proven" in Scottish Law is a bit of an aberration. The whole point of the trial system is that you need to prove guilt. It is a bit questionable to say "I know he is guilty, but I just can't prove it", which leads to the obvious question "if you can't prove it, how do you know he is guilty?".
It is really just legalised libel.
|
Dear Lord are you lot still on this ? Someone is dead. Let them rest. Someone else made a huge error of judgement and has been punished.
Can't it be left there ?
|
|
No, I think alot of us could wind up in the same situation that could potentially cause a similar outcome and the whys and wherefores of the case should be discussed. I for one was astonished at the case when I first read it. And a bit of a wake up call, that another persons actions could put you in jail. As someone else said, but for the grace of God.
|
>> Someone else made a huge error of judgement and has been punished.
Is this the motorcyclist (who is punished by death) or the motorist (who is punished by loss of licence).
The more I read this and think about it, the unhappier I am - not least with the concept of plea bargaining. ("I'm not guilty, but I fear I might get five years, so I'll plead guilty to something different and will get only some community service.)
Unless the accident happened where there are double white lines, or there was another obvious obstruction, then I do not consider it correct for the defendant to say she accepts she should not have parked there.
She had every legal right to do so - one might conclude that one wouldn't choose to stop there oneself, under ideal circumstances, but this wasn't the case - she was only stopping for a minute, and it wasn't a place specifically prohibited by law.
|
>> - not least with the concept of plea bargaining.
That's what happens with speeding penalties - woe betide the people who go to court and challenge them
>> Unless the accident happened where there are double white lines,
It seems likely it did, although they were dotted on one side.
|
>> Can't it be left there ?
C'mon it's t'internet. For a while there it was in danger of becoming an old man's pub with everyone agreeing with everyone else on everything.
Noone's discussed the actual death i don't think and certainly not disrespectfully if they have. It's all revolved around the motoring side of things.
Picking apart the minutae of the subject and others adding in some outrageous views for good measure is all part of the fun.
Count the change in your sporran in your side dookit in the car and don't click on the threads ya don't like :-P
|
>> >> Can't it be left there ?
>>
>> C'mon it's t'internet. For a while there it was in danger of becoming an old
>> man's pub with everyone agreeing with everyone else on everything.
>>
>> Picking apart the minutae of the subject and others adding in some outrageous views for
>> good measure is all part of the fun.
Absolutely, this is an discussion forum after all. I respect your opinion Humph, but I don't really understand why people try to stop threads on discussion forums.
I've seen it a few times on this site where people have said that they are amazed/disgusted/horrified that a discussion is still going on and almost pleading for it to stop.
If some people want to pick apart every last detail of an argument again and again, it really doesn't hurt anybody else - so why would they be keen for it to stop?
Just my two cents.
Craig - Sorry to spoil the flow of the thread by agreeing with you! ;)
|
>> Craig - Sorry to spoil the flow of the thread by agreeing with you! ;)
Lol we seem to have switched sides for this one, i'm dismayed by my rightist views above but take comfort in your leftist opposal of me :-P
|
If it gives people pleasure and interests them to discuss such things then so be it. Perhaps I am indeed over sensitive to certain things. None of my business though as has been made clear.
My apologies.
You will though, I hope, forgive me if I do not contribute anything further to this particular thread.
|
...My apologies...
Humph,
I think the one thing we are all agreed upon is you've nothing to apologise for.
I'm sorry parts of the thread became a bit tetchy, and I have to take some responsibility for that.
It's not big, it's not clever, and it's certainly not attractive to other members, and to the casual visitor to the forum who we all want to attract and keep.
Hopefully the thread's back on an even keel now, and will drop gracefully down the board as interest in it inevitably wanes.
|
|
Who's Grace? Nice girl, but haven't seen her here recently ;)
|
Similar scenario tonight. Normal B road I was approaching a zebra crossing. The traffic going the other way was at a standstill. A Luton transit was on one side of the crossing as I approached on my right side and a car was the other side of the crossing. So both had left a gap for pedestrians to use.
Obviously I could see to my left the crossing was clear, but to my right the crossing was obscurred by the Luton van. I adjusted my driving and gingerly crossed over the crossing looking to my right as I went. No-one at the crossing.
With the discussion on the topic above and obviously hyperthetical, I wondered what would have happened if say for instance a child had darted out in front of me or in front of someone who didn't slow down.
If the incident had resulted in an injury or even a death, who do you suppose would be at fault. The driver of the car who hits the child ie me or another, the child itself or the driver of the Luton transit. I would like to think the car driver would signal somehow to me not to proceed, but how often does that happen.
|
|
Hello Iffy. Where have you been since 16th September 2012? At one point there were rumours that you were in prison.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 22 May 13 at 09:36
|
L'es is just saying that to winkle you out with an official denial, which we shall then not believe.
Actually of course we know you are on secret undercover work, living in a caravan, like Prideaux in Tinker, Tailor.
|
Anybody around here failing to notice the dates on posts, or is it me?
>>and will drop gracefully down the board as interest in it inevitably wanes.
That went well.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 22 May 13 at 11:19
|
>> Anybody around here failing to notice the dates on posts, or is it me?
Oops!
|
>> Hello Iffy. Where have you been since 16th September 2012? At one point there were
>> rumours that you were in prison.
IIRC one othe mods emailed Iffy and he'd decided to take a break from the forum. Unles he's got another login or views as a guest he's not been in since.
Quite a few now gone users in there including Skoda, Fortherington Tomas and hobby.
|
>> Quite a few now gone users in there including Skoda, Fortherington Tomas and hobby.
Focusless, bellboy, Workshop Tech, nyx2k (hope he's all right).......
|
|
I hope they're all all right. I really miss the talented poet and wicked old car dealer bellboy.
|
>> nyx2k (hope he's all right).......<<
I had an email from Nick yesterday Alanovic, and he is well considering the circumstances.
Pat
|
Add John H to that list - not seen since the middle of January. (Or do I remember him saying something about taking a break?)
Pat - your comment about nyx2k hardly seems reassuring, but I guess you can't say more.
|
>> Add John H to that list - not seen since the middle of January. (Or
>> do I remember him saying something about taking a break?)
>>
>> Pat - your comment about nyx2k hardly seems reassuring, but I guess you can't say
>> more.
John H holds the dubious distinction of being the only C4P user to be red carded.
Didn't return after his week's enforced suspension.
|
>> John H holds the dubious distinction of being the only C4P user to be red
>> carded.
What did he say?
|
>> >> John H holds the dubious distinction of being the only C4P user to be
>> red
>> >> carded.
>>
>> What did he say?
IIRC it was about picking on one person than outrageous words being used.
|
"John H holds the dubious distinction of being the only C4P user to be red carded."
I missed that. And I'm really surprised. I wouldn't have expected it.
|
>> I'm really surprised. I wouldn't have expected it.
His posts were often offensively spiteful and personal. He spent a long time trying to be nasty to me - I ask you, what normal person would want to do that? - but in the end I got him to sheer off. Cheeky sod.
He carried on with the same crap for some time until the site got annoyed with him. Some people have a certain fragility which John H type trolls try to play on.
|
It's the forums loss.
Any forum needs a diverse bunch of posters, characters and regular contributors and everyone has their good points.
JohnH also made some very, very helpful posts at times and we have lost those too.
FP, I'd rather not say anymore as it appears there are some on here who don't believe him and it has hurt him deeply in the past. It is the reason he needs me to prod him to visit now and again.
Very sad, this should have been a place he could have been with friends in the dark days.
Pat
|
"he needs me to prod him"
I'll prod you if you pay for the hotel.
|
Dave, you won't shock me or find me lost for words, I've heard them all before!
Pat
|
"I've heard them all before"
I can never hear 'em when they do it face down in the pillow.
|
That one too......bored now.
Pat
|
I also found John H's posts helpful and he seemed very well informed. I don't mean to appear unsympathetic to those who felt insulted by him, but I didn't get that - perhaps I was fortunate.
It would be possible to say a great deal about how the internet kids us we know people, when in fact we don't. A misplaced comment (careless, or otherwise) often leads to great offence being taken. I feel a lot of claptrap exists about "online communities", which are at best fragile things. But if they have any validity they will only continue if people are very careful about not giving offence, but equally if they are reluctant to take offence.
I am depressed by Pat's comment about Nick's view of us, but, sadly, unsurprised.
|
I seem to remember that John H did have a more positive side. He wasn't stupid or ill-informed. But his most consistent characteristic was an obvious wish to hurt, dominate and demolish.
>> if people are very careful about not giving offence, but equally if they are reluctant to take offence.
I've given offence here inadvertently several times, and have usually tried to explain and soothe the offended individual.
Two people here apart from John H have gone out of their way to offend me. In one case it was entirely gratuitous. In the other, the offence seemed to have been invented by the allegedly offended person. I think so. But perhaps he isn't as bright as I thought he was.
|
>> It would be possible to say a great deal about how the internet kids us
>> we know people, when in fact we don't. A misplaced comment (careless, or otherwise) often
>> leads to great offence being taken. I feel a lot of claptrap exists about "online
>> communities", which are at best fragile things. But if they have any validity they will
>> only continue if people are very careful about not giving offence, but equally if they
>> are reluctant to take offence.
>>
>
I have often observed before that the whole thing can in many ways be seen as totally unreal, simply a soap opera acted by people with made-up names, who adopt stances and personalities for themselves.
From that perspective, it is impossible to give offence and impossible to take it - one can only act in character according to the role chosen.
It would be interesting to know whether many of these "disappeared" people have returned under another alias, and live amongst us but now playing a different character, so unrecognised.
Some indeed may have been registered under two identities, and got bored with one and just killed him off.
|
>> He spent a long time trying to
>> be nasty to me - ...........
He often tried to be nasty to me, but I just ignored it, as I do with anyone else that tries it. How can anyone possibly let a faceless stranger in an internet forum get to them?
|
|
Dont worry about John H. He is still alive and well and living among you.
|
I reckon he was a bit of a pillock if y'all ask me.
:+)
|
"Dont worry about John H. He is still alive and well and living among you."
You are John H and I claim my £5.
|
>> "Dont worry about John H. He is still alive and well and living among you."
>>
>> You are John H and I claim my £5.
Dont spend what you haven't got. And ain't likely to get.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 23 May 13 at 12:44
|
>> Dont worry about John H. He is still alive and well and living among you.
>>
The trouble is that when some members keep changing their forum name you just don't know who anybody is any more. I am L'escargot and always will be.
|
|
Me? I wanna be Spartacus.
|
|
A Forum full of snails, shysters and wannabees..
|
>> A Forum full of snails, shysters and wannabees..
I've got IBS. Does that make me the middle one?
|
I still read here semi regularly, as do 2 others i've since ran into elsewhere (should probably point out since it'd be a logical question... there's no hard feelings or anything like that involved and it's come up in conversation, i know they feel the same - stopped posting due to life / time / other interests).
Feels weird saying "they", they can reply here and out themselves or keep quiet if they prefer...
Talking of running into others, Bellboy (who i haven't spoken to), dunno if you still read here but i was dismayed to find you only write in that poetic style on here!! To be fair i realised it was a ruse but you were so persistent with your style here.
WorkshopTech i thought i had bumped into on Briskoda but t'wasn't 'im :-(
|
|
Nice that you popped in and made yourself known, anyway, Skoda!
|
|
'Tooslow' was always worth a read, but he's not used the forum for a couple of years it seems.
|
Parked car driver guilty of killing motorcyclist - Dave_
