Help & FAQs    Search BCF    Members    Groups    Events Calendar
Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Motorists and the Law!

 Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 13:28 - 25 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
map wrote:
So I take it the view of the population is that it's okay to kill one or more people while driving/riding? Sad
By okay I mean it is not treated the same as ordinary/everyday manslaughter.


The law is meant to take account of the intent rather than the (particularly) unusual consequences of someone being killed.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Laura
Playboy Bunny



Joined: 28 Jul 2003
Karma :
PostPosted: 13:37 - 25 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think people who steal are the lowest of the low.

They turn hardwork into their enjoyment and they are just spiteful.

https://www.evilbendy.co.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=24&pos=13

https://cheese.blackholehosting.com/~admin39/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=29&pos=19

Meh.


Not a victemless crime hey.
____________________
Good girls ride motorcycles bad girls thrash them.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Danny
Ask Me About Stoppie School



Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:03 - 25 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe in John Stuarts Mill's harm principle which many laws are based on, just not enough!

Quote:
The harm principle is attributed to John Stuart Mill's most famous work, "On Liberty".

Mill defines the harm principle in Chapter 1 as follows: "the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."


He later goes on to clarify that punishment should be directly correlated with harm or possible harm.

Which means you wouldn't get crazy citations where people go to prison for doing 140+ mph in a national limit zone. This is a travesty of justice IMO, especially when you compare it to the fact that most first time muggers don't even go to see the inside of a prison.

I've been mugged and attacked several times in my local area and have had about 10 attempts on mugging me which failed.
By pure luck and the stupidity of the criminals involved 2 were caught and sent to prison.
The officer dealing with my case recommended that I move away as the only solution. He went on to say the police didn't have the resources to deal with the problem.
Yet they have resources to catch people doing 35mph in a 30 zone in the middle of the night.Rolling Eyes

Since all this happened I decided that it was no longer safe for me to walk in my area. So I got a motorbike to get around on without having to worry about being mugged/stabbed etc.... Yet the police make very sure that I stick to road traffic laws, are the people who mugged me still standing on the same street corner waiting for victims?
Yes.

Danny
A Utilitarian
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

map
Mr Calendar



Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:16 - 25 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kickstart wrote:
...The law is meant to take account of the intent ...

Thanks for the clarification.

To put an alternate view people make a choice to drive/ride recklessly in a way that could endanger others. You intend to act that way, it's a conscious decision. It's hardly the thing you'd do, or can claim to do, accidently (apart from some mechanical failure). So given it's a choice to act like that, should a fatal accident happen why not deal with the result of that choice the same as not using a vehicle?

Karma
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger? Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 18:23 - 25 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
map wrote:
So given it's a choice to act like that, should a fatal accident happen why not deal with the result of that choice the same as not using a vehicle?


Possibly, but take account of the chances of such an outcome. For example the law would not take kindly to you doing 150mph on the road, whatever the situation (and there are certainly places around where such a speed is safe at time), yet you are likely to get a prison sentence for that as being very dangerous. However I bet that there is probably less than one death a year on average involving someone at that speed in the UK.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

map
Mr Calendar



Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 21:37 - 25 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kickstart wrote:
...the law would not take kindly to you doing 150mph on the road, whatever the situation...yet you are likely to get a prison sentence for that as being very dangerous...I bet that there is probably less than one death a year on average involving someone at that speed in the UK.

The difference is between stupid and reckless. The point I was tyring to make was that, yes you can speed, if you make a choice to. You can also get you knee down, wheelie, do burnouts, etc. If it should go wrong then you take the consequences. Maybe you would get a prison sentence for going 150mph. The point is it would not be much longer, if any, for going 150mph AND that resulting in the death of one or more people. That is where the discrepancy and unfairness arises. A short prison sentence for doing 150mph may be seen as punishment not fitting your chosen actions. Likewise a short sentence when your actions result in killing someone is also not fitting or appropriate. Which ever way, the law looks an ass and justice has not been served. Hope this clarifies Confused

Karma
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger? Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 22:37 - 25 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi

To an extent I agree. But my main point is that for many things the chances of any death or serious injury are tiny.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

tony532
World Chat Champion



Joined: 29 May 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 22:41 - 25 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
i think that the idiots that corner on the wrong side of the road on the cat and fiddle every sunday on there gsxr600's and r1's e.t.c should be locked up unless they kill themselves first as it ticks me off as i am able to stay on my side of the road at 50 mph which is the speed limit


also every car driver that crosses the double white line on corners on the the cat and fiddle road should be banned from the road as that is patently illegal.


every person that breaks into a house and the person that tried and failed to steal my bike should have there hands chopped off like in saudi arabia


they wont do it again

i blame the legal system
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Born2bVile
Spanner Monkey



Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 00:41 - 26 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
The laws of this land are known to most people.

Wether you agree with them or not is immaterial. They exists, we know about them. Break them and you know the likely outcome/punishment.

So to argue wether or not it is fair is the discussion for another topic.

The fact is, we all know what the speed limits are, where you should not pull wheelies, do stunts etc.

Break the law, accept the consequences.

Don't agree with the law, join MAG and try and change it. Don't bleat on about it here, if you ain't going to get of your arse and do something about it.

Cheers,

Byrnie.
____________________
NABD Treasurer
National Association for Bikers with a Disability
Reg Charity No. 1040907
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

G
The Voice of Reason



Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 10:18 - 26 Aug 2004    Post subject: Reply with quote
map wrote:
Kickstart wrote:
...The law is meant to take account of the intent ...

To put an alternate view people make a choice to drive/ride recklessly in a way that could endanger others. You intend to act that way, it's a conscious decision. It's hardly the thing you'd do, or can claim to do, accidently (apart from some mechanical failure).

But the intent is not to harm other people.
The intent is to do things that may have a higher probability of harming people. But they do not /intend/ to harm people, infact, quite the opposite I suspect.
There is a difference.


Quote:
So given it's a choice to act like that, should a fatal accident happen why not deal with the result of that choice the same as not using a vehicle?

In that case they would just be considered an 'accident', maybe with some negligence thrown in there, but unlikely to result in serious convictions from what I know.
Not saying that I disagree or agree on thin point by the way.

Last edited by G on 10:29 - 26 Aug 2004; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
bikerbob This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 21 years, 75 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
 You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.06 Sec - Server Load: 0.43 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 79.61 Kb