455 replies to this topic

[Juni Ori]

100mph on 55mph limit - road crossing kid gets killed - and it's both's fault??? Unless he can be unquestionably proved fooling around in the middle of the street I can't find him responsible for his own death! Okay, no reflective gear after sunset is of course bad thing, but where does it say it's illegal? You just can't know there's some lunatic coming almost double speed compared to the speed limit. It's good (for my crime record) that that a-hole doesn't live next door.

[A. J. Raffles]

Juni Ori, on Jan 26 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

100mph on 55mph limit - road crossing kid gets killed - and it's both's fault??? Unless he can be unquestionably proved fooling around in the middle of the street I can't find him responsible for his own death! Okay, no reflective gear after sunset is of course bad thing, but where does it say it's illegal? You just can't know there's some lunatic coming almost double speed compared to the speed limit. It's good (for my crime record) that that a-hole doesn't live next door.

I think the point isn't that it's illegal (which it isn't, obviously), but that it's unnecessarily dangerous and may have made it impossible for the driver to spot him early enough even if he had been travelling at the correct speed.

[Juni Ori]

That being my point: how on earth can anyone expect there's a lunatic coming speeding? If the kid had known, I bet he wouldn't had began crossing the street. Perhaps he estimated the situation and place to cross to be good or even better. Thus blaming the kid (unless he was indeed doing something really stupid) is simply stupid.

[Mighty Midget]

Umm I'm not sure about you guys, but to me blame really isn't the issue as much as the driver sueing the boy's parents. Hello?! He has killed a boy and all he can think of is to get "his money back"? Is it just me who find that utterly disturbing?

[Havell]

The kid involved wasn't crossing the road, he was on his bike.

I agree with what the court said in the first place, that both parties were at fault.  Maybe the crash would still have happened if the car was moving at 55 mph as the driver still wouldn't have seen the kid due to lack of safety gear.  Maybe the driver would have seen the cyclist if he was wearing flouresant clothing even though he was speeding.  There's just no way of knowing, in these cases, things have to be accepted as terrible accidents and everyone has to move on, as best as they can.

The bloke suing the family for damages is clearly just wrong though, especially his targetting of the family.  Nor will it stand up in court, since the inquest into the death found him to be at fault.  The morality around it besides, if it was a wall , not a person, he'd collided with he wouldn't receive damages in this case, given that he was speeding.  The very same applies.

[Japofran]

Mighty Midget, on Jan 26 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

Umm I'm not sure about you guys, but to me blame really isn't the issue as much as the driver sueing the boy's parents. Hello?! He has killed a boy and all he can think of is to get "his money back"? Is it just me who find that utterly disturbing?

You finally found out the one reason why I posted the piece of news in the first place, like:

[Juni Ori]

Havell, first, thank you for clearing that thing out. It's totally different if he was cycling. But. I must - and strongly - disagree with you. As we don't know what would had happened, if speed had been only 55mph, I must support and advertise here Finnish law: who's clearly doing wrong gets all the blame - be that speeding, driving under influence of alcohol or anything. It's only just court decision.

Japo: That's the thing why it's better he's not near me... I perhaps clung too much to details, but the whole thing right from the start is perverted and I approached it from the simpler end - condemning the rest.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

More wackiness from the Bearded Brigade.  This should make the blood of certain Finns run particularly cold:

Iranian Faces Execution for Drinking Alcohol

To be fair to the Iranian death-merchants, the accused consumed the infidel alcohol not once, but four times, if you can possibly imagine such a thing.

[Japofran]

And so on...

Afghan reporter sentenced to death for 'blasphemy': court

[Juni Ori]

FPJ, they can't be sane...

[chumloofah]

Quote

The usual punishment for a single drinking offence is 80 lashes

Fast forward a few years, replace lashes with pound sterling and drinking with smoking you've got the UK.
Whatever happened to all that freedom people are being bombed to protect?  

[A. J. Raffles]

chumloofah, on Feb 8 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

Quote

The usual punishment for a single drinking offence is 80 lashes

Fast forward a few years, replace lashes with pound sterling and drinking with smoking you've got the UK.
Whatever happened to all that freedom people are being bombed to protect?  

Well, Iran hasn't been bombed yet (thank God).

[chumloofah]

Maybe if we bombed Iran they'd rescue enought freedom that I could get my cigarettes back.
I'm going to get on the horn to number 10 and suggest it.
Sounds like a vote winner.

[_r.u.s.s.]

i don't know whether it's news or olds but i just found it. please don't watch if you have weak stomach http://www.furisdead...hineseFurFarms/

[Juni Ori]

I've seen it and russ is right: it isn't for weak stomachs.