Kill in a park and avoid prison.

JNugent

Mark T wrote:

> JNugent writtificated

>>>> Providing better alternatives is always the
>>>> best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly
>>>> isn't anted.

>>> ...is the wrong answer

>> ...because of the obvious typo?

> No.

>> Or because you think that others shouldn't travel?

> No.

So how can providing better alternatives be the wrong answer?

Was it the wrong answer at Holmes Chapel on the A50?

<http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.203154,-2.347641&spn=0.153204,0.32135&z=12>

Was it the wrong answer at Maidstone on the A20?

<http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.282749,0.550346&spn=0.159981,0.32135&z=12>

Perhaps it was the wrong answer at Coventry on the A45?

<http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.42357,-1.484184&spn=0.155976,0.32135&z=12>

You know that it would be possible to cite a hundred similar examples
without difficulty.

JNugent

JNugent wrote:

> A way to take advantage of the lower road and avoid Blackheath Hill
> (which is well worth avoiding) is to continue via the Greenwich one-way
> system and go south through the park, especially as it then avoids the
> slow crawl toward Blackwall and lets traffic merge with the A2 to the
> east of the narrow part of Blackheath itself. As a route, it makes a lot
> of sense, whereas you seem to think it doesn't. Perhaps you think that
> none of the people using it and similar routes are just irrational and
> that only you are qualified to judge their best interests.

<groan>

Sorry about the poor editing - there's an abberrant "none of" in there...

Tom Crispin

On 29 Mar 2008 10:51:03 GMT, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:

>JNugent writtificated
>
>> That being so (and it is), is there any part of "Being convicted for
>> dangerous driving requires a certain amount of driving like a twat as
>> well" that you would care to rethink?
>
>He didn't see the person coming down the hill, he didn't see the person
>almost in front of his bumper, he didn't see the person as his body
>impacted with the car. After that his windscreen was broken and he
>couldn't see much at all.

That is the police version. (And Mr Woods was coming up the hill, not
going down.)

>This 'moments inattention' lasted a long time.

Hold on. The defendent claims his windscreen "went white", the
implication being that it shattered before the crash. The police
didn't believe this version.

While "driving like a twat" is a fair description of dangerous
driving, it may be that Voong only pleaded guilty out of remorse and
to spare Mr Woods' family further distress. The judge may have
recognised this and that is why Voong has avoided a prison sentence.

On the other hand, Voong may be lying, and the crash may have been
caused by twattish behaviour - not simply "a moments' inattention". If
the police believed that "a moments' inattention" was the likely casue
the charge would have been causing death by careless driving.

In either case, Nugent's claim that it was a "moments' inattention" is
likely to be wrong. Voong is either guilty of "driving like a twat",
or only pleaded guilty to "driving like a twat" out of remorse.

I am inclined to believe the latter.

JNugent

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2008 10:51:03 GMT, Mark T
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> JNugent writtificated
>>
>>> That being so (and it is), is there any part of "Being convicted for
>>> dangerous driving requires a certain amount of driving like a twat as
>>> well" that you would care to rethink?
>> He didn't see the person coming down the hill, he didn't see the person
>> almost in front of his bumper, he didn't see the person as his body
>> impacted with the car. After that his windscreen was broken and he
>> couldn't see much at all.
>
> That is the police version. (And Mr Woods was coming up the hill, not
> going down.)
>
>> This 'moments inattention' lasted a long time.
>
> Hold on. The defendent claims his windscreen "went white", the
> implication being that it shattered before the crash. The police
> didn't believe this version.
>
> While "driving like a twat" is a fair description of dangerous
> driving, it may be that Voong only pleaded guilty out of remorse and
> to spare Mr Woods' family further distress. The judge may have
> recognised this and that is why Voong has avoided a prison sentence.
>
> On the other hand, Voong may be lying, and the crash may have been
> caused by twattish behaviour - not simply "a moments' inattention". If
> the police believed that "a moments' inattention" was the likely casue
> the charge would have been causing death by careless driving.
>
> In either case, Nugent's claim that it was a "moments' inattention" is
> likely to be wrong. Voong is either guilty of "driving like a twat",
> or only pleaded guilty to "driving like a twat" out of remorse.

> I am inclined to believe the latter

....which is the same thing as it being a moment's inattention (you only
posit those two alternatives).

The other poster insisted that it is not possible to be convicted of
CDBDD except where it arises out of "driving like a twat". But even if
remorse does play a part, here we have a case where there is no credible
evidence of "driving like a twat". That is, according to what you say
you believe of the case - I make and have made no comment on it.

It follows that I am no more likely to be wrong than you are.

james.annan@gmail.com

On Mar 29, 6:17 pm, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 7:41 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >>>> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".
> >>>> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
> >>>> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.
> >>> Nonsense.
> >>> What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?
> >>> Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
> >>> below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
> >>> would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
> >>> personal injury or serious damage to property
> >> ...and it mainly happens in respect of people who have passed tests of
> >> competence to drive and of whom it would, in general, be thought that
> >> they were not dangerous drivers (becuase, apart from anything else, they
> >> have no track record of causing death by dangerous).
>
> > Dangerous driving doesn't "happen" to anyone. As is quite clear from
> > the definition, it's something that a driver chooses to do.
>
> This has all come up before.
>
> Careless and/or dangerous driving can result simply from inattention or
> distraction (hence, among other things, the ban on hand-held phones) and
> it is dangerous to assume otherwise. In particular, don't be so arrogant
> as to imagine that you are too good for it to happen to you. Every other
> dangerous driver thought the same thing.

No, every driver who causes death by dangerous driving chose to drive
in a manner which falls FAR below that of a competent driver and in
such a way that it would be obvious to a competent driver that there
is a serious risk of personal injury or serious damage to property.

Of course you may have some miscarriages of justice in mind, in which
case please share. Which convictions for CDBDD do you think could just
have "happened" to any reasonably competent and considerate driver?

James

JNugent

james.annan@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:17 pm, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 7:41 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> james.an...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 29, 1:51 am, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>>>> But CDBDD very much *is* "one of those things that could happen to anyone".
>>>>>> If you drive at all, don't be so arrogant as to assume that it couldn't
>>>>>> happen to you. Assuming that is a first step to driving dangerously.
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>> What is the legal definition of dangerous driving?
>>>>> Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls FAR
>>>>> below that of a competent driver and driving in such a way that it
>>>>> would be obvious to a competent driver that there is a serious risk of
>>>>> personal injury or serious damage to property
>>>> ...and it mainly happens in respect of people who have passed tests of
>>>> competence to drive and of whom it would, in general, be thought that
>>>> they were not dangerous drivers (becuase, apart from anything else, they
>>>> have no track record of causing death by dangerous).
>>> Dangerous driving doesn't "happen" to anyone. As is quite clear from
>>> the definition, it's something that a driver chooses to do.
>> This has all come up before.
>>
>> Careless and/or dangerous driving can result simply from inattention or
>> distraction (hence, among other things, the ban on hand-held phones) and
>> it is dangerous to assume otherwise. In particular, don't be so arrogant
>> as to imagine that you are too good for it to happen to you. Every other
>> dangerous driver thought the same thing.
>
> No, every driver who causes death by dangerous driving chose to drive
> in a manner which falls FAR below that of a competent driver and in
> such a way that it would be obvious to a competent driver that there
> is a serious risk of personal injury or serious damage to property.
>
> Of course you may have some miscarriages of justice in mind, in which
> case please share. Which convictions for CDBDD do you think could just
> have "happened" to any reasonably competent and considerate driver?

I take it that you have been following this very thread?

Simon Brooke

JNugent wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> First step: realise that it can happen to you just as easily as to
>>> anyone else.
>>
>> If you really believe that, stop driving. Now.
>
> Ah yes... the usual ad-hominem response.
>
> Obviously, you think you're too good to ever drive dangerously. That
> being so, *you* are exactly the sort of person who should not drive,
> since you believe that your own failings are too trivial to ever worry
> about. I recognise my own failings - and yours.

Seriously, this is a matter of psychology and attitude. If you
say 'accidents happen, they're inevitable, they can happen to anyone' you
drive as if they're inevitable. If you say 'accidents are never inevitable,
and only happen to the criminally irresponsible' you'll drive as if you are
responsible for your actions.

One way is better than the other.

And yes, I have been criminally irresponsible in the past (although the only
person I've ever injured is me). That's how I know the difference.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

Simon Brooke

JNugent wrote:

> Mark T wrote:
>
>> JNugent writtificated
>
>>> This has all come up before.
>
>> Were you talking out of your arse then, too?
>> Many accidents and examples of careless driving result from a moment of
>> inattention. Being convicted for dangerous driving requires a certain
>> amount of driving like a twat as well.
>
> Are you *totally* incapable of reading a thread?

It appears that you are.

> The incident which this very thread is about arose, by common agreement
> (by other posters - I have made no comment on it), out of - at worst - a
> moment's inattention on the part of the driver. Only the most extremist
> of posters have said anything different.

No-one - except you - has expressed opinion as to wether it was a moment's
innattention or not. The evidence, in so far as I have seen it, is
inconclusive on that point. However, the prosecutors and the judge, both of
whom had seen considerably more of the evidence, both considered this
was 'dangerous' and not 'careless' driving. They clearly had a reason.

The defence claims that his windscreen 'suddenly went white'. That simply
does not happen to modern windscreens unless stuck a very heavy blow with a
large object. When struck with a stone chip, modern windscreens just chip
or star. No other large object than the body of the cyclist has been
reported, so, on the evidence I am aware of, beyond reasonable doubt this
was a lie. If there's one lie in the defence case there may be others.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin

JNugent

Simon Brooke wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>> First step: realise that it can happen to you just as easily as to
>>>> anyone else.
>>> If you really believe that, stop driving. Now.

>> Ah yes... the usual ad-hominem response.
>> Obviously, you think you're too good to ever drive dangerously. That
>> being so, *you* are exactly the sort of person who should not drive,
>> since you believe that your own failings are too trivial to ever worry
>> about. I recognise my own failings - and yours.

> Seriously, this is a matter of psychology and attitude. If you
> say 'accidents happen, they're inevitable, they can happen to anyone' you
> drive as if they're inevitable.

*I* don't.

And I do not advocate the adoption of a fatalist attitude. Quite the
opposite. There are some (other) posters here who seem to be operating
on the basis that they can never drive dangerously simply because they
define themselves as non-dangerous drivers, on whatever "out-group"
basis they use. I say that that is fundamentally the wrong approach -
it's just a sophistry-tweaked version of "I can never be wrong, others
can never be right".

> If you say 'accidents are never inevitable,
> and only happen to the criminally irresponsible' you'll drive as if you are
> responsible for your actions.

Not necessarily.

> One way is better than the other.

Only in the imagination.

> And yes, I have been criminally irresponsible in the past (although the only
> person I've ever injured is me). That's how I know the difference.

I don't think I have ever been involved in whatever sort of incident
yours was, but I understand (without having to experience it) that it
might happen tomorrow. Or today.

JNugent

Simon Brooke wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Mark T wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent writtificated
>>>> This has all come up before.
>>> Were you talking out of your arse then, too?
>>> Many accidents and examples of careless driving result from a moment of
>>> inattention. Being convicted for dangerous driving requires a certain
>>> amount of driving like a twat as well.
>> Are you *totally* incapable of reading a thread?
>
> It appears that you are.
>
>> The incident which this very thread is about arose, by common agreement
>> (by other posters - I have made no comment on it), out of - at worst - a
>> moment's inattention on the part of the driver. Only the most extremist
>> of posters have said anything different.
>
> No-one - except you - has expressed opinion as to wether it was a moment's
> innattention or not.

I have actually passed *no* "opinion" on anything to do with the
incident. I am describing the opinions passed by others. If you don't
agree with my description of them, fair enough. I think it's an accurate
enough description.

> The evidence, in so far as I have seen it, is
> inconclusive on that point. However, the prosecutors and the judge, both of
> whom had seen considerably more of the evidence, both considered this
> was 'dangerous' and not 'careless' driving. They clearly had a reason.

Absolutely. They must have.

> The defence claims that his windscreen 'suddenly went white'. That simply
> does not happen to modern windscreens unless stuck a very heavy blow with a
> large object. When struck with a stone chip, modern windscreens just chip
> or star. No other large object than the body of the cyclist has been
> reported, so, on the evidence I am aware of, beyond reasonable doubt this
> was a lie. If there's one lie in the defence case there may be others.

Who knows?

All any of us know is that this driver seems to have been a reasonable
sort of chap and seems to be devastated by the fact that someone was
killed. He pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, CDBDD. That his
driving up the point of impact does not, on the face of it, appear to
have exhibited the sterotypical characteristics of dangerous driving
(pithily suggested by one obviously-literary poster as requiring
"driving like a twat") did not prevent the conviction.

Let me make this repeated point clear: I know only what I have read
about this incident. I make no direct comment on it because my opinions
on it are neither here nor there. My comments are confined to comment on
other peoples' comments.

Tom Crispin

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:01:47 +0000, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>> The A207/A2 is an east-west route, not north-south. It flows
>> reasonable freely from Welling to Deptford.
>
>"Flows reasonably freely" meaning "like treacle most of the day" - and
>the important point is that the N/S routes between them are wholly
>inadequate.

No. Flowing reasonably freely means just that. It is a good urban
road with a few short delays at lights and roundabouts. The A2209 is
an excellent high capacity N/S link between the A2 and A200.

For ease, I have annotated an aerial view of the area.
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/parkroute.jpg

From this it is obvious that The Avenue, marked with a broken line,
could easily be closed to traffic 7am to 10am and 4pm to dusk. It is
already closed overnight and 10am to 4pm.

Though not obvious, I have marked the locations of the two Vietnamese
Restaurants on or near the Greenwich Gyratory with red blobs as being
the likely destination of Mr Voong, and I can see why using the park
as a through road would have been of use to him.

>> The A208/A200 is a nightmare east-west route from Woolwich to
>> Deptford. Using the Park as an alternative is really no use as it
>> would involve a convoluted diversion of about 2 miles.
>
>Ah... did I get the road number wrong?

I think we both got the number wrong.

>For "A207", read "A200/A206", ie, the lower route between Rotherhithe
>and Woolwich, though for these purposes, I refer only to the stretch
>between Deptford and Blackwall (ie, the bit where Greenwich Park lies to
>the south). Mea culpa.
>
>> The A2/A102 flows freely south-north from the M25 to the Sun-in-Sands
>> roundabout where it grinds to a sluggish crawl to the Blackwall Tunnel
>> during the rush hour. Coming off the A2 at the Sun-in-Sands through
>> the park then along the sluggish A208 would be simply nuts.
>
>Unless you were going to Deptford or Surrey Docks or Southwark, in which
>case not turning off there would be the silly thing to do - wouldn't it?

No. But the high capicity dual carriageway A2209 would be the link
road to use.

>Of course, traffic heading for the wide-open spaces of the
>A2/A20/M20/M25/Dartford from Southwark/Rotherhithe has the "choice" of
>the A2 (with horrific bottlenecks at New Cross, Deptford, Blackheath
>Hill and the heath) or the "lower road" which flows better down to
>Deptford but still dumps the traffic at the foot of Blackheath Hill just
>in time for the slow queue across the heath itself.

Again, using the A2209 makes so much more sense, failing that, Crooms
Hill.

>A way to take advantage of the lower road and avoid Blackheath Hill
>(which is well worth avoiding) is to continue via the Greenwich one-way
>system and go south through the park, especially as it then avoids the
>slow crawl toward Blackwall and lets traffic merge with the A2 to the
>east of the narrow part of Blackheath itself. As a route, it makes a lot
>of sense, whereas you seem to think it doesn't. Perhaps you think that
>none of the people using it and similar routes are just irrational and
>that only you are qualified to judge their best interests.

I can see that using Greenwich Park as a high speed route, avoiding
traffic calming, lights and/or speed restrictions has its advantages.
What I do say is that it is not an appropriate or necessary use of
Greenwich Park.

>> The A2211 flows reasonably freely south-north between Lewisham and
>> Greenwich, though it can be a little slow where it crosses the A2, and
>> then again when it hits the Greenwich Gyratory. Again, using the park
>> is of little advantage.
>
>Is that the road which crosses the A2 just east (about six hundred feet
>east) of Deptford? If so, would you recommend anyone intending to travel
>east along the A2 to use it - and join the queue to ascend Blackheath Hill?

No. That road is a continuation of the A206.

>> What you neglect to recognise is that the road through Greenwich Park
>> is perpendicular to the Thames.
>
>Au contraire! Given that the main routes there are E/W, that is the
>road's main attraction.

No. Its main attraction is a route without traffic calming and with a
30mph limit.

>> Its only useful purpose as a through
>> road is an altenate link between the A2 and the A200, or for cyclists
>> using it to reach the Greenwich Foot Tunnel or the Thames Cycle Route.
>
>Yes... and?

As a major cyclists' commuter route 30mph is not an appropriate limit.
The 2-way cycle path is wholly inadequate.

>> Other more direct links between the A2 and A200 include Maze Hill and
>> Crooms Hill, both of which are traffic calmed
>
>...and badly-congested at rush hour because of the effect of that
>traffic-calming and the effect of parked vehicles which cause gridlock.
>The N/S routes are totally inadequate (as are the E/W routes, though you
>seem to suggest that they aren't).

The A2/A2209/A200 is a perfectly adequate route from the City to Kent
and beyond. Crooms Hill and Maze Hill are prefectly adeqaute for
local traffic - though I can see why using the park would be useful
for shop owners and residents in parts of the Greenwich Gyratory.

>>> I always think of the parks in Liverpool. Most are not on through
>>> routes, but two always were. The Liverpool Ring Road (as originally
>>> built and laid out) terminated on the north-east fringes of Sefton Park
>>> and traffic could only reach the most southerly route in the city (the
>>> A561) via that park. The route is still open to traffic today (luckily),
>>> though the official Ring Road route has been diverted away to the east
>>> via the A562 at Allerton. Providing better alternatives is always the
>>> best way to reduce through traffic in places where it particularly isn't
>>> anted.
>
>> Therein lies your mistake. Trying to justify the use of Greenwich
>> Park as a fast commuter route by comparing it to a park road you know
>> in Liverpool. It makes you look ridiculous.
>
>The "park in Liverpool" lies on the city's ring road (as was). It was
>meant to be used as a through route (though not for the last forty years
>or so).
>
>I know the road through Greenwich Park - I have used it. I would not
>decribe it as "fast" and I'm not sure why you do.

Fast compared with Maze Hill and Crooms Hill, both of which are
traffic calmed.

>It's a road. It's available to traffic. It's supposed to be used
>lawfully. Had the driver in the recent incident complied with that, the
>collision and death would not have occurred.

Had the road been closed to motor traffic, calmed, been limited to
20mph or an adequate cycle path on the east not west side of the road
the death would not have occurred.

elyob

"Pete Biggs" <p@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc> wrote in
message news:6501cjF2dg7c9U1@mid.individual.net...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
>>> cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
>>> banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
>>> Wednesday.
>>
>> I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from
>> imprisoning him. I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to
>> have his driving license back. But prison doesn't solve things. It
>> doesn't make the driver a better person, and it doesn't bring the
>> cyclist back to life. I'm not persuaded that the community needs to
>> be protected from this man in any way that just stopping him driving
>> won't achieve.
>
> I think I agree with that, but the community would have benefited if he
> had been given a load of community service to do (on top of a fine and a
> long driving ban).

What's the point in a ban? "he had voluntarily surrendered his licence".

It reads as though he stood up to what has happened. The judge did use the
word "exceptionally".

Each case should be taken on its own merits.

I do agree that the park limits should be reduced, however this won't stop
people travelling at a speed they feel comfortable with. This is what
happens in Richmond Park, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver
obeying the 20mph limit ... in fact it looks distinctly odd.

Tom Crispin

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:36:49 +0000, Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:

>The defence claims that his windscreen 'suddenly went white'. That simply
>does not happen to modern windscreens unless stuck a very heavy blow with a
>large object. When struck with a stone chip, modern windscreens just chip
>or star. No other large object than the body of the cyclist has been
>reported, so, on the evidence I am aware of, beyond reasonable doubt this
>was a lie. If there's one lie in the defence case there may be others.

Tomorrow I am spending the day with someone who was at the court. I
will try to find out more. He was the source of the report I quoted
to start this thread.

I am ignorant of the likelihood or otherwise of a windscreen
spontaneously shattering. I expect that the police would pick up on a
lump of ice falling from a plane - the park is under the flight path
to Heathrow - or other freak impact. So if a windscreen shattering is
ruled out as the cause, Mr Voong must have been doing something truly
daft to have ended up on the wrong side of the road.

Tom Crispin

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:03:34 -0000, "elyob" <newsprofile@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I do agree that the park limits should be reduced, however this won't stop
>people travelling at a speed they feel comfortable with. This is what
>happens in Richmond Park, it is a rare occurence that you see a driver
>obeying the 20mph limit ... in fact it looks distinctly odd.

The one time I cycled in Richmond Park I was particularly impressed
with the standard of driving.