This one's going down

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

I understand that those facts are all anyone knew at the time this thread began. What you need to understand is that for justice to be done, you need to know more than that before you pass judgement.

But you are basically saying that they can't have an opinion based on the these facts. we have to wait till we hear both sides before we are allowed to.
The facts so far are the facts he gave himself.
I can pass judgement on anyone without hearing their defence.

Your saying that for justice to be done, you need to know more than that before you pass judgement is wrong when we are not a jury, and you are not the judge making that comment.

You personally can say that you won't make judgement until you hear both sides, but you can't tell everyone that they have to do the same.

Justice isn't an opinion, which is what most of us are debating. even the ones with the opposing opinion

You are entitled to hold an opinion; you are not entitled to share that opinion unless it is done so reasonably and responsibly. We have a law of defamation in this country to guarantee that happens.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

You are entitled to hold an opinion; you are not entitled to share that opinion unless it is done so reasonably and responsibly. We have a law of defamation in this country to guarantee that happens.

I don't see that happening. so we're all ok.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Chris

You are entitled to hold an opinion; you are not entitled to share that opinion unless it is done so reasonably and responsibly. We have a law of defamation in this country to guarantee that happens.

For crying out loud, Chris, This is a Forum, not the Old Bailey. We are just discussing the issue here, no one has the full facts yet, however, on the facts presented, its a pretty damming case. When you seek to stop people expressing their opinions, you are restricting free speech. If everyone did that you`d be talking to yourself.

Originally Posted by Gary L

speed was the factor.

I would say that stepping out in front of the car was also a factor.

Originally Posted by SMG

For crying out loud, Chris, This is a Forum, not the Old Bailey. We are just discussing the issue here, no one has the full facts yet, however, on the facts presented, its a pretty damming case. When you seek to stop people expressing their opinions, you are restricting free speech. If everyone did that you`d be talking to yourself.

Actually you can't libel or slander someone from the witness box of the Old Bailey, or any other court for that matter. Or on the floor of the Commons or Lords debating chambers.

Everywhere else, you have a legal duty to speak or write responsibly. Opinion and comment covers a lot, but it is not a blanket excuse to just say whatever you want. It is entirely possible to libel someone while they are being tried. It is also possible for those same comments to be construed as contempt of court, and you can be in serious trouble if that happens. Apart from the places I listed above, and maybe a very few others, there is nowhere in this country where you have an absolute, unqualified right of free speech.

I'm not saying that any of that has happened here. What has saddened me in this thread is how willing people have been to condemn a man who has not yet had a chance to speak in his own defence. I see no pressing need for people to spill forth their bile right now, before the full facts are revealed, when we all know that the full facts will be revealed very shortly.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

I would say that stepping out in front of the car was also a factor.

Yes that too. you can also use that as a basis for your opinion.

someone got hit and died as a result of a car driving at 90mph on a 30mph road. she hesitated momentarily and tried to run out of the way, but was struck by the car at a reported impact speed of around 72mph.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

I would say that stepping out in front of the car was also a factor.

Of course it was, but was it a reasonable thing to do? Lets be fair. This is a 30mph area. Pedestrians know, you & I know, what to expect regarding a vehicles speed when you look up the road. Now if you are used to judging a distance & determining that you can cross in safety, you cross.

Now this was at night. All you would see would be headlights. Judging the distance of those headlights would give you an indication of the cars distance. Based on your day to day knowledge of vehicle distances, & an approximate speed, lets say 45 MPH, you would determine that you could cross safely.

However, the vehicle was traveling at 90mph.

I would say that had this vehicle displayed its warning lights & siren, any pedestrian would have thought twice before crossing, KNOWING, emergency vehicles travel fast. In that respect the officer was negligent, & the lack of warning lights contributed to this girls death.

Chris, I think your words are a bit harsh m8, a young girl is dead. Feelings will naturally run high.

"I see no pressing need for people to spill forth their bile right now, before the full facts are revealed"

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

I would say that stepping out in front of the car was also a factor.

I think doing 90mph on a public road is the main factor and no warnings given by sirens or blue lights, could you honestly judge speeds at night with car headlights alone, I think not and as for crossing the road that is what you do not expecting any oncoming vehicle to be driven at such speeds towards you.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Moldova

I think doing 90mph on a public road is the main factor and no warnings given by sirens or blue lights, could you honestly judge speeds at night with car headlights alone, I think not and as for crossing the road that is what you do not expecting any oncoming vehicle to be driven at such speeds towards you.

yes you should be able to judge that speed car drivers do it all the time !

pedestrians are not a diferent species

you should treat every road like you were trying to cross a motorway if you dont then i would say you dont value your life very highly

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

yes you should be able to judge that speed car drivers do it all the time !

What age should you have acquired this skill from?

you should treat every road like you were trying to cross a motorway if you dont then i would say you dont value your life very highly

Or you deserve to die basically.

Way to put words in someone's mouth........

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Way to put words in someone's mouth........

You don't say much do you? You mostly just think

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

yes you should be able to judge that speed car drivers do it all the time !

I have driven for over 30 years and professionally as a delivery driver and you cannot judge the speed of a oncoming vehicle at night if you can only see its headlights you only realise how fast they are going when they pass you.

Originally Posted by rogermevans

pedestrians are not a diferent species

No she was not a different species she was a 16 year old girl not expecting to be hit by a vehicle travelling at such speed.

Originally Posted by rogermevans

you should treat every road like you were trying to cross a motorway if you dont then i would say you dont value your life very highly

Well no one in their right mind would attempt to cross a busy motorway so I fail to see the reasoning, are you saying no one should ever cross a road for fear of being hit by a car.


Plus she was not crossing a motorway but a normal suburban road that people cross every day expecting normal suburban non motorway speeds.

The really interesting part has yet to come which is his defence for his actions on that night.

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Gary L

What age should you have acquired this skill from?



Or you deserve to die basically.

will look for the study but kids are often better at it than adults (who get worse at it the older they get) when they concerntrate

kids who are not able to judge speed ( under 7 trying to find the study on it might have been in one of my magazines ) shouldnt be out on thier own crossing roads in anycase

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 21:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Moldova

I have driven for over 30 years and professionally as a delivery driver and you cannot judge the speed of a oncoming vehicle at night if you can only see its headlights you only realise how fast they are going when they pass you.

hmm i might not be getting in your van

Originally Posted by Moldova

Well no one in their right mind would attempt to cross a busy motorway so I fail to see the reasoning, are you saying no one should ever cross a road for fear of being hit by a car.


Plus she was not crossing a motorway but a normal suburban road that people cross every day expecting normal suburban non motorway speeds.

hmm guess you don't live near the schools i do the kids often cross a motorway speed road instead of using the bridge none knocked over so far as they seem to be able to judge either when there is a big enough gap or when the driver has spotted them and will slow ( note i dont condone what they do as they are risking thier lives )

so i would say the kids can easily demonstrate that they are capable of judging these speeds when they are concertrating