In the news - Jaguar Land Rover Manager - Road Rage Crash
Discussion
k-ink said:
I am trying NOT to re-start the anti 4x4 thing. But am interested in the general large car v tiny car situation...
We've all seen those mental blokes in their wife's small car driving like aggressive lunatics. I think that there is just a significant proportion of unstable men with anger and inferiority issues in the UK. I don't actually think what car they drive is relevant.
I do think that people are more prone to noticing this behaviour when it is done by people who are a certain colour or drive a certain type of car etc. I think that is just natural human behaviour.
Artey said:
Willy Nilly said:
Do "we" want to see his life ruined too, possibly costing the state many thousands of pounds when he can't find a job and ends up on benefits, or do "we" want him to be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society? When he has finished his sentence, how does he make amends?
We could bring back labour camps, people like him instead of sitting on their asses in nice secure lockups could do something useful like build roads or do other things that could serve society as a whole which would offset the costs incurred by the state. But I guess his/their human rights would suffer innit, we can't have this happen.His act was deliberate , undertaking and driving across a live carriageway with no consideration for the occupants in either cars was culpable , reckless , dangerous regardless of what vehicle he was driving
As a human knowing the outcome that his actions have caused and fully aware of the life changing injuries received by the two children. He then chose to lie
This lack of remorse changes the situation entirely , a sorry excuse for a human being , I would be actively waiting for this scum to be coming out of jail in 2 years and crippling him , "an eye for an eye"
when hes going to suffer like these two innocent kiddies for the rest of his life ...is real justice
KungFuPanda said:
Yep and it's going to be one massive claim. None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent so they all have claims against the driver of the Disco and his insurers.
The girl's claims are going to be the biggest. Not only will they have a claim for pain, suffering and loss of amenity but their claim for special damages is going to have to cover future care and future loss of earnings probably until their retirement age due to their future disadvantage on the labour market.
Further up the thread there are some who are complaining that this amount hasn't already been agreed and settled and that somehow JLR should be embarrassed. I'll leave them to their Daily Mailesq comments. The girl's claims are going to be the biggest. Not only will they have a claim for pain, suffering and loss of amenity but their claim for special damages is going to have to cover future care and future loss of earnings probably until their retirement age due to their future disadvantage on the labour market.
DonkeyApple said:
We've all seen those mental blokes in their wife's small car driving like aggressive lunatics.
I think that there is just a significant proportion of unstable men with anger and inferiority issues in the UK. I don't actually think what car they drive is relevant.
I do think that people are more prone to noticing this behaviour when it is done by people who are a certain colour or drive a certain type of car etc. I think that is just natural human behaviour.
I haven't seen those blokes. I think that there is just a significant proportion of unstable men with anger and inferiority issues in the UK. I don't actually think what car they drive is relevant.
I do think that people are more prone to noticing this behaviour when it is done by people who are a certain colour or drive a certain type of car etc. I think that is just natural human behaviour.
deadslow said:
nffcforever said:
No, no, no! His actions were not ENTIRELY and WHOLLY intentional!!
He did not intend to hit the car. That would be seriously crazy.
I hope you never ever get called up for jury service.
He drove so negligently that the consequences were foreseeable. He ought to be inside for at least 10years. He did not intend to hit the car. That would be seriously crazy.
I hope you never ever get called up for jury service.
Not sure why it's so hard to understand. There's a massive difference between (for example) hitting a patch of spilt diesel and coming off the road (an accident, even if it could be argued that you should have seen it or should have been driving at a speed to allow for such things) and driving so ferociously aggressively that there is a very real chance that you are going to have a very serious coming together with another road user.
The latter is not something you do 'accidentally'.
DBSV8 said:
Artey said:
Willy Nilly said:
Do "we" want to see his life ruined too, possibly costing the state many thousands of pounds when he can't find a job and ends up on benefits, or do "we" want him to be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society? When he has finished his sentence, how does he make amends?
We could bring back labour camps, people like him instead of sitting on their asses in nice secure lockups could do something useful like build roads or do other things that could serve society as a whole which would offset the costs incurred by the state. But I guess his/their human rights would suffer innit, we can't have this happen.His act was deliberate , undertaking and driving across a live carriageway with no consideration for the occupants in either cars was culpable , reckless , dangerous regardless of what vehicle he was driving
As a human knowing the outcome that his actions have caused and fully aware of the life changing injuries received by the two children. He then chose to lie
This lack of remorse changes the situation entirely , a sorry excuse for a human being , I would be actively waiting for this scum to be coming out of jail in 2 years and crippling him , "an eye for an eye"
when hes going to suffer like these two innocent kiddies for the rest of his life ...is real justice
nffcforever said:
Ari said:
Yes, precisely. His actions were entirely and wholly intentional.
They went wrong in an absolutely appalling way, but there is NO way you could call what he did an accident - he drove incredibly recklessly entirely deliberately.
Bit like firing a gun in a busy place. You might not aim it at someone and you might argue that you didn't mean to shoot anyone. But to suggest it's an 'accident' if you did is absurd.
No, no, no! His actions were not ENTIRELY and WHOLLY intentional!!They went wrong in an absolutely appalling way, but there is NO way you could call what he did an accident - he drove incredibly recklessly entirely deliberately.
Bit like firing a gun in a busy place. You might not aim it at someone and you might argue that you didn't mean to shoot anyone. But to suggest it's an 'accident' if you did is absurd.
He did not intend to hit the car. That would be seriously crazy.
I hope you never ever get called up for jury service.
Willy Nilly said:
Do "we" want to see his life ruined too, possibly costing the state many thousands of pounds when he can't find a job and ends up on benefits, or do "we" want him to be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society? When he has finished his sentence, how does he make amends?
Maybe by committing suicide? That's the best option I can think of.Ari said:
Precisely this.
Not sure why it's so hard to understand. There's a massive difference between (for example) hitting a patch of spilt diesel and coming off the road (an accident, even if it could be argued that you should have seen it or should have been driving at a speed to allow for such things) and driving so ferociously aggressively that there is a very real chance that you are going to have a very serious coming together with another road user.
The latter is not something you do 'accidentally'.
I did respond to that post saying I agreed with it essentially. But fact is, in layman terms, he didn't set out intentionally to hit the car. That part of it was unintended. Not sure why it's so hard to understand. There's a massive difference between (for example) hitting a patch of spilt diesel and coming off the road (an accident, even if it could be argued that you should have seen it or should have been driving at a speed to allow for such things) and driving so ferociously aggressively that there is a very real chance that you are going to have a very serious coming together with another road user.
The latter is not something you do 'accidentally'.
Sheepshanks said:
KungFuPanda said:
None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent...
I think someone mentioned it earlier, but I'd be genuinely interested to know if they were in appropriate (for their size/age) restraints.I read somewhere that the Insignia (the car that the Discovery drove into) was doing about 50mph. At 50mph, if a two tonne 4x4 plows into the front of you then there are going to be very severe consequences no matter how good the car and the restraints.
Willy Nilly said:
DBSV8 said:
Artey said:
Willy Nilly said:
Do "we" want to see his life ruined too, possibly costing the state many thousands of pounds when he can't find a job and ends up on benefits, or do "we" want him to be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society? When he has finished his sentence, how does he make amends?
We could bring back labour camps, people like him instead of sitting on their asses in nice secure lockups could do something useful like build roads or do other things that could serve society as a whole which would offset the costs incurred by the state. But I guess his/their human rights would suffer innit, we can't have this happen.His act was deliberate , undertaking and driving across a live carriageway with no consideration for the occupants in either cars was culpable , reckless , dangerous regardless of what vehicle he was driving
As a human knowing the outcome that his actions have caused and fully aware of the life changing injuries received by the two children. He then chose to lie
This lack of remorse changes the situation entirely , a sorry excuse for a human being , I would be actively waiting for this scum to be coming out of jail in 2 years and crippling him , "an eye for an eye"
when hes going to suffer like these two innocent kiddies for the rest of his life ...is real justice
They'd have to be oldskool camps, not the modern EU lefty kind though. And if they don't learn anything and go back in again... gooooooood, more resurfaced roads, railways, train stations, more hospitals and such. Possibilities are endless.
Ari said:
I read somewhere that the Insignia (the car that the Discovery drove into) was doing about 50mph. At 50mph, if a two tonne 4x4 plows into the front of you then there are going to be very severe consequences no matter how good the car and the restraints.
57mph, Signum vs modern DiscoAri said:
I don't think you're going to get it.
Cop out. If you're suggesting that because I have an opinion that certain types are cars are more likely to be driven in an aggressive manner (which appears to be backed up by various studies) that this somehow means my ability to act as a fair and balanced member of a jury could be called into question then that is just weird. Edited by nffcforever on Friday 27th May 20:46
Sheepshanks said:
KungFuPanda said:
None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent...
I think someone mentioned it earlier, but I'd be genuinely interested to know if they were in appropriate (for their size/age) restraints.Impasse said:
KungFuPanda said:
Yep and it's going to be one massive claim. None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent so they all have claims against the driver of the Disco and his insurers.
The girl's claims are going to be the biggest. Not only will they have a claim for pain, suffering and loss of amenity but their claim for special damages is going to have to cover future care and future loss of earnings probably until their retirement age due to their future disadvantage on the labour market.
Further up the thread there are some who are complaining that this amount hasn't already been agreed and settled and that somehow JLR should be embarrassed. I'll leave them to their Daily Mailesq comments. The girl's claims are going to be the biggest. Not only will they have a claim for pain, suffering and loss of amenity but their claim for special damages is going to have to cover future care and future loss of earnings probably until their retirement age due to their future disadvantage on the labour market.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff