Doing the rounds on Facebook.
Discussion
OK then if you want a better comparison:
a) get pissed and score the unluckiest kill shot ever with a pea shooter = 3 years
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/ge...
b) numerous SMIDSY over the last year alone resulting in death = nothing
most obvious one being the bloke who cut a corner killing a cyclist wearing full reflectives innocently waiting to make a right turn
How does that differ?
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/10982900.Man...
I'm a keen cyclist and know how dangerous the roads can be. I just think the cartoon is shortsighted although may have a valid point in the lack of convictions.
I'm a keen cyclist and know how dangerous the roads can be. I just think the cartoon is shortsighted although may have a valid point in the lack of convictions.
On the other hand, there are occasions when justice is served.
http://road.cc/content/news/111638-leader-club-run...
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/l...
In short, moron swerves into opposite lane and tries to run a group of cyclists off the road.
Cyclists give chase. Moron stops his van and reverses at cyclists before driving off.
Moron is caught and serves 6 months in prison....
http://road.cc/content/news/111638-leader-club-run...
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/l...
In short, moron swerves into opposite lane and tries to run a group of cyclists off the road.
Cyclists give chase. Moron stops his van and reverses at cyclists before driving off.
Moron is caught and serves 6 months in prison....
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 22 February 21:36
astroarcadia said:
Murder with a gun is usually pre-meditated.
Road deaths are more often man-slaughter.
Different levels of culpability.
I think cartoon is crap.
+1.Road deaths are more often man-slaughter.
Different levels of culpability.
I think cartoon is crap.
It's amazing how badly some people understand the concept of an argument.
An argument should be constructed such that someone who is intelligent, sceptical and open-minded regarding your position could be convinced. An argument with an obvious false equivalence (in this case, intent vs non-intent) would give any such person grounds to think you're an idiot or a liar.
And I agree that we're ineffective at stopping bad driving. I don't particularly care about "justice" and I don't think shoving someone in prison for six months is at all a good reason to suppose someone's behaviour has improved (and I am supported by the evidence on this - at least in the UK). We normally take it on trust that someone would not deliberately drive at someone (since there is no reliable test and we can't ban everyone) - but when someone has proven themselves undeserving of that trust, why should we ever grant it to them again?
paranoid airbag said:
astroarcadia said:
Murder with a gun is usually pre-meditated.
Road deaths are more often man-slaughter.
Different levels of culpability.
I think cartoon is crap.
+1.Road deaths are more often man-slaughter.
Different levels of culpability.
I think cartoon is crap.
It's amazing how badly some people understand the concept of an argument.
An argument should be constructed such that someone who is intelligent, sceptical and open-minded regarding your position could be convinced. An argument with an obvious false equivalence (in this case, intent vs non-intent) would give any such person grounds to think you're an idiot or a liar.
And I agree that we're ineffective at stopping bad driving. I don't particularly care about "justice" and I don't think shoving someone in prison for six months is at all a good reason to suppose someone's behaviour has improved (and I am supported by the evidence on this - at least in the UK). We normally take it on trust that someone would not deliberately drive at someone (since there is no reliable test and we can't ban everyone) - but when someone has proven themselves undeserving of that trust, why should we ever grant it to them again?
astroarcadia said:
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/10982900.Man...
I'm a keen cyclist and know how dangerous the roads can be. I just think the cartoon is shortsighted although may have a valid point in the lack of convictions.
That was nothing to do with a car, he got hit in the head with a hammer by three teenagers who then gloated about doing it.I'm a keen cyclist and know how dangerous the roads can be. I just think the cartoon is shortsighted although may have a valid point in the lack of convictions.
mrmr96 said:
astroarcadia said:
Really?
I thought the cartoon was in response to the recent deaths concentrated in London.
Granted the cartoon looks American.
The look on the bad guys face says it really.I thought the cartoon was in response to the recent deaths concentrated in London.
Granted the cartoon looks American.
I may be overthinking this.
paranoid airbag said:
+1.
It's amazing how badly some people understand the concept of an argument.
An argument should be constructed such that someone who is intelligent, sceptical and open-minded regarding your position could be convinced. An argument with an obvious false equivalence (in this case, intent vs non-intent) would give any such person grounds to think you're an idiot or a liar.
And I agree that we're ineffective at stopping bad driving. I don't particularly care about "justice" and I don't think shoving someone in prison for six months is at all a good reason to suppose someone's behaviour has improved (and I am supported by the evidence on this - at least in the UK). We normally take it on trust that someone would not deliberately drive at someone (since there is no reliable test and we can't ban everyone) - but when someone has proven themselves undeserving of that trust, why should we ever grant it to them again?
Well phrased.It's amazing how badly some people understand the concept of an argument.
An argument should be constructed such that someone who is intelligent, sceptical and open-minded regarding your position could be convinced. An argument with an obvious false equivalence (in this case, intent vs non-intent) would give any such person grounds to think you're an idiot or a liar.
And I agree that we're ineffective at stopping bad driving. I don't particularly care about "justice" and I don't think shoving someone in prison for six months is at all a good reason to suppose someone's behaviour has improved (and I am supported by the evidence on this - at least in the UK). We normally take it on trust that someone would not deliberately drive at someone (since there is no reliable test and we can't ban everyone) - but when someone has proven themselves undeserving of that trust, why should we ever grant it to them again?
THat said, it's facebook for you. Thickies and commoners absolutely love that kind of crap and lap it up like thirsty dogs
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff