Drunk drivers slammed after two cyclists killed

ambroseg1 said:
Yeah. And how do you we know you are not lying about your speed? And how do we know your speedo is 100% accurate?
Click to expand...

It isn't, it can easily by under reading by 10%, but then you would not say he flew past you, you'd say he slowly passed me, if the differential in speed was indeed a mere 10%.
 
Slootvreter said:
Ok. So we should accept the word of someone else without proof.
Click to expand...

Witness testimony is always measured on probability - it's up to the deference to demonstrate that a person's recollection or estimation of speed might not be accurate.
 
Slootvreter said:
Ok. So we should accept the word of someone else without proof.
Click to expand...

The weight of their account would rest on various factors.

As an exmple, obviously my account would have more weighting since I hate lycrans, especially on highways, than that lancelotsa guy from MyBB who said we all killed that one cyclist, cause he is a lycran lover, cause I have no reason to lie about what I observed.
 
Cray said:
Witness testimony is always measured on probability - it's up to the deference to demonstrate that a person's recollection or estimation of speed might not be accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but on MyBB Court, it is accepted regardless.
 
supersunbird said:
The weight of their account would rest on various factors.

As an exmple, obviously my account would have more weighting since I hate lycrans, especially on highways, than that lancelotsa guy from MyBB who said we all killed that one cyclist, cause he is a lycran lover, cause I have no reason to lie about what I observed.
Click to expand...

Good post. :)
 
Slootvreter said:
Yeah, but on MyBB Court, it is accepted regardless.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but then someone still needs to explain to my how a sober driver, who was not speeding, somehow managed run down two cyclists...? The freeway doesn't have sharp bends, it was dawn with plenty of light - what possible other explanation is there? (apart from him texting on his phone)
 
Cray said:
Indeed, but then someone still needs to explain to my how a sober driver, who was not speeding, somehow managed run down two cyclists...? The freeway doesn't have sharp bends, it was dawn with plenty of light - what possible other explanation is there? (apart from him texting on his phone)
Click to expand...

People make all sort of weird accidents all the time, as we can see on YouTube.

Anything could have happend, he could have been distracted, who knows.

And then he crashed into cyclists who were cycling there illegally.
 
Slootvreter said:
People make all sort of weird accidents all the time, as we can see on YouTube.

Anything could have happend, he could have been distracted, who knows.

And then he crashed into cyclists who were cycling there illegally.
Click to expand...

Well, in they UK they have an offense called distracted driving, don't think we have that in SA, so he won't be found guilty of that, but ideally if they had it on the books, he would have been found guilty of "death by distracted driving".
 
supersunbird said:
Well, in they UK they have an offense called distracted driving, don't think we have that in SA, so he won't be found guilty of that, but ideally if they had it on the books, he would have been found guilty of "death by distracted driving".
Click to expand...

Imagine there was a major distraction not caused by yourself (like a cellphone ringing, or something). Could make for a very interesting case. :D

DISCLAIMER: Still not defending drunk drivers.
 
Slootvreter said:
Imagine there was a major distraction not caused by yourself (like a cellphone ringing, or something). Could make for a very interesting case. :D

DISCLAIMER: Still not defending drunk drivers.
Click to expand...

Being distracted by such a thing as cell phone ringing or a burning billboard or a naked lady beside the road or whatever, and thus not looking at the road as you must, means you are guilty of distracted driving.
 
supersunbird said:
Being distracted by such a thing as cell phone ringing or a burning billboard or a naked lady beside the road or whatever, and thus not looking at the road as you must, means you are guilty of distracted driving.
Click to expand...

Unless it was an obstacle in the road, or someone or something crossing the road. Hard to prove though.
 
I watched World Deadliest Drivers or somesuch yesterday, a white car caused a crash on a multi lane highway. The driver of that car said it was the truck that changed lanes and caused the accident. The trucks dashcam clearly shows the truck just stayed in its lane, even after braking and stopping after the crash, when the crash causing driver was told that he quickly changed his story to the correct version and admitted he had fallen asleep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X