GreenShed wrote:
Oh here we go with the hypocritical commentary.
It was 7pm on a Saturday night outside of a school.
There are hundreds of comments on here justifying the variation of speed limits, examples would be:
At road works when the workers are not working
On all roads when the weather is good/bad
(Dare I say it) Outside of schools when the schools are not working
It depend. I usually slow for any roadworks anyway, choosing a safe - usually compliant speed at all time. We not know what speed he actually do - only that he was illegal und uninsured at time of this crash .. That he also have the history of previous conviction. All this give impression of the affable wide boy whom we all like by instinct - but all keep wary of all the same.
Quote:
Now there are comments about this chap being a law breaker as he was a disqualified driver.
Perhaps he could even be described as an "otherwise law abiding motorist!"
The rider shouldn't have been riding, correct; this is no different from someone who was driving quite legally except for say, no seat belt, on a mobile telephone, exceeding the speed limit.
I think a lot different as this a very deliberate act. I seat belt/speed infringe may be a careless second. (By seat belt infringe - I mean that second in which he set off but forget to belt up ..It can happen - I have hooted und gestured as folk leave car parks in past... ) Held handy use? That would be relatively deliberate decision to make a call or answer a call.
But his choice was deliberate. You know if you are banned or not. You do not "forget" for a second

At this moment in time - I have still not been cleared by medics to ride bike or drive car. So I happen to
know or at least have some understanding of how they can yield to temptations.. but all the same - one ist a grown up (or tries to be.
I know I play "pretend drive in driver's seat" with childish "eererrrrmmmm VARRROOOOMMMMM!" 
)
Quote:
Did his disqualification contribute to the collision? No it did not. Of course he wouldn't have been there if he observed his disqualification but contribute to the collision, ,I think not.
I do not think we say it did - but he was disqualified three times in a short life time - which mean that perhaps we fail to educate him properly???

Both in morals/self-discpline- COAST or motivating to safety-led riding
Quote:
Do I have sympathy with he chaps family? Well yes I do, they have lost a family member to an early death. Do I have sympathy with him? Not really but I would prefer he didn't die even if he was unlawful. Do I agree with the plaudits he is receiving? No.
I think we have to bear in mind that he was loved by his family.. but that that family should still have been more draconian or disciplinarian in instilling sense of right und wrong und driving without licence has to be a

Statistics across Europe show that the unlcenced have highest stat rating for carnage to selves und others
because they are perhaps more inclined to run the stupidest of risks to avoid capture or perhaps for the thrill of being "naughty"" I think I would be happier if his plaudits reflected his "cheerful personality" but remarked that he was a fool in his actions that day und that he die for senseless reason - by his own decision und possible rider errors made from red mist.
Quote:
Where are you headed with this? You must surely see the hypocrisy and absurdity of your usual arguments. You can't pick and choose the laws you observe and when you want to ignore them; it doesn't work for anyone.
I think we try to warn that illegal unlicenced will die no matter how many speed cams we put on the roads.. that we have to have the penalty to match the first offence to deter further offence - but that with that first offence penalty - there has to be a very comprehensive correcting course leading to pride in the sheer sklll of safe driving/riding. I note that two police forces - Surrey und Durham both are extending free rider courses to help .. along with the already known about DIS. The SAC cget offered under different criteria - as in cam op/NIP
I think perhaps we need more such workshops aimed at the young kids
Quote:
Even more importantly you can't lambaste this chap because he broke one law with tragic circumstances and then advocate the manipulation of the laws you see as OK to be ignored.
I think it more than likely that he was biking inconsiderately und incompetently all the same. If his brake fail - his the responsibility to check. Likewise - if diesel slick or water after the rain .. making "greasy surface" - then competent rider would be aware of such

I have to say he probably too fast for the conditions of the road at the time of this crash.
But in all this thread to so far? Has anyone considered his victim whom Mad Doc say will only be able to claim minimum from MIB - und whose compo und treatment land on our collective shoulders und not the deceased's insurers? She the one who really suffer the most? Mad Doc commented that he
injured an innocent in the opener and made no comment other than he has little sympathy for the guy but appreciates those who knew him will want to remember him as a nice guy - which they usually are - but this does not mean "exonerate from culpability" all the same.
I note that the "SCP" person I am quoting has not considered her nor even made any comment in this quoted post - such ist his desire to label all here as hypocrites. Und I am not baiting - as I am referring to his own words within the first sentence of his post. If he had any real regard - he would also consider the woman with the SI.