Justice for Motorcyclists Protest Ride

Well if that wording was ACCIDENTAL it was very very sloppy.
I believe the wording is intentional (he's quoted as saying "in fact" it contributed to his injuries.. Judges
don't make mistakes about what's fact and what's alleged/assumed/inferred....)
--
Clem
[The only person in Usenet who's ever been wrong]
~

 

cant argue with that clem the law is an arse.
(I aint saying the seppo one)

 

Knobdoodle said....

Kn> I'd love to know the details of "(the helmet) ..had contributed to Mr
Kn> Clarke's injuries."

Good point Knob (mind if I call you Knob, or do you prefer "Doodle", or
"Doodies", perhaps?)

Did the lid splinter into razor sharp fragments that penetrated the
skull, or something similar?

Or is their view that "contributing" to the injuries is not preventing
them from occuring?

If that's the case, then a jacket that fails to prevent gravel rash will
have contributed to said rash....

 

of judgement that had tragic consequences.

You talking justice or revenge?

I'm not familiar with the case in hand but from what I've read in this
thread there are no grounds to treat this guy like a murderer. I do agree
the penalty is light and should be more when death or injury are caused
but I don't want to see him lynched.
--
Deevo

Geraldton
WA, The Nanny State (® Corks)
www.wn.com.au/mckenzie

 

So you would advocate a death penalty for erors of judgment while driving
Why not?of someone is on a phone, pissed, on drugs, etc why shouldnt
they??

Someone here mentioned it more than once.

Yes, but never killed anyone.

Not to my knowledge.

Oh tahts better then?

So was the bloke that died.

 

The judge is presuming that the rider was wearing a helmet to
protect his head. Therefore, its failure to protect his head
contributed to his head injuries.

We reckon that he was wearing a helmet to almost-comply-with
the law. Therefore, it merely failed to protect him.

 

paulh wrote in message ...

 

He just made his point Nev!

If I'm wearing thongs and I step on glass cutting my foot would you say the
thongs contributed to my injuries?
I wouldn't! (And I doubt that anyone who understands english could either!)

What if I normally drive my wife to work but one day she drives herself and
has a prang; did I cause that?
(Actually; forget that last example.. I'm married so it would AUTOMATICALLY
be my fault!)
WorkDoodle

 

sharkey wrote in message ...
~

**** I'm astounded that even though the Judge is quoted as saying "black"
all you super-sentient beings know that he clearly MEANT "white"!
No wonder Victorians used to think Joh Bjelke-Petersen made sense!
WorkDoodle

 

By not remaining on his noggin.

Dale Porter

 

I've ignored the helmet factor so far, because I don't believe it has any
impact on the culpability of the driver.

But Clem, would you care to enlighten me on what you see as being the
difference between the expressions "contributed to ..." and "was a
contributing factor in..."?

Maybe I'm stupid, but I can't see what you are driving at.

Moike

 

Clem, you seem confused by the 2 terms. They actually mean the same thing,
just expressed differently.

From what I can gather from your posts you believe that for the helmet to
contribute to this mans death it had to cause his injuries directly, however
if the helmet was absent from his head when the injuries were sustained then
it could only be a contributing factor.

In both instances the terms "contributed to" and contributing factor" are
interchangeable. The helmet can be a contributing factor, or if you like can
contribute, to his injuries whjether it caused the injuries itself, or by
leaving his head and therefore not do what it was designed to.

It's not a matter of having "a big fat guess" at the circumstances. It's
about understanding the English language.

Dale Porter

 

either!)

You need to brush up on your English *and* reasoning skills Clem

Were the thongs designed to prevent injuriesd to your foot from sharp glass
objects? If they were then yes, they would have contributed to your injury
by failing to do their designed job. But we know thongs were not designed
with this purpose in mind so no, they did not contribute to you injuries.

However.......

You decision to wear thongs rather than a more protective form of footwear
would have contributed to your injuries. That would be a contributing
factor.

Dale Porter

 

Moike wrote in message ...

Ask paulh Moike; he's the one who brought it up.

All I did was observe that the judge is quoted as saying that the helmet
"did not properly protect the rider from impact and IN FACT HAD CONTRIBUTED
to Mr
Clarke's injuries." (My emphasis).

I can understand the "did not properly protect" bit (even though I've got a
chorus of people who seem to think I'm an idiot and are trying to explain it
to me) but I was questioning the "had contributed" bit.

Now I accept that the LACK of a (compliant) helmet may have been a
contributing factor but I'm curious as to how the helmet itself could've
actually contributed.

Is that clear (or are you gonna' start telling me what the judge was
actually MEANING to say too)?
WorkDoodle

 

"Failed to protect" is different from contributed Dale.

If you walk past a bloke getting beaten up and you don't protect him did you
contribute to his injuries?
WorkDoodle

 

Dale Porter wrote in message ...

You're just getting silly now Dale.

Read the sentence (and ignore all the "contributing factor" wank that paulh
made up).

The judge said the helmet "failed to protect".
That's the bit you and the others seem to think I can't understand; but I've
got it, OK?
Call it a contributing factor or whatever you like, that bit is not being
questioned.

The judge also said "it contributed to his injuries".
Not "failed to protect", not "it's absence contributed", but IT CONTRIBUTED.

Now try and understand that simple sentence and stop treating me like I'm
simple.
WorkDoodle.

 

If something has contributed to something, then it is a contributing factor.
Likewise if it is a contributing factor, then it has contributed, whether by
direct action, or inaction. They mean the same thing people! Your're
mistaking implications in the wording for actual meaning within the English
language.

Dale Porter

 

Dale Porter wrote;

More crap about "contributing factors".

I realize it must wound your pride to think that someone you think is an
idiot is actually correct but if you read the sentence (and my example) you
may finally understand that you are ignoring what the judge actually said.
[But you won't admit you were wrong.....]
WorkDoodle