Justice for Motorcyclists Protest Ride

Anyway, he was a magistrate. Just thought I'd set the record
straight, since I wouldn't want people to get confused now the
ratings are back on.

-----sharks

 

Hey, at least you know he'll be concentrating ...

YHVH.

-----sharks

 

No, I wrote "I'd love to know the details of '(the helmet) ..had contributed to Mr Clarke's injuries' " but
then I got a bunch of fools blurting forth with their uninformed opinions and trying to make out I was stupid.

Spoken a person who clearly knows on which side of the fence he's sitting!
(But, of course, would never own up!)

 

Well I DID ask you to READ the sentence, paulh!
The judge has been quoted as saying (the victim's helmet) "did not properly protect the rider from impact and
in fact had contributed to Mr Clarke's injuries."
This is a fact.
~

So it IS "take a big fat guess and try and pretend it's fact" day then?
~

But why do you feel compelled to "read into the alleged comments" and why are you crapping on about
"terminology they use in legal terms" and what the judge means and doesn't mean by his (alleged) statements?

You've taken a simple sentence and fabricated a strange contrary view based entirely on your own assumptions
and opinions and then asserted it like it's some kind of logical truth that I'm too thick to understand.(And
then dropped to the "it was only an opinion" and "why are you getting so aggressive" when it all crumbled
around you).

 

"I was WRONG"
That's how you say it paulh.

 

~
What; did it take some of his scalp with it?

 

NO, I think you'll share that honour with Gerry there

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

Certainly not. He was sentenced to e) most of the above.

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

Well, pretty much yes. Not safe to enter the battle field before you know
what you're up against.

j

 

[snip]

fact it failed to protect him" do you?

saying it"?)

The helmet standard is there so that helmets protects heads. This helmet
didn't meet the standard. It didn't protect the head. If the helmet had
have met the standard, he might not have died, therefore the helmet
contributed to his death. This is all just bloody semantics.

If my sole purpose in life, the very reason for my existence was to protect
him and I didn't, then I have contributed to his death by contravening the
purpose of my existence. Had I lived up to the purpose of my existence, he
may not have died. It's exactly the same - semantics.

[snip]



JP
2003 VN250 (stolen & found) --> 2003 FLSTFI (soon)

 

Who kept voting the senile bastard back in? (Not that I'm Victorian)

JP
2003 VN250 (stolen & found) --> 2003 FLSTFI (soon)

 

[...]

The interesting thing then is, would the driver of the other vehicle be
faced with the same trauma if the rider was properly protected?

No, I don't know the full details, however I think there's a reason why the
word negligence on the part of the rider comes into my mind here. That's
just speculation though, it would be good to know exactly went down with
that helmet.



j
// uttelry paranoid about securing his own chin strap on his own FULL face
helmet

 

So now that the stats are back, do I get a guernsey for starting the
longest thread ... [1]

Cheers
Goaty
1. What, me support the MRAA?

 

paulh wrote in message ...
~

Careful you don't hook your pants in the chain; you're backpedalling that
fast paulh!

Seeing as you seem to have the ability to totally divest yourself of any
responsibility for previous postings here is a copy of your first response
to me;

"But thats just the terminology they use in legal terms. They don't mean the
helmet literally caused the injuries. Just that it's state contributed to
the
injuries that occurred. In the same way that employer negligence can
'contribute' to an employees death, they don't literally mean that the
employee
died directly from pining about the lack of care they were getting.. that
may
have been caused by the sudden stop after a 30m fall... but that it was
contributing factor. Ergo a helmet that that is 40feet from where it should
be,
on a head, can contribute to the injuries by its abscence."

There's no "in my opinion", "how I see it" or "what I think" . There's no
indication that you consider these sentences anything but facts.
Now that you've essentially admitted that you had absolutely no basis for
any of these pseudo-authoritative statements can you imagine any other
description of them but "bald-faced lies".

I can't.

Doodle

 

I give up Clem. You're incorrectly convinced that for the helmet to have
contributed, it *must have* directly caused the injuries. That's utter
bullshit, but your bullheadedness refuses to understand.

Instead you're willing to sink to the levels of a common troll by abusing
all and sundry.

Dale Porter

 

cool. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not going to argue for or against the verdict in this certain case
(as I don't know the facts), and was just reading your arguements. One
thing that does come to mind is why the other driver wasn't charged with
a more serious offense.

For example, in NSW he can be charged with "Negligent driving where
death is occasioned" There seems to be no doubt his driving was
Negligent. For the first offense he could be put in jail for up to 18
months. Of course, that would be too much for some (it was just a
mistake!), and too little for others (he killed someone!). Which they
are both right. He made a mistake that directly lead to the death of
someone.


anyway

 

PaulH

Clem (knobdoodle) is aus.motorcycle's resident troll. He is a lonely
pathetic git who seeks to justify his pathetic existence by screaming
incoherent arguments, liberally peppered with abuse and an intriguing number
of homosexual references at anyone who'll bite.

Like most trolls, the best approach is to ignore him completely.

Cheers
Manning

 

It should make no difference whether it is a first offence or not because the
charge of "negligent driving" already takes into account that there was no
malicious intent.

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

 

Haha! Thanks for the heads-up! That's two on my list now.

Thankfully, most everyone else here is pretty damn fine people, IMHANVIO.

Cheers
Manning