South West Bikers | Motorcycle Forum

madshep wrote:there is no such thing as an 'accident' ---- someone always has the power/ability to prevent or avoid!!!

As I said before, I agree the copper was wrong to not have his lights/siren on... but...

As you say... someone has the power/ability to avoid accidents... so has the girl that stepped into the path of an accelerating car not got that ability too...

Extremely sad but true... she should have taken care crossing a road, I mean, did she not hear a car travelling at 90mph? ... in my view she's as guilty as the cop.

As for that statement about 'No such thing as an accident' I know you're not suggesting he did it on purpose... I bet the family aren't.

And yes, I along with everyone on here would be devastated if it were a child of ours.

Sorry guys but no stolen car, no out of date tax, no uninsured vehicle is worth a life. If people steal cars, drive without tax or insurance they will get caught eventually. She died needlessly.

DaveMcR1 wrote:Sorry guys but no stolen car, no out of date tax, no uninsured vehicle is worth a life.

What an utterley ridiculous and stupid satement.

No one here even came close to suggesting that.

We do not even know what the ANPR camera picked up yet.

How do you know it was any of the above.

For all you know, the vehicle may have been flagged up in relation to armed robbery, or even a murder.

Maver-Nick wrote:

madshep wrote:there is no such thing as an 'accident' ---- someone always has the power/ability to prevent or avoid!!!

As I said before, I agree the copper was wrong to not have his lights/siren on... but...

As you say... someone has the power/ability to avoid accidents... so has the girl that stepped into the path of an accelerating car not got that ability too...

Extremely sad but true... she should have taken care crossing a road, I mean, did she not hear a car travelling at 90mph? ... in my view she's as guilty as the cop.

As for that statement about 'No such thing as an accident' I know you're not suggesting he did it on purpose... I bet the family aren't.

And yes, I along with everyone on here would be devastated if it were a child of ours.

actually agree with you on those points,what ever happened to look right left right before crossing the road. if it was at night then the car would have head lights on

god am i sticking up for a copper

Nope still stick to the fact that as a driver he is responcible for his actions. As far as trying not to alert the driver of the other car, do you not think he would not notice a car screaming up behind him at 90??

And I think you will find that the police along with the ambo and fire engine drivers are not allowed to break road laws if it endangers other road users. ie if one runs a red light and hit another car or something they are in the wrong even if they have blues on.

Once again. he CHOSE to drive at 90. No one forced his foot onto the pedal. That girl did not choose to die

Blue wrote:Nope still stick to the fact that as a driver he is responcible for his actions. As far as trying not to alert the driver of the other car, do you not think he would not notice a car screaming up behind him at 90?? :

That would depend on how far ahead of the Police car, the offending driver was at the time.

Blue wrote:And I think you will find that the police along with the ambo and fire engine drivers are not allowed to break road laws if it endangers other road users. ie if one runs a red light and hit another car or something they are in the wrong even if they have blues on.:

When braking road laws, there is always the danger of endagering other road users.

Are you really saying that you've never seen an emergency service vehicl going through a red light.

Can you imagine if the dutifully stopped at every red light during a pursuit

Once again. he CHOSE to drive at 90. No one forced his foot onto the pedal. That girl did not choose to die [/quote]

No, but she chose to step out into the path of a vehicle

Stately wrote:Are you really saying that you've never seen an emergency service vehicl going through a red light.

Can you imagine if the dutifully stopped at every red light during a pursuit

no. they don't have to stop for red lights but the do have to ensure they have a clear way through

blue wrote:Once again. he CHOSE to drive at 90. No one forced his foot onto the pedal. That girl did not choose to die

Stately wrote:No, but she chose to step out into the path of a vehicle

I bet thats a real confort to her family. At 90mph would she have even seen it in time??

90 mph = 1.5 miles per minute. i do not know the figures but i remember reading that at 140 mph your thinking distance is the length of 3 football pitches, so at so at 90 it must be around 2, she may not have stood a chance the road could have looked clear, in normal traffic she would have had loads of time to cross the road ,

Stately wrote:

DaveMcR1 wrote:Sorry guys but no stolen car, no out of date tax, no uninsured vehicle is worth a life.

What an utterley ridiculous and stupid satement.

No one here even came close to suggesting that.

We do not even know what the ANPR camera picked up yet.

How do you know it was any of the above.

For all you know, the vehicle may have been flagged up in relation to armed robbery, or even a murder.

Even if it was an armed robbery or a murder, Its no use Killing an innocent bystander to get to it.....Thats UTTERLY RIDICULOUS as you put it!!!!

I Had A Tomahawk wrote:Even if it was an armed robbery or a murder, Its no use Killing an innocent bystander to get to it.....Thats UTTERLY RIDICULOUS as you put it!!!!

No one set out to kill anyone.

It was a tradgedy, but not a murder.

I suppose if you're life was under threat, and the Police were on the way, you would absoutely insist that they adhere to all the applicable speed limits on route.

Well, why should the lives of others be put at risk to save yours

Yeah why should they?

You cant put other peoples lives at risk, which ever way you want to look at it!

I Had A Tomahawk wrote:Yeah why should they?

You cant put other peoples lives at risk, which ever way you want to look at it!

So your child has sustained serious injuries after falling from a tree (God Forbid).

They're losing a lot of blood, and have sustained a severe head injury, causing fluid to leak from the brain.

Minutes count and can make the difference between them making a full recovery, or ending up dead.

You dial 999.

Do you insist they do not exceed any speed limits and stop at all the red lights ?

Stately wrote:

I Had A Tomahawk wrote:Yeah why should they?

You cant put other peoples lives at risk, which ever way you want to look at it!

So your child has sustained serious injuries after falling from a tree (God Forbid).

They're losing a lot of blood, and have sustained a severe head injury, causing fluid to leak from the brain.

Minutes count and can make the difference between them making a full recovery, or ending up dead.

You dial 999.

Do you insist they do not exceed any speed limits and stop at all the red lights ?

But it wasen't was it?? It was just a car that triggered his ANPR unit. It could have been an out of date tax disc. What it definantly wasen't was a child with a life threatening injust. That was until he started to drive at 90 and than a child did have a life threating injury.

You can sit there all night going on about what if we had a serious incident and dialed 999 but no one did dial 999 in this case did they?

Stately wrote:

I Had A Tomahawk wrote:Yeah why should they?

You cant put other peoples lives at risk, which ever way you want to look at it!

So your child has sustained serious injuries after falling from a tree (God Forbid).

They're losing a lot of blood, and have sustained a severe head injury, causing fluid to leak from the brain.

Minutes count and can make the difference between them making a full recovery, or ending up dead.

You dial 999.

Do you insist they do not exceed any speed limits and stop at all the red lights ?

No, but i would hope they would have the sense to use there blues and twos.......Of course they are going to break speed limits but 90 in a 30?? no warnings? come on even you must admit at that speed you need a warning?
You`re right god forbid it would happen to anyone i know, But my main point is, what is the point of speeding to save a life if you are going to take one??

I Had A Tomahawk wrote:

Stately wrote:

I Had A Tomahawk wrote:Yeah why should they?

You cant put other peoples lives at risk, which ever way you want to look at it!

So your child has sustained serious injuries after falling from a tree (God Forbid).

They're losing a lot of blood, and have sustained a severe head injury, causing fluid to leak from the brain.

Minutes count and can make the difference between them making a full recovery, or ending up dead.

You dial 999.

Do you insist they do not exceed any speed limits and stop at all the red lights ?

No, but i would hope they would have the sense to use there blues and twos.......Of course they are going to break speed limits but 90 in a 30?? no warnings? come on even you must admit at that speed you need a warning?
You`re right god forbid it would happen to anyone i know, But my main point is, what is the point of speeding to save a life if you are going to take one??

Ah I see.

You've changed your stance.

I asked earlier, if your life were under threat, do you still think that the Police (in this case, it could just as easily be the ambulance), should not brake the speed limits to save your life.

Your answer was quite clear.

"Yeah why should they?
You cant put other peoples lives at risk, which ever way you want to look at it"

But there are exceptions - like when yours, or someone's close you life is at risk ?

Glad you agree.