CdM is in love!

[crazy canuck]

reading posts requires reading comprehension, though, so I don't blame you for missing that and using a strawman argument instead.

Meh, you are the only one arguing a daft position.  Bonus points to you I guess.

[CountDeMoney]

Well shit Malthus, that's no different from avoiding states with creepy ass crackers and their legal right to shoot you "just because."

[Malthus]

Well shit Malthus, that's no different from avoiding states with creepy ass crackers and their legal right to shoot you "just because."

What, and take refuge in ... Baltimore? 

[CountDeMoney]

You aint in the game, you gots nothing to worry about.

[grumbler]

reading posts requires reading comprehension, though, so I don't blame you for missing that and using a strawman argument instead.

Meh, you are the only one arguing a daft position.  Bonus points to you I guess.

  Actually, i have explained my position quite well, and it is hardly "daft."  In fact, if you are arguing against my position, then that pretty much confirms that I am correct.

[Eddie Teach]

You aint in the game, you gots nothing to worry about.

That might work with Omar, but Marlo wouldn't hesitate to put a cap in his ass.

[crazy canuck]

reading posts requires reading comprehension, though, so I don't blame you for missing that and using a strawman argument instead.

Meh, you are the only one arguing a daft position.  Bonus points to you I guess.

  Actually, i have explained my position quite well, and it is hardly "daft."

Your explanations illuminate the folly of your position quite well.   

[Ideologue]

No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime.  And in any event, I'm referring narrowly to Beeb's statement that he never concerns himself with what other people did, which is a non sequitur unless SD is not a defense in Canada.

Which maybe it isn't.  You people deny human rights.

But we don't make ordinary negligence a crime. 

Ordinary negligence is failing to do something that an reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.

In order for something to constitute criminal negligence however, the person's actions must show "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons", a much higher standard.

[/quote]

So the standard for criminal negligence is recklessness?  Good work.

[Siege]

Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.

What the hell are you talking about?
Vengeance is the ONLY form of justice, whether is the State eliminating terrorists or the individual getting justice for grivances committed against him/her.

[viper37]

For Canadians, that may be as fast as they can safely drive.  What I want is safe speeds, which, as you say, may be as low as 20 MPH for primitive folk.  All I know is that this guy, at from 119-129 kph, was going too fast to stop in time to save his daughter's life.

There was an accident in a small town this week.  A car changed lane abruptly and was hit by a big truck, who then crashed into a nearby house.

According to your standards, the truck driver is at fault, he was driving too fast to avoid the car ramming his truck.

I still think that's bullshit.

Of course.  One is always at least partially responsible when one drives a vehicle into a stationary vehicle.

It's a highway, where the minimum is 60km/h.  Last I checked, parked car = 0km/h < 60km/h.

[viper37]

However, in general, liability and punishment should be based on what a reasonable person would expect to result from a behavior, not what did result.

And if you decide to stop your car on the left lane of a double lane highway in the middle of the day, what would a reasonable person like you expect the result would be?

[viper37]

My impression is there are two sets of fault and they don't have to be connect and could be 'dealt' with separately; the woman broke the Canadian road traffic laws and created a hazard to all users on that road and the motorcyclist was at fault for failing to drive his bike in a safe manner, that is driving slow enough that he can react to the diverse range of hazards you can encounter on a road. 

That would account for slowing in a forested area, where deers or moose could come out of the woods.  Driving cautiously, even below the authorized speed limit in a storm (rain or snow) to avoid hitting something you can't see but for wich you have reasons to expect would be there (another car).

It doesn't account for someone doing something cracy like stopping in the middle of the road, driving way below the speed limit of 60km/h or driving in the wrong direction of the highway.

It's a concept many of you seem to willfully ignore, for reasons unknown.

As Grumbler and others have said, keeping a safe stopping distance between you and other road uses is a key requirement. It's been 25 years since I passed our driving test, but knowning and driving 'within' the stopping distance of your speed was an important part of the test.

Of course.  It applies under normal traffic conditions.  Not when someone stops in the middle of the road for no reason, without any flashers.

[grumbler]

For Canadians, that may be as fast as they can safely drive.  What I want is safe speeds, which, as you say, may be as low as 20 MPH for primitive folk.  All I know is that this guy, at from 119-129 kph, was going too fast to stop in time to save his daughter's life.

There was an accident in a small town this week.  A car changed lane abruptly and was hit by a big truck, who then crashed into a nearby house.

According to your standards, the truck driver is at fault, he was driving too fast to avoid the car ramming his truck.

I still think that's bullshit.

Your strawman is, indeed, bullshit.  Further, I think you are smart enough to know it was bullshit when you said it.  Why don't you argue against my arguments, rather than arguing against arguments YOU are making, not me?

Of course.  One is always at least partially responsible when one drives a vehicle into a stationary vehicle.

It's a highway, where the minimum is 60km/h.  Last I checked, parked car = 0km/h < 60km/h.

Stricken as immaterial.

[grumbler]

However, in general, liability and punishment should be based on what a reasonable person would expect to result from a behavior, not what did result.

And if you decide to stop your car on the left lane of a double lane highway in the middle of the day, what would a reasonable person like you expect the result would be?

Lots of cars and motorcycles stopping, and perhaps an accident if following drivers are careless or inattentive.  What would a non-reasonable person like you expect?

[viper37]

I stopped on the side of the road

Anyway, no motorcycles ran into my car.  Granted, there weren't any other cars at all on the road, but hey.

bold part emphasized.  Conditions are different than aforementionned.  Try it again, but this time, stop right n the middle of your lane, don't use hazard flashers, see what happens.