More policing by social media

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

thirdcrank wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:20am ...

And to reiterate: this is what prompted me to start this thread as an illustration of where we are. I now wish I hadn't.
:lol:
IMHO it was a worthwhile and well-intentioned thread start.

Unfortunately Replies 2 & 3 started a diversionary squabble about the word "accident", which mushroomed into a squillion posts. I note you didn't even use the word in your OP (and it probably wasn't in the report you linked to).

Gotta love internet forums ...
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by cycle tramp »

mattheus wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:02am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 9:34am
In what was is colliding with a vehicle which you are following too closely unexpected...
The collision was entirely predictable, which has the very opposite meaning of unexpected.
The opposite of unexpected, hmmm ...
Is it ... expected? I don't have any formal English qualifications beyond "O" Level, so I'm prepared to learn.

Are you saying the driver expected to crash into the vehicle in front? Help me out here buddy!
The definition of the word accident as you supplied used 'unintentional AND unpredictable' rather than 'unintentional OR unpredictable'. Whilst the driver of the second vehicle had no intention of colliding with the first, it was a predictable outcome as he failed to maintain a safe stopping distance.
As such the collision under the definition which you have indicated can not, through logic be described as an accident, but rather a collision.
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by cycle tramp »

Remember if Peter Jackson turns this thread into a multi million pound film tribology, we all get a share of the profits:-)
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by Jdsk »

cycle tramp wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:54am
mattheus wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:02am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 9:34am
In what was is colliding with a vehicle which you are following too closely unexpected...
The collision was entirely predictable, which has the very opposite meaning of unexpected.
The opposite of unexpected, hmmm ...
Is it ... expected? I don't have any formal English qualifications beyond "O" Level, so I'm prepared to learn.

Are you saying the driver expected to crash into the vehicle in front? Help me out here buddy!
The definition of the word accident as you supplied used 'unintentional AND unpredictable' rather than 'unintentional OR unpredictable'. Whilst the driver of the second vehicle had no intention of colliding with the first, it was a predictable outcome as he failed to maintain a safe stopping distance.
As such the collision under the definition which you have indicated can not, through logic be described as an accident, but rather a collision.
An event can be unexpected by one of the participants but expected at a statistical level... if you do it many times it's likely to happen. Driving dangerously close to another vehicle would be a common example of this.

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 11:00am
cycle tramp wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:54am ...
The definition of the word accident as you supplied used 'unintentional AND unpredictable' rather than 'unintentional OR unpredictable'. Whilst the driver of the second vehicle had no intention of colliding with the first, it was a predictable outcome as he failed to maintain a safe stopping distance.
As such the collision under the definition which you have indicated can not, through logic be described as an accident, but rather a collision.
An event can be unexpected by one of the participants but expected at a statistical level... if you do it many times it's likely to happen. Driving dangerously close to another vehicle would be a common example of this.

Jonathan
Yes!!!

Thank-you.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by thirdcrank »

Re: policing by social media.

Police drink/drive crackdowns seem as predictable as autumnal lighting reviews in cycling mags.

When Sir Colin Sampson was chief constable of West Yorkshire (1983-89), his unfailing media line in response to queries was that the force had a policy of enforcement of drink/drive laws all the year round and that it would continue through the Christmas period. I read today:
A crackdown on Christmas drink and drug-driving in West Yorkshire has caught 77 offenders since it began nine days ago, say police.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england?ns_m ... type=share
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Jdsk wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 9:57am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 9:51amIt could be administrative, but there would need to be recourse to appeal - possibly similar to various fines... pay now and you get a 50% discount, challenge and lose, and you're paying the lot.
Yes, we need to do it at the level of granting and withdrawing privileges while maintaining legal rights.

I don't know how effective fines will ever be, but IIUC there has been a move towards linking them to ability to pay, as in the Nordic model.

Jonathan
I wasn't meaning that they should be fines, but that the license downgrade would be two bands, unless you accepted it early in which case it would only be one band
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by [XAP]Bob »

mattheus wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:02am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 9:34am
In what was is colliding with a vehicle which you are following too closely unexpected...
The collision was entirely predictable, which has the very opposite meaning of unexpected.
The opposite of unexpected, hmmm ...
Is it ... expected? I don't have any formal English qualifications beyond "O" Level, so I'm prepared to learn.

Are you saying the driver expected to crash into the vehicle in front? Help me out here buddy!
It is to be expected that if you drive without sufficient distance then you will crash into the vehicle in front.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More policing by social media

Post by Jdsk »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:04pm
Jdsk wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 9:57am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 9:51amIt could be administrative, but there would need to be recourse to appeal - possibly similar to various fines... pay now and you get a 50% discount, challenge and lose, and you're paying the lot.
Yes, we need to do it at the level of granting and withdrawing privileges while maintaining legal rights.

I don't know how effective fines will ever be, but IIUC there has been a move towards linking them to ability to pay, as in the Nordic model.
I wasn't meaning that they should be fines, but that the license downgrade would be two bands, unless you accepted it early in which case it would only be one band
Got it.

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: More policing by social media

Post by mattheus »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:07pm
mattheus wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 10:02am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 9:34am
In what was is colliding with a vehicle which you are following too closely unexpected...
The collision was entirely predictable, which has the very opposite meaning of unexpected.
The opposite of unexpected, hmmm ...
Is it ... expected? I don't have any formal English qualifications beyond "O" Level, so I'm prepared to learn.

Are you saying the driver expected to crash into the vehicle in front? Help me out here buddy!
It is to be expected that if you drive without sufficient distance then you will crash into the vehicle in front.
That's not really the case. Fortunately Comrade jdsk has already given us a clear summary:
Jdsk wrote: 9 Dec 2021, 11:00am
An event can be unexpected by one of the participants but expected at a statistical level... if you do it many times it's likely to happen. Driving dangerously close to another vehicle would be a common example of this.
To which I would only add: maybe an external observer expects the crash to occur. Such as XAPBob. But that doesn't change things at all

BTW, what do folks think of the phrase
"Accident waiting to happen" ?
Post Reply