Re: Witness appeals and conspiracy

On 25 Oct, 01:36, JNugent <jennings...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 25/10/2010 00:06, Squashme wrote:



On 24 Oct, 21:12, JNugent<jennings...@xxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
On 24/10/2010 19:49, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Mrcheerful<nbk...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>    wrote:
   JNugent wrote:
No impact between a stationary and a moving vehicle can be
*reasonably* assumed to have caused no damage.
The likelihood is always that damage will be caused. If it isn't,
that's lucky, but unusual. A check should be made.
   and the average person could not possibly tell from a cursory
   glance whether any damage had been done.  Modern mirrors are
   complex and expensive and easily broken.  Many modern mirror
   assemblies cost a hundred quid upwards and can be broken by a blow
   from a cyclist or a pedestrian ( they are designed to give easily)
   unfortunately plastic pegs and things snap off inside, not to
   mention all the motors, heaters and wiring and lights that inhabit
   a mirror asembly.  The cyclist should have at least left his name
   and address and an apology.
Well there you have it road-users: if you ever touch the wing-mirror
of a car, you must immediately stop and do a full service of the
assembly, dismantling it thoroughly to check for internal faults
(snapped plastic pegs, displaced heater wires, etc).  Naturally, you
will want to pay for the rectification of any pre-existing faults you
locate during this process.
Remember to polish it nicely when you re-assemble it.
Well, either that, or, if you hit a parked vehicle, at least have the decency
to stop and check whether you have caused damage to it.
Or is that too much to ask?
For a large proportion of motorists, it is, as you very well know:-
"13 Million Brits admit to "bump and run" driving
30/07/2005
A report released today reveals that 13 million* (40 per cent) sneaky
drivers have crashed into other parked cars and driven off without
owning up.

Does that mean:

(a) that it is perfectly fine not to stop after a collision and that the only
imperative is self-preservation (including preservation of one's bank
balance), or

(b) that it is better to stop and check the damage and/or injury (if any)
after a collision?

Just asking for your opinion.

Motorists, we are told, own the roads, as they allegedly pay for them.
If 40% of them are willing to admit to this behaviour, then probably a
majority behave this way in practice. Do you think that the battering
motorist in this case sounds the sort of person who would stop and
leave his details, if the boot were on the other foot, so to speak?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - George W. strikes again
    ... that will cause the most damage. ... Are you trying to bullshit ... and a cruise ship will not take anyone to the North Pole ...   "It has never before happened as rapidly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What to do when you get 2 Archons and 2 Titans on the plane or air
    ... I think high damage is somewhat underestimated for getting out of ... A wand of striking averages 13 damage. ... even if you don't need the power regeneration. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.nethack)
  • Re: OT - George W. strikes again
    ... that will cause the most damage. ... I did not dispute that rapid change can cause ... Are you trying to bullshit ...   "It has never before happened as rapidly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Witness appeals and conspiracy
    ... The likelihood is always that damage will be caused. ...     glance whether any damage had been done. ...     a mirror asembly. ... that it is perfectly fine not to stop after a collision and that the only ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Star Wars: Armour and damage: straw poll
    ...   answering :-) Nevertheless, what do you rest of you lurking hordes ... Armor is useful against both high end and low end damage. ... 1D6 of armour and a tough native with 4D6 strength are both equally likely ... to take the same result from incoming damage - stun, wound, whatever. ...
    (rec.games.frp.advocacy)