throbber Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 It's not that it annoys me as such, I just can't get my head around anyone actually taking the time to add something pointless and irrelevant to every. single. post., unless they're a bit too dense to work out that they can just stick it in their actual signature and save the bother. I hope Grimbo doesn't read this What does COTM mean anyway? Throbber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 This sort of thing concerns me. As somebody with epilepsy, I'm not allowed to drive until I've gone at least year seizure free (in my case going dizzy for 30 secs or so). However, I'd hate to be driving and after running late for work, suddenly realising "f***, forgot my tablet", potentially have a crash on way home to get one and then be up for a jail sentence. Folk have various opinions on whether folk with such a condition should drive at all, even if they've had it under control for say 10 years. This whole Glasgow collision could easily have been due to that rather than whatever he had (not that it was). I don't think people with conditions like that should ever be allowed to drive. I think it's an incredibly selfish thing to do to operate an extremely dangerous piece of machinery knowing that there's a likely chance that you'll blackout at the wheel and end up killing people. If somebody I know was killed by a driver blacking out at the wheel when they knew about the condition, I'd be absolutely livid. It's a real shame and horrible for the person of course but it's just common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland B Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Honest Man, it's not at all "likely" that this will happen to a person suffering from said conditions. Many, many people drive for years on end with these conditions incident free, Infact the reality of living with these conditions make it more stringent tests than others. I agree with the sentiment, but to say it's more likely suggests you have figures to back these claims up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Honest Man, it's not at all "likely" that this will happen to a person suffering from said conditions. Many, many people drive for years on end with these conditions incident free, Infact the reality of living with these conditions make it more stringent tests than others. I agree with the sentiment, but to say it's more likely suggests you have figures to back these claims up? So you're saying someone with epilepsy is no more likely to have a blackout/seizure than someone who doesn't? Surely you're not saying that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland B Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 No that's not what I'm saying- you said it was "likely" someone with the mentioned conditions would have a blackout behind the wheel- I'm contesting that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 No that's not what I'm saying- you said it was "likely" someone with the mentioned conditions would have a blackout behind the wheel- I'm contesting that statement. More likely than anyone else then. My point doesn't really change, if you knowingly go ahead and drive despite knwoing that you're more likely to have a blackout and kill someone, then you're a selfish c**t imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Perhaps his original black out wasn't anywhere near a big a deal as is being made out and he didn't even think to report it rather than be concerned he would lose his job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland B Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 So you are saying your original statement was correct or incorrect? I'm confused! Are people with existing conditions that cause blackouts more likely to suffer those symptoms- Yes It's a big jump from that to say that it's likely, in a driving sense. People with these conditions are highly monitored and only allowed to drive under very strict guidelines. Your argument then twists to the guy lying on his application, which is completely unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland B Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Infact, due to either ignorance or poor punctuation it seems you think it's "likely" people with these conditions will cause death on the roads??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoversMad Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Infact, due to either ignorance or poor punctuation it seems you think it's "likely" people with these conditions will cause death on the roads???hey McFly....They did.... Well it was mostly on the pavement, but you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertha/BJFC1938 Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Hertha, thanks for that, wasn't aware there was even a prosecution in that case. Interesting (if tragic ) comparison on how Scots & English law works. In the case you quoted I'm not aware of any pre-existing condition. Which, in my eyes makes the Glasgow case worse...... Exactly and the selby case and bin lorry case are similar in terms of consequences in terms of 10 people and 6 people dying respectively . The main difference and one that I don't understand is that in the selby case they gathered all the facts and then chose to prosecute the guilty party. In the Glasgow bin lorry case they've decided no prosecution necessary and then have gathered the evidence. Huge difference in style and one I don't understand as the selby case was a guy who apparently fell asleep behind the wheel with no medical history of doing so while the Glasgow case seems polluted in previous from the driver amongst lies . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amdsm Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 As far as I remember with the Selby case, they proved that the guy had been awake for a ridiculous length of time so treated it as a willful case of dangerous driving as he knew he was in no fit state to drive. I suppose there is a subtle difference in Glasgow case but don't understand why PF were so quick to declare that there would be no prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajwffc Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 As far as I remember with the Selby case, they proved that the guy had been awake for a ridiculous length of time so treated it as a willful case of dangerous driving as he knew he was in no fit state to drive. I suppose there is a subtle difference in Glasgow case but don't understand why PF were so quick to declare that there would be no prosecution. The driver in the Selby/Great Heck crash was caused by the driver driving in a sleep deprived state after spending the night chatting to someone he met online. He tried to blame the crash on a mechanical fault on his landy. He was tried and found guilty of 10 counts of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. His insurers paid out over £22 million to the victims, GNER, Freightliner and Railtrack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 The driver in the Selby/Great Heck crash was caused by the driver driving in a sleep deprived state after spending the night chatting to someone he met online. He tried to blame the crash on a mechanical fault on his landy. He was tried and found guilty of 10 counts of causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. His insurers paid out over £22 million to the victims, GNER, Freightliner and Railtrack.I wonder how much his insurance is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebbes20silkcut Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I heard that the council mislaid his references, now is there a chance he got this job through a friend or acquaintance, and so did not go through the usual appointment process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Could have been worse, he was driving an oil tanker while getting dizzy spells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Richelieu Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Can we get back on topic and answer Throbber's question as to what COTM stands for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Can we get back on topic and answer Throbber's question as to what COTM stands for? More to the point, which league does Blow Job FC1938 play in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Maturin Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Can we get back on topic and answer Throbber's question as to what COTM stands for? It stands for "Come on the Mighty" as in that famous football chant, Come on the mighty Beith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertha/BJFC1938 Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 More to the point, which league does Blow Job FC1938 play in? :lol: Do you know how much that sense of humour makes you look like a chin dribbling primary school child? That's the last time I heard anyone come out with that immaturity . You must have been up all night thinking of that one eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.