|Subject: More Derby|
|From: Veronica |
|Date: 26/1/14 1:04 am|
“Your friend was travelling at an UNSAFE SPEED”
“Define unsafe speed. Are you suggesting that an accident, occurring at 10 miles per hour, which is perfectly possible, and must have happened millions of times, is SAFE SPEED? That an accident is somehow ‘SAFE’? An accident is an accident … whatever the speed. An accident is UNSAFE. Nothing in the charges refers to any ‘accident’ or any 'injury’. Your assertion is thus logically, rationally, and reasonably, incorrect & invalid. Define ‘SAFE SPEED … SAFE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES’ … there is no such thing. Thus there is no such thing as the inverse. Your assertion is moot.
If you are going to suggest that the speed was POTENTIALLY UNSAFE, I suggest you consider the fact that EVERYTHING can be considered to be POTENTIALLY UNSAFE. Sharp Kitchen Knives are POTENTIALLY UNSAFE. If one slips, it could cut someone’s fingers or even drop on someone’s foot. However, if used SAFELY – in the same way as a car controlled SAFELY – then no-one is hurt and- in the case of the Kitchen Knife … everyone gets fed, without injuring anyone. In the case of the car, the destination is reached SAFELY … without injuring anyone. This table is POTENTIALLY UNSAFE. If I were to slip, and crash my head against it, I may receive concussion, or it may even be fatal. But I’m not slipping, so it’s SAFE. Your assertion is moot because, if you prosecute on the basis of POTENTIAL, then you must prosecute EVERYONE & EVERYTHING ... all the time”