The gun analogy has been discussed above and there was some debate about whether or not they were designed to kill... most are not... even miltary rifles tend to be designed to mame rather than kill as it occupies more of the enemy's resources as they try to tend to their wounded.

I can see the point that Rob is trying to make. If you commit a reckless and potentially dangerous act that, out of pure chance, results in nobody being killed or injured should it still be considered a reckless and/or dangerous act?

The dangerous driving law in England and Wales is an example of where the answer to this question would be yes. You can be found guilty of dangerous driving and have not injured anyone at all (as is the case for this biker in Scotland). Depending on the circumstances the magistrates guidelines point out that their sentencing powers may be inappropriate i.e. should the case be committed to the Crown Court. Excessive speed is listed as an aggravating factor as is "serious risk" but injury to another party is not. For death there is, of course, a separate offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

I'm not saying that it is correct that the biker was imprisoned for what he did, indeed as I said above, on the face of it the punishment is harsh; however, we do not know all of the circumstances but what he did, in my opinion was probably reckless (in terms of the consequences to him of being caught if nothing else) and possibly dangerous.

 

Exactly the point I was making.

We'd already had the discussion about guns and cars being different, I thought we were past that and could look at the context.

Maybe a better example might be practicing your golf driving skills on a public park where a ball could hit a pedestrian or damage private property.
(or end up as a crisp)
Although a golf ball isn't anywhere near as dangerous a 166mph motorbike.

 

Not a good analogy IMO.

There are consequences regardless of anyone getting hurt (trauma for example).

Motive for doing such an act.

Much higher and a material chance of causing death.

Etc.

Perhaps if your analogy was based on a deserted woods.....

 

Yeah, I know.
It didn’t expect it to get a critical analysis.
It was just an example of a dangerous activity where people could get hurt but nobody did – and I used guns because that was the example earlier on.

It’s a bloody good job the internet wasn’t around when Wordsworth was writing.
“I wandered lonely as a cloud,”
What sort of cloud, clouds don’t wander, that’s a terrible line.
It should be wandered like a Cow, that would have been much better.
Yeah, but what sort of cow, and will it offend immigrants to have wandering cows?

 

So you post information in the public domain to justify your point of view, yet you don't expect it to be critically analysed

 

Without trying to go off topic, sort of, yes.

I don’t have time to consider every permutations of analogies I use or comments I make. I try and be polite, I try and stick to the point and I try and chat with people about subjects I find interesting much as I would chat with someone I was sitting with in bar or café.

I find analogies fantastic tools to communicate a point, but they often fall down when people critique them, look for deeper meaning or consider them outside the context of the related point.

In this case it was meant to be a simple demonstration of a potentially dangerous activity where nobody got hurt.

No that it really matters anyway.
It's not like anything we discuss here will change the world.
It's just a bit of recreational typing on the internet.

 

There is no such analogy.

Even lying in bed in fear of the dangers of getting up is potentially dangerous; bedsores, thrombosis, etc...

Human activity is all potentially dangerous. It's just some are politically easier whipping-horses.

 

I think we are on the same page with this Nick.

Isn't there a chinese proverb about one hand and some woods or something.

 

Indeed.

Actually, to bring things back to grown-up reality, there was an octogenarian who brought his Bristol back to the factory because of a vibration at exactly 131 mph.

The chief engineer politely questioned the wisdom of an octogenarian driving at 131, to which he replied that "he always had".

Anyway, a test drive proved that the old guy was correct and the problem was duly repaired...

 

What a waranty.
Post that in the 'Jensen' engine thread