🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EG28nw.BKC.0.sheppard@torfree.net>, bk469@torfree.net says...
> The underpass in which Princess Diana died does not have guardrails
> or barriers between the roadway and the bridge supports. If they have had
> been present, the accident may not have happened, or have been in the
> minor category. (IMHO)

Ya and if they hadn't been going over 100mph, it may not have happened.

The only survivor was the only one wearing a seatbelt, and someone was 
quoted as saying that Diana would more likely than not have survived if 
she had been wearing her seatbelt too... 

John Lauzon wrote:
> 
> The underpass in which Princess Diana died does not have guardrails
> or barriers between the roadway and the bridge supports. If they have had
> been present, the accident may not have happened, or have been in the
> minor category. (IMHO)
> 
> John
> --
>   \  [P]  /   o<<<<<>>>>> "PRAY THE HOLY ROSARY" <<<<<>>>>>o   \  [P]  /
> -- [[[R]]] --  I extend to you who is reading this .sig the  -- [[[R]]] --
>   /  [A]  \     "SPECIAL BLESSING" of the "QUEEN OF PEACE"     /  [A]  \
>    / [Y] \    o<<<<<>>>>>"Our Lady of Medjugorje"<<<<<>>>>>o    / [Y] \

carmen wrote:
> 
> The only survivor was the only one wearing a seatbelt, and someone was
> quoted as saying that Diana would more likely than not have survived if
> she had been wearing her seatbelt too...
> 
> John Lauzon wrote:
> >
> > The underpass in which Princess Diana died does not have guardrails
> > or barriers between the roadway and the bridge supports. If they have had
> > been present, the accident may not have happened, or have been in the
> > minor category. (IMHO)
> >
> > John

Let's see, we had a DRUNK driver, a very heavy car (re-enfroced steel and armour plating...not your run of the 
mill production car) and a speed determined by police to be around 150 kph....the accident would probably 
still have been severe.

So??? She still would have had a much better chance of
surviving......... The security guard survived and he was closer to the
front of the  car where the collision took place. Are you advocating NOT
wearing a seat belt?

George Publicover wrote:

> carmen wrote:
> >
> > The only survivor was the only one wearing a seatbelt, and someone
> was
> > quoted as saying that Diana would more likely than not have survived
> if
> > she had been wearing her seatbelt too...
> >
> > John Lauzon wrote:
> > >
> > > The underpass in which Princess Diana died does not have
> guardrails
> > > or barriers between the roadway and the bridge supports. If they
> have had
> > > been present, the accident may not have happened, or have been in
> the
> > > minor category. (IMHO)
> > >
> > > John
>
> Let's see, we had a DRUNK driver, a very heavy car (re-enfroced steel
> and armour plating...not your run of the
> mill production car) and a speed determined by police to be around 150
> kph....the accident would probably
> still have been severe.



--

In article <34158D00.46F7@unixg.ubc.ca> carmen <rida@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> The only survivor was the only one wearing a seatbelt, and someone was 
> quoted as saying that Diana would more likely than not have survived if 
> she had been wearing her seatbelt too... 

The only survivor was the only one wearing a seatbelt, and someone was 
quoted as saying that Diana would more likely than not have survived if 
she had been wearing her seatbelt too... 

John Lauzon wrote:
> 
> The underpass in which Princess Diana died does not have guardrails
> or barriers between the roadway and the bridge supports. If they have had
> been present, the accident may not have happened, or have been in the
> minor category. (IMHO)
> 
> John
> --
>   \  [P]  /   o<<<<<>>>>> "PRAY THE HOLY ROSARY" <<<<<>>>>>o   \  [P]  /
> -- [[[R]]] --  I extend to you who is reading this .sig the  -- [[[R]]] --
>   /  [A]  \     "SPECIAL BLESSING" of the "QUEEN OF PEACE"     /  [A]  \
>    / [Y] \    o<<<<<>>>>>"Our Lady of Medjugorje"<<<<<>>>>>o    / [Y] \

bk469@torfree.net (John Lauzon) wrote:

>videos taken of him in the hotel prior to the accident do not indicate 
>that he was drunk.

It never ceases to amaze me to hear how people can assess the
drunkeness of the driver from "video" which are essentially still
frame pictures taken at maybe 5-10  sec intervals. There is no
possible way to observe fluidity of motion from such jerky
surveillance video. Remember: if the driver is found drunk, Fayed's
Ritz Hotel is on the hook big-time since its employee was drunk on
duty. No wonder why Fayed is trying so desperately to direct attention
from his drunken driver over to the photographers.

George Publicover (asl@acadian.ca) wrote:
: carmen wrote:
: > 
: > The only survivor was the only one wearing a seatbelt, and someone was
: > quoted as saying that Diana would more likely than not have survived if
: > she had been wearing her seatbelt too...
: > 
: > John Lauzon wrote:
: > >
: > > The underpass in which Princess Diana died does not have guardrails
: > > or barriers between the roadway and the bridge supports. If they have had
: > > been present, the accident may not have happened, or have been in the
: > > minor category. (IMHO)
: > >
: > > John

: Let's see, we had a DRUNK driver, a very heavy car (re-enfroced steel and armour plating...not your run of the 
: mill production car) and a speed determined by police to be around 150 kph....the accident would probably 
: still have been severe.

Maybe, but if the car had brushed the non-existant guardrails, it would 
have given the driver a chance to slow down safely, he would have been 
given another chance to react, instead his first mistake was his last and 
videos taken of him in the hotel prior to the accident do not indicate 
that he was drunk.

John
-- 
  \  [P]  /   o<<<<<>>>>> "PRAY THE HOLY ROSARY" <<<<<>>>>>o   \  [P]  /
-- [[[R]]] --  I extend to you who is reading this .sig the  -- [[[R]]] --
  /  [A]  \     "SPECIAL BLESSING" of the "QUEEN OF PEACE"     /  [A]  \
   / [Y] \    o<<<<<>>>>>"Our Lady of Medjugorje"<<<<<>>>>>o    / [Y] \

addy-� (hiphop@thebop.com) wrote:
: In article <EG28nw.BKC.0.sheppard@torfree.net>, bk469@torfree.net says...
: > The underpass in which Princess Diana died does not have guardrails
: > or barriers between the roadway and the bridge supports. If they have had
: > been present, the accident may not have happened, or have been in the
: > minor category. (IMHO)

: Ya and if they hadn't been going over 100mph, it may not have happened.


Apparantly there is a small curb running along side the bridge supports, 
if someone accidently hit the curb they could be forced onto it and into 
the bridge supports.

John
-- 
  \  [P]  /   o<<<<<>>>>> "PRAY THE HOLY ROSARY" <<<<<>>>>>o   \  [P]  /
-- [[[R]]] --  I extend to you who is reading this .sig the  -- [[[R]]] --
  /  [A]  \     "SPECIAL BLESSING" of the "QUEEN OF PEACE"     /  [A]  \
   / [Y] \    o<<<<<>>>>>"Our Lady of Medjugorje"<<<<<>>>>>o    / [Y] \

ad613@torfree.net (Nabil Mohamed El-Khodari) wrote:

>nospam@x.com wrote:
>- It is taken that the driver has been drinking. However, being drunk is 
>another thing. It will actually depend on the his blood alcohol level AT 
>THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, not from a sample God knows taken when after 
>the accident.
>

Are you suggesting he continued to drink after he was dead?

>- There has been 3 different reports now about the blood alcohol level; 
>first 3 times legal, second 4 times legal, last (on request of the driver 
>family) 3 times legal.
>

Yes, all indicating the driver was drunk as a skunk..

>- It seems that both the Princess and Dodi, did not feel that the driver 
>is 'rackless', for they would have worn their seat belts at least.
>

They may have been drunk too. There will be incredible pressure to 
prevent releasing their blood alcohol levels. It may be that the
princess NEVER wore a seat belt, because it tended to crease
her designer gowns. 

>- According to the lastest report, there is a picture taken inside the 
>tunnel from the front of the car showing that the driver was 'startled' 
>by the flash.
>

..a long way from the tunnel. At which point any responsible driver
would have slowed down to let his retina recover from the flash.

>- If the paparatzzi have been 'following' the car, at least one or more 
>of them would have been involved in the accident, which clearly means 
>that they were - mostly - in front of the car. It may be likely that the 
>driver may have been trying to avoid crashing into them.

Nonsense. This is like saying if you were following a bus that ran off
a bridge, you "would have been involved."
>- I do not think that any logical person would deny that the papatzzi are 
>at least partially responsible, whatever the drunkness state of the 
>driver may have been (you do not try to provocate a drunk on the street, 
>right?).
>

The paparazzi are minimally responsible, if responsible at all.

>- I believe that Fayed is doing the right thing. As it is only through a 
>court that the 'evidence' can be cross-examined by 'specialists', 
>including in fact the blood alcohol level, method and time of sampling, 
>test used and any possible 'interactions' and/or falacies of the test used.
>

Fayed, like most rich fathers of spoiled, irresponsible children
(which Dodi is widely reputed to have been),
will do what he can to preserve the illusion that everyone but
his child is responsible for whatever mishaps his child is
involved in.

Of course, we know that Ted Kennedy was in no way responsible
for the death of Mary Jane Kopechne. After all, that's what
the authorities decided. And of course they were in no way
influenced by the enormous wealth of the Kennedy clan. 


>Fayed 
>conducted himself with grace (and acceptance of God's well) and was more 
>than gracious supplying even tea to the people in the queue to sign the 
>books at the Palace. He thanked in a public appearance at a stadium all 
>those who shared in the exceptional show of emotions.
>

Our evaluation of Fayed should not be based on trivial gestures, but
on how he originally obtained his extraordinary wealth. Was it as an
intermediary in arms dealing? Or was it legitimate?  Perhaps you could
respond with a short biography.

If the driver so drunk ( 3 or 4 times over legal) how can he drove such
a long way from the hotel to the tunnel without any accident ?
seems strange, any clue?


James H. Steiger (steiger@remove.this.to.reply.unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: ad613@torfree.net (Nabil Mohamed El-Khodari) wrote:

: >nospam@x.com wrote:
: >- It is taken that the driver has been drinking. However, being drunk is 
: >another thing. It will actually depend on the his blood alcohol level AT 
: >THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, not from a sample God knows taken when after 
: >the accident.
: >

: Are you suggesting he continued to drink after he was dead?

: >- There has been 3 different reports now about the blood alcohol level; 
: >first 3 times legal, second 4 times legal, last (on request of the driver 
: >family) 3 times legal.
: >

: Yes, all indicating the driver was drunk as a skunk..

: >- It seems that both the Princess and Dodi, did not feel that the driver 
: >is 'rackless', for they would have worn their seat belts at least.
: >

: They may have been drunk too. There will be incredible pressure to 
: prevent releasing their blood alcohol levels. It may be that the
: princess NEVER wore a seat belt, because it tended to crease
: her designer gowns. 

: >- According to the lastest report, there is a picture taken inside the 
: >tunnel from the front of the car showing that the driver was 'startled' 
: >by the flash.
: >

: ..a long way from the tunnel. At which point any responsible driver
: would have slowed down to let his retina recover from the flash.

: >- If the paparatzzi have been 'following' the car, at least one or more 
: >of them would have been involved in the accident, which clearly means 
: >that they were - mostly - in front of the car. It may be likely that the 
: >driver may have been trying to avoid crashing into them.

: Nonsense. This is like saying if you were following a bus that ran off
: a bridge, you "would have been involved."
: >- I do not think that any logical person would deny that the papatzzi are 
: >at least partially responsible, whatever the drunkness state of the 
: >driver may have been (you do not try to provocate a drunk on the street, 
: >right?).
: >

: The paparazzi are minimally responsible, if responsible at all.

: >- I believe that Fayed is doing the right thing. As it is only through a 
: >court that the 'evidence' can be cross-examined by 'specialists', 
: >including in fact the blood alcohol level, method and time of sampling, 
: >test used and any possible 'interactions' and/or falacies of the test used.
: >

: Fayed, like most rich fathers of spoiled, irresponsible children
: (which Dodi is widely reputed to have been),
: will do what he can to preserve the illusion that everyone but
: his child is responsible for whatever mishaps his child is
: involved in.

: Of course, we know that Ted Kennedy was in no way responsible
: for the death of Mary Jane Kopechne. After all, that's what
: the authorities decided. And of course they were in no way
: influenced by the enormous wealth of the Kennedy clan. 


: >Fayed 
: >conducted himself with grace (and acceptance of God's well) and was more 
: >than gracious supplying even tea to the people in the queue to sign the 
: >books at the Palace. He thanked in a public appearance at a stadium all 
: >those who shared in the exceptional show of emotions.
: >

: Our evaluation of Fayed should not be based on trivial gestures, but
: on how he originally obtained his extraordinary wealth. Was it as an
: intermediary in arms dealing? Or was it legitimate?  Perhaps you could
: respond with a short biography.

makh@cuug.ab.ca (Hubert Mak) wrote:

Good grief. Tens of thousands of seriously drunk drivers get behind
the wheel all the time, and manage to navigate a fair amount of
distance before smashing someone or something. Being drunk doesn't
make it *certain* you will have an accident, it simply increases the
probability dramatically.

And, as many innocent victims have discovered, there is often no
tomorrow.

>If the driver so drunk ( 3 or 4 times over legal) how can he drove such
>a long way from the hotel to the tunnel without any accident ?
>seems strange, any clue?