Don't see the point in regular restests-it's a social problem that retesting would not solve-you'd only have to behave for the duration of the test then you'd go instantly back to the way you normally drive...ok PLENTY of people would fail, but so what-look at the numbers of people who drive who are disqualified, uninsured, drunk, never had a licence in the first place-these people are allegedly already risking heavy fines and prison sentences for these crimes-you seriously think that compulsory restesting will get these nutters off the road? As for your 'average' law abiding citizen it would just be a nuisance-if you failed it just mean loads of time and money getting your licence back but again you would just drive how you always did, maybe it would force people to refresh the highway code etc.
I think the way forward is a combination of social change, driver education where possible, more police on the roads and tougher, tougher penalities for serious driving offences-it's probably barely untrue that if you are some lowlife who already has a rap sheet you've got nothing to lose by for example having no insurance because the fine you receive in the unlikely event you get caught is less than your premium would be.
I can't believe people can cause death in because of driving in a totally reckless, stupid manner yet still ever hold a licence again-it should be possible to lose your driving licence PERMANENTLY for committing a crime whilst driving if it is serious enough e.g. joy riding, ram raid, running from the police, death by dangerous driving. Obviously accidents happen so you wouldn't lose your licence permanently for 'accidents' etc.
Enforcement? Get caught driving without a licence, whilst disqaulified, you go to jail no questions asked, get caught again you go to jail immediately to serve your WHOLE sentence i.e. two years means you don't see the light of day for two years.
I dunno just a few thoughts. FWIW I don't like this whole big brother thing, the idea of a national ID card I hate, the less a government inteferes with it's citizens the better but with the roads in the state they are right now I'd love to see better policing on the roads.
Super rant[:)]
Extra safety - less caution- more aggression
Moderator: RichardW
-
Guru Meditation
- Posts: 259
- Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 02:30
- Location:
- My Cars:
- Contact:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Originally posted by Guru Meditation
I can't believe people can cause death in because of driving in a totally reckless, stupid manner yet still ever hold a licence again-it should be possible to lose your driving licence PERMANENTLY
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If a person uses a gun or knife, (offensive weapon) and hurts or kills another. They are taken to court!
If a person drives a car in a totally reckless stupid manner, and hurts another. They are taken to court!
If it is proven that the driver decided to drive very dangerously, and without any care or concern, as to what could happen to innocent other people.
Then shouldn't the sentence on a reckless, irresponsible driver who has injured, or killed another be more in line with the sentence, that applies to using any other offensive weapon with intent.
<font color="red"> A car is an offensive weapon when driven irresponsibly, dangerously, and without any due care for others </font id="red">
I can't believe people can cause death in because of driving in a totally reckless, stupid manner yet still ever hold a licence again-it should be possible to lose your driving licence PERMANENTLY
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If a person uses a gun or knife, (offensive weapon) and hurts or kills another. They are taken to court!
If a person drives a car in a totally reckless stupid manner, and hurts another. They are taken to court!
If it is proven that the driver decided to drive very dangerously, and without any care or concern, as to what could happen to innocent other people.
Then shouldn't the sentence on a reckless, irresponsible driver who has injured, or killed another be more in line with the sentence, that applies to using any other offensive weapon with intent.
<font color="red"> A car is an offensive weapon when driven irresponsibly, dangerously, and without any due care for others </font id="red">
-
tomsheppard
- Posts: 1801
- Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 14:46
- Location: United Kingdom
- My Cars:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">stupidity or irresponsibility is not an INTENT to hurt <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hear,hear!!!
Everyone makes mistakes through a moments inattention, no matter how good they think they are- 99 times out of 100 nothing happens, you think 'oooerrr, that was close..........' but very occasionally it does all go pear shaped, and an accident results.
Theres no intent involved- nobody goes out in their car with the deliberate intention of killing or injuring someone!!!
Look at the number of people on this forum alone who talk about blowing people away at traffic lights or outracing them on the motorway in their chipped TD's- get it very slightly wrong, run down the kid running out to get his ball while your eyes are on the rev counter or hot hatch in the wing mirrors- silly, irresponsible, yes, but not intentional!!!!
Hear,hear!!!
Everyone makes mistakes through a moments inattention, no matter how good they think they are- 99 times out of 100 nothing happens, you think 'oooerrr, that was close..........' but very occasionally it does all go pear shaped, and an accident results.
Theres no intent involved- nobody goes out in their car with the deliberate intention of killing or injuring someone!!!
Look at the number of people on this forum alone who talk about blowing people away at traffic lights or outracing them on the motorway in their chipped TD's- get it very slightly wrong, run down the kid running out to get his ball while your eyes are on the rev counter or hot hatch in the wing mirrors- silly, irresponsible, yes, but not intentional!!!!
-
DervDonkey
- Posts: 65
- Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 01:08
- Location: United Kingdom
- My Cars:
I don't think anyone's seriously advocating locking people up and throwing away the key just because of a moment's carelessness. I saw at first hand the effects on a youmg lad who killed someone in just this way when I was working for the Prison Service, and it's something I NEVER want to see again. He wasn't a hardened criminal, never been in trouble before, just an inexperienced driver who lost it one day with tragic consequences. Looking back to my own first couple of years I can only say "There but for the grace of God go I".
In the case of the young, new drivers it's really the culture of speed and aggression that needs changing, as peer pressure makes even the sensible ones go slightly off the rails. I admit that I haven't got a clue how this could be changed, but surely the "threat" of a retest in 5 years time might keep more people honest and actively discourage the acquisition of bad habits?
Why should an "average" driver fail? They've already passed it once, and should have the experience to breeze through a retest. I also made the point in an earlier post about allowing (say) a year to brush up, without losing the licence.
Agreed on the highway code bit - last night I (legitimately) overtook some plonker in a mini-MPV who was holding a steady 40mph. I got a mirror full of main beam for my supposed impertinence at exceeding the 40mph speed limit which is clearly signed on every other lamp post by a white circle with a black diagonal stripe...
In the case of the young, new drivers it's really the culture of speed and aggression that needs changing, as peer pressure makes even the sensible ones go slightly off the rails. I admit that I haven't got a clue how this could be changed, but surely the "threat" of a retest in 5 years time might keep more people honest and actively discourage the acquisition of bad habits?
Why should an "average" driver fail? They've already passed it once, and should have the experience to breeze through a retest. I also made the point in an earlier post about allowing (say) a year to brush up, without losing the licence.
Agreed on the highway code bit - last night I (legitimately) overtook some plonker in a mini-MPV who was holding a steady 40mph. I got a mirror full of main beam for my supposed impertinence at exceeding the 40mph speed limit which is clearly signed on every other lamp post by a white circle with a black diagonal stripe...
-
Guru Meditation
- Posts: 259
- Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 02:30
- Location:
- My Cars:
- Contact:
Yep I take your points-I guess that's why the law is the way it is-driving is a special case as vehicles are potentially so dangerous yet because, like was said, there is no intent the sentences aren't as stiff.
But could it be the case that if someones driving is so reckless, so dangerous and outrageous with such blatant disregard to the consequences that whilst when they cause a fatal or serious accident their conduct is deemed to be so serious that it carries the same/similar penalties to other serious charges relating to the taking and loss of life with intent even though the intent was never there-after all unless you deliberately cause a crash there is never any intent, just a general, blatant and sometimes total disregard for the potential consequences of your actions.
Behave that way with a gun or a knife (not a 100% accurate analogy, but reasonable imo) and even though you never had any intent to kill or maim you'd still get done for murder or manslaughter or wounding or assault with a deafly weapon or attempted murder etc etc because it is reasonable to assume that if you act in a reckless way with a gun or a knife you should be able to see there might be fatal consequences therefore when there are fatal consequences the lack of intent doesn't get you off the hook-maybe the same should apply to driving offences.
I'm not talking about genuine accidents where one tiny mistake can see an otherwise law abiding citizen locked up for life as it would achieve nought-problem I can see though is how do you tell the difference between an 'genuine' accident and an accident whereby the conduct of those causing it could be deemed serious enough to warrant a massive jail term of life driving ban when every person involved in a crash would of course deny any kind of reckless or dangerous driving?
sheesh no easy answer
But could it be the case that if someones driving is so reckless, so dangerous and outrageous with such blatant disregard to the consequences that whilst when they cause a fatal or serious accident their conduct is deemed to be so serious that it carries the same/similar penalties to other serious charges relating to the taking and loss of life with intent even though the intent was never there-after all unless you deliberately cause a crash there is never any intent, just a general, blatant and sometimes total disregard for the potential consequences of your actions.
Behave that way with a gun or a knife (not a 100% accurate analogy, but reasonable imo) and even though you never had any intent to kill or maim you'd still get done for murder or manslaughter or wounding or assault with a deafly weapon or attempted murder etc etc because it is reasonable to assume that if you act in a reckless way with a gun or a knife you should be able to see there might be fatal consequences therefore when there are fatal consequences the lack of intent doesn't get you off the hook-maybe the same should apply to driving offences.
I'm not talking about genuine accidents where one tiny mistake can see an otherwise law abiding citizen locked up for life as it would achieve nought-problem I can see though is how do you tell the difference between an 'genuine' accident and an accident whereby the conduct of those causing it could be deemed serious enough to warrant a massive jail term of life driving ban when every person involved in a crash would of course deny any kind of reckless or dangerous driving?
sheesh no easy answer
Its a very difficult area- does the HGV driver who falls asleep and ploughs into the back of a motorway queue killing 4 people, as happened on the M11 near where I live a couple of years ago, go to jail for life?
Clearly reckless and dangerous driving, but would sending him to jail make a difference?
What if he was awake, but sending a text message or reading his paper at 55 mph, while 6 feet away from the HGV in front, as many of them seem to do- is that more dangerous and reckless?
I don't know, and thats why judges get paid more money than me!!
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that if you act in a reckless way with a gun or a knife you should be able to see there might be fatal consequences therefore when there are fatal consequences the lack of intent doesn't get you off the hook<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sometimes it does- manslaughter. Theres a world of difference between me picking up the kitchen knife or bertie bat when confronting a burglar in my house, and hopefully a jury would see that, and a weirdo like Tony Martin, barred by the police from having shotguns, ( and thats pretty difficult when you're a farmer! ), lying in wait and then shooting the scummers while they are on the way out. The jury saw right through his story, although he is still held up as an example of someone who shouldn't have gone to jail!!
Clearly reckless and dangerous driving, but would sending him to jail make a difference?
What if he was awake, but sending a text message or reading his paper at 55 mph, while 6 feet away from the HGV in front, as many of them seem to do- is that more dangerous and reckless?
I don't know, and thats why judges get paid more money than me!!
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that if you act in a reckless way with a gun or a knife you should be able to see there might be fatal consequences therefore when there are fatal consequences the lack of intent doesn't get you off the hook<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sometimes it does- manslaughter. Theres a world of difference between me picking up the kitchen knife or bertie bat when confronting a burglar in my house, and hopefully a jury would see that, and a weirdo like Tony Martin, barred by the police from having shotguns, ( and thats pretty difficult when you're a farmer! ), lying in wait and then shooting the scummers while they are on the way out. The jury saw right through his story, although he is still held up as an example of someone who shouldn't have gone to jail!!
-
martyhopkirk
Here is a barmy thought....
Why dont we (as a country) lower the age at which people can become motorised?
At this point most forum members will be thinking I have taken leave of my senses...
Once upon a time, in some European countries you could ride a 50cc moped at 14. Now I have always hated 50cc mopeds as being woefully underpowered and slow for the traffic conditions, but therein lies my point.
If by the age of 17 a driver has had 3 or 4 years motoring on 2 wheels I feel sure he or she will have a better regard for traffic, more "roadcraft" and hopefully more consideration for other road users. Certainly an Italian friend of mine says that was his experience of his "yoof" in Italy, and many of his friends also. He went on in typical Italian "yoof" form to own several fast cars (mostly Alfas i think!) - and indeed drove them at silly speeds - when it was appropriate and safe to do so. I suppose you can argue its never safe or appropriate, but in all honesty who hasn's at some point "opened her up" and worn a silly grin? The difference is the aggression - driving aggressivly does cause lapses of judgment and accidents.
Why dont we (as a country) lower the age at which people can become motorised?
At this point most forum members will be thinking I have taken leave of my senses...
Once upon a time, in some European countries you could ride a 50cc moped at 14. Now I have always hated 50cc mopeds as being woefully underpowered and slow for the traffic conditions, but therein lies my point.
If by the age of 17 a driver has had 3 or 4 years motoring on 2 wheels I feel sure he or she will have a better regard for traffic, more "roadcraft" and hopefully more consideration for other road users. Certainly an Italian friend of mine says that was his experience of his "yoof" in Italy, and many of his friends also. He went on in typical Italian "yoof" form to own several fast cars (mostly Alfas i think!) - and indeed drove them at silly speeds - when it was appropriate and safe to do so. I suppose you can argue its never safe or appropriate, but in all honesty who hasn's at some point "opened her up" and worn a silly grin? The difference is the aggression - driving aggressivly does cause lapses of judgment and accidents.
-
tomsheppard
- Posts: 1801
- Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 14:46
- Location: United Kingdom
- My Cars:
Tony Martin is very much a darling of the greedy thickoes that think murder is ok to protect your telly.
Why he isn't serving life for the premeditated murder he was convicted of beggars my imagination. The howling press have a lot to answer for.
Had he in a moment's inattention run a child over of course then the same press would assert that it would only be right to burn down his house, maim his children,lop off his extremities, and hang him in public after flogging him.
There Ain't No Justice. (Especially now that any British citizen may now be extradited to face American courts on their request without America having to reveal any evidence. This "Treaty" in force from 1/1/2004 is not ratified by the USA but is binding on me! Nice one Mr. Blunkett.)
Mild rant- don't get me going on this!
Why he isn't serving life for the premeditated murder he was convicted of beggars my imagination. The howling press have a lot to answer for.
Had he in a moment's inattention run a child over of course then the same press would assert that it would only be right to burn down his house, maim his children,lop off his extremities, and hang him in public after flogging him.
There Ain't No Justice. (Especially now that any British citizen may now be extradited to face American courts on their request without America having to reveal any evidence. This "Treaty" in force from 1/1/2004 is not ratified by the USA but is binding on me! Nice one Mr. Blunkett.)
Mild rant- don't get me going on this!
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why dont we (as a country) lower the age at which people can become motorised?
At this point most forum members will be thinking I have taken leave of my senses...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, I don't think its mad!!!
Time spent on 2 wheels, pedal powered and motorised, is time well spent-even on a bicycle you learn about cornering speed and stopping distances!!
I learned a hell of a lot about grip and road surfaces on 2 wheels-and when I first hit the roads in the 70's on Jap bikes with discs that only worked in the dry I very soon learned that there is a connection between weather and roadholding, braking, and road surface type, which a lot of people who have only ever driven cars don't know about.
There are also the 4x4 brigade who seem to think that grip and traction are the same thing, which is why they don't alter their driving patterns in the wet or snow, and then they are surprised when they slide off......hopefully not into my car!!!!!
In order to stay alive I also learned a lot about anticipation of other road users actions as well-crash your bike, it hurts, you don't want to do it again!!!
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Mild rant- don't get me going on this!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">- how about Guantanamo bay then, or Uzbekistan perhaps, where the despotic head of state is fond of boiling his oppononts alive! He is, however, unlike Saddam, a current friend of the UK and the USA, and when our ambassador objected to this he was recalled on 'sick leave', after first facing a trumped up charge of driving an official Land Rover whilst under the influence.....HMG dropped this when it was discovered that he couldn't drive............this was when he became 'sick'..............
At this point most forum members will be thinking I have taken leave of my senses...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, I don't think its mad!!!
Time spent on 2 wheels, pedal powered and motorised, is time well spent-even on a bicycle you learn about cornering speed and stopping distances!!
I learned a hell of a lot about grip and road surfaces on 2 wheels-and when I first hit the roads in the 70's on Jap bikes with discs that only worked in the dry I very soon learned that there is a connection between weather and roadholding, braking, and road surface type, which a lot of people who have only ever driven cars don't know about.
There are also the 4x4 brigade who seem to think that grip and traction are the same thing, which is why they don't alter their driving patterns in the wet or snow, and then they are surprised when they slide off......hopefully not into my car!!!!!
In order to stay alive I also learned a lot about anticipation of other road users actions as well-crash your bike, it hurts, you don't want to do it again!!!
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Mild rant- don't get me going on this!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">- how about Guantanamo bay then, or Uzbekistan perhaps, where the despotic head of state is fond of boiling his oppononts alive! He is, however, unlike Saddam, a current friend of the UK and the USA, and when our ambassador objected to this he was recalled on 'sick leave', after first facing a trumped up charge of driving an official Land Rover whilst under the influence.....HMG dropped this when it was discovered that he couldn't drive............this was when he became 'sick'..............
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by bxbodger</i>
I learned a hell of a lot about grip and road surfaces on 2 wheels-and when I first hit the roads in the 70's on Jap bikes with discs that only worked in the dry not into my car!!!!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My old Z1 was pretty dicey, with a plain cast iron single front disc and single piston caliper. Still, not as bad a 'biking in Beirut where whe were advised to disconnect our tail lights so snipers wouldn't have a pop at us in the dark! A bit like back home in Manchester, really.
I learned a hell of a lot about grip and road surfaces on 2 wheels-and when I first hit the roads in the 70's on Jap bikes with discs that only worked in the dry not into my car!!!!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My old Z1 was pretty dicey, with a plain cast iron single front disc and single piston caliper. Still, not as bad a 'biking in Beirut where whe were advised to disconnect our tail lights so snipers wouldn't have a pop at us in the dark! A bit like back home in Manchester, really.