BBC Story - MPs to hear killer driver campaign

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Bugbear, Apr 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.


  1. Frank

    Frank Guest

    "bugbear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/tyne/2986951.stm
    >
    > We can but hope...

    I actually think this is bad.

    Severe sentences for the worst outcomes have little deterrent value, most of these people aren't
    intending to kill, so won't consider the penalties for killing. It does please the public because
    they feel something is being done.

    If the courts notice a large number of drivers before them for dangerous driving were already
    banned. The correct solution is to increase the penalties for just driving while banned.

    While this would be a more direct deterrent it wouldn't be so popular with the voters because *they
    would see nice Mr so and so from up the road going to jail because he had only driven while banned (
    just the once ;o(, he hadn't hurt anyone)*.

    So when you ask for stiffer sentences decide if you want revenge or safer roads.
     
  2. >So when you ask for stiffer sentences decide if you want revenge or safer roads.

    I own up to wanting both - revenge is supposed to be bad, I know, but something tells me that
    revenge is about the only thing some drivers will actually understand :(

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  3. > So when you ask for stiffer sentences decide if you want revenge or safer roads.
    >

    Much as I agree with you, we have to admit that, for most people, revenge is an
    instinctive response.

    The Real Lee Casey
     
  4. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:29:37 +0100, "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Severe sentences for the worst outcomes have little deterrent value, most of these people aren't
    >intending to kill, so won't consider the penalties for killing. It does please the public because
    >they feel something is being done.

    I disagree. Part of the problem is that routine carelessness is seen as not much of a problem, and
    the casual killing of a few thousand people a year is the price we pay for the freedom to pollute
    our cities. I mean, drive our cars. Ten deaths in a train crash has the handwringers exercised for
    months, but ten deaths a day on the roads hardly gets a mention.

    The more people suffer when they kill and injure as a result of driving negligently and selfishly,
    the more everyone will realise that maybe paying a bit of attention might be a good idea. At the
    moment the government seems to think it perfectly acceptable to treat the problem of SMIDSYs by
    exhorting motorcyclists to ride defensively - a classic piece of victim blaming. Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  5. Jon Martin

    Jon Martin Guest

    Frank was sufficiently re-animated to talk about BBC Story - MPs to hear killer driver campaign
    >
    >"bugbear" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/tyne/2986951.stm
    >>
    >> We can but hope...
    >
    >I actually think this is bad.
    >
    >Severe sentences for the worst outcomes have little deterrent value, most of these people aren't
    >intending to kill, so won't consider the penalties for killing. It does please the public because
    >they feel something is being done.
    >
    >If the courts notice a large number of drivers before them for dangerous driving were already
    >banned. The correct solution is to increase the penalties for just driving while banned.
    >
    Watching "traffic cops" on BBC last week - bloke picked up driving while disqualified, went out, got
    back in his car and was promptly pulled again, then bailed again. I think he had an XR2 with all the
    flash bits. I thought - why don't they just ~crush~ his (clearly beloved) car? That'll stop him
    driving it while disqualified again.... and if he makes a habit of it, it'll get expensive really,
    really quickly.

    Cheers

    Jon
    --
    Why does everything nice I buy at the moment keep @##*%ing breaking? [email protected] NOT!!
    nospam=defblade
     
  6. Frank

    Frank Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:29:37 +0100, "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Severe sentences for the worst outcomes have little deterrent value, most
    of
    > >these people aren't intending to kill, so won't consider the penalties
    for
    > >killing. It does please the public because they feel something is being done.
    >
    > I disagree. Part of the problem is that routine carelessness is seen as not much of a problem, and
    > the casual killing of a few thousand people a year is the price we pay for the freedom to pollute
    > our cities. I mean, drive our cars. Ten deaths in a train crash has the handwringers exercised for
    > months, but ten deaths a day on the roads hardly gets a mention.
    >

    Well I agree totally with that?

    > The more people suffer when they kill and injure as a result of driving negligently and selfishly,
    > the more everyone will realise that maybe paying a bit of attention might be a good idea. At the
    > moment the government seems to think it perfectly acceptable to treat the problem of SMIDSYs by
    > exhorting motorcyclists to ride defensively - a classic piece of victim blaming.

    Ok I'm finding it hard to disagree, particularly the spot on victim blaming bit, with you but I'll
    make the effort ;o)

    This isn't quite what the article suggested. What they were suggesting was punishing a few serious
    offenders like Ian Carr and other disqualified drivers who kill very severly. Who does this deter?
    not Joe "SMIDSY" Average it doesn't apply to him because he isn't disqualified and Not disqualified
    Ian Carr types because they don't give a toss.

    But the Government having introduced this *harsh* new legislation can then sit back and do nothing
    about all other *normal* motorists who kill.

    Life time disqualification for dangerous driving would be a good start.
     
  7. Frank

    Frank Guest

    "Jon Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > Watching "traffic cops" on BBC last week - bloke picked up driving while disqualified, went out,
    > got back in his car and was promptly pulled again, then bailed again. I think he had an XR2 with
    > all the flash bits. I thought - why don't they just ~crush~ his (clearly beloved) car? That'll
    > stop him driving it while disqualified again.... and if he makes a habit of it, it'll get
    > expensive really, really quickly.
    >
    Crush an XR2 why should the Police help him for breaking the law.

    A workmate tried to sell me one in 1992 for £800. I was only put off when I realised the insurance
    was £1,600.
     
  8. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > While this would be a more direct deterrent it wouldn't be so popular with the voters because
    > *they would see nice Mr so and so from up the road going to jail because he had only driven while
    > banned ( just the once ;o(, he hadn't hurt anyone)*.

    What is needed is a change in attitude to driving while banned. It needs to be generally viewed as
    anti-social and unacceptable in the same way that drink driving now is, or indeed possessing an
    unlicenced gun is. Draconian sentences are not needed for most driving offences, but they are needed
    for driving while disqualified. Bans should be handed out much more freely than they are now, but
    not necessarily long ones. The length of the ban should be proportionate to the seriousness of the
    offence and the driver's history. Anyone who is disqualified should be in no doubt that they are off
    to jail if they're caught at the wheel, and repeat offenders should expect very long sentences.

    I am aware that most people in society at large currently regard any kind of a ban as a draconian
    measure in itself. Most of us in this group, I imagine though, would think of it as no more than a
    minor inconvenience, and a well deserved one at that. If they can't play properly with their
    dangerous toys let's take them away. That's my current thinking anyway.

    --
    Dave...
     
  9. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I disagree. Part of the problem is that routine carelessness is seen as not much of a problem, and
    > the casual killing of a few thousand people a year is the price we pay for the freedom to pollute
    > our cities. I mean, drive our cars.

    Thought experiment.

    Let's presume that our roads are made the responsibility of a private company. For the sake of the
    argument, we'll call it RoadTrack.

    Now, RoadTrack is made responsible for road safety. Whenever someone dies on the roads, there is a
    full inquiry and a huge fine on RoadTrack, and they are required to spend tens of millions on
    improvements.

    Now RoadTrack has a bill to pay, proportional to what deaths cost the rail industry. They'll have to
    recover it from their users. Probably the fairest way to do this is through the insurance industry -
    who are also presumably RoadTrack shareholders. So motor insurance has to cover these costs.
    Legislation and Technology give RoadTrack and the insurers the means to enforce insurance - for
    example, by making it impossible to obtain petrol without a smartcard issued by an insurer.

    How much do insurance premiums have to rise to cover this?

    Well, of course it depends on just where you set the costs. But if we base it on a maximum-cost Rail
    industry scenario (Hatfield), we could be looking at an average motor insurance in excess of average
    household income!

    Look at that from the other side, and what we have is a massive subsidy to motorists, dwarfing their
    entire costs - except perhaps for the drivers of seriously expensive (£100k) wankmobiles.

    --
    Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
    Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
     
  10. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:06:23 +0100, Jon Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    >why don't they just ~crush~ his (clearly beloved) car?

    Or better still, his goolies?

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  11. Jon Martin

    Jon Martin Guest

    Frank was sufficiently re-animated to talk about BBC Story - MPs to hear killer driver campaign
    >
    >"Jon Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> >
    >> Watching "traffic cops" on BBC last week - bloke picked up driving while disqualified, went out,
    >> got back in his car and was promptly pulled again, then bailed again. I think he had an XR2 with
    >> all the flash bits. I thought - why don't they just ~crush~ his (clearly beloved) car? That'll
    >> stop him driving it while disqualified again.... and if he makes a habit of it, it'll get
    >> expensive really, really quickly.
    >>
    >Crush an XR2 why should the Police help him for breaking the law.
    >
    >A workmate tried to sell me one in 1992 for £800. I was only put off when I realised the insurance
    >was £1,600.
    >
    If he's disqualified, he ~has~ no insurance...... which doesn't worry so much on the "what if you
    hit someone's car and write it off" tack so much as "what if you hit someone and put them in a
    wheelchair for the rest of their life? Who's going to pay for their house to be converted, the
    family to live....."

    Jon
    --
    Why does everything nice I buy at the moment keep @##*%ing breaking? [email protected] NOT!!
    nospam=defblade
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...