E
A
Adam Lea
Guest
"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
>> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
>> difference to road safety.
>
> Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
> for that view?
>
It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in injury/death
to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming that any one driving
error has a finite chance of resulting in an injury or worse then if that
ratio is very small then removing a few thousand drivers won't reduce the
number of total driving errors significantly enough to affect the overall
probability of injury/death.
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
>> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
>> difference to road safety.
>
> Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
> for that view?
>
It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in injury/death
to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming that any one driving
error has a finite chance of resulting in an injury or worse then if that
ratio is very small then removing a few thousand drivers won't reduce the
number of total driving errors significantly enough to affect the overall
probability of injury/death.
S
Simon Brooke
Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Trevor A
Panther ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>
> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news
Y%[email protected]
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>
>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
>> sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found
>> guilty of dangerous driving.
>
> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>
> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence --- killing
> by
> motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of driving licence
> not a brief 6 month "let off"
>
> I am quite doubtful whether increases in imprisonment is effective and
> these days costs a huge amount of money.
>
> But permanent removal of licence would seem to be an effective way of
> dealing with these sort of killers. Effective provided that subsequent
> driving offences of any kind for the disqualified driver should then be
> appropriately severe
Hear, hear.
--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.
Panther ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>
> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news
Y%[email protected]>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>
>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
>> sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found
>> guilty of dangerous driving.
>
> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>
> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence --- killing
> by
> motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of driving licence
> not a brief 6 month "let off"
>
> I am quite doubtful whether increases in imprisonment is effective and
> these days costs a huge amount of money.
>
> But permanent removal of licence would seem to be an effective way of
> dealing with these sort of killers. Effective provided that subsequent
> driving offences of any kind for the disqualified driver should then be
> appropriately severe
Hear, hear.
--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.
N
naked_draughtsman
Guest
On Dec 6, 11:53 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>
> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
> sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found
> guilty of dangerous driving.
Well BBC News has a story about a driver who has been jailed for
killing someone when he shouldn't have been driving in the first place
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7133881.stm
Personally I think 3 years in prison is getting off a bit lightly but
I thought it was interesting that judge said the defendant didn't want
his epilepsy to "interfere with the convenience of having a motor
vehicle" and suggests that being allowed to drive is more of a
privilege rather than a right.
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>
> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
> sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found
> guilty of dangerous driving.
Well BBC News has a story about a driver who has been jailed for
killing someone when he shouldn't have been driving in the first place
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7133881.stm
Personally I think 3 years in prison is getting off a bit lightly but
I thought it was interesting that judge said the defendant didn't want
his epilepsy to "interfere with the convenience of having a motor
vehicle" and suggests that being allowed to drive is more of a
privilege rather than a right.
I
Ian Smith
Guest
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
> >> noticable difference to road safety.
> >
> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
> > for that view?
>
> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
> injury/death.
You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
off. That could easily be noticeable.
Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
that remain.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
>
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
> >> noticable difference to road safety.
> >
> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
> > for that view?
>
> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
> injury/death.
You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
off. That could easily be noticeable.
Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
that remain.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
?
_
Guest
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
>>> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
>>> difference to road safety.
>>
>> Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>> for that view?
>>
>
> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in injury/death
> to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming that any one driving
> error has a finite chance of resulting in an injury or worse then if that
> ratio is very small then removing a few thousand drivers won't reduce the
> number of total driving errors significantly enough to affect the overall
> probability of injury/death.
The above asumes that driver error is an unvarying part of driving.
Howevere, the case could (and should, and I suspect is) be made that
removing such bad drivers will serve as an example. Driving varies not
just between drivers but also per driver - encouraging all of them to
improve is very likely to reduce the recentage of errors.
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
>>> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
>>> difference to road safety.
>>
>> Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>> for that view?
>>
>
> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in injury/death
> to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming that any one driving
> error has a finite chance of resulting in an injury or worse then if that
> ratio is very small then removing a few thousand drivers won't reduce the
> number of total driving errors significantly enough to affect the overall
> probability of injury/death.
The above asumes that driver error is an unvarying part of driving.
Howevere, the case could (and should, and I suspect is) be made that
removing such bad drivers will serve as an example. Driving varies not
just between drivers but also per driver - encouraging all of them to
improve is very likely to reduce the recentage of errors.
A
Adam Lea
Guest
"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>> >
>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>> > for that view?
>>
>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>> injury/death.
>
> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>
> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>
> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>
> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
> that remain.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible reasoning
behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
noticable difference to road safety".
I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an effect
on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one occasion
is very low.
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>> >
>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>> > for that view?
>>
>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>> injury/death.
>
> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>
> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>
> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>
> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
> that remain.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible reasoning
behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
noticable difference to road safety".
I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an effect
on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one occasion
is very low.
P
Paul Luton
Guest
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>
>
>
> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>
>
If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
well do.
The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
Paul
--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames
> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>
>
>
> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>
>
If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
well do.
The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
Paul
--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames
A
Adam Lea
Guest
"Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>
>>
>>
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>
>>
> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
> do.
>
> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
> a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
> on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>
What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
driving license?
news:[email protected]
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>
>>
>>
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>
>>
> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
> do.
>
> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
> a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
> on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>
What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
driving license?
M
Matt B
Guest
Paul Luton wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>
> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
> well do.
Road deaths account for about 0.5% of the UK's total deaths each year.
Is that significant?
Should the causes of equivalent, and greater numbers, be treated similarly?
> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban.
No. The /real/ problem is to make our roads safe and inclusive. Do you
think licences, bans, etc. play a role in that? We don't have
"householder licences", yet household "accidents" account for more
deaths and hugely more injuries per year than motor cars do.
> The requirement to
> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start
More useless laws and regulations which will make life more difficult
for those who abide by the law, whilst at the same time causing little
or no inconvenience to the lawless. To add to the rafts of similarly
useless laws which we already have, also delivering zero extra safety.
> - together with a
> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
LOL.
--
Matt B
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>
> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
> well do.
Road deaths account for about 0.5% of the UK's total deaths each year.
Is that significant?
Should the causes of equivalent, and greater numbers, be treated similarly?
> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban.
No. The /real/ problem is to make our roads safe and inclusive. Do you
think licences, bans, etc. play a role in that? We don't have
"householder licences", yet household "accidents" account for more
deaths and hugely more injuries per year than motor cars do.
> The requirement to
> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start
More useless laws and regulations which will make life more difficult
for those who abide by the law, whilst at the same time causing little
or no inconvenience to the lawless. To add to the rafts of similarly
useless laws which we already have, also delivering zero extra safety.
> - together with a
> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
LOL.
--
Matt B
S
Steve
Guest
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:30:40 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:26:05 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>
>>> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle
>>> will have a negligible effect on road safety.
>>
>> I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
>> others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit
>> was given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't
>> that have a positive effect?
>
>
> There will be (almost) no convictions for murder using a vehicle, because
> you cannot bring a case for murder without showing intent.
> A driver who killed because they lost control due to driving too quickly,
> whilst over the limit in a car with illegal brakes, without a license, has
> not committed murder. They might be stupid, they might be driving
> recklessly, they might be driving dangerously, they might have committed
> manslaughter.
>
> Your claimed deterrant for murder will be zero.
We are talking about a parlimentry debate where laws are made, there is no
reason why we cannot have a Vehicular homicide law as is used in the
states. In that context a new law with a few harsh sentences would have
the desired deterrent effect.
Your ideas on enforcing current laws are a waste of time. I know a road
crash investigator who deals with dead peds/drivers and cyclists every day,
speaking with him makes it plainly obvious that the current set of laws are
totally useless, even with a million extra traffic officers a weak set of
laws and a **** poor cps make the current setup a failure.
Steve
> Steve wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:26:05 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>
>>> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle
>>> will have a negligible effect on road safety.
>>
>> I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
>> others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit
>> was given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't
>> that have a positive effect?
>
>
> There will be (almost) no convictions for murder using a vehicle, because
> you cannot bring a case for murder without showing intent.
> A driver who killed because they lost control due to driving too quickly,
> whilst over the limit in a car with illegal brakes, without a license, has
> not committed murder. They might be stupid, they might be driving
> recklessly, they might be driving dangerously, they might have committed
> manslaughter.
>
> Your claimed deterrant for murder will be zero.
We are talking about a parlimentry debate where laws are made, there is no
reason why we cannot have a Vehicular homicide law as is used in the
states. In that context a new law with a few harsh sentences would have
the desired deterrent effect.
Your ideas on enforcing current laws are a waste of time. I know a road
crash investigator who deals with dead peds/drivers and cyclists every day,
speaking with him makes it plainly obvious that the current set of laws are
totally useless, even with a million extra traffic officers a weak set of
laws and a **** poor cps make the current setup a failure.
Steve
P
Paul Luton
Guest
Adam Lea wrote:
> "Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>
>>>Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>>life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
>>do.
>>
>>The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
>>a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
>>on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>>
>
>
> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
> driving license?
>
>
There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.
Paul
--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames
> "Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>
>>>Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>>life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
>>do.
>>
>>The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
>>a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
>>on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>>
>
>
> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
> driving license?
>
>
There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.
Paul
--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames
?
_
Guest
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>> >
>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>> > for that view?
>>>
>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>> injury/death.
>>
>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>
>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>
>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>
>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>> that remain.
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>> --
>
> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible reasoning
> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
> noticable difference to road safety".
>
> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an effect
> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one occasion
> is very low.
No.
If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite the
low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
product of both probability and consequence.
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>> >
>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>> > for that view?
>>>
>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>> injury/death.
>>
>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>
>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>
>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>
>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>> that remain.
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>> --
>
> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible reasoning
> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
> noticable difference to road safety".
>
> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an effect
> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one occasion
> is very low.
No.
If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite the
low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
product of both probability and consequence.
?
_
Guest
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:39:56 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
> "Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>
>>>
>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
>> do.
>>
>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
>> a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
>> on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>>
>
> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
> driving license?
No problem - if you do not arrive or depart as the driver of a motorcar.
You would, of course, carry your licence with you while driving...
> "Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>
>>>
>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
>> do.
>>
>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
>> a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
>> on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>>
>
> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
> driving license?
No problem - if you do not arrive or depart as the driver of a motorcar.
You would, of course, carry your licence with you while driving...
A
Adam Lea
Guest
"_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
>
>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>>> > for that view?
>>>>
>>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>>> injury/death.
>>>
>>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>>
>>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>>
>>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>>
>>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>>> that remain.
>>>
>>> regards, Ian SMith
>>> --
>>
>> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
>> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible
>> reasoning
>> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
>> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>> noticable difference to road safety".
>>
>> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an
>> effect
>> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
>> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
>> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one
>> occasion
>> is very low.
>
> No.
>
> If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
> the
> low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
> product of both probability and consequence.
Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
>
>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>>> > for that view?
>>>>
>>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>>> injury/death.
>>>
>>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>>
>>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>>
>>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>>
>>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>>> that remain.
>>>
>>> regards, Ian SMith
>>> --
>>
>> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
>> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible
>> reasoning
>> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
>> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>> noticable difference to road safety".
>>
>> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an
>> effect
>> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
>> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
>> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one
>> occasion
>> is very low.
>
> No.
>
> If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
> the
> low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
> product of both probability and consequence.
Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.
C
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 12:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
>>>> million vehicle km):-
>>>> Motorcycles: 471
>>>> Pedal cycles: 361
>>>> Buses: 169
>>>> Cars: 67
>>>> HGV: 39
>>>> LGV: 24
>>>> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
>>>> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
>>>> safest.
>>> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
>>> malicious.
>>>
>>> Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
>>> vehicle km at all.
>>
>> And listing deaths by vehicle operated is not the same as deaths
>> caused by vehicle.
> The stats do not specify which party "caused" the collisions.
That's why those stats are inappropriate when considering manslaughter
by the operator of a vehicle. When you exclude drivers who only
kill themselves the stats look very different.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
> David Martin wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 12:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
>>>> million vehicle km):-
>>>> Motorcycles: 471
>>>> Pedal cycles: 361
>>>> Buses: 169
>>>> Cars: 67
>>>> HGV: 39
>>>> LGV: 24
>>>> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
>>>> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
>>>> safest.
>>> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
>>> malicious.
>>>
>>> Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
>>> vehicle km at all.
>>
>> And listing deaths by vehicle operated is not the same as deaths
>> caused by vehicle.
> The stats do not specify which party "caused" the collisions.
That's why those stats are inappropriate when considering manslaughter
by the operator of a vehicle. When you exclude drivers who only
kill themselves the stats look very different.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
?
_
Guest
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:47:29 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
> "_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
>>
>>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>>>> > for that view?
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>>>> injury/death.
>>>>
>>>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>>>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>>>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>>>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>>>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>>>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>>>
>>>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>>>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>>>
>>>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>>>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>>>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>>>
>>>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>>>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>>>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>>>> that remain.
>>>>
>>>> regards, Ian SMith
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
>>> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible
>>> reasoning
>>> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
>>> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>> noticable difference to road safety".
>>>
>>> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an
>>> effect
>>> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
>>> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
>>> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one
>>> occasion
>>> is very low.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
>> the
>> low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
>> product of both probability and consequence.
>
> Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
> at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.
I would suggest that such a comparison is unlikely to be a good predictor,
for two reasons:
a) murder is not viewed in the same light as speeding; those who would
murder do so in spite of transgressing a number of social mores and as they
are willing to go that far they may well do so irrespective of the legal
consequences; and
b) the number of speeders is much larger than the number of murderers and
as such is more likely to include people who have "normal" characteristics
when we examine their decision-making processes.
> "_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
>>
>>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>>>> > for that view?
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>>>> injury/death.
>>>>
>>>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>>>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>>>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>>>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>>>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>>>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>>>
>>>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>>>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>>>
>>>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>>>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>>>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>>>
>>>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>>>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>>>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>>>> that remain.
>>>>
>>>> regards, Ian SMith
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
>>> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible
>>> reasoning
>>> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
>>> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>> noticable difference to road safety".
>>>
>>> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an
>>> effect
>>> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
>>> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
>>> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one
>>> occasion
>>> is very low.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
>> the
>> low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
>> product of both probability and consequence.
>
> Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
> at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.
I would suggest that such a comparison is unlikely to be a good predictor,
for two reasons:
a) murder is not viewed in the same light as speeding; those who would
murder do so in spite of transgressing a number of social mores and as they
are willing to go that far they may well do so irrespective of the legal
consequences; and
b) the number of speeders is much larger than the number of murderers and
as such is more likely to include people who have "normal" characteristics
when we examine their decision-making processes.
J
JNugent
Guest
Steve wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>Steve wrote:
>>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>>Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle
>>>>will have a negligible effect on road safety.
>>>I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
>>>others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit
>>>was given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't
>>>that have a positive effect?
>>There will be (almost) no convictions for murder using a vehicle, because
>>you cannot bring a case for murder without showing intent.
>>A driver who killed because they lost control due to driving too quickly,
>>whilst over the limit in a car with illegal brakes, without a license, has
>>not committed murder. They might be stupid, they might be driving
>>recklessly, they might be driving dangerously, they might have committed
>>manslaughter.
>>Your claimed deterrant for murder will be zero.
> We are talking about a parlimentry debate where laws are made, there is no
> reason why we cannot have a Vehicular homicide law as is used in the
> states. In that context a new law with a few harsh sentences would have
> the desired deterrent effect.
One *has* been enacted fairly recently - Causing Death by Careless
Driving. More serious than "mere" DWDCAA and less serious than DBDD or
manslaughter. It carries a prison sentence (which careless driving
never could).
> Your ideas on enforcing current laws are a waste of time. I know a road
> crash investigator who deals with dead peds/drivers and cyclists every day,
> speaking with him makes it plainly obvious that the current set of laws are
> totally useless, even with a million extra traffic officers a weak set of
> laws and a **** poor cps make the current setup a failure.
Terms such as "failure" or "waste of time" only make sense in the
context of a set of aims or objectives. What would they be?
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>Steve wrote:
>>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>>Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle
>>>>will have a negligible effect on road safety.
>>>I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
>>>others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit
>>>was given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't
>>>that have a positive effect?
>>There will be (almost) no convictions for murder using a vehicle, because
>>you cannot bring a case for murder without showing intent.
>>A driver who killed because they lost control due to driving too quickly,
>>whilst over the limit in a car with illegal brakes, without a license, has
>>not committed murder. They might be stupid, they might be driving
>>recklessly, they might be driving dangerously, they might have committed
>>manslaughter.
>>Your claimed deterrant for murder will be zero.
> We are talking about a parlimentry debate where laws are made, there is no
> reason why we cannot have a Vehicular homicide law as is used in the
> states. In that context a new law with a few harsh sentences would have
> the desired deterrent effect.
One *has* been enacted fairly recently - Causing Death by Careless
Driving. More serious than "mere" DWDCAA and less serious than DBDD or
manslaughter. It carries a prison sentence (which careless driving
never could).
> Your ideas on enforcing current laws are a waste of time. I know a road
> crash investigator who deals with dead peds/drivers and cyclists every day,
> speaking with him makes it plainly obvious that the current set of laws are
> totally useless, even with a million extra traffic officers a weak set of
> laws and a **** poor cps make the current setup a failure.
Terms such as "failure" or "waste of time" only make sense in the
context of a set of aims or objectives. What would they be?
J
JNugent
Guest
Paul Luton wrote:
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
>>> well do.
>>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
>>> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
>>> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't
>> have a driving license?
> There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
> reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
> occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.
"Convicted" or "unlicensed"?
There's a difference.
I bought a fair amount of petrol before passing my test. I expect you
did too.
The police *know* how to enforce driving bans. It isn't perfect (just
as your scheme wouldn't be, for all the massive inconvenience it would
cause - not to mention queues at filling stations and the abolition of
"pay at pump" facilities), but it works remarkably well.
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
>>> well do.
>>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
>>> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
>>> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't
>> have a driving license?
> There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
> reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
> occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.
"Convicted" or "unlicensed"?
There's a difference.
I bought a fair amount of petrol before passing my test. I expect you
did too.
The police *know* how to enforce driving bans. It isn't perfect (just
as your scheme wouldn't be, for all the massive inconvenience it would
cause - not to mention queues at filling stations and the abolition of
"pay at pump" facilities), but it works remarkably well.
J
JNugent
Guest
Adam Lea wrote:
>>If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
>>the low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk
>>is a product of both probability and consequence.
> Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
> at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.
Did you mean "introduction" or "abolition"?
>>If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
>>the low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk
>>is a product of both probability and consequence.
> Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
> at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.
Did you mean "introduction" or "abolition"?
Similar threads
