Debate in Westminster hall about Road Fatalities



R

raisethe

Guest
On 8 Dec, 15:18, Paul Luton <[email protected]> wrote:

> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban.


We've discussed this here before. Asset seizure and amputation (or the
threat of it) will all but eradicate unlicensed driving.
 
R

raisethe

Guest
On 9 Dec, 13:04, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Doesn't anyone know how to post any more?

Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.

Thank you.
 
M

marc

Guest
raisethe wrote:
>
> Doesn't anyone know how to post any more?
>
> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
>
>


Which point was it you were replying to?

If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
header AND snip the rest!


Thank you.


Next turn!
 
R

raisethe

Guest
x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc <[email protected]>
wrote:
> raisethe wrote:
>
>> > Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.

>
> Which point was it you were replying to?


The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.


>
> If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
> header


I'm not sure about that. I can find it disorientating when a subject
I've been following disappears from the discussion page.


> Thank you.
>


Thank you.


> Next turn!


Your turn!
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
> x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
> > header

>
> I'm not sure about that. I can find it disorientating when a subject
> I've been following disappears from the discussion page.


Use a proper threading newsreader, then. One that uses all the
headers, not just an incomplete subset.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
J

JNugent

Guest
raisethe wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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.- Hide quoted text -


>>- Show quoted text -


[Now that's an interesting bit, isn't it?]

> Doesn't anyone know how to post any more?
> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
> Thank you.


My post was a model of conciseness. As is my usual practice, I left in
only what was necessary to correctly convey context. I also did away
with unnecessary paragraph breaks (some of which your software seems
to have reinstated - though I have excised them once more). In any
case, no-one is obliged to read all of it.

At the risk of sounding confrontational (not my aim at all), I wonder
how much advice on usenet etiquette I could possibly need from someone
posting to newsgroups through a web-based portal.
 
M

marc

Guest
raisethe wrote:
> x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> raisethe wrote:
>>
>>>> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.

>> Which point was it you were replying to?

>
> The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.


Which you snipped.
>
>
>> If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
>> header

>
> I'm not sure about that.


Doesn't anyone know how to post properly anymore?

I can find it disorientating when a subject
> I've been following disappears from the discussion page.


How do you know it has disappeared and not just ended? Do you spend your
life in a haze of disorientation due to Usenet threads ending?
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
marc <[email protected]> wrote:

> raisethe wrote:
> > x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> raisethe wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
> >> Which point was it you were replying to?

> >
> > The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.

>
> Which you snipped.


Marc, as far as I can tell, you snipped it.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Paul Luton wrote:
>
> > Adam Lea wrote:
> >> "Paul Luton" <[email protected]> wrote:


> >>> 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.


Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
accompanying me.

However, it is very different for holders of provisional motorbike
licences.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
M

marc

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> raisethe wrote:
>>> x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
>>>> Which point was it you were replying to?
>>> The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.

>> Which you snipped.

>
> Marc, as far as I can tell, you snipped it.
>


Did I ? Ahh that must have been the point I was refering to!
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Paul Luton wrote:
> 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.


Any motor vehicle on private land? Petrol lawn mowers? Petrol
chain-saws? Petrol boats?

> If there are then well tough ! Rather
> occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.


A typical attitude often exhibited by those who, contrary to all the
evidence, still think that ever more regulation is always the way
forward. It wouldn't be occasional. Such measures would inevitably
lead to huge inconvenience for the uncomplaining majority of law-abiding
souls, without inconveniencing the lawless minority for one moment.
Witness the current raft of motoring regulations, and the knee-jerk gun
laws, dog laws, id laws, etc.

If you think that a law requiring a driving licence to be produced to
legitimately buy fuel would prevent, or even slightly deter, an
unlicensed driver from driving, then presumably you would be astonished
if I revealed to you the fact that certain other substances that were
already illegal to buy anywhere, with or without a licence, were
actually freely available to all-comers, of all ages, on practically
every street in the country, and that into the bargain no tax was
payable on them either!

--
Matt B
 
D

Dylan Smith

Guest
On 2007-12-07, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Even if we assume that each of the 3000, or so, fatal collisions that
> occurred last year, resulting in about 3200 fatalities, had one culpable
> driver, then we have 3000 candidates for a ban.

<snip>

You are assuming zero deterrence of careless driving here: as if nothing
will change after stiff penalties for careless driving are put on the
law books.

Consider one form of dangerous driving: using a hand held mobile phone
when driving. The fine in the Isle of Man for getting caught is not 30
pounds (or whatever the trivial UK fine is), but 1000 pounds.

You never see people driving with a phone clamped to their ear here -
the hefty fine is a hell of a deterrent to that particular form of
negligence. No one wants to risk paying a grand. So people either
ignore their phones or find somewhere safe to stop to use their
phone when they ring.

Perhaps if people realise they can get a hefty fine and a ban for any
form of careless driving, they might treat driving a vehicle with the
respect it deserves.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2007-12-07, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Even if we assume that each of the 3000, or so, fatal collisions that
>>occurred last year, resulting in about 3200 fatalities, had one culpable
>>driver, then we have 3000 candidates for a ban.

>
> <snip>
>
> You are assuming zero deterrence of careless driving here: as if nothing
> will change after stiff penalties for careless driving are put on the
> law books.
>
> Consider one form of dangerous driving: using a hand held mobile phone
> when driving. The fine in the Isle of Man for getting caught is not 30
> pounds (or whatever the trivial UK fine is), but 1000 pounds.
>
> You never see people driving with a phone clamped to their ear here -
> the hefty fine is a hell of a deterrent to that particular form of
> negligence. No one wants to risk paying a grand. So people either
> ignore their phones or find somewhere safe to stop to use their
> phone when they ring.


That sounds very much as though there is no "fixed" penalty system in
the IoM (for the offence you mention at any rate) and as though only
the courts can decide guilt and the appropriate punishment. If that is
the case, then I suspect that your quoted "£1,000 fine" is the
maximum, rather than a typical, fine level.

> Perhaps if people realise they can get a hefty fine and a ban for any
> form of careless driving, they might treat driving a vehicle with the
> respect it deserves.


They *can* get a hefty fine and/or a ban for careless driving. But the
whole system has been watered down for easy (read: effort-free)
enforcement and bureaucratic convenience. There is almost no effective
enforcement endeavour against any offence that cannot be measured by
the doppler effect or by reading the time on a piece of paper.
 
N

Nigel Cliffe

Guest
Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2007-12-07, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Even if we assume that each of the 3000, or so, fatal collisions that
>> occurred last year, resulting in about 3200 fatalities, had one
>> culpable driver, then we have 3000 candidates for a ban.

> <snip>
>
> You are assuming zero deterrence of careless driving here: as if
> nothing will change after stiff penalties for careless driving are
> put on the law books.
>
> Consider one form of dangerous driving: using a hand held mobile phone
> when driving. The fine in the Isle of Man for getting caught is not 30
> pounds (or whatever the trivial UK fine is), but 1000 pounds.
>
> You never see people driving with a phone clamped to their ear here -
> the hefty fine is a hell of a deterrent to that particular form of
> negligence. No one wants to risk paying a grand. So people either
> ignore their phones or find somewhere safe to stop to use their
> phone when they ring.
>
> Perhaps if people realise they can get a hefty fine and a ban for any
> form of careless driving, they might treat driving a vehicle with the
> respect it deserves.



Here we see the body-swerve in an argument. Having given up on long jail
terms or life bans for those drivers involved in fatalities, the argument is
changed to one of enforcing penalties for careless driving. This is a
different case.


If you go back up the thread, I was advocating directing any additional
effort on "bad driving", through a mixture enforcement and education.



I find it amusing to watch the thread go in circles.

- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
 
M

Mark

Guest
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:47:29 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email protected]>
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.


No you can't. It's a totally different situation.

Also murder rates have often increased in US states that introduced
capital punishment.

M
 
M

Mark

Guest
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:32:02 +0000, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Luton wrote:
>> 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.


Hear Hear!

M
 
H

Helen Deborah Vecht

Guest
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob)typed


> Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
> would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
> accompanying me.


> However, it is very different for holders of provisional motorbike
> licences.


I bought petrol to fuel my camping stove; driving licence not relevant...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)typed


>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>accompanying me.


[to Ekul Namsob:]

So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up. The
way to get round that would be to have a recorded database audit trail
back to every licence-holder for every drop of fuel sold - and a way
of establishing which particular drops of petrol or diesel were in the
combustion chamber at the moment of collision.

>>However, it is very different for holders of provisional motorbike
>>licences.


> I bought petrol to fuel my camping stove; driving licence not relevant...


Good job we don't smoke. But I suppose all lighters are butane-powered
these days.
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)typed

>
> >>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
> >>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
> >>accompanying me.

>
> [to Ekul Namsob:]
>
> So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
> temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.


To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Ekul Namsob)typed

>
>>>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>>>accompanying me.


>>[to Ekul Namsob:]


>>So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
>>temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.


> To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.
> Luke


Why would it? If the learner driver next door asked me to accompany
him down to the filling station, assist him with filling up and then
come straight home, why would I refuse? Would there be a legal
requirement for the licensed driver to show some sort of nexus with
the ownership or control of the vehicle's use? Would that need to be
recorded by the filling station?

Don't you think your scheme is starting to sound a little over-complex?