On 30 Jun, 20:42, Pyromancer <
[email protected]>
wrote:
> >Exactly where is the punishment here? Other than not being able to
> >drive an MV (which isn't really a big deal anyway) the driver gets
> >away with it.
>
> Not driving would have a very major effect on a lot of people's lives.
> They'd probably have to move house, possibly to a less pleasant area, in
> order to be able to still get to work for starters.
For some maybe, but those banned people I have known have got by
pretty easily really. A small inconvenience for taking someones life
through negligence.
>
> Ok, the death penalty for drink driving might
> act as a deterrent (though TBH the jury's out on how much of a deterrent
> the DP actually is - and I'm saying that as a supporter of it), but
> you'd never get that passed in law.
>
I think the possibility of losing your house, your car and much of
your future earnings would be a considerable deterrent to bad
driving, not to mention the loss of minor but nevertheless useful body
parts if the villain continues to drive after the ban. I should say
this would be a much better detergent than the death penalty.
I also think that car deaths are taken too lightly in the localities
where they occur. How about, for example, closing all roads for a mile
around the site of a fatal incident say one month after it occurs,
together with vast coverage in the local media, special church
services etc etc on that day, like a mini Diana. If nothing else,
people would be so put off by the inconvenience and nauseating
pontificating of local community leaders that they might end up
sorting out their driving.
If people still get killed, then close the roads for two days over a
two mile radius, and carry on until either people don't really get
killed any more or MV cannot be relied upon as sole transport.
