Mandatory custodials for people who kill others on the roads.

[marc]

spindrift wrote:
> "No, you take the costs of the accidents and then add to them the
> costs
> of prison "
>
> You discount the "discouragement" factor of harsher penalties.

The harshest penalty is death. Death occurs in many road traffic
"accidents" often to those at fault. The fact that death doesn't seem as
a discouragment then or for that matter the fact that murders still
occur where there is a death penalty may show that you are attaching to
much emphasis on a penalty being a discouragment
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to the law,
You started off by using some nebulous term such as "wild" (1) and was
challenged to define it. Your definitions then used more nebulous terms,
such as "speedophile"

but the
> strict liability law change would be a massive boost to road safety,
> as I've explained ad nauseum.

You have explained little, but used a lot of words to do so.


>
> You're being quite confrontational and there's really no need, I'm
> happy to explore what you feel are flaws in what I've said, politely.
If you thinks this is confrontational you should have met me at 08:55
when somone tried to left hook me at a roundabout.

(1)
I forget the original word, it was so nebulous as to not be memorable

 

[spindrift]

On 8 Oct, 14:41, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > "No, you take the costs of the accidents and then add to them the
> > costs
> > of prison "
>
> > You discount the "discouragement" factor of harsher penalties.
>
> The harshest penalty is death. Death occurs in many road traffic
> "accidents" often to those at fault. The fact that death doesn't seem as
> a discouragment then or for that matter the fact that murders still
> occur where there is a death penalty may show that you are attaching to
> much emphasis on a penalty being a discouragment
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to the law,
>
> You started off by using some nebulous term such as "wild" (1) and was
> challenged to define it. Your definitions then used more nebulous terms,
> such as "speedophile"
>
> but the
>
> > strict liability law change would be a massive boost to road safety,
> > as I've explained ad nauseum.
>
> You have explained little, but used a lot of words to do so.
>
>
>
> > You're being quite confrontational and there's really no need, I'm
> > happy to explore what you feel are flaws in what I've said, politely.
>
> If you thinks this is confrontational you should have met me at 08:55
> when somone tried to left hook me at a roundabout.
>
> (1)
> I forget the original word, it was so nebulous as to not be memorable

Marc, in a collision between a car driver and a cyclist the driver is
unlikely to be killed.
Thus vulnerable road users have the double whammy of being most at
risk and least protected by law.

Murders are rarely pre-conceived- they are often crimes of the heart,
not at all similar to a driver who makes the calm decision to speed,
or drink drive, or drive on a mobile with the commensurate higher risk
this involves. They take the riak because the chance of detection is
slight- 6000 speed cameras covering the entire road network, and the
penalties are so low as to make the risk worthwhile.

I have previously explained how the strict liability law:

helps make cycling safer- ten times safer in Denmark for instance, and
yet exerts no upward pressure on premiums since fewer accidents reduce
costs.

 

[Peter Clinch]

spindrift wrote:

> I think when I posit a/ , and a poster appears and screams "Aha! So,
> you support b/!!"
>
> Then it's reasonable to link such silly tactics with TrollB's straw
> man routine.

That looks a bit like a straw man from here.

> On the cost of RTA's:
>
> The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills someone is
> greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that driver to
> encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
> consequences and discourage other speeding drivers.

You are trying to equate grief with finance. It doesn't wash, and will
continue not to. You cannot just avoid the financial implications of
what you suggest, distasteful though it may be. You have to assess
cost/benefit and other implications. I would think a permanent lifetime
ban and heavy fine would be pretty much as effective as a custodial
sentence in discouragement terms and wouldn't cost a small fortune and
knock on all sorts of other problems in the prison service too.

> The latest accident figures:

<snip>

Those do not equate grief to finance, and they do not prove (or even
suggest) that prison is the best answer, or whether or not it's "fair".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[spindrift]

On 8 Oct, 14:49, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > I think when I posit a/ , and a poster appears and screams "Aha! So,
> > you support b/!!"
>
> > Then it's reasonable to link such silly tactics with TrollB's straw
> > man routine.
>
> That looks a bit like a straw man from here.
>
> > On the cost of RTA's:
>
> > The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills someone is
> > greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that driver to
> > encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
> > consequences and discourage other speeding drivers.
>
> You are trying to equate grief with finance. It doesn't wash, and will
> continue not to. You cannot just avoid the financial implications of
> what you suggest, distasteful though it may be. You have to assess
> cost/benefit and other implications. I would think a permanent lifetime
> ban and heavy fine would be pretty much as effective as a custodial
> sentence in discouragement terms and wouldn't cost a small fortune and
> knock on all sorts of other problems in the prison service too.
>
> > The latest accident figures:
>
> <snip>
>
> Those do not equate grief to finance, and they do not prove (or even
> suggest) that prison is the best answer, or whether or not it's "fair".
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I've been very careful to avoid doing any such thing, the cost issue
was raised by someone else.

 

[marc]

spindrift wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 14:09, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> Are you TrollB? If cost is your only consideration...
>> Stop being a berk.
>>
>>> Look at the cost of accidents, injuries, deaths and damage caused by
>>> twatty drivers. Deduct that from the cost of slamming a killer driver
>>> in chokey for a few years.
>> Well, since you rather imply you've done the sums here, what are the
>> numbers?
>>
>> Pete.
>> --
>> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
>> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
>> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
>> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>
> I think when I posit a/ , and a poster appears and screams "Aha! So,
> you support b/!!"
>
> Then it's reasonable to link such silly tactics with TrollB's straw
> man routine.
>
> On the cost of RTA's:
>
> The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills someone is
> greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that driver to
> encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
> consequences and discourage other speeding drivers.

There are a number of logical fallacies in that your assertion. To
start with one, "speeding drivers" are not neccesarily being "reckless".
>
> The latest accident figures:
>
> 70 per cent of car drivers break the speed limit.
> About 2/3 of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured
> happen on roads where the speed limit is 30mph or less.
> At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as you are at 30mph.
> Each "
> Possible causes of road deaths are:
>
> - excessive or inappropriate speed
> - drink and drugs related driving
> - mobile phones
> - tiredness
> - mechanical defects
> - driver distraction
> - failure to wear a seat belt
> - lack of driver experience
> - driver error or road view obstruction
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series7/cars.shtml
>


You were asked for numbers, you came up with a number £1,500,000, but
for an equation you need more than one number. To prove your theory, you
will need to provide , at the very least

The real cost per year of each prisoner
The loss to the treasury of that prisoners earnings
the number of prisoners you will need to have an effect on "reckless
behaviour",( not forgettign that reckless behaviour by its definition
has not normally been thought through).
The cost to the economy of some drivers being unnecessarily slower in
their driving.
and a host of other items that will no doubt fill a sign graph.

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> The latest accident figures:

Obsolete data copied from a January 2004 article.

> 70 per cent of car drivers break the speed limit.

The Government's latest data on contributory factors (RCGB 2006,
published in September 2007) states: "Exceeding speed limit was
attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents".

--
Matt B

 

[marc]

spindrift wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 14:41, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> "No, you take the costs of the accidents and then add to them the
>>> costs
>>> of prison "
>>> You discount the "discouragement" factor of harsher penalties.
>> The harshest penalty is death. Death occurs in many road traffic
>> "accidents" often to those at fault. The fact that death doesn't seem as
>> a discouragment then or for that matter the fact that murders still
>> occur where there is a death penalty may show that you are attaching to
>> much emphasis on a penalty being a discouragment
>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to the law,
>> You started off by using some nebulous term such as "wild" (1) and was
>> challenged to define it. Your definitions then used more nebulous terms,
>> such as "speedophile"
>>
>> but the
>>
>>> strict liability law change would be a massive boost to road safety,
>>> as I've explained ad nauseum.
>> You have explained little, but used a lot of words to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You're being quite confrontational and there's really no need, I'm
>>> happy to explore what you feel are flaws in what I've said, politely.
>> If you thinks this is confrontational you should have met me at 08:55
>> when somone tried to left hook me at a roundabout.
>>
>> (1)
>> I forget the original word, it was so nebulous as to not be memorable
>
> Marc, in a collision between a car driver and a cyclist the driver is
> unlikely to be killed.

A fact.

> Thus vulnerable road users have the double whammy of being most at
> risk and least protected by law.
No thus, the fact( above) does not lead to your conclusion.

>
> Murders are rarely pre-conceived- they are often crimes of the heart,
> not at all similar to a driver who makes the calm decision to speed,
> or drink drive, or drive on a mobile with the commensurate higher risk
> this involves. They take the riak because the chance of detection is
> slight- 6000 speed cameras covering the entire road network, and the
> penalties are so low as to make the risk worthwhile.

And because they believe that the risk is worth the gain, and that the
consequence will not be deadly, and more often than not , far far far
more often, they are right.
>
> I have previously explained how the strict liability law:

You have explained very little, I say again, you have typed, often,
repeatedly, but there is little explanation in your writing.
>
> helps make cycling safer- ten times safer in Denmark for instance, and
> yet exerts no upward pressure on premiums since fewer accidents reduce
> costs.

I would suggest that there are a myriad reasons why cycling is safer in
Denmark, to lay the benefit all at the door of strict liability and then
to link that to mandatory sentencing is disengeous at best.

 

[spindrift]

On 8 Oct, 14:53, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > On 8 Oct, 14:09, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> spindrift wrote:
> >>> Are you TrollB? If cost is your only consideration...
> >> Stop being a berk.
>
> >>> Look at the cost of accidents, injuries, deaths and damage caused by
> >>> twatty drivers. Deduct that from the cost of slamming a killer driver
> >>> in chokey for a few years.
> >> Well, since you rather imply you've done the sums here, what are the
> >> numbers?
>
> >> Pete.
> >> --
> >> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> >> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> >> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> >> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>
> > I think when I posit a/ , and a poster appears and screams "Aha! So,
> > you support b/!!"
>
> > Then it's reasonable to link such silly tactics with TrollB's straw
> > man routine.
>
> > On the cost of RTA's:
>
> > The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills someone is
> > greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that driver to
> > encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
> > consequences and discourage other speeding drivers.
>
> There are a number of logical fallacies in that your assertion. To
> start with one, "speeding drivers" are not neccesarily being "reckless".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The latest accident figures:
>
> > 70 per cent of car drivers break the speed limit.
> > About 2/3 of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured
> > happen on roads where the speed limit is 30mph or less.
> > At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as you are at 30mph.
> > Each "
> > Possible causes of road deaths are:
>
> > - excessive or inappropriate speed
> > - drink and drugs related driving
> > - mobile phones
> > - tiredness
> > - mechanical defects
> > - driver distraction
> > - failure to wear a seat belt
> > - lack of driver experience
> > - driver error or road view obstruction
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series7/cars.shtml
>
> You were asked for numbers, you came up with a number £1,500,000, but
> for an equation you need more than one number. To prove your theory, you
> will need to provide , at the very least
>
> The real cost per year of each prisoner
> The loss to the treasury of that prisoners earnings
> the number of prisoners you will need to have an effect on "reckless
> behaviour",( not forgettign that reckless behaviour by its definition
> has not normally been thought through).
> The cost to the economy of some drivers being unnecessarily slower in
> their driving.
> and a host of other items that will no doubt fill a sign graph.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"To start with one, "speeding drivers" are not neccesarily being
"reckless". "


I am afraid they are. Speeding increases the chances of a crash and
makes the outcome worse.
This seems to be a very live issue for some people. Although properly
conducted polls consistently show that where fixed speed cameras are
in use they are popular with local drivers and non-drivers, there are
quite a lot of people who don't accept that exceeding the speed limit
is a criminal offence and contributes to the crash rate and, by
increasing the energy of collision, to the death toll caused by
crashes.

 

[Peter Clinch]

spindrift wrote:

>> Those do not equate grief to finance, and they do not prove (or even
>> suggest) that prison is the best answer, or whether or not it's "fair".

> I've been very careful to avoid doing any such thing, the cost issue
> was raised by someone else.

But you said "The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills
someone is greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that
driver to encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
consequences and discourage other speeding drivers."

How "all ways" doesn't include finance I really can't say, and frankly I
doubt if you can either.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[marc]

spindrift wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 14:53, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> On 8 Oct, 14:09, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> Are you TrollB? If cost is your only consideration...
>>>> Stop being a berk.
>>>>> Look at the cost of accidents, injuries, deaths and damage caused by
>>>>> twatty drivers. Deduct that from the cost of slamming a killer driver
>>>>> in chokey for a few years.
>>>> Well, since you rather imply you've done the sums here, what are the
>>>> numbers?
>>>> Pete.
>>>> --
>>>> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
>>>> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
>>>> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
>>>> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>>> I think when I posit a/ , and a poster appears and screams "Aha! So,
>>> you support b/!!"
>>> Then it's reasonable to link such silly tactics with TrollB's straw
>>> man routine.
>>> On the cost of RTA's:
>>> The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills someone is
>>> greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that driver to
>>> encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
>>> consequences and discourage other speeding drivers.
>> There are a number of logical fallacies in that your assertion. To
>> start with one, "speeding drivers" are not neccesarily being "reckless".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The latest accident figures:
>>> 70 per cent of car drivers break the speed limit.
>>> About 2/3 of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured
>>> happen on roads where the speed limit is 30mph or less.
>>> At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as you are at 30mph.
>>> Each "
>>> Possible causes of road deaths are:
>>> - excessive or inappropriate speed
>>> - drink and drugs related driving
>>> - mobile phones
>>> - tiredness
>>> - mechanical defects
>>> - driver distraction
>>> - failure to wear a seat belt
>>> - lack of driver experience
>>> - driver error or road view obstruction
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series7/cars.shtml
>> You were asked for numbers, you came up with a number £1,500,000, but
>> for an equation you need more than one number. To prove your theory, you
>> will need to provide , at the very least
>>
>> The real cost per year of each prisoner
>> The loss to the treasury of that prisoners earnings
>> the number of prisoners you will need to have an effect on "reckless
>> behaviour",( not forgettign that reckless behaviour by its definition
>> has not normally been thought through).
>> The cost to the economy of some drivers being unnecessarily slower in
>> their driving.
>> and a host of other items that will no doubt fill a sign graph.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "To start with one, "speeding drivers" are not neccesarily being
> "reckless". "
>
>
> I am afraid they are.

Legislature and the judicary seem to disagree with you.


Speeding increases the chances of a crash

Not proven.

and
> makes the outcome worse.

accpepted, but that still doesn't equate to speeding =reckless

> This seems to be a very live issue for some people. Although properly
> conducted polls consistently show that where fixed speed cameras are
> in use they are popular with local drivers and non-drivers,

The phrase you are lokking for is "local groups" or NIMBY
there are
> quite a lot of people who don't accept that exceeding the speed limit
> is a criminal offence and contributes to the crash rate and, by
> increasing the energy of collision, to the death toll caused by
> crashes.

Yes, that "lot of people" is the rest of the population outside of your
local group above. You brought the figures in "75% of drivers break
speeed limits" , are you going to try and say that 75% of drivers are
reckless, because if you try you end up hittign a definition wall by
dint of "reckless" being measured from the attitude of a population.

 

[spindrift]

On 8 Oct, 15:03, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> >> Those do not equate grief to finance, and they do not prove (or even
> >> suggest) that prison is the best answer, or whether or not it's "fair".
> > I've been very careful to avoid doing any such thing, the cost issue
> > was raised by someone else.
>
> But you said "The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills
> someone is greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that
> driver to encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
> consequences and discourage other speeding drivers."
>
> How "all ways" doesn't include finance I really can't say, and frankly I
> doubt if you can either.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I'll place a million and a half quid on your table Peter. Catch is I
have to kill someone you love in order for you to claim it.

 

[marc]

spindrift wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 15:02, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8 Oct, 14:53, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>> On 8 Oct, 14:09, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>>> Are you TrollB? If cost is your only consideration...
>>>>> Stop being a berk.
>>>>>> Look at the cost of accidents, injuries, deaths and damage caused by
>>>>>> twatty drivers. Deduct that from the cost of slamming a killer driver
>>>>>> in chokey for a few years.
>>>>> Well, since you rather imply you've done the sums here, what are the
>>>>> numbers?
>>>>> Pete.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
>>>>> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
>>>>> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
>>>>> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>>>> I think when I posit a/ , and a poster appears and screams "Aha! So,
>>>> you support b/!!"
>>>> Then it's reasonable to link such silly tactics with TrollB's straw
>>>> man routine.
>>>> On the cost of RTA's:
>>>> The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills someone is
>>>> greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that driver to
>>>> encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
>>>> consequences and discourage other speeding drivers.
>>> There are a number of logical fallacies in that your assertion. To
>>> start with one, "speeding drivers" are not neccesarily being "reckless".
>>>> The latest accident figures:
>>>> 70 per cent of car drivers break the speed limit.
>>>> About 2/3 of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured
>>>> happen on roads where the speed limit is 30mph or less.
>>>> At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as you are at 30mph.
>>>> Each "
>>>> Possible causes of road deaths are:
>>>> - excessive or inappropriate speed
>>>> - drink and drugs related driving
>>>> - mobile phones
>>>> - tiredness
>>>> - mechanical defects
>>>> - driver distraction
>>>> - failure to wear a seat belt
>>>> - lack of driver experience
>>>> - driver error or road view obstruction
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southeast/series7/cars.shtml
>>> You were asked for numbers, you came up with a number £1,500,000, but
>>> for an equation you need more than one number. To prove your theory, you
>>> will need to provide , at the very least
>>> The real cost per year of each prisoner
>>> The loss to the treasury of that prisoners earnings
>>> the number of prisoners you will need to have an effect on "reckless
>>> behaviour",( not forgettign that reckless behaviour by its definition
>>> has not normally been thought through).
>>> The cost to the economy of some drivers being unnecessarily slower in
>>> their driving.
>>> and a host of other items that will no doubt fill a sign graph.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> "To start with one, "speeding drivers" are not neccesarily being
>> "reckless". "
>>
>> I am afraid they are. Speeding increases the chances of a crash and
>> makes the outcome worse.
>> This seems to be a very live issue for some people. Although properly
>> conducted polls consistently show that where fixed speed cameras are
>> in use they are popular with local drivers and non-drivers, there are
>> quite a lot of people who don't accept that exceeding the speed limit
>> is a criminal offence and contributes to the crash rate and, by
>> increasing the energy of collision, to the death toll caused by
>> crashes.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "and that the consequence will not be deadly, and more often than
> not , far far far more often, they are right. "
>
>
> Do you think the only negative impact of speeding is when someone gets
> killed?

"Mandatory custodials for people who kill others on the roads" is the
subject under discussion. If you wanted to say "Mandatory custodials for
people who scare others on the roads" you should have said so and
started from a different place, now that holes have been poked in your
"kill" arguments you can't suddenly shift position to argue about speed
and traffic density.

 

[marc]

spindrift wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 15:03, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>>> Those do not equate grief to finance, and they do not prove (or even
>>>> suggest) that prison is the best answer, or whether or not it's "fair".
>>> I've been very careful to avoid doing any such thing, the cost issue
>>> was raised by someone else.
>> But you said "The misery and grief caused by a speeding driver who kills
>> someone is greater in all ways than the cost of incarcerating that
>> driver to encourage them to link reckless behaviour with predictable
>> consequences and discourage other speeding drivers."
>>
>> How "all ways" doesn't include finance I really can't say, and frankly I
>> doubt if you can either.
>>
>> Pete.
>> --
>> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
>> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
>> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
>> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>
> I'll place a million and a half quid on your table Peter. Catch is I
> have to kill someone you love in order for you to claim it.
>
>

STRAWMAN!!!

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Marc, in a collision between a car driver and a cyclist the driver is
> unlikely to be killed.

So is the cyclist actually. In 2006, out of the 13,000, or so,
collisions between a car and a bike, 78 cyclists were killed. That's an
average of 0.006 per collision.

> Thus vulnerable road users have the double whammy of being most at
> risk and least protected by law.

They are /most/ at risk, granted, but explain why you believe,
especially given the vast raft of "special" laws created specifically to
catch motorists only, how you believe cyclists are less protected by the
law than cyclists?

> Murders are rarely pre-conceived- they are often crimes of the heart,

Can you cite evidence for that assertion?

> not at all similar to a driver who makes the calm decision to speed,

I thought we were talking decision to kill. How many motorists do you
think set out to deliberately kill? Remember too that only 3% of cars
in "accidents" are actually speeding.

> I have previously explained how the strict liability law:
>
> helps make cycling safer-

No you haven't, there is a subtle difference between "explain" and
"assert" with a bunch of spurious and unrelated pseudo statistics.

> ten times safer in Denmark for instance,

That is more a result of their segregated cycling facilities, and
certainly nothing to do with insurance practices - as you must(!) surely
be aware!!!

Why, do you suppose, that if certain insurance practices in Denmark,
where segregated cycling is prevalent, have such an influence on cyclist
casualty figures, that they do not have a similar effect in the other
European countries which have exactly the same insurance practices, but
which don't have the same cycling segregation? Doh!!!

--
Matt B

 

[Peter Clinch]

spindrift wrote:

> I'll place a million and a half quid on your table Peter. Catch is I
> have to kill someone you love in order for you to claim it.

How does that chime in against "I've been very careful to avoid doing
any such thing, the cost issue was raised by someone else". Clue: it
doesn't.

Where do you demonstrate that even if your figure means anything, it
shows that prison must be the most cost-effective way of stopping the
killing? Clue: it doesn't.

Why do you complain about strawmen when you raise so many yourself? I
can't give you any clues on that one, but you really should work it out
for yourself.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Adagio]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:53:23 -0700, spindrift <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>1/
>
>Doing 25 mph on a bike on a pavement is likely to hurt and possibly
>kill anyone you collide with so you should go to prison should you end
>up killing someone.
>
>2/
>
>Turning a twenty ton lorry sideways without checking or using your
>mirrors whilst rummaging around in paperwork is guaranteed to kill
>anyone you hit and you should go to prison should someone die because
>of your inattention.
>
>

Please explain, preferably with some intellectual rigour, why the
outcome rather than the action or intent should determine the
sentence.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:

> Be they cyclists, drivers, whatever, if the operator of a vehicle
> kills whilst behaving like an **** (ie cycling on the pavement,
> RLJing, speeding, drunk driving, drugged driving etc etc) then they
> get sent down.

> Fair?

Well, a conviction for death by dangerous (or a newly-minted cycling
equivalent) would certainly appear to be justified in the
circumstances you suggest, with the exception of "speeding" (WTMM),
which might not always be as clear cut as the other scenarios. In
fact, AIUI, a custodial sentence invariably follows such a conviction.

The lesser offence of causing death by careless driving is a different
kettle of fish. In the absence of culpably avoidable behaviour (eg,
where an accident has occurred simply because of a lapse in
concentration), it might be thought over-harsh to wreck the lives of a
driver/cyclist and his/her family, particularly if it involves the
consequential permanent loss of livelihood and the risk of losing
one's home and settled family life. You don't even necessarily get
that for a burglary or embezzlement conviction.

It is reasonable to argue in favour of deterrence of
actively-dangerous but easily-avoidable activity (cycling on the
footway, being over the drink/drive limit), but aiming to "deter" a
lapse of attention is rather more problematic.

It could happen to you or me tomorrow. Would it mean that our families
deserved to have their settled existence threatened? I don't think so.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 09:57, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>spindrift wrote:
>>
>>>Be they cyclists, drivers, whatever, if the operator of a vehicle
>>>kills whilst behaving like an **** (ie cycling on the pavement,
>>>RLJing, speeding, drunk driving, drugged driving etc etc) then they
>>>get sent down.
>>
>>>Fair?
>>
>>The title of your thread is at odds with your definition above.
>>
>>And, do you have a legally tight definition of "driving like an ****".
>>
>>--
>>Nigel Cliffe,
>>Webmaster athttp://www.2mm.org.uk/
>
>
> The aim of the judicial process and any punishment meted out is not
> just punishing the offender but discouraging others.
>
> Vehicle operators can be careless, reckless or plain stupid and kill
> other people yet remain out of prison. In order to avoid charges of
> ignoring miscreant cyclists the nthe jail term for a cyclist who kills
> someone on the pavement should be the same for any road user who kills
> another road user. At present as with Emma Foa's killer, the
> punishments vary wildly.

AFAIK, no-one has been convicted of "killing" that unfortunate lady.
It is not even clear that the law takes the view that she as "killed"
by anyone.

> Driving like an **** includes but does not solely consist of speeding,
> inappropriate speed, driving an unfit, uninsured or unroadworthy car,
> drunk or drugged or mobile driving, reckless overtaking and so on.

Very Roman (I'm thinking of Caligula). Or perhaps very Nazi (the camp
commandant in "Schindler's Ark/List").

You can't have laws capable of imprisoning a citizen which are capable
of capricious (but lawful) interpretation on the hoof by the courts.
It'd be incompatible with the Human Rights Convention. And I never
thought I'd write that.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:
> On 8 Oct, 14:41, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>spindrift wrote:
>>
>>>"No, you take the costs of the accidents and then add to them the
>>>costs
>>>of prison "
>>
>>>You discount the "discouragement" factor of harsher penalties.
>>
>>The harshest penalty is death. Death occurs in many road traffic
>>"accidents" often to those at fault. The fact that death doesn't seem as
>>a discouragment then or for that matter the fact that murders still
>>occur where there is a death penalty may show that you are attaching to
>>much emphasis on a penalty being a discouragment
>>
>>
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by your reference to the law,
>>
>>You started off by using some nebulous term such as "wild" (1) and was
>>challenged to define it. Your definitions then used more nebulous terms,
>>such as "speedophile"
>>
>> but the
>>
>>
>>>strict liability law change would be a massive boost to road safety,
>>>as I've explained ad nauseum.
>>
>>You have explained little, but used a lot of words to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>You're being quite confrontational and there's really no need, I'm
>>>happy to explore what you feel are flaws in what I've said, politely.
>>
>>If you thinks this is confrontational you should have met me at 08:55
>>when somone tried to left hook me at a roundabout.
>>
>>(1)
>>I forget the original word, it was so nebulous as to not be memorable
>
>
> Marc, in a collision between a car driver and a cyclist the driver is
> unlikely to be killed.
> Thus vulnerable road users have the double whammy of being most at
> risk and least protected by law.

In what sense are cyclists not protected by law?

 

[marc]

JNugent wrote:

>> Marc, in a collision between a car driver and a cyclist the driver is
>> unlikely to be killed.
>> Thus vulnerable road users have the double whammy of being most at
>> risk and least protected by law.
>
> In what sense are cyclists not protected by law?

In way that when the stupid ***** tried left hooking me this morning at
the roundabout the fact that it was unlawful woudn't have protected me.