OT: Today's Darwin award.

in message <[email protected]>, Adam Lea
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>,
>> Pyromancer ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>> The 19y/o boy or girl racer who decides to go haring round a blind
>>> corner at 55mph on a wet country road in a car with dodgy tyres,
>>> messed-with (i.e. not working as the manufacturer intended) suspension,
>>> and little real driving experience is far more likely to cause an
>>> accident than a 45+ mature driver doing 70 on a 60mph dual carriageway
>>> in a well maintained company car, but it's the latter who's more likely
>>> to be caught by speed cameras.

>> But your 45+ mature driver knows perfectly well he's breaking the law
>> and has absolutely no excuse. Speaking as someone who has in thirty
>> years of driving amassed two speeding fines, I'm all in favour of a one
>> strike and you're out speeding policy - caught speeding once, never
>> drive legally again; caught driving illegally, eat porrage for three
>> years.

> That strikes me as rather draconian. Breaking the speed limit isn't
> necessarily dangerous at any particular time, certainly not to the point
> where a year long ban would be appropriate.

I wasn't suggesting a year long ban, I was suggesting a lifetime ban.
Speeding in itself in some particular instance (long clear straight on a
bright sunny day) may not be dangerous[1], but it does prove you either
can't or won't manage your car according to the well known law of the
land; and whether you can't or won't, you shouldn't be permitted to.
Driving is not a right, it's a privilege; and if the privilege is abused,
it should be withdrawn.

> We need to focus on dangerous
> driving, which includes innapropriate speed - this is what is killing
> people.

Ah, the mantra of the Paul Smith brigade. 'I am a safe driver and can be
trusted to decide for myself when to put other people's lives at risk'.

> If you are going to ban people for life for speeding, regardless
> of the circumstances then you may as well ban cycling for life for anyone
> who rides on a pavement, jumps a red light or cycles without lights at
> night.

I don't agree that the two things are similar at all. While misbehaving
whilst cycling is a bad thing, it doesn't kill three thousand people a

[1] But normally is. Trust me, I've been there. Fortunately, I didn't kill
anyone, but that's luck not judgement.

[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison
"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:

>BigRab wrote:
>> >- to the vast majority of people, speed cameras are evil
>> >contraptions designed to persecute innocent motorists who aren't doing
>> >any harm while the police laze about collecting fines instead of chasing
>> >"real criminals". Sad, but true.

>A poll of polls, released today by Transport 2000, demonstrates

.... that they'll misrepresent just about anything they can find in
order to bolster their Luddite views on transport. So, no change there

[email protected] (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... There's pleasure sure in being mad
That none but madmen know...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:13:19 +0000 someone who may be Jeff York
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>A poll of polls, released today by Transport 2000, demonstrates

>... that they'll misrepresent just about anything they can find in
>order to bolster their Luddite views on transport.

Nice try. However, you offer nothing to back up your assertion.

David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me