S
Simon Brooke
Guest
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it should be withdrawn.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
year.
[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
('[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
year.
[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