Unlikely Ally

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Simon Mason, Apr 8, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    Tags:


  2. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:12:01 +0100, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage driver
    >Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:

    >http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zauto.htm

    I'd be another "unlikely" ally.

    Except the actions described are not those of motorists, and to extend the thinking to include
    "normal" road accidents is neither fair nor sensible, let alone justifiable.

    In the first case (Baxter) he has simply used his vehicle as a weapon. This has nothing to do with
    driving in much the same way that carving the sunday joint has nothing to do with stabbing someone.

    In the second case (Clarke) we have a crazed drug addict with no regard for other people, driving
    while disqualified and intoxicated.

    Neither case bears any useful relationship to normal responsible members of society using the roads.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  3. Paul [email protected] Smith of Scotland, UK wrote:
    > I'd be another "unlikely" ally.

    What exactly makes you "unlikely"? Is it your occasional posting of obscenities in u.r.c?
     
  4. In message <[email protected]>, Paul Smith
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:12:01 +0100, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage driver
    >>Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:
    >
    >>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zauto.htm
    >
    >I'd be another "unlikely" ally.
    >
    >Except the actions described are not those of motorists,

    I think you inadvertently omitted the word 'sane'. Being as they were in motorised vehicles it is
    incontrovertible that they were motorists.

    >and to extend the thinking to include "normal" road accidents is neither fair nor sensible, let
    >alone justifiable.

    Has anyone done this?
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  5. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:39:34 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Geraint
    Jones) wrote:

    >> I'd be another "unlikely" ally.

    >What exactly makes you "unlikely"?

    The same thinking that made the author of the article the "unlikely ally" in the thread title.

    >Is it your occasional posting of obscenities in u.r.c?

    Probably not. No.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  6. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:56:33 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage
    >>>driver Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:

    >>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zauto.htm

    >>I'd be another "unlikely" ally.

    >>Except the actions described are not those of motorists,

    >I think you inadvertently omitted the word 'sane'. Being as they were in motorised vehicles it is
    >incontrovertible that they were motorists.

    Granted.

    >>and to extend the thinking to include "normal" road accidents is neither fair nor sensible, let
    >>alone justifiable.

    >Has anyone done this?

    To some degree I think that it's implied in the thread title.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  7. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage driver
    > Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:
    >
    > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zauto.htm

    I don't see it as unreasonable or even surprising that a committed petrol-head would condemn Baxter,
    or indeed others, who clearly used the car as a weapon to assault an innocent member of the public.
    Baxter was clearly guilty of a revolting crime made worse by the injuries to the little girl -- who
    he at the very least ignored in his assault on her father.

    Most drivers are reasonable people (hell -- most of us drive some of the time, we don't grow horns
    as we step into the car). I think it most unlikely that we as a group would try to defend a cyclist
    who, for example, assaulted an elderly woman with a bicycle pump because of some minor or perceived
    insult. (The actions of the slab fairy in the protection of the world from bib-shorts are, of
    course, a completely different matter)

    The problem is not criminal phsyopaths like Baxter -- fortunately they are rare. The real problem is
    the inattentive driver, the speeding driver, the selfish driver and the aggressive driver who see
    nothing wrong with putting cyclists and pedestrians (and motorcyclists and other drivers) at risk by
    their actions.

    T
     
  8. Al_mossah

    Al_mossah Guest

    A well written article from a welcome source. The thought of a 3-year-old girl being hit by a car on
    a pedestrian crossing is almost unbearable. Same for the wee girl left maimed int he trailer. The 2
    reckless people (call them motorists or morons) should have been locked up previously. End of story
    (except it won't be- there will be others).

    Paul Smith talks about "normal" road accidents. What is normal? At least one of these people set out
    to injure. The other probably didn't care, and so was by definition being reckless. Surely all
    reckless drivers deserve to be taken off the roads? Reckless means not caring, being uninterested in
    the consequences of one's actions. We've all got an imagination, and can therefore use it to imagine
    the consequences of a child about to cross the road down which we're going at 40mph.

    I never understand why the outcome of one's intention and behaviour makes a difference in UK law.
    For example, in a stabbing, if the victim dies the perpetrator can be charged with murder. If by
    timely medical intervention the victim is saved, the perpetrator can only be charged with attempted
    murder, but will probably not be. But his intentions and actions were the same. Similarly a
    motorist who speeds at 50mph in a 30mph limit may be "unlucky" if he kills a child. But he chose to
    drive at that speed, and has the mental capacity to imagine what might happen, so surely should be
    charged according to his behaviour, not the outcome? (Which would be as if he'd killed someone, in
    my opinion).

    And before any of our motorist friends jump up and down, I'm a motorist too.

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:12:01 +0100, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage
    > >driver Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:
    >
    > >http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zauto.htm
    >
    > I'd be another "unlikely" ally.
    >
    > Except the actions described are not those of motorists, and to extend the thinking to include
    > "normal" road accidents is neither fair nor sensible, let alone justifiable.
    >
    > In the first case (Baxter) he has simply used his vehicle as a weapon. This has nothing to do with
    > driving in much the same way that carving the sunday joint has nothing to do with stabbing
    > someone.
    >
    > In the second case (Clarke) we have a crazed drug addict with no regard for other people, driving
    > while disqualified and intoxicated.
    >
    > Neither case bears any useful relationship to normal responsible members of society using
    > the roads.
    > --
    > Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    > cameras cost lives
     
  9. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage
    > > driver Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:
    > >
    > > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zauto.htm
    >
    > I don't see it as unreasonable or even surprising that a committed petrol-head would condemn
    > Baxter, or indeed others, who clearly used the
    car
    > as a weapon to assault an innocent member of the public. Baxter was
    clearly
    > guilty of a revolting crime made worse by the injuries to the little
    girl --
    > who he at the very least ignored in his assault on her father.
    >

    Agreed. I based my "unlikely" tag on his frequent diatribes against road calming, speed cameras,
    congestion charges and the like which are intended to slow traffic down and reduce traffic volumes.

    Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be lessened if the speed of cars is
    reduced, something he is against.
    --
    Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
     
  10. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Agreed. I based my "unlikely" tag on his frequent diatribes against road calming, speed cameras,
    > congestion charges and the like which are intended to slow traffic down and reduce traffic
    > volumes.
    >
    > Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be lessened if the speed of cars is
    > reduced, something he is against.

    Baxter and the other criminal mentioned in the piece were clear cut bastards out with murderous
    intent. Anyone but the brain dead would condemn their actions.

    Sadly, too many people see any regulation or enforcement as an infringement of their liberty rather
    than a sensible restriction for the greater good. (Indeed, while I have often argued that control of
    speed is a necessary requirement to prevent accidents, I have also often railed against H&S Nazis
    who try to overregulate everything -- thereby removing risk and so some of the fun and the
    challenge. The difference being that speed and irresponsibility on the road kills others while
    regulation of risks that only endanger myself should down to me).

    I have no compalint about your 'unlikely' tag -- it seemed appropriate if not strictly accurate in
    this case.
     
  11. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:27:14 +0000 (UTC), "al_Mossah" <[email protected]> wrote:

    [snip]

    >Paul Smith talks about "normal" road accidents. What is normal? At least one of these people set
    >out to injure. The other probably didn't care, and so was by definition being reckless. Surely all
    >reckless drivers deserve to be taken off the roads? Reckless means not caring, being uninterested
    >in the consequences of one's actions.

    I am delighted to join you in condemning reckless behaviour wherever it's found.

    >We've all got an imagination, and can therefore use it to imagine the consequences of a child about
    >to cross the road down which we're going at 40mph.

    Steady on. A child crossing the road ahead with legitimate 40mph traffic happens thousands of times
    every day. Something else must go wrong before there's an accident.

    >I never understand why the outcome of one's intention and behaviour makes a difference in UK law.
    >For example, in a stabbing, if the victim dies the perpetrator can be charged with murder. If by
    >timely medical intervention the victim is saved, the perpetrator can only be charged with attempted
    >murder, but will probably not be. But his intentions and actions were the same. Similarly a
    >motorist who speeds at 50mph in a 30mph limit may be "unlucky" if he kills a child. But he chose to
    >drive at that speed, and has the mental capacity to imagine what might happen, so surely should be
    >charged according to his behaviour, not the outcome? (Which would be as if he'd killed someone, in
    >my opinion).

    I too find it bizarre. It can only be that there's an element of retribution. I don't know why we
    need it either. I think the intent (or the negligence) should be punished.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  12. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:39:39 +0100, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be lessened if the speed of cars is
    >reduced, something he is against.

    Death and injury would certainly be lessened if the speed of traffic was reduced in exactly the
    right places.

    Speed cameras and speed enforcement generally appear to reduce the speeds of traffic in exactly the
    wrong places.

    Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that should be
    encouraged and nurtured.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  13. Velvet

    Velvet Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:39:39 +0100, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be
    lessened
    > >if the speed of cars is reduced, something he is against.
    >
    > Death and injury would certainly be lessened if the speed of traffic was reduced in exactly the
    > right places.
    >
    > Speed cameras and speed enforcement generally appear to reduce the speeds of traffic in exactly
    > the wrong places.
    >
    > Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that should be
    > encouraged and nurtured.
    > --
    > Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    > cameras cost lives

    That'll be why the drivers down my road think that with parked cars to each side, only room for one
    car to drive between them, a sharp bend with bad visibility, children around with footballs and
    bikes, it's safe to drive down at 40mph most of the time, with some *obviously* enlightened
    individuals realising this is a safe environment to do anything up to 60mph along?

    Yeah right. In my area, the speed cameras are placed where the limit drops from 40 to 30, forcing
    motorists to slow to 30 to avoid a ticket. That's great, but then they just speed up after the
    camera, despite the road staying such that 40 is an inappropriate speed. Cameras are also placed
    where previously there was dangerous overtaking on a 40mph road (limit is still 40mph, but you don't
    get the idiots doing 60 down it and overtaking dangerously). That's worked quite well to stop the
    idiots, because the traffic now keeps to a steady stream at 40, instead of bunching and gaps which
    lead to the overtaking, at higher speeds.

    There's many ways to avoid accidents, unfortunately drivers mostly DON'T know the right places, and
    insist on testing out how good their brakes and steering is down my road, in a bid to avoid that
    oncoming car/kid on a bike/parked car they're now swerving toward at speed. I regularly see the
    sides of the cars trashed, in situ (the glass surrounding gives it away) by that sort of
    'avoidance'.

    Velvet
     
  14. Paul "unlikely" [email protected] Smith of Scotland, UK wrote: (
    [email protected] (Geraint Jones) wrote: ) >What exactly makes you "unlikely"?
    ( ... ) >Is it your occasional posting of obscenities in u.r.c? ( Probably not. No.

    Ah, good; because I thought that, like your apparent obsession, might be a sign of incipient
    road rage.
     
  15. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Steady on. A child crossing the road ahead with legitimate 40mph traffic happens thousands of
    > times every day. Something else must go wrong before there's an accident.

    Normally the driver is not watching the road. If he were he would see that there was a zebra
    crossing and that mother & child were on it.

    Short of a medical emergency (e.g. the driver is in the middle of a heart attack) one can think of
    no legitimate distraction for the driver.
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    In a brief moment of lucidity Simon Mason scribbled:

    > In this week's Auto Express, petrolhead Mike Rutherford joins in the criticism of road rage driver
    > Carl Baxter's lenient sentence:
    >
    > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zauto.htm
    >
    > File size 157 kb 56k download time 45 sec.

    Gotta say, every driver I know, who I have spoken to about this, is horrified. I know of no-one,
    driver or non-driver, who can either justify what this animal did, or agree with the sentence he
    was given.

    Goolies should have been removed ..

    --

    Completed 1581 Seti work units in 12041 hours http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
     
  17. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:21:26 +0100, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Steady on. A child crossing the road ahead with legitimate 40mph traffic happens thousands of
    >> times every day. Something else must go wrong before there's an accident.

    >Normally the driver is not watching the road.

    In a "normal accident" I agree. Inattention is a primary cause of a very large percentage of
    accidents.

    >If he were he would see that there was a zebra crossing and that mother & child were on it.

    >Short of a medical emergency (e.g. the driver is in the middle of a heart attack) one can think of
    >no legitimate distraction for the driver.

    Speedo and mirror checks are legitimate distractions. Normally they are not of sufficient duration
    to actually cause an accident although they exacerbate the effects of other distractions and
    mis-observations.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  18. Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    [snip]

    Oh, bollocks, I thought you'd buggered off for good.
     
  19. W K

    W K Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:39:39 +0100, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be
    lessened
    > >if the speed of cars is reduced, something he is against.
    >
    > Death and injury would certainly be lessened if the speed of traffic was reduced in exactly the
    > right places.

    Like at the precise place a kid steps out?

    > Speed cameras and speed enforcement generally appear to reduce the speeds of traffic in exactly
    > the wrong places.

    How would you know. You don't drive in places with speed cameras apart from on holiday. The nearest
    one to me probably stops the odd shunt but saves no lives. At least it saves on insurance,
    congestion and police time.

    > Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that should be
    > encouraged and nurtured.

    rubbish. People avoid accidents they expect. If they cannot avoid accidents they expect then its not
    an accident its recklessness.
     
  20. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 16:04:06 GMT, "Velvet" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> >Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be lessened if the speed of cars
    >> >is reduced, something he is against.
    >>
    >> Death and injury would certainly be lessened if the speed of traffic was reduced in exactly the
    >> right places.
    >>
    >> Speed cameras and speed enforcement generally appear to reduce the speeds of traffic in exactly
    >> the wrong places.
    >>
    >> Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that should
    >> be encouraged and nurtured.

    >That'll be why the drivers down my road think that with parked cars to each side, only room for one
    >car to drive between them, a sharp bend with bad visibility, children around with footballs and
    >bikes, it's safe to drive down at 40mph most of the time, with some *obviously* enlightened
    >individuals realising this is a safe environment to do anything up to 60mph along?

    Your description of the use of a road does not match any traffic surveys I've ever read.

    In general we get at least 85% of vehicles travelling at "safe speeds" which leads to traffic
    engineers using the "85th percentile rule" as an important design guide.

    That's not to say that we don't have a percentage of drivers exceeding safe limits. We do, and they
    need to be dealt with. But the percentage is pretty small.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...