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