Yet another derisory fine for killing a cyclist...

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:06:55 +0000 someone who may be BenS
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>He's been banned for a substantial time.

Really? What would you call an insubstantial time?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:01:05 +0000, BenS <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>>If he had been driving slower there is a good chance that
>>the crash would never have happened, and a better chance
>>that his victim would have survived.

>You can't say that from reading that report. There is not
>indication of _why_ he ran wide in that corner.

So the inference that driving slower would have prevented
the crash is not supported in your view by the following:

"He drove too fast at a corner on the unclassified
Burnhervie to Inverurie road on June 21 last year."

"The accident happened near River Cottage, Coldwells,
Inverurie, when his car crossed on to the opposite side of
the road and hit Mrs Duffus's bicycle."

Me, I think it leaves little room for doubt.

>>You seem to be suggesting that if it would have been
>>better if only he was one of those "elite" drivers who can
>>handle speed

>Not at all. I'm saying that driving is a skill, just like
>riding a bike. With more training and practice you can
>become better at it. This means you can drive/ride faster
>than someone less trained and practised.

That is the excuse used by most of the self-proclaimed
elite drivers whose excess speed increases botht he
probability of their crashing and the consequences when
they do crash. It is an argument which is fatally weakened
by the well-documented fact that most drivers overestimate
their own skill.

>He didn't need to stop in that corner. He needed to get
>round the corner safely. Trying to stop is the worst thing
>you can ever do in a corner.

He needed to be able to stop well within the distance he
could see to be clear. If that means taking the corner
slowly because you can't see what's round it and might need
to stop, then so be it. But in this case he was gogin so
fast that stopping was not the issue - he couldn't even make
the corner itself.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:29:27 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<[email protected]> wrote in message <c42ht6$4k9$1@news-
out.ftel.co.uk>:

>> Bad drivers kill more poeple than murderers so are in
>> greater need of deterrent sentencing.

>What do you do as a driver which makes you so certain
>you'll never have an accident?

Eh? I'm a **** driver. I know that so I slow down and take
extra care the whole time. I'm amazed that I have managed to
live as long as I have, given how I used to drive; these
days I've reverted to the sort of driving my driving
instructor taught me, things like looking down side
turnings, watching the front wheels of cars at junctions,
and never pulling out in front of a car which is signalling
to turn until you've seen the drive commit to the manoeuvre.
Driving is mentally exhausting. But I do find my brakes,
tyres and petrol last a lot longer than they used to.

>And if you are so confident, do you drive a light, fuel-
>efficient vehicle, or do you drive a Volvo?

Irrelevant. Try transporting a family of four, a tent and
five bikes (including a 9ft. long triplet) with a Smart car.

And anyway, most of the time I don't drive any car at
all. In the last three weeks I have ridden slightly over
250 miles and driven none. I have also used the train a
number of times.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:37:48 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

> the general public seem to be almost unaware, or at least
> unacknowledging of the risk. Remember all the people
> talking about how dangerous trains were after a few large
> crashes? Why aren't they talking about how dangerous cars
> are all the time?

Well, you have a point, I guess, but my view is that poeple
/know/ these things, they just surround them with a personal
SEP field.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:20:17 -0000 someone who may be "Jon Senior"
<jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>Are you seriously suggesting that most people, if given the
>choice, would rather kill than be late for work? Is that a
>personal viewpoint?

About 1997 or 1998 someone had the choice of rushing home at
twice the speed limit, or getting home late and missing the
first few minutes of a football match on television. He
chose the former and three people died as a result. They
were coming out of a company car park in Edinburgh when he
crashed into their car. He survived and did the usual "I'm
sorry" bit in the witness box".

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:30:34 +0000, BenS <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>>So more cameras then?

>They advocate more Police. Cameras can only target one or
>two types of traffic offence. Police can obviously target
>more and more serious types.

So, more cameras to leave the police free to do the things
which require judgement. I'm happy with that.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:20:17 -0000, "Jon Senior"
<jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Are you seriously suggesting that most people, if given the
>choice, would rather kill than be late for work? Is that a
>personal viewpoint?

Have you ever ridden a bike in rush-hour traffic? I would
say that the idea that at least some drivers think exactly
like that is inescapable.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:08:48 -0000 someone who may be "Jon Senior"
<jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>...bitter, and disadvantaged. That way there's no danger of
>him contributing as much to society.

Assuming that the story is correct we know:

1) He drove too fast on a corner. That was not accidental,
it was deliberate (unless anyone wishes to postulate that
his right foot is not under the control of his brain).

2) Because he was driving too fast he was unable to go round
the corner on the correct side of the road and so crashed
into someone, causing them fatal injuries.

3) His solicitor claims that he wishes he could turn back
time and will live with the consequences.

4) We do not know if he has apologised to the bereaved
family. We do know that his solicitor, at the trial, said
he wished to apologise. I'm afraid I have a very cynical
view of such statements, if they are made in trials. If
they are made immediately that is a different matter, the
person is saying "sod the views of insurance companies
and solicitors, I wish to say sorry because I am".

5) We know that his solicitor claimed it was a "momentary
aberration". Precisely how someone can have a momentary
aberration that causes them to enter a bend far too fast
I don't know. Perhaps his solicitor has a different
definition of momentary.

We know that he has contributed the death of someone to
society. In my view he has not been punished adequately for
this contribution. I am not in favour of hanging and
flogging him, but a five year driving ban seems entirely
appropriate. No matter how promising a young musician he is
and no matter how much his music contributes to society that
is not a reason for the lenient treatment he has had. If
driving a car is so essential to him contributing as much to
society, which seems to be your claim, that society should
overlook his contribution to society then that is an
indictment of society.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Bens]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:19:38 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:06:55 +0000 someone who may be BenS
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>He's been banned for a substantial time.
>
>Really? What would you call an insubstantial time?

A couple of weeks.
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to
prevent life escaping from us." http://www.bensales.com

 

[Ian W]

On 2004-03-27 11:21:10 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> said:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:37:48 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> message <[email protected]>:
>
>> the general public seem to be almost unaware, or at least
>> unacknowledging of the risk. Remember all the people
>> talking about how dangerous trains were after a few large
>> crashes? Why aren't they talking about how dangerous cars
>> are all the time?
>
> Well, you have a point, I guess, but my view is that
> poeple /know/ these things, they just surround them with a
> personal SEP field.

True. If you look on Transportt 2000's website they point
out that UK car accidents kill so many people that it's like
having a Paddington rail crash twice a week. But we ignore
it. Might it be that it's more 'spread out'?

Ian
--
www.drianwalker.com

Remove the nice brown paste in my signature if you
want to reply!

 

[Bens]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:06:33 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 07:30:34 +0000, BenS <[email protected]>
>wrote in message
><[email protected]>:
>
>>>So more cameras then?
>
>>They advocate more Police. Cameras can only target one or
>>two types of traffic offence. Police can obviously target
>>more and more serious types.
>
>So, more cameras to leave the police free to do the things
>which require judgement. I'm happy with that.

Which would be the ideal situation but that isn't happening.
Police (traffic in particular) numbers are being cut. So
you're left with a situation of only certain types of
offence being detected and leaving the arguably more
dangerous offences undetected.
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to
prevent life escaping from us." http://www.bensales.com

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:01:42 -0000, "Jon Senior"
<jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>If you are reckless and cause a death, it is not the same
>(Morally, or in law) as intending to kill someone.

So, explain the vast disparity in sentencing between people
whose reclkessness at work causes injury, and people whose
recklessness on the roads causes injury.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:38:23 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>5) We know that his solicitor claimed it was a "momentary
> aberration". Precisely how someone can have a momentary
> aberration that causes them to enter a bend far too fast
> I don't know. Perhaps his solicitor has a different
> definition of momentary.

This one gets me every time. Who seriusly believes that this
is the first time this young man has driven too fast? It's
as if just because he got away with risk-taking every other
time, the fact that he didn't this time is some kind of
aberration, whereas in reality he's probably been pushing
closer and closer ot the limits for some time.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:27:58 +0000 (UTC), Ian W
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>If you look on Transportt 2000's website they point out
>that UK car accidents kill so many people that it's like
>having a Paddington rail crash twice a week. But we ignore
>it. Might it be that it's more 'spread out'?

I think it's more that the Padidngton crash was "them" not
ensuring safety, whereas dangerous driving is about "them"
trying to stop us getting to work on time. The fact that
most of the delays are caused by traffic not speed limits
seems not to have occurred to those concerned. Or if ti has,
they also consider traffic to be due to "them" not building
more roads.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:24:26 +0000, BenS <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>>So, more cameras to leave the police free to do the things
>>which require judgement. I'm happy with that.

>Which would be the ideal situation but that isn't
>happening. Police (traffic in particular) numbers are being
>cut. So you're left with a situation of only certain types
>of offence being detected and leaving the arguably more
>dangerous offences undetected.

The reasons for this are well known and entirely separate
from the issue of cameras. Police performance measurement
criteria simply don't have any significant measures for
traffic policing; there is much more incentive to put
resources into tackling the Daily Mail's favourite crimes,
those against property, rather than dangerous driving, which
after all only kills a few thousand people every year. This
is not plod's fault. It is not the fault of the cameras,
which are self-funding.

In my view the underlying cause is unwillingness to spend on
public services, with every election becoming a Dutch
auction on tax, and the pernicious influence of certain
sections of the press hammering on about persecuting the
poor beleagured motorist when the plod should really be
mounting guard over the video recorders of the middle
classes. I have never had a problem with paying tax to cover
policing of the roads. For most people in the UK the roads
are the place where they are most likely to cause injury or
death. Campaigning for the poor beleagured motorist to be
allowed to get on with the killing and maiming unmolested
has never been on my agenda.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Mark Thompson]

> H&S legislation is explicit that teh consequence of teh
> lapse in question should be taken into account in
> sentencing. That is, if your lapse causes death, then you
> should be sentenced more severely than if it does not.
> There would be no fundamental problem with doing teh same
> for motoring offences - it doesn't require any change of
> fundamental or universal principle.

We're already doing it for driving aren't we?

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:36:33 -0000, "Jon Senior"
<jon_AT_restlesslemon.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>>Are you seriously suggesting that most people, if given
>>>the choice, would rather kill than be late for work? Is
>>>that a personal viewpoint?

>> Have you ever ridden a bike in rush-hour traffic? I would
>> say that the idea that at least some drivers think
>> exactly like that is inescapable.

>Every day for the last 2 years. Some drivers are bad. But I
>don't think a single one of them has actually decided to
>try and kill me.

Not the point. A significant number of them drive in a
manner which leaves me in no doubt that they are prepared to
risk my life in order to save themselves a few seconds - or
just as often, arrive at the clearly-visible traffic jam a
few seconds earlier.

I also ride on national speed limit roads every day. At
least one car every day overtakes me on a blind bend or the
brow of a hill. Quite often they get halfway past and the
inevitable happens: a car comes the other way. In every case
their reaction is to cut sharply left, leaving me to brake
or be hit.

If these people don't want to kill or injure me, then they
clearly don't not want to badly enough to actually drive in
a halfway reasonable manner. And the net saving to them is
always in the order of seconds at most.

Just because something carries a less than 100% risk of
causing death does not mean that the level of risk is
necessarily zero, or even acceptable. And just because
someone has used mental gymnastics to pretend it is not
really dangerous doesn't make it less so, or indeed excuse
their behaviour.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:06:55 +0000, BenS <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:30:42 +0000 (UTC), Ian W
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2004-03-26 21:52:02 +0000, BenS
>><[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> On 26 Mar 2004 08:49:26 -0800,
>>> [email protected] (Howard) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aberdeen Evening Express
>>>>
>>>> £300 fine for death crash teen
>>>
>>>
>>> So then, what should his punishment have been?
>>
>>We've already suggested a few things. What, pray, do you
>>suggest his punishment should have been? Some counselling?
>>A governemt grant to pay for driving lessons? Please,
>>we're all ears (or eyes...)
>
> I think his punishment was ok given the amends he had
> already made. He's made himself a better driver and made
> an apology to the family.

Well the apology was probably genuine - but I am sure the
course he went on was suggested by his counsel in order to
reduce his punishment. After all he is not going to be
driving for a while, so when he restarts he will have not
had those skills re-inforced and so could easily lapse into
bad habits.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected] "The Lord is my
shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Ian W]

On 2004-03-27 12:00:22 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> said:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:38:23 +0000, David Hansen
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> 5) We know that his solicitor claimed it was a "momentary
>> aberration". Precisely how someone can have a
>> momentary aberration that causes them to enter a bend
>> far too fast I don't know. Perhaps his solicitor has a
>> different definition of momentary.
>
> This one gets me every time. Who seriusly believes that
> this is the first time this young man has driven too fast?
> It's as if just because he got away with risk-taking every
> other time, the fact that he didn't this time is some kind
> of aberration, whereas in reality he's probably been
> pushing closer and closer ot the limits for some time.

Plus, of course, when solicitors and defendents say this
stuff in court cases after accidents, they're just doing the
accepted 'dance'. Of course they're going to say these
things. Everyone does. It's a cliche really. Has anyone -
even the most hard-core boy racer - ever stood in court and
said. "Yes, I really meant to speed round that corner and
don't regret what happened"? Of course not.
--
www.drianwalker.com

Remove the nice brown paste in my signature if you
want to reply!

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:05:10 +0000, BenS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can all those in this thread of the "hang 'em and flog
> 'em" persuasion honestly say that they've never broken a
> speed limit? I don't believe they could.

Me! In fact I haven't ever driven a car. I use bike, bus and
train and walking.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected] "The Lord is my
shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_