Yet another speeding, uninsured, unlicenced, lying, killer motorist.

[[email protected]]

This is Local London

22 February 2001.

Mum's rage over death crash charge

Tearful Chessington mum, Carol Ward is outraged at the prospect of a
speeding learner driver escaping with a fine after knocking down and
killing her son.

Mrs Ward broke down in tears as a coroner recorded an open verdict on
the death of her 37-year-old son, Ian, who was hit in Long Ditton by
Denise Williams-Yelbert, who was driving on her own, without
supervision, and had no insurance.

Crash scene investigators told Woking Coroner's Court last Wednesday
that her Volkswagen Golf was travelling between 51 and 62 mph in the
50mph zone. The day was clear and bright and the road was straight for
350metres before the point of impact. Skid marks on the road showed
the car collided with Mr Ward's bike 1.6metres inside the coloured
cycle lane, killing him at the scene.

Williams-Yelbert, who is in her 20s, only held a provisional UK
licence and will appear in court next month charged with driving
without due care and attention, driving outside her licence and
driving without insurance.

But campaigners from group Road Peace and the Ward family failed in
their attempts to get her charged with the more serious offence of
causing death by dangerous driving.

Mrs Ward said: "I think she will get away with a small fine.

"It just makes a life mean nothing really. It just devalues it. It
makes me so angry.

"Ian was just a lovely man and a good son. He used to help me out a
lot at home. He loved the outdoors and had so many friends."

Her partner Fred Pearce said: "We just want the punishment to be fair.
She has got to live with it, but we have got to live with it 10 times
over."

Mr Ward, a mechanic and cycling enthusiast, from Chessington was
unmarried and worked at TW Whites garage in Bookham and previously for
19 years at Four Seasons Garage on Kingston's Richmond Road.

He was on his way to collect a car when he was hit at 8am on May 6
last year as he cycled towards Esher on the A309.

Williams-Yelbert, who solicitors said was wearing a nurse's uniform at
the time of the crash and may have been returning from a night shift,
refused to answer any questions at Woking Coroner's Court last
Wednesday ahead of her appearance at magistrates' court.

She also refused to answer any questions in a police interview in July
last year, but on the day of the crash signed a statement claiming
that Mr Ward was "swerving from left to right".

She wrote: "When I got closer to him he just swerved in front of the
car."

As the statement was read in court, members of Mr Ward's family called
out "you liar". The coroner said that due to Williams-Yelbert's
refusal to provide evidence he was unable to get a full picture of
what happened, and recorded an open verdict.

She will appear at North Surrey Magistrates' Court on March 1.

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Feb, 10:34, [email protected] wrote:
> This is Local London
>
> 22 February 2001.
>
> Mum's rage over death crash charge
>
> Tearful Chessington mum, Carol Ward is outraged at the prospect of a
> speeding learner driver escaping with a fine after knocking down and
> killing her son.
>
> Mrs Ward broke down in tears as a coroner recorded an open verdict on
> the death of her 37-year-old son, Ian, who was hit in Long Ditton by
> Denise Williams-Yelbert, who was driving on her own, without
> supervision, and had no insurance.
>
> Crash scene investigators told Woking Coroner's Court last Wednesday
> that her Volkswagen Golf was travelling between 51 and 62 mph in the
> 50mph zone. The day was clear and bright and the road was straight for
> 350metres before the point of impact. Skid marks on the road showed
> the car collided with Mr Ward's bike 1.6metres inside the coloured
> cycle lane, killing him at the scene.
>
> Williams-Yelbert, who is in her 20s, only held a provisional UK
> licence and will appear in court next month charged with driving
> without due care and attention, driving outside her licence and
> driving without insurance.
>
> But campaigners from group Road Peace and the Ward family failed in
> their attempts to get her charged with the more serious offence of
> causing death by dangerous driving.
>
> Mrs Ward said: "I think she will get away with a small fine.
>
> "It just makes a life mean nothing really. It just devalues it. It
> makes me so angry.
>
> "Ian was just a lovely man and a good son. He used to help me out a
> lot at home. He loved the outdoors and had so many friends."
>
> Her partner Fred Pearce said: "We just want the punishment to be fair.
> She has got to live with it, but we have got to live with it 10 times
> over."
>
> Mr Ward, a mechanic and cycling enthusiast, from Chessington was
> unmarried and worked at TW Whites garage in Bookham and previously for
> 19 years at Four Seasons Garage on Kingston's Richmond Road.
>
> He was on his way to collect a car when he was hit at 8am on May 6
> last year as he cycled towards Esher on the A309.
>
> Williams-Yelbert, who solicitors said was wearing a nurse's uniform at
> the time of the crash and may have been returning from a night shift,
> refused to answer any questions at Woking Coroner's Court last
> Wednesday ahead of her appearance at magistrates' court.
>
> She also refused to answer any questions in a police interview in July
> last year, but on the day of the crash signed a statement claiming
> that Mr Ward was "swerving from left to right".
>
> She wrote: "When I got closer to him he just swerved in front of the
>
> car."
>
> As the statement was read in court, members of Mr Ward's family called
> out "you liar". The coroner said that due to Williams-Yelbert's
> refusal to provide evidence he was unable to get a full picture of
> what happened, and recorded an open verdict.
>
> She will appear at North Surrey Magistrates' Court on March 1.
>
> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...


Which is one reason why I suggested in a consultation with DfT
officials that drivers who cause death or injury to another are
automatically charged with, or are automatically guilty of, dangerous
driving if, 1: They do not hold a full drivers licence, UK or EU, and
2: Are driving otherwise than in accordance with the provisional
licence requirements.

After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
test then they must be a danger to others. Otherwise we would not
need a test!

Sniper8052

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 10:48, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 10:34, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is Local London
>
> > 22 February 2001.
>
> > Mum's rage over death crash charge
>
> > Tearful Chessington mum, Carol Ward is outraged at the prospect of a
> > speeding learner driver escaping with a fine after knocking down and
> > killing her son.
>
> > Mrs Ward broke down in tears as a coroner recorded an open verdict on
> > the death of her 37-year-old son, Ian, who was hit in Long Ditton by
> > Denise Williams-Yelbert, who was driving on her own, without
> > supervision, and had no insurance.
>
> > Crash scene investigators told Woking Coroner's Court last Wednesday
> > that her Volkswagen Golf was travelling between 51 and 62 mph in the
> > 50mph zone. The day was clear and bright and the road was straight for
> > 350metres before the point of impact. Skid marks on the road showed
> > the car collided with Mr Ward's bike 1.6metres inside the coloured
> > cycle lane, killing him at the scene.
>
> > Williams-Yelbert, who is in her 20s, only held a provisional UK
> > licence and will appear in court next month charged with driving
> > without due care and attention, driving outside her licence and
> > driving without insurance.
>
> > But campaigners from group Road Peace and the Ward family failed in
> > their attempts to get her charged with the more serious offence of
> > causing death by dangerous driving.
>
> > Mrs Ward said: "I think she will get away with a small fine.
>
> > "It just makes a life mean nothing really. It just devalues it. It
> > makes me so angry.
>
> > "Ian was just a lovely man and a good son. He used to help me out a
> > lot at home. He loved the outdoors and had so many friends."
>
> > Her partner Fred Pearce said: "We just want the punishment to be fair.
> > She has got to live with it, but we have got to live with it 10 times
> > over."
>
> > Mr Ward, a mechanic and cycling enthusiast, from Chessington was
> > unmarried and worked at TW Whites garage in Bookham and previously for
> > 19 years at Four Seasons Garage on Kingston's Richmond Road.
>
> > He was on his way to collect a car when he was hit at 8am on May 6
> > last year as he cycled towards Esher on the A309.
>
> > Williams-Yelbert, who solicitors said was wearing a nurse's uniform at
> > the time of the crash and may have been returning from a night shift,
> > refused to answer any questions at Woking Coroner's Court last
> > Wednesday ahead of her appearance at magistrates' court.
>
> > She also refused to answer any questions in a police interview in July
> > last year, but on the day of the crash signed a statement claiming
> > that Mr Ward was "swerving from left to right".
>
> > She wrote: "When I got closer to him he just swerved in front of the
>
> > car."
>
> > As the statement was read in court, members of Mr Ward's family called
> > out "you liar". The coroner said that due to Williams-Yelbert's
> > refusal to provide evidence he was unable to get a full picture of
> > what happened, and recorded an open verdict.
>
> > She will appear at North Surrey Magistrates' Court on March 1.
>
> >http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>
> Which is one reason why I suggested in a consultation with DfT
> officials that drivers who cause death or injury to another are
> automatically charged with, or are automatically guilty of, dangerous
> driving if, 1: They do not hold a full drivers licence, UK or EU, and
> 2: Are driving otherwise than in accordance with the provisional
> licence requirements.
>
> After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
> test then they must be a danger to others. Otherwise we would not
> need a test!
>
> Sniper8052- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Quite right, i agree entirely. Killer drivers get away with
slaughtering cyclists and can employ despicable tactics like in the
case above to avoid punishment.

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
> test then they must be a danger to others. Otherwise we would not
> need a test!

I'd change "must" to "might reasonably be assumed to be", but otherwise
fair comment.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[nobody760]

This 'no comment' tactic would have been I presume dictated by her
solicitor. He/she has probably advised that in the absence of any
witnesses she will probably be fined merely for the motoring offences
alone. When in court where she will be obliged to tell the truth she
will say that he was swerving from side to side and take her chances
with the law. I suppose it says much of how people are now - if you
can get away with being a selfish, uncaring ******** then do it. Will
it be on her conscience - I doubt it - because it presupposes you have
one.

 

[John Hearns]

nobody760 wrote:
>
> with the law. I suppose it says much of how people are now - if you
> can get away with being a selfish, uncaring ******** then do it. Will
> it be on her conscience - I doubt it - because it presupposes you have
> one.

Indeed. What a coward. You take someone's life and don't even have the
guts to say what you did at the inquest.

Ref. the Dunwich Dynamo tragedy driver also - claimed he was "too
shocked" to remember. Lets please hope this will not become common.

 

[John B]

John Hearns wrote:

> nobody760 wrote:
> >
> > with the law. I suppose it says much of how people are now - if you
> > can get away with being a selfish, uncaring ******** then do it. Will
> > it be on her conscience - I doubt it - because it presupposes you have
> > one.
>
> Indeed. What a coward. You take someone's life and don't even have the
> guts to say what you did at the inquest.
>
> Ref. the Dunwich Dynamo tragedy driver also - claimed he was "too
> shocked" to remember. Lets please hope this will not become common.

It already is :-((

John B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php

Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
relation to the following:

1. Expecting all those who drive a car to have first, under their own
initiative, passed a driving test.
2. Expecting all those who drive a car to be conscientious enough to
have insured themselves appropriately.
3. Giving the de facto priority on all non-motorway roads to those using
them in motor vehicles.
4. Expecting all those who drive a car to be able to do it courteously
and skilfully, and with appropriate respect for other road users.
5. Expecting all "vulnerable" road users to keep out of the path of
motor traffic at their own peril.
6. Relying on punishment "after the event" as a deterrent to others,
rather than prevention and elimination of crashes - we are only treating
the symptoms and leaving the disease to fester unabated.

The system we have ignores the "human factor", it treats motorists as
automatons - and we are reaping the rewards of that disastrous approach
in our road casualty figures.

We need to start considering _sustainable_ road safety measures - those
which deliver results without relying on stricter and stricter
enforcement of more and more unrealistic regulations.

What do we actually want - less road casualties /or/ more convicted
motorists?

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 10:34, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>
> Which is one reason why I suggested in a consultation with DfT
> officials that drivers who cause death or injury to another are
> automatically charged with, or are automatically guilty of, dangerous
> driving if, 1: They do not hold a full drivers licence, UK or EU, and
> 2: Are driving otherwise than in accordance with the provisional
> licence requirements.

Better to lobby to remove the likelihood of these type of things
happening at all - rather than punishing those who, partly because of
the leeway our system gives them, have fallen foul of their human nature
predominating over their powers to suppress it.

We need to harness, and use human nature to guarantee road safety -
rather that futilely trying to suppress it and bypass it.

> After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
> test then they must be a danger to others. Otherwise we would not
> need a test!

Exactly! Why give them the opportunity of not having the skills? Why
rely 100% on them having the self-control to gain the skills under their
own initiative? Make roadmanship and motor vehicle control a subject
that is taught to every child from a very early age - at school if it is
the only way to guarantee it. Remove the need for rebellion and the
"glamour" of defying the rules. Remove the rules - but ensure all
citizens are "road worthy" by the time their hormones take control. We
see it working in other realms - why won't it work in this one?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Feb, 11:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>
> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
> relation to the following:
>
> 1. Expecting all those who drive a car to have first, under their own
> initiative, passed a driving test.
> 2. Expecting all those who drive a car to be conscientious enough to
> have insured themselves appropriately.
> 3. Giving the de facto priority on all non-motorway roads to those using
> them in motor vehicles.
> 4. Expecting all those who drive a car to be able to do it courteously
> and skilfully, and with appropriate respect for other road users.
> 5. Expecting all "vulnerable" road users to keep out of the path of
> motor traffic at their own peril.
> 6. Relying on punishment "after the event" as a deterrent to others,
> rather than prevention and elimination of crashes - we are only treating
> the symptoms and leaving the disease to fester unabated.
>
> The system we have ignores the "human factor", it treats motorists as
> automatons - and we are reaping the rewards of that disastrous approach
> in our road casualty figures.
>
> We need to start considering _sustainable_ road safety measures - those
> which deliver results without relying on stricter and stricter
> enforcement of more and more unrealistic regulations.
>
> What do we actually want - less road casualties /or/ more convicted
> motorists?
>
> --
> Matt B

It is sometimes better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to
say something foolish and remove all possible doubt.

Sniper8052

 

[John Hearns]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> It is sometimes better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to
> say something foolish and remove all possible doubt.
>
> Sniper8052

Hear hear. We're talking about a tragic death here.

 

[Paul - xxx]

[email protected] <[email protected]> typed:
> On 22 Feb, 10:34, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Mum's rage over death crash charge
>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>
> Which is one reason why I suggested in a consultation with DfT
> officials that drivers who cause death or injury to another are
> automatically charged with, or are automatically guilty of, dangerous
> driving if, 1: They do not hold a full drivers licence, UK or EU, and
> 2: Are driving otherwise than in accordance with the provisional
> licence requirements.
>
> After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
> test then they must be a danger to others. Otherwise we would not
> need a test!

As a driver I'd fully support that motion.

Indeed I think the whole licensing (to drive) system is too easily
passed and too easily forgotten afterwards, with no way of checking a
drivers competancy once they have the licence ... no mattter how long
they've held it. Anyone who hasn't passed even this rudimentary
procedure and chooses to drive is both a fool and an inherent danger to
anyone else on the road and penalties for this should be extremely
severe.

--
Paul - ***

 

[Paul - xxx]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php
>
> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
> relation to the following:

What alternatives?

--
Paul - ***

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 11:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>> relation to the following:
>>
>> 1. Expecting all those who drive a car to have first, under their own
>> initiative, passed a driving test.
>> 2. Expecting all those who drive a car to be conscientious enough to
>> have insured themselves appropriately.
>> 3. Giving the de facto priority on all non-motorway roads to those using
>> them in motor vehicles.
>> 4. Expecting all those who drive a car to be able to do it courteously
>> and skilfully, and with appropriate respect for other road users.
>> 5. Expecting all "vulnerable" road users to keep out of the path of
>> motor traffic at their own peril.
>> 6. Relying on punishment "after the event" as a deterrent to others,
>> rather than prevention and elimination of crashes - we are only treating
>> the symptoms and leaving the disease to fester unabated.
>>
>> The system we have ignores the "human factor", it treats motorists as
>> automatons - and we are reaping the rewards of that disastrous approach
>> in our road casualty figures.
>>
>> We need to start considering _sustainable_ road safety measures - those
>> which deliver results without relying on stricter and stricter
>> enforcement of more and more unrealistic regulations.
>>
>> What do we actually want - less road casualties /or/ more convicted
>> motorists?
>
> It is sometimes better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to
> say something foolish and remove all possible doubt.

Are our roads safe? Are all those who drive capable of so-doing? Are
other (possibly more enlightened) countries reaping the benefits of
re-humanising road use - by removing all "safety measures" and relying
on human nature to prevail?

It is easy to mock radical suggestions - but it is hard to eat hat.

--
Matt B

 

[John Hearns]

Paul - *** wrote:
> What alternatives?
>
Please don't encourage him.
This is a thread about someone's tragic death.

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Feb, 12:18, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 22 Feb, 11:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
> >> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
> >> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
> >> relation to the following:
>
> >> 1. Expecting all those who drive a car to have first, under their own
> >> initiative, passed a driving test.
> >> 2. Expecting all those who drive a car to be conscientious enough to
> >> have insured themselves appropriately.
> >> 3. Giving the de facto priority on all non-motorway roads to those using
> >> them in motor vehicles.
> >> 4. Expecting all those who drive a car to be able to do it courteously
> >> and skilfully, and with appropriate respect for other road users.
> >> 5. Expecting all "vulnerable" road users to keep out of the path of
> >> motor traffic at their own peril.
> >> 6. Relying on punishment "after the event" as a deterrent to others,
> >> rather than prevention and elimination of crashes - we are only treating
> >> the symptoms and leaving the disease to fester unabated.
>
> >> The system we have ignores the "human factor", it treats motorists as
> >> automatons - and we are reaping the rewards of that disastrous approach
> >> in our road casualty figures.
>
> >> We need to start considering _sustainable_ road safety measures - those
> >> which deliver results without relying on stricter and stricter
> >> enforcement of more and more unrealistic regulations.
>
> >> What do we actually want - less road casualties /or/ more convicted
> >> motorists?
>
> > It is sometimes better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to
> > say something foolish and remove all possible doubt.
>
> Are our roads safe? Are all those who drive capable of so-doing? Are
> other (possibly more enlightened) countries reaping the benefits of
> re-humanising road use - by removing all "safety measures" and relying
> on human nature to prevail?
>
> It is easy to mock radical suggestions - but it is hard to eat hat.
>
> --
> Matt B

The only thing that makes humans behave properly in relation to one
another is fear of the concequences on what ever level that might be.
So, what I said before.

Sniper8052

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

[email protected]ped


> This is Local London

> 22 February 2001.

> Mum's rage over death crash charge

Tragic case, typical outcome in this petrol-headed world.

Shame the OP made a little error with the date, making me wonder if this
was old news. It isn't, but we'll no doubt hear similar stories for many
years...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 12:23, John Hearns <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul - *** wrote:
> > What alternatives?
>
> Please don't encourage him.
> This is a thread about someone's tragic death.

If someone wanted to take this further, they could note the "nurse's
uniform" and "night shift" - a formal complaint to the relevant
professional body would then be appropriate.

In this case she has breached the "Professional standards and ethics"
of the nursing profession on a number of counts.

She may never work as a nurse again.

http://www.nmc-uk.org/aArticle.aspx?ArticleID=1538


Speeding.

Uninsured.

Not permitted to drive.

Refusing to answer questions.

Gutlessly trying to blame the victim.

Mrs Ward said: "I think she will get away with a small fine.

"It just makes a life mean nothing really. It just devalues it. It
makes me so angry.

"Ian was just a lovely man and a good son. He used to help me out a
lot at home. He loved the outdoors and had so many friends."


There's something very wrong here. It is impossible to kill a cyclist
whilst overtaking if the HC is adhered to. It simply cannot be done if
enough space is left. The roads are lawless, people speed with
impunity because the chances of getting caught are so slim. This is
utterly depressing. Maybe cyclists could attend court on march 1st?

 

[Paul - xxx]

John Hearns <[email protected]> typed:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>> What alternatives?
>>
> Please don't encourage him.
> This is a thread about someone's tragic death.

Eh?

Most other replies seem to be slating (quite rightly IMHO) the driver
involved, but maybe MattB has something positive to say ... Which seems,
to me at least, a far more worthwhile in response to a cut 'n paste
thread about someone's death than simply wringing one's hands.

--
Paul - ***

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 12:18, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On 22 Feb, 11:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
>>>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>>>> relation to the following:
>>>> 1. Expecting all those who drive a car to have first, under their own
>>>> initiative, passed a driving test.
>>>> 2. Expecting all those who drive a car to be conscientious enough to
>>>> have insured themselves appropriately.
>>>> 3. Giving the de facto priority on all non-motorway roads to those using
>>>> them in motor vehicles.
>>>> 4. Expecting all those who drive a car to be able to do it courteously
>>>> and skilfully, and with appropriate respect for other road users.
>>>> 5. Expecting all "vulnerable" road users to keep out of the path of
>>>> motor traffic at their own peril.
>>>> 6. Relying on punishment "after the event" as a deterrent to others,
>>>> rather than prevention and elimination of crashes - we are only treating
>>>> the symptoms and leaving the disease to fester unabated.
>>>> The system we have ignores the "human factor", it treats motorists as
>>>> automatons - and we are reaping the rewards of that disastrous approach
>>>> in our road casualty figures.
>>>> We need to start considering _sustainable_ road safety measures - those
>>>> which deliver results without relying on stricter and stricter
>>>> enforcement of more and more unrealistic regulations.
>>>> What do we actually want - less road casualties /or/ more convicted
>>>> motorists?
>>> It is sometimes better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to
>>> say something foolish and remove all possible doubt.
>> Are our roads safe? Are all those who drive capable of so-doing? Are
>> other (possibly more enlightened) countries reaping the benefits of
>> re-humanising road use - by removing all "safety measures" and relying
>> on human nature to prevail?
>>
>> It is easy to mock radical suggestions - but it is hard to eat hat.
>
> The only thing that makes humans behave properly in relation to one
> another is fear of the concequences on what ever level that might be.

A good start. I'm not sure if it /is/ the _only_ thing, but, assuming
that by "on what ever level" you include social and peer-level
/consequences/, then it is exactly what we should be harnessing to
achieve safe roads.

Imagine if you had to walk through a busy public space carrying a large
mirror. You'd behave very carefully before making any assumptions about
priority at corners or crossing a stream of other pedestrians. You'd
wait while an old lady walked across in front of you with her shopping.
Someone, or even a few people, might wait for you to walk up some
stairs before coming down them themselves. Someone else might hold a
door open for you, and guide you carefully through it. If you saw a
family cycling along together you'd keep back until they had all passed.
Why wouldn't you run along at your maximum speed expecting everyone
else to keep/get out of your way? It can't be because of specific laws
targeted at mirror carriers - because there aren't any. Perhaps it is
because you haven't been given a secure, demarked path through,
dedicated to the safe and speedy passage of mirror carriers - with de
facto priority - and woe betide anyone who crosses your path. You would
probably die of embarrassment and apologise profusely if you bumped into
anyone, or caused anyone to swerve or take evasive action to avoid you.
Is it not your "fear of the [social] consequences" that makes you such
a considerate mirror carrier?

Imagine if driving a car through a town centre was similar to walking
through a pedestrianised zone carrying a large mirror. Now explain to
me why it has to be treated so differently - and why the same social
norms wouldn't apply if all the "road safety paraphernalia" was removed.

--
Matt B