speeding - continued

[turbo]

3500 deaths is nothing compared to 27 million motorists!!!!!

its down to people being brianwashed by government
officials!

[vixteris]

but this is the problem i mentioned earlier - the causes and events surrounding fatal accidents are not put into the public domain.
court reports?


so the question becomes - how many fatalities were the result of dangerous driving? how many fatalities were caused by illegal drivers?
whats the difference both of these examples are breaking the law. is it possible to accidently drive dangerously or accidentally drive illegally

we havent got the answers, and until we get these answers, then I for one am going to continue thinking that accidents are exactly that - accidents.
thats because you have no idea what pain road deaths can cause, if i had no conscience about my lack of driving ability when i kill someone i will call it a accident to

i would also suggest that because these facts are not in the public domain, that they are indeed accidents.
i could name many court cases very much in public domain that still fulfil your accident criteria

at the end of the day - why let let facts spoil a perfectly good road saftey campaign?


road saftey shouldnt need facts, what it needs is serious responsibility to be taken by ignorant road users

[vixteris]

just to repeat the words used by judge brown in the case of r v clayton (2001) HL. where the driver although admitted driving up to speeds of 85mph before killing his passenger was found not guilty of death by dangerous driving

' a car is not a toy and the roads are not a playground'

please leave out the 'accident' stuff. it can be extrememly offensive

[tinman]

but this is the problem i mentioned earlier - the causes and events surrounding fatal accidents are not put into the public domain.
court reports?

have a look at http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/394.htm

so the question becomes - how many fatalities were the result of dangerous driving? how many fatalities were caused by illegal drivers?
whats the difference both of these examples are breaking the law. is it possible to accidently drive dangerously or accidentally drive illegally

they are very different things. and they should be tackled in different ways.

if there is a cause to think that dangerous driving is leading to a large percentage of deaths, then you will want to work on increasing driver education. if the problem is unlicensed drivers, then you may want to introduce a custodial solution and greater detection methods.

we havent got the answers, and until we get these answers, then I for one am going to continue thinking that accidents are exactly that - accidents.
thats because you have no idea what pain road deaths can cause, if i had no conscience about my lack of driving ability when i kill someone i will call it a accident to

some accidents are exactly that. there are occasions when our eyes are not on the road immediately in front of us. we get distracted. someone does something totally unexpected - like step in fornt of you.

accidents really happen.

but in our "blames direct" society - there is no such thing as an accident.

because of "blames direct" we have removed all senses of proportion. so if speed kills - then we should drive slower - regardless of the fact that maybe - just maybe it was excessive speed by a dangerous driver that caused the accident in the first place.

and that is the crux of the problem. we are not using the facts in front of us to create policy.

i would also suggest that because these facts are not in the public domain, that they are indeed accidents.
i could name many court cases very much in public domain that still fulfil your accident criteria

at the end of the day - why let let facts spoil a perfectly good road saftey campaign?


road saftey shouldnt need facts, what it needs is serious responsibility to be taken by ignorant road users

road saftey and every possible law that we make in this country needs facts to back it up. what sort of land would we live in if policy was decided without recourse to a simple fact?

facts are very important.

Tin

[tinman]

just to repeat the words used by judge brown in the case of r v clayton (2001) HL. where the driver although admitted driving up to speeds of 85mph before killing his passenger was found not guilty of death by dangerous driving

' a car is not a toy and the roads are not a playground'

please leave out the 'accident' stuff. it can be extrememly offensive

why?

I'll talk about accident as much as I want thanks. i've been involved in my fair few.

If the person got off a death by dangerous driving charge then please contact the CPS who you should vent your spleen at for handling a case badly rather than me. Someone got the case wrong.

But I dont see why that should dictate road saftey policy.

If the speed limit was 20, would the driver of the car still be doing 85? Probably.

So whilst the rest of us languish along at 20mph, people will still die at 85mph because we simply dont look at the facts.

Tin

[vixteris]

why?

I'll talk about accident as much as I want thanks. i've been involved in my fair few.

ok if u like offending people go for it. i prefer to discuss things like an adult. if u have been involved in a fair few accidents then that will explain why u call them accidents


If the person got off a death by dangerous driving charge then please contact the CPS who you should vent your spleen at for handling a case badly rather than me. Someone got the case wrong.

Ever heard of Double Jeopardy??? u cant be tried for the same offence twice. This case is just one of many so called 'accidents' i thought i should give as an example of 'in the public domain'

But I dont see why that should dictate road saftey policy.

do u not think tougher penalties would deter driving like an idiot and causing so many so called 'accidents'

So whilst the rest of us languish along at 20mph, people will still die at 85mph because we simply dont look at the facts.

if people kept speed for the open roads and race tracks instead of country roads and built up areas we would have no need for speed limits

perhaps as a substitute to accident i would like to see road crash or road death. i can understand why u think they should be called accidents since u have so many of them

[tinman]

Why are you getting so angry?

My advice of venting your spleen to the CPS wont get a retrial that i know thanks, but someone got the case wrong and you obviously want an explanation - I cannot give that explanation.

I thoroughly agree that events of the one you describe require much tougher sentences. I think the statute books should make some cases of death by dangerous driving into manslaughter charges, because thats what it is.

But slaving everyone to drive at 20mph will not prevent this from happening again in the future.

If you are offended by my use of the word accident, then I apologise unreservedly.

Heaven help me when i get to words starting with B. Got a whole alphabet to go, doh. If you'd like to publish a list off offensive words I'd gladly try and avoid them in the future to save you from any further stress.

Tin

[vixteris]

im not angry tin - but yes i do feel using the word accident to describe deaths of thousands of people a year on the roads offensive because its obviously more serious than an accident.

im no angel on the road, but i dont drive like a maniac with friends in the car or during the day. if i want a buzz i go out when the roads are empty or out of built up areas.

i think speed enforcement is necessary to save innocent lives, if a speed camera stops one death in the next 20 years its got to be worthwhile

[tinman]

i think speed enforcement is necessary to save innocent lives, if a speed camera stops one death in the next 20 years its got to be worthwhile

but this the problem surely. depite a huge increase in prosecutions - are the roads any safer?

there is an awful lot of evidence that shows it has made zero difference.

so why are there thouands of cameras - might they be something to do with collecting extra taxes?

question - have you ever braked for a camera?

Tin

[modulater]

I would like to add.

When have you actually seen a camera outside a school?

You don't

Why are cameras placed on fast moving roads that high volumes of traffic use?

To earn revenue.

I'm with tin on this, cameras earn cash, plain and simple.