Lord Heseltine gets five points?

[reohn2]

As I expect you will agree, Dangerous Driving is a daft category of offence because any substandard driving is substandard because it creates danger. From what I can see, Heseltine's offence, whilst obviously dangerous in its effect, was a result of a small miscalculation rather than gross misconduct. He should have done better, and he seems to have acknowledged that.

I agree and it can be dangerous to miscalculate especially when driving something so potentially dangerous as a car.
His actions were dangerous and the penalty fits the crime IMHO with one reservation,see below.

Was the estimated 30mph of the cyclist too fast? No idea. Impossible to say.

Again I agree.

Heseltine too old and decrepit to drive? Again, no idea.

I don't have any idea of his driving record,he could have a string of previous or his record could be flawless with advanced driving certificates coming out of his ears.
However he's 83 and IMO he should have at least taken a driving assessment test,as should anyone showing ineptitude when being trusted on our roads behind the wheel of such potentially lethal machinery as a motor vehicle,ineptitude can lead to catastrophic results as is proven in this case.
In the UK it's simply to easy to just carry on driving as if nothing happened after such dangerous driving convictions,as is proven time and again in the case of people with umpteen points on their licences and or after being banned from driving.
It simply isn't a good enough standard to allow such people to continue driving without further assessment or retest.

EDIT:- just to add that there are some very capable drivers in there 80's or 90's even,but IMHO @ 70 and older regular(every 2 years?)driver assessment and compulsory eye testing(every year?) for those holding a driving licence should be the order of the day.Anyone being banned from driving should be retested on receiving the licence back and extended driving test for those with a continual driving offences over long periods or more serious offences such as drunk or drugged driving or dangerous driving,etc.

[ChrisButch]

Finding myself creeping remorselessly into decrepitude, I've become uncomfortably aware of some of the factors affecting driving at an advanced age. One issue particularly noticeable recently is the far greater degree to which vision deteriorates in poor light. You may be able to do the standard 'number plate at so many yards' test with no problem at midday, but as soon as the light goes struggle badly. The dazzling effect even of dipped headlights also becomes more acute. So any compulsory retest would be of limited value if it was a straightforward rerun of the standard test, which wouldn't pick this up - it would need to be specifically tailored to take account of age-related factors such as these.

[thirdcrank]

... The dazzling effect even of dipped headlights also becomes more acute. ...

I know what you mean but I'd not take the increasing effects of car headlights as a measure. The headlights on many current cars would have been the envy of Trinity House only a few years ago.

[reohn2]

Finding myself creeping remorselessly into decrepitude, I've become uncomfortably aware of some of the factors affecting to driving at an advanced age. One issue particularly noticeable recently is the far greater degree to which vision deteriorates in poor light. You may be able to do the standard 'number plate at so many yards' test with no problem at midday, but as soon as the light goes struggle badly. The dazzling effect even of dipped headlights also becomes more acute. So any compulsory retest would be of limited value if it was a straightforward rerun of the standard test, which wouldn't pick this up - it would need to be specifically tailored to take account of age-related factors such as these.

You could allow more space and slow down,I'm sure as someone aware of the problems facing older drivers you do anyway,or simply avoid the kind of conditions which compromise your driving standard.
FWIW @ almost 64(not a great age by today's standards)I too am aware that my edge isn't as keen as it used to be,though TBH a worse thing is that I find drivers more aggressive than used to be the case and their tolerances much less.
I have a theory that high pressure working and living and computers and perhaps computer games may have something to do with it,ie; you click the mouse/console and things happen exactly to plan,if that is carried over into everyday life where not everyone is at the same 'game level' and you aren't perpared for a leettle latitude,it can be a recipe for disaster,hence tailgating bully boy driving tactics,I digress...
Some time ago I listened to an article on R4 about how human minds are developing at a faster rate than ever,children talk faster these days and think faster,it put forth theories that TV games and computers were actually facilitating this quite fast and steep curve in development,a theory not without merit,though it occurred to me that with the same emotional development one part of the beingcould be leaving the other behind,I'm digressing again.....

Some 10 years ago I while touring on the tandem in the South Lakes I saw a local newspaper bulletin board outside a newsagents that read "local drivers up in arms at slow old drivers".
On reading the front page spread on the headline,apparently local drivers were complaining about older drivers not diving fast enough on the myriad of small lanes in the area.
Two things sprang to mind,1)perhaps those older drivers could teach the young 'un's a thing or two about hazard perception safety,and 2)just how much time is saved by 'clog 'n anchoring' their way around those lanes,not much was and still is my guess,in fact it's more than a guess it's a certainty that it ain't enough to really matter.

The problem is that not everyone is at the same standard all the time due a wide and varied number of factors,tiredness,age,eagerness,stupidity,lack of perception,you name it,but if like a good club run everyone drives at the pace of the slowest(not necessarily the slowest speed)things will be less hazardous for all concerned,oh that utopia could be achieved......

[Cyril Haearn]

A person who is too slow will do less damage than a person who is too fast - Max Dauthendey

[Stevek76]

... The dazzling effect even of dipped headlights also becomes more acute. ...

I know what you mean but I'd not take the increasing effects of car headlights as a measure. The headlights on many current cars would have been the envy of Trinity House only a few years ago.

Most drivers apparently have no idea how to set the dip correctly either.

For me the punishment is adequate. It is for a moment of incompetent driving rather than deliberately law breaking, reckless driving. All drivers make mistakes. You, me, everyone. Even the best drivers make errors and regret them. That's what this looks like to me.

If we choose to look back to the dim and distant past, I'm sure Heseltine was once prosecuted for driving much too fast on a motorway. That was the sort of deliberate offence that I'd be less forgiving of.

I don't agree with that. It depends on the exact circumstances but doing say 90 down the motorway in quiet conditions but otherwise driving safely (ie keeping distances etc) is highly unlikely to cause any additional loss.

'mistakes' such as the classic smidsy can quite easily cause fatalities to vulnerable road users. Regret doesn't bring the dead back to life and isn't going to fix the highly likely chance of ongoing problems the chap is going to have in his knees etc as he ages. We don't accept mistakes by those operating other forms of similar machinery, we tend to restrictively licence their use and revoke such licences should incompetence be demonstrated. Driving should be the same. Calling this a mistake anyone could make is a symptom of the problem we have that driving is considered a de facto right.

[tykeboy2003]

'mistakes' such as the classic smidsy can quite easily cause fatalities to vulnerable road users. Regret doesn't bring the dead back to life and isn't going to fix the highly likely chance of ongoing problems the chap is going to have in his knees etc as he ages. We don't accept mistakes by those operating other forms of similar machinery, we tend to restrictively licence their use and revoke such licences should incompetence be demonstrated. Driving should be the same. Calling this a mistake anyone could make is a symptom of the problem we have that driving is considered a de facto right.

Bang on. Many motorists think they have a right to be on the road when in fact they are only ALLOWED on the road - under license and only when the correct vehicle excise duty is paid etc. It is high time the public were informed of these facts and made to understand that owning and driving a car is a MASSIVE privilege and constitutes no rights whatsoever BUT does involve huge responsibilities to ALL other road users.

[iviehoff]

..and is fined £5000 after knocking down and seriously injuring a cyclist:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... agistrates
Is this a just penalty, bearing in mind that the politician showed considerable remorse for his action?
Or would a driving ban have been more appropriate?

and does the cyclist get the £5000? should do

In this country we make a distinction between sums removed from villains to punish them, and compensation to victims. In the US, courts can sometimes order punitive damages greater than the assessed damage to the victim - triple damages can be assessed in some cases - and the victim gets them all. The triple damage orders are, of course, part of the reason that there is so much suing in the US, so on the whole I think I prefer the UK method.

[pwa]

'mistakes' such as the classic smidsy can quite easily cause fatalities to vulnerable road users. Regret doesn't bring the dead back to life and isn't going to fix the highly likely chance of ongoing problems the chap is going to have in his knees etc as he ages. We don't accept mistakes by those operating other forms of similar machinery, we tend to restrictively licence their use and revoke such licences should incompetence be demonstrated. Driving should be the same. Calling this a mistake anyone could make is a symptom of the problem we have that driving is considered a de facto right.

Bang on. Many motorists think they have a right to be on the road when in fact they are only ALLOWED on the road - under license and only when the correct vehicle excise duty is paid etc. It is high time the public were informed of these facts and made to understand that owning and driving a car is a MASSIVE privilege and constitutes no rights whatsoever BUT does involve huge responsibilities to ALL other road users.

I agree that driving a vehicle on public roads involves accepting responsibilities. But we cannot get away from the fact (and it is a fact) that any of us who drives a car does so knowing that we are fallible and can make mistakes that put others at risk. Every time you or I get behind the wheel of a car we are capable of making an error. Even when we set out with the intention of being careful. A good driver recognises that possibility and does things to reduce the risk, but we never reduce the risk to zero. With that in mind, I regret the mistake that Hesseltine clearly made and I do not excuse it. But I think it is possible (though not certain) that this is an uncharacteristic error from a driver who is normally careful and skilled. If that is the case I am reluctant to shout too loud about his failings because I may do something silly myself one day. If I do, I hope nobody is hurt as a result.

[Barks]

Doing something 'silly' is not a mistake, it a lack of attention or, worse, just irresponsible. The idea that somehow individuals can be excused because 'we are all ' fallible' just gives everyone a get out if they cause an incident. Yes, people do make mistakes, but pulling out of a turning without looking, speeding, close passes, not keeping a proper distance from vehicles in front, not slowing down where visibility is reduced, using a mobile phone while driving, and a whole host of others are not mistakes they just demonstrate disregard for the lawful standards of driving. If it is difficult to enforce some of these then the only recourse is to increase the consequences of such crimes, as that is what they are, such that points, fines, bans, retests etc should all increase significantly so that it really becomes a deterrent. For the few who repeat offend then custody becomes the possibility. What we cannot have is derisory fines and bans, allowing people to continue driving with 12 or more points, or those who repeat offend being able to continue driving. I find it exasperating that there is the implication that juries may not be prepared to declare guilty verdicts because they may have a view that FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I.

[reohn2]

I agree that driving a vehicle on public roads involves accepting responsibilities. But we cannot get away from the fact (and it is a fact) that any of us who drives a car does so knowing that we are fallible and can make mistakes that put others at risk. Every time you or I get behind the wheel of a car we are capable of making an error. Even when we set out with the intention of being careful. A good driver recognises that possibility and does things to reduce the risk, but we never reduce the risk to zero. With that in mind, I regret the mistake that Hesseltine clearly made and I do not excuse it. But I think it is possible (though not certain) that this is an uncharacteristic error from a driver who is normally careful and skilled. If that is the case I am reluctant to shout too loud about his failings because I may do something silly myself one day. If I do, I hope nobody is hurt as a result.

Which is precisely why so many people who kill or maim others on ours road get off so lightly,when they come before a jury they probably feel the same way.

What's needed is a way to minimise the carnage a stupid driving,that way is more police on the roads,stiffer no quibble penalties with no loopholes to drive the proverbial coach and horses through.
There's a whole thread of long standing here:- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50829 of people getting away with paltry fines for killing and maiming other road users,and others collecting points like children collect football cards and still driving!

[pwa]

I agree that driving a vehicle on public roads involves accepting responsibilities. But we cannot get away from the fact (and it is a fact) that any of us who drives a car does so knowing that we are fallible and can make mistakes that put others at risk. Every time you or I get behind the wheel of a car we are capable of making an error. Even when we set out with the intention of being careful. A good driver recognises that possibility and does things to reduce the risk, but we never reduce the risk to zero. With that in mind, I regret the mistake that Hesseltine clearly made and I do not excuse it. But I think it is possible (though not certain) that this is an uncharacteristic error from a driver who is normally careful and skilled. If that is the case I am reluctant to shout too loud about his failings because I may do something silly myself one day. If I do, I hope nobody is hurt as a result.

Which is precisely why so many people who kill or maim others on ours road get off so lightly,when they come before a jury they probably feel the same way.

What's needed is a way to minimise the carnage a stupid driving,that way is more police on the roads,stiffer no quibble penalties with no loopholes to drive the proverbial coach and horses through.
There's a whole thread of long standing here:- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50829 of people getting away with paltry fines for killing and maiming other road users,and others collecting points like children collect football cards and still driving!

For me there is an important distinction to be made between a tiny and understandable mistake of the sort we all make, even when we are trying not to, and gross carelessness. Both can harm others. Both can kill. But there is still a difference. It is not that the tiny mistake does not matter. It is simply that we should recognise that the perpetrator is one of us, a normal person who may have made an uncharacteristic error. I don't know whether or not that applies to Heseltine, but it may. I am more inclined to accept a moderate penalty for that sort of offence than for an incident involving blatantly aggressive or careless driving. People who drive like they don't care should get the more severe punishment.

[reohn2]

For me there is an important distinction to be made between a tiny and understandable mistake of the sort we all make, even when we are trying not to, and gross carelessness. Both can harm others. Both can kill. But there is still a difference. It is not that the tiny mistake does not matter. It is simply that we should recognise that the perpetrator is one of us, a normal person who may have made an uncharacteristic error. I don't know whether or not that applies to Heseltine, but it may. I am more inclined to accept a moderate penalty for that sort of offence than for an incident involving blatantly aggressive or careless driving. People who drive like they don't care should get the more severe punishment.

But how do we tell the difference between mistakes and could care less attitude if the result is the same?
I've written many times on here that because I can't tell the difference between bad drivers and good ones when I'm cycling I'm forced to treat all drivers as potentially bad drivers,the law is a blunt instrument(as is the motor vehicle IMO)and has to be applied equally(though it isn't always)
IMO to ensure people think more about their driving I'd double most motoring penalties,I'd enforce more short term driving bans and more retests and driver assessment tests.My thoughts on elderly drivers I mentioned up thread.
Until driving is seen to be a privilege and not a right driving standards will continue to plummet.

[pwa]

For me there is an important distinction to be made between a tiny and understandable mistake of the sort we all make, even when we are trying not to, and gross carelessness. Both can harm others. Both can kill. But there is still a difference. It is not that the tiny mistake does not matter. It is simply that we should recognise that the perpetrator is one of us, a normal person who may have made an uncharacteristic error. I don't know whether or not that applies to Heseltine, but it may. I am more inclined to accept a moderate penalty for that sort of offence than for an incident involving blatantly aggressive or careless driving. People who drive like they don't care should get the more severe punishment.

But how do we tell the difference between mistakes and could care less attitude if the result is the same?
I've written many times on here that because I can't tell the difference between bad drivers and good ones when I'm cycling I'm forced to treat all drivers as potentially bad drivers,the law is a blunt instrument(as is the motor vehicle IMO)and has to be applied equally(though it isn't always)
IMO to ensure people think more about their driving I'd double most motoring penalties,I'd enforce more short term driving bans and more retests and driver assessment tests.My thoughts on elderly drivers I mentioned up thread.
Until driving is seen to be a privilege and not a right driving standards will continue to plummet.

There is a moral difference between a generally good driver making an uncharacteristic error and a generally bad driver doing what he'she usually does. Whether you can distinguish between the two in court is debatable. What I totally reject is the idea that any of us who drive is mistake-proof, because we are not. Every one of us who is a driver, and that means most on the Forum, occasionally makes a mistake with the potential to harm. Some of the drivers who cause harm are just like you and me, intending to drive considerately but once in a while getting something wrong. That must happen.

None of this is excusing those who blatantly and knowingly play with their phone at the wheel or charge down the motorway at 90mph, or routinely pass cyclists when they don't have room to do it safely.

[reohn2]

There is a moral difference between a generally good driver making an uncharacteristic error and a generally bad driver doing what he'she usually does. Whether you can distinguish between the two in court is debatable. What I totally reject is the idea that any of us who drive is mistake-proof, because we are not. Every one of us who is a driver, and that means most on the Forum, occasionally makes a mistake with the potential to harm. Some of the drivers who cause harm are just like you and me, intending to drive considerately but once in a while getting something wrong. That must happen.

None of this is excusing those who blatantly and knowingly play with their phone at the wheel or charge down the motorway at 90mph, or routinely pass cyclists when they don't have room to do it safely.

Whilst I agree,my point is you can't tailor the law to excuse someone from breaking it if they're of previous good character,only increase the penalties for consistent offending and that the bar is set too low for either IMHO,hence the bad and dangerous driving I see daily.
Of course it goes without saying that an effective police force would have a considerable impact in increasing driving standards,whereas at the moment it's a free for all with little to no policing of the roads.