Motorist is very sorry for killing cyclist.

[awavey]

The issue is as with all these things, has enough been done to dissuade the criminal or anyone with similar intentions from repeating this event.
I think every thinking person who have preferred it not to have happened, but now that it has, fitting motor vehicles with some sort of anti mobile telephone technology which stops the driver from even attempting to use a mobile phone should be considered... sadly the motoring industry isn't the same as the aircraft industry...
..however, it has happened and the danger is now present is that this person wouldn't have actually learnt anything and that history will repeat itself some 12 years, when he runs someone over on an e-scooter while using his phone

I dont think its the motoring industrys job to prevent drivers from behaving like idiots, any more than its the mobile phone industrys problem. we need to stop the idiots behaving like idiots, for me that means harsher sentencing, so causing death whilst using a mobile phone is automatically considered dangerous so theres none of this plea bargaining to the lesser charge, didnt turn out to be a factor here ultimately but it shouldnt require as much evidence as they had to produce.

and there should be more visible policing of it, because lets face it people use their phones like this still because the chances of them being caught are slim to non existent.

thats the issue here has this guy learnt from this using a mobile phone whilst driving is wrong, or does he blame the cyclist for being in the way and he'd have got away with it like the no doubt hundreds of other times hes done it before, instead of thinking if I use my phone Ill get caught.

finally Ive never understood why in cases where mobile phone use is in play, the phone isnt taken away, if we take away the ability to drive, why not also take away the ability to use the phone too ? seize the phone and close the account force the account holder to pay up the contract,and Id bar them then a time period of being allowed to set a new account up, but simply forcing them to lose their phone, and their number and starting again would be enough to deter some phone addicts, and theyd have to explain to everyone why their number is changing, assuming they dont lie about it.

[thirdcrank]

Here's something which I might have posted in the "What made you laugh today" but it's not really funny. My attention was attracted by mistakenly assuming that AI referred to the Great North Road, but it's artificial intelligence

AI cameras catch 590 people without seatbelts in Devon and Cornwall

Ch Insp Ben Asprey ... warned police were out on the road "every single week".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-63682810

If it's not obvious, I've edited that a lot to highlight the bit that's imo relevant to this thread. The item is about some sort of road safety week, hence the every single week comment, but I fancy the perception of many people is "Oh, no they aren't."

[Bonefishblues]

We know, based on research, that there really are only two truly effective approaches.

1. Stop it before it happens via the car manufacturers and/or networks being required to block the activity.

2. Make the likelihood of detection so high (which can only be via automation, realistically) that people are deterred.

3. Passing legislation with ever-higher penalties is a very, very poor 3rd, unless 2. is in place - in which case it's largely moot, anyway.

Add in a soupçon of social condemnation in the way that drink-driving is now wholly unacceptable and we might get somewhere.

[thirdcrank]

I've no problem with using technology to detect offending, although I'm not convinced it works on its own. My problem is with policing by media release AKA spin. ie I think I'm largely agreeing with your second point.

Make the likelihood of detection so high (which can only be via automation, realistically) that people are deterred.

PS An example of what I'm talking about is automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) which has to be at the heart of any automatic system. From various sources I've linked in the past, a significant number of camera-based investigations fail, one reason being duff plates. Somebody else (irc?) posted data about the number of ANPR alarms which were not investigated. That's likely to be self-reinforcing in that if offenders know that duff plates won't attract attention, then they may be more likely to fit them - that's back to the likelihood of detection of course, but current automation needs human support

[mattheus]

...at this point the only way of dissuade him is an experience so awful, so terrible it will stay with them forever.
Personally no one should be looking at any form of violent sexual attack to change a person's behaviour. That's a horrible thing to suggest, and yes, I shouldn't have written it.

At this point we're sort of stuck as to how to get through to every road user who thinks 'oh, that will never happen to me' that it might and that by behaving in a dangerous, selfish or ignorant way, they are placing lives at risk.

Personally I hate to see people in prison its such a waste of time and talent... I would rather see him given 5 years doing something useful somewhere.
However perhaps being a father and knowing that his children will find out he killed someone might, might just be enough..

(Edited because I've thought about it a changed my view point).

Well done for backtracking on this, it's rare, but forums are a better place if people can change their views on things.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure others on this thread - and plenty of the general public - do just view these things with an "Eye for an Eye" mentality. For me this is very sad.
And it would be easier - on the internet - if folks just stated their belief in Old Testament justice before spouting a load of ... er justifications. There's no point in discussing anything useful with the "Eye for an Eye" crowd

[Vorpal]

Likelihood of being caught is a far greater deterrent than increasing severity of punishment.

From a safe system perspective, the best ways to improve road safety are to make it impossible to do unsafe things. Vehicles that cannot speed, disallow driver mobile use, sense tiredness or blood alcohol level & prevent the vehicle being used, etc. are much better than telling someone that they will go to jail for 5 years instead of 2 years if they cause a death violating the law.

Using automation to catch drivers violating the law is much better than increasing the severity of punishment.

That said, I do not think that any driver convicted of some offences should ever be allowed to drive again.

I'd far rather a lifetime ban from driving than imprisonment, much less harsher sentences. If they continue to drive after a ban, then they should be imprisoned. Not as punishment, but to protect public safety.

[peetee]

Here's something which I might have posted in the "What made you laugh today" but it's not really funny. My attention was attracted by mistakenly assuming that AI referred to the Great North Road, but it's artificial intelligence

AI cameras catch 590 people without seatbelts in Devon and Cornwall

Ch Insp Ben Asprey ... warned police were out on the road "every single week".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-63682810

If it's not obvious, I've edited that a lot to highlight the bit that's imo relevant to this thread. The item is about some sort of road safety week, hence the every single week comment, but I fancy the perception of many people is "Oh, no they aren't."

These cameras would be an excellent substitute for fixed speed cameras. And whilst on the subject, why do fixed cameras need to be visible and their positions listed? What sort of a deterrent are they - except for the tiny sections of road that they monitor? If the law allows unmarked police cars then why not unmarked AI cameras in undisclosed locations that detect a variety of offences?
What a heck of a deterrent that would be!

[Bonefishblues]

Here's something which I might have posted in the "What made you laugh today" but it's not really funny. My attention was attracted by mistakenly assuming that AI referred to the Great North Road, but it's artificial intelligence

AI cameras catch 590 people without seatbelts in Devon and Cornwall

Ch Insp Ben Asprey ... warned police were out on the road "every single week".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-63682810

If it's not obvious, I've edited that a lot to highlight the bit that's imo relevant to this thread. The item is about some sort of road safety week, hence the every single week comment, but I fancy the perception of many people is "Oh, no they aren't."

These cameras would be an excellent substitute for fixed speed cameras. And whilst on the subject, why do fixed cameras need to be visible and their positions listed? What sort of a deterrent are they - except for the tiny sections of road that they monitor? If the law allows unmarked police cars then why not unmarked AI cameras in undisclosed locations that detect a variety of offences?
What a heck of a deterrent that would be!

It certainly used to be that they were positioned in areas of particular danger/accident stats, so the more visible, the more care taken and the more public good and so on.

I think there's also the public acceptance angle, too, certainly in the early days.