Accident Prevention Technology

[kwackers]

It would probably also result in more disqualified drivers just carrying on driving without tax insurance etc. so not improving safety.

Hence the harsher punishment of someone driving without insurance! Your argument leads me to believe you're against banning persistant motoring offenders. I don't quite understand this.

Personally I'm all for harsher punishment of persistant motoring offenders - but changing the law to crimilise more people will just increase the numbers. Obviously you could jail more of them, which will of course mean building more jails and paying more tax to keep them locked up.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, you believe nobody would play the 1 in a million odds of being caught for fear of 6 points. I think you're talking nonesense and there are better ways.

[petercook80]

It would probably also result in more disqualified drivers just carrying on driving without tax insurance etc. so not improving safety.

Hence the harsher punishment of someone driving without insurance! Your argument leads me to believe you're against banning persistant motoring offenders. I don't quite understand this.

I have not said that at all but I also do not agree with your proposal but if thats what you want to believe then who am I to try and argue against you.

They will still drive without insurance etc however harsh the punishment as they will not be able to afford the premiums and so will not bother.
So it will not improve safety.

Just to add more fuel. Many years ago (about 17) we got hit in our car buy a guy who jumped a red light and was three times over the limit. Turns out he borrowed the car, had no insurance and no driving license.
His penalty was £60 fine and a ban from driving for two years!! how do you ban someone from somthing they can't leagly do in the first place!! its madness. I was not best pleased.
(I know its not the base of the original post but its drifted far enough away that I felt it was relevant.)

[JQ666]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, you believe nobody would play the 1 in a million odds of being caught for fear of 6 points. I think you're talking nonesense and there are better ways.

I don't believe that at all - I believe LESS people will play against the odds.

With regards to your belief that a driver concentrating on his / her speed is not necessarily a better and more attentive driver, I disagree. I have first hand experience of this from the fact that I was once a general speeder (i.e. same habit as most people driving today - get up to usual speed of the traffic flow e.g. 40mph in a 30 zone) and then one day I saw the light and made a conscious effort to concentrate on my speed and stick to / drive below the limits. The biggest effect I have noticed is that I am genrally more alert, more attentive, leave more room between me and the car in-front, more likely to hang back rather than attempt a daft / close over-take (afterall, I'm no longer in a 'rush'), less needless accelerating, more anticipating, etc, etc.

You can deny all you like, but it's true. Those who argue for improvements in driver standards without reference to the breaking of speed limits play right into the hands of the motoring lobby.

[petercook80]

You can deny all you like, but it's true. Those who argue for improvements in driver standards without reference to the breaking of speed limits play right into the hands of the motoring lobby.

Perhaps yes, but both accidents I have been unfortunate to be involved in in my driving life have had nothing whatsoever to do with speed. It needs to we a wide focus, rather than a narrow one or two point focus

[JQ666]

Just to add more fuel. Many years ago (about 17) we got hit in our car buy a guy who jumped a red light and was three times over the limit. Turns out he borrowed the car, had no insurance and no driving license.
His penalty was £60 fine and a ban from driving for two years!! how do you ban someone from somthing they can't leagly do in the first place!! its madness. I was not best pleased.
(I know its not the base of the original post but its drifted far enough away that I felt it was relevant.)

The problem is the penalty - firstly the fine for no insurance should be very hefty (if it can't be paid then the offender should be treated as someone who can't maintain their credit commitments - e.g. to the point of personal bankruptcy). Given he was 3 times over the limit, in my view that should have been a jail sentence anyway!. A driving ban still needs to be applied, so if caught again an even harsher sentence can be dished out. If he hadn't have been over the limit, I would advocate a tag with strict curfews - treating drivers without insurance as anti-social criminals.

[JQ666]

It needs to we a wide focus, rather than a narrow one or two point focus

I agree - but my argument is formed from the fact that there are not enough road police to enforce better driving standards.

[kwackers]

I don't believe that at all - I believe LESS people will play against the odds.

With regards to your belief that a driver concentrating on his / her speed is not necessarily a better and more attentive driver, I disagree. I have first hand experience of this from the fact that I was once a general speeder (i.e. same habit as most people driving today - get up to usual speed of the traffic flow e.g. 40mph in a 30 zone) and then one day I saw the light and made a conscious effort to concentrate on my speed and stick to / drive below the limits. The biggest effect I have noticed is that I am genrally more alert, more attentive, leave more room between me and the car in-front, more likely to hang back rather than attempt a daft / close over-take (afterall, I'm no longer in a 'rush'), less needless accelerating, more anticipating, etc, etc.

So you're an all round bad egg turned good, and like thousands before you are evangelical about what you believe.

I'm sure the guy that knocked me off in a cycle lane whilst doing 15mph in a queue of slow moving traffic would have been paying more attention if he'd been trying to keep his speed under 30.

No doubt if he had automatic braking on his car he'd be even safer since he'd be paying even more attention. (Sadly the automatic braking wouldn't have helped - because he knocked me off by sideswiping me)

You can deny all you like, but it's true. Those who argue for improvements in driver standards without reference to the breaking of speed limits play right into the hands of the motoring lobby.

Same old. Fix one thing, suddenly it's paradise out there...
Good luck.

[petercook80]

The problem is the penalty - firstly the fine for no insurance should be very hefty (if it can't be paid then the offender should be treated as someone who can't maintain their credit commitments - e.g. to the point of personal bankruptcy). Given he was 3 times over the limit, in my view that should have been a jail sentence anyway!. A driving ban still needs to be applied, so if caught again an even harsher sentence can be dished out. If he hadn't have been over the limit, I would advocate a tag with strict curfews - treating drivers without insurance as anti-social criminals.

I agree, the thing that I found so utterly crazy was the judge banning him from driving when he did not have a license. How can they pass that as a punishment and keep a straight face? it was, and still is, beyond me. The legal system lost a lot of my respect that day.

[JQ666]

I agree, the thing that I found so utterly crazy was the judge banning him from driving when he did not have a license. How can they pass that as a punishment and keep a straight face? it was, and still is, beyond me. The legal system lost a lot of my respect that day.

I suppose it's to stop him applying to get a licence. But for a ban to form part of the punishment is the crazy thing. The punishment should be very harsh, and the ban incidental.

[petercook80]

I agree - but my argument is formed from the fact that there are not enough road police to enforce better driving standards.

Yes and that is a good argument, but in some debates on this subject to much is placed on 'speed' being the 'big' factor. It’s a factor, one of many.
And best we not forget that some cyclists do really stupid things at times, they need to carry responsibility as well and be punished.

[JQ666]

I'm sure the guy that knocked me off in a cycle lane whilst doing 15mph in a queue of slow moving traffic would have been paying more attention if he'd been trying to keep his speed under 30.

What I'm saying is that if his mind was trained in the importance of concentrating when driving (which I believe attempting to drive without breaking speed limits at all times leads to), then he probably have been more attentive when driving slowly in a queue of traffic.

[kwackers]

I agree, the thing that I found so utterly crazy was the judge banning him from driving when he did not have a license. How can they pass that as a punishment and keep a straight face? it was, and still is, beyond me. The legal system lost a lot of my respect that day.

I suppose it's to stop him applying to get a licence. But for a ban to form part of the punishment is the crazy thing. The punishment should be very harsh, and the ban incidental.

At the lower end of society are a lot of people who don't give a monkeys.
Fines are pointless since they have no money.
Bans don't work because they'll drive anyway.
They don't feel part of society and so don't feel they owe it anything.

Ultimately all you can do is lock them up.

If the economy buckles, expect to see more of them.

If 666's 'improvements' to the system come into force, expect to see lots more...

[JQ666]

[quote="kwackers"]
At the lower end of society are a lot of people who don't give a monkeys.
Fines are pointless since they have no money.
Bans don't work because they'll drive anyway.
They don't feel part of society and so don't feel they owe it anything.

quote]

I'll get my violin out!

BTW - I would suggest drink-driving has know social boundaries, from the millionnaire down to the pauper, I guess there are still many offenders - straight jail sentence for all, no matter what part of society they are fom (yes, even for slightly over the limit!)

[petercook80]

Think its getting a bit intense between you guys for me to stay in this one

[kwackers]

I'll get my violin out!

BTW - I would suggest drink-driving has know social boundaries, from the millionnaire down to the pauper, I guess there are still many offenders - straight jail sentence for all, no matter what part of society they are fom (yes, even for slightly over the limit!)

I'd love a system of fines based on ability to pay. Sadly we don't have that.