Telegraph article

John Hearns <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

'On Pain of Death' by Sir John Whitmore

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/12/03/
mfwhit03.xml&sSheet=/motoring/2005/12/03/ixmot.html
http://tinyurl.com/ajngh

So how about a TV campaign centred on the distress of drivers who kill
someone - "This could be you if you don't turn that phone off "?

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

Bicycle helmets are really a bit of a scam.
They make most cyclists slightly less safe but there's money in selling them.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:34:51 +0000, John Hearns <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

'On Pain of Death' by Sir John Whitmore

A very good article, 50% "well said" and 50% blood-boiling fury at the
lengths he goes to to comfort perpetrators of what he calls "mindless
folly". Just the job for a Sunday afternoon :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:34:51 +0000, John Hearns <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

'On Pain of Death' by Sir John Whitmore

A very good article, 50% "well said" and 50% blood-boiling fury at the
lengths he goes to to comfort perpetrators of what he calls "mindless
folly". Just the job for a Sunday afternoon :-)

I love to boil my blood on a Sunday afternoon. Although I went out for a
little trundle to the local viewpoint and froze my lungs instead. Next time
I go for a ride I'll remember that I get slightly asthmatic exercising hard
in cold weather.

The view was lovely. And I just realised that one of the things I really
love on the bike is riding along a beautiful path in the woods. I already
knew that bit, but I also realised that one of the feelings that I love is
when you go through a muddy patch (on a well made path, of course), and
you're pointing straight ahead, and your back wheel slides out a bit, but
you still carry on going the way you're pointing. It's just the feeling of
control it gives you. Not sure I described it right, but it's excellent.
--
Ambrose

Quoted message said:

From the article:

"What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
could we do? I don't know. Do you?"

Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
negligent driving, for a change? If someone discharges a weapon out of
negligence, and it kills, they go to prison. If a pilot crashes a plane
out of negligence, and passengers are killed, he goes to prison. If a
forklift operator in a warehouse crushes a worker to death out of
negligence, he goes to prison. If a driver kills out of negligence, he
gets a fine of few hundred quid.

Yes, killing a pedestrian by "accident" will cause a life life-long
feeling of guilt. Fair enough.
But that's not much of a deterrent, is it? Especially since, by the
author's own admission, most drivers are not aware of the danger
they're causing until it's too late.

If the same tough laws that apply to operators of most dangerous
machines were applied to drivers, it would change the whole culture of
motoring. Defensive driving would emerge naturally. There would be no
need for lessons.

Matt B said:

Kinetic wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out of negligence, and passengers are killed, he goes to prison. If a
forklift operator in a warehouse crushes a worker to death out of
negligence, he goes to prison.

Nobody will go to prison for any of those things *unless* there is
evidence of a serious offence and they are convicted for it.

Eh? What more evidence do you want than dead bodies? Bear in mind
that H&S legislation enforcement specifically adopts the approach that
the actual consequence of specific lapse should be considered in the
sentencing - that is, in H&S offences, if you kill someone you do get
sentenced more severely than if you merely might have done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a driver kills out of negligence, he
gets a fine of few hundred quid.

No. If a driver is convicted of a technical offence, or careless
driving, he may escape with a fine. If a driver is convicted of a more
serious offence such as causing death by dangerous driving he will in
all probability be sent to prison.

Not in practice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, killing a pedestrian by "accident" will cause a life life-long
feeling of guilt. Fair enough.
But that's not much of a deterrent, is it? Especially since, by the
author's own admission, most drivers are not aware of the danger
they're causing until it's too late.

An accident is, by definition, unexpected and unintentional. Should
everyone be gaoled for every accident they are involved in, or should
the sentence be based on the outcome of the accident?

Actually, at the moment neither of those options is what
actually occurs. One of tehm should.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the same tough laws that apply to operators of most dangerous
machines were applied to drivers, it would change the whole culture of
motoring. Defensive driving would emerge naturally. There would be no
need for lessons.

I think you'll find there are *more* laws that apply specifically, and
exclusively, to driving than to any other public activity.

I think you're wrong. It might depend how you define 'laws', but
I reckon I can come up with more Acts or SI that apply to paying tax
than to driving motor vehicles, for example. I think you'll struggle
to find more than two dozen motoring / road use . I can find many
many more current relevant acts than that relating to social security:

National Insurance Act 1965
Equal Pay Act 1970
Social Security Act 1973
Pensioners’ Payments and National Insurance Act 1973
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1975
Social Security Pensions Act 1975
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979
Social Security Act 1979
Social Security Act 1980
Forfeiture Act 1982
Criminal Justice Act 1982
Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications
Act 1983
Social Security Act 1986
Social Security Act 1989
Social Security Act 1990
Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Act 1991
Child Support Act 1991
Criminal Justice Act 1991
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
Social Security Administration Act 1992
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992
Local Government Finance Act 1992
Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Act 1992
Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992
Social Security Act 1993
Pension Schemes Act 1993
Social Security (Contributions) Act 1994
Statutory Sick Pay Act 1994
Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994
Jobseekers Act 1995
Merchant Shipping Act 1995
Pensions Act 1995
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Industrial Tribunals Act 1996
Social Security (Overpayments) Act 1996
Employment Rights Act 1996
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997
Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997
Social Security Act 1998
Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.)
Act 1999
Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Child Support, Pensions and Social Act 2000
Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000
Social Security Fraud Act 2001
State Pension Credit Act 2002
National Insurance Contributions Act 2002
Employment Act 2002
National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 2004
Pensions Act 2004

And that's before we move onto regulations and statutory
instruments, I reckon there's probably five times as many of them...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Kinetic said:

Quoted message said:

From the article:

"What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
could we do? I don't know. Do you?"

Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
negligent driving, for a change?

You can bet that if there is any evidence of negligence the police will
find it and act. There are more charges specifically for driving
offences than there are for anything else that the majority of the
population do on a regular basis. The police will apply the most
serious offence that they can find evidence for. They'll even attempt
to charge people with an offence even it was truly an accident.

In the thirty years I've been driving I've heard of precisely one
accident which was not caused by negligence. They do happen, but they're
extremely rare.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Kinetic said:

>From the article:

"What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
could we do? I don't know. Do you?"

Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
negligent driving, for a change?

You can bet that if there is any evidence of negligence the police will
find it and act. There are more charges specifically for driving
offences than there are for anything else that the majority of the
population do on a regular basis. The police will apply the most
serious offence that they can find evidence for. They'll even attempt
to charge people with an offence even it was truly an accident.

In the thirty years I've been driving I've heard of precisely one
accident which was not caused by negligence. They do happen, but they're
extremely rare.

You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
motor vehicle?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the thirty years I've been driving I've heard of precisely one
accident which was not caused by negligence. They do happen, but they're
extremely rare.

You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
motor vehicle?

If you read accident investigation reports you will find that there is
almost always a chain of events leading up to the accident, not just a
single cause. Even where the immediate cause of an accident is
mechanical there is usually a human failing somewhere along the line.

--
Dave...

Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.

An air traffic controller can't cough up the excuse "I was just a bit
distracted for a minute".
A surgeon won't get away with saying "sorry - I turned around to check
on the kids and forgot I had my scalpel stuck in an artery".

So how come drivers do get away with it?

Yes, being an air traffic controller or surgeon is stressful and
requires absolute concentration at *all* times, as well as specialist
training. But why should the same not apply to driving? Just because
more people do it? A car is a dangerous machine. I think the motto
should be "If you can't bear the prospect of stress and absolute
concentration at all times, then don't drive". I'm not anti-car. I'm am
a driver myself, but I have huge respect for the machine and I always
operate it with above attitude (in fact, driving freaks me out every
time). But unfourtunately, most people are not like that and just see
like taking a walk in the park - we nead a change of culture.

Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer people
than a scatterbrained air traffic controller. But even just a single
victim is still a tragedy. I'm not suggesting long prison sentences,
but a small fine is ridiculous, and no deterrent. Carelessness has
crept into all aspects of driving culture. There are no strong
messenges.

For example: If we had the rule "causing death while 10% above speed
limit = mandatory two month prison sentence" how many people would
still speed in built up areas, *conscious* that
they don't have enough reaction time to stop for a child that jumps
onto the road?

On 5 Dec 2005 12:45:36 -0800, "Kinetic" <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer people
than a scatterbrained air traffic controller.

In aggregate, though, scatterbrained drivers win that pissing contest
quite tidily. Which was, of course, your point.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Kinetic said:

Matt B said:

You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
motor vehicle?

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.

There is a note inside the police driver's manual 'Roadcraft':

"After this book went to press, The Association of Chief Police
Officers made a formal decision to stop using the word accident to
describe a road traffic accident (RTA) involving injury and/or damage.
This decision was prompted by the Transport Research Laboratory
findings indicating human error as a cause of 95 per cent of such
incidents".

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Kinetic wrote:

>>From the article:
>
>"What, as a society, are we willing to pay, or forgo, per life saved?
>Are you prepared to invest in defensive driving lessons? What else
>could we do? I don't know. Do you?"
>
>Uuuuuhm... how about actually punishing drivers who cause death by
>negligent driving, for a change?

You can bet that if there is any evidence of negligence the police
will
find it and act. There are more charges specifically for driving
offences than there are for anything else that the majority of the
population do on a regular basis. The police will apply the most
serious offence that they can find evidence for. They'll even attempt
to charge people with an offence even it was truly an accident.

In the thirty years I've been driving I've heard of precisely one
accident which was not caused by negligence. They do happen, but
they're extremely rare.

You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving
a motor vehicle?

A friend's offside front stub axle sheared while driving on a straight
dual carriageway. The wheel came off, and the car went across the
central reservation and the whole width of the other carriageway,
fortunately hitting nothing. The car had been maintained by an approved
dealer to the manufacturers recommended schedule. That, in my opinion,
was an accident - but it's the only car accident I've ever heard of. All
the rest (including the ones I've had) could have been prevented by the
driver(s) of the vehicle(s) involved being just a bit more careful. In
other words, they were caused by negligence.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

Kinetic wrote:

[reinstated context:
You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
motor vehicle?]

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.

Which - all, or just those involving motor vehicles?

Quoted message said:

An air traffic controller can't cough up the excuse "I was just a bit
distracted for a minute".
A surgeon won't get away with saying "sorry - I turned around to check
on the kids and forgot I had my scalpel stuck in an artery".

So how come drivers do get away with it?

Police incompetence at the scenes of incidents? Difficulty in finding
evidence? You tell us what you think it is.

Quoted message said:

Yes, being an air traffic controller or surgeon is stressful and
requires absolute concentration at *all* times, as well as specialist
training. But why should the same not apply to driving? Just because
more people do it? A car is a dangerous machine. I think the motto
should be "If you can't bear the prospect of stress and absolute
concentration at all times, then don't drive". I'm not anti-car. I'm am
a driver myself, but I have huge respect for the machine and I always
operate it with above attitude (in fact, driving freaks me out every
time). But unfourtunately, most people are not like that and just see
like taking a walk in the park - we nead a change of culture.

Yes, I for one, agree with that.

Quoted message said:

Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer people
than a scatterbrained air traffic controller. But even just a single
victim is still a tragedy. I'm not suggesting long prison sentences,
but a small fine is ridiculous, and no deterrent.

Prison sentences are the norm for serious offences such as "death by
dangerous driving" - what do you mean? Small fines are only the norm
for technical or minor offences. What are you suggesting? Kangaroo
courts? Summary justice based on supposition rather than evidence?
Legislating against "momentary lapse in concentration"?

Quoted message said:

Carelessness has
crept into all aspects of driving culture. There are no strong
messenges.

Perhaps it is time to rethink our attitude towards roadmanship? Is it,
in your opinion, more, less, or as important as: Art? Geography?
History? Languages? Literacy? Music? Numeracy? PSHE? Science?

Quoted message said:

For example: If we had the rule "causing death while 10% above speed
limit = mandatory two month prison sentence" how many people would
still speed in built up areas, *conscious* that
they don't have enough reaction time to stop for a child that jumps
onto the road?

Who knows, but why wait until someone is killed? Isn't the act the
same? Why get away with it because you were lucky and you never hit
anyone? Is the act of attempting to murder someone somehow less
abhorrent because, despite your best efforts, you failed?

What if we had a street scene that meant we each respected each others'
space, and conflict was eliminated and we didn't need any draconian laws.

--
Matt B

sothach said:

Kinetic said:

Matt B said:

You're suggesting that practically *no* "accident" is actually an
accident, but the result of negligence - or just "accidents" involving a
motor vehicle?

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's what I'm basically suggesting.

There is a note inside the police driver's manual 'Roadcraft':

"After this book went to press, The Association of Chief Police
Officers made a formal decision to stop using the word accident to
describe a road traffic accident (RTA) involving injury and/or damage.
This decision was prompted by the Transport Research Laboratory
findings indicating human error as a cause of 95 per cent of such
incidents".

I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)

Implication: speeding is a sub-class of human error.

Simon Brooke said:

A friend's offside front stub axle sheared while driving on a straight
dual carriageway. The wheel came off, and the car went across the
central reservation and the whole width of the other carriageway,
fortunately hitting nothing. The car had been maintained by an approved
dealer to the manufacturers recommended schedule. That, in my opinion,
was an accident - but it's the only car accident I've ever heard of. All
the rest (including the ones I've had) could have been prevented by the
driver(s) of the vehicle(s) involved being just a bit more careful. In
other words, they were caused by negligence.

Are motorists immune from the charge of negligence, or are the police
incompetent - what is your view?

--
Matt B

sothach said:

Matt B said:

I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)

Implication: speeding is a sub-class of human error.

Lol.

--
Matt B

sothach said:

Matt B said:

I thought they said a third were caused by speeding ;-)

Implication: speeding is a sub-class of human error.

Lol.

--
Matt B

Kinetic said:

Of course a scatterbrained driver can kill potentially fewer
people than a scatterbrained air traffic controller.

What about a scatterbrained driver who causes the driver of a blasting
explosives delivery truck to swerve into the control tower of a busy
airport, leading to a number of airliners falling out of the sky, each
one plunging onto a packed football stadium?

N. Lenderby (Mrs)