Dangerous Driving - RTA

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Remember what I said a couple of weeks ago, well...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060049_en.pdf

Another desperate and poorly framed law specifically targeting motorists
rather than specifically dangerous or reckless criminal acts. Like the
kerb-crawling one mentioned in another thread. All this will result in
is even more lazy prosecuting, with the less serious offences being used
rather than manslaughter which is used for culpable violent deaths where
motor vehicles aren't involved.

Quoted message said:

If I were big headed I would say it's 3 out of 3 to me but I know
there's a lot more behind these things than the guidence meetings I have
attended. Still...

You should be ashamed, not proud, that you cannot see the paucity of
justice involved in these cop-out ideas.

Quoted message said:

Seizure of uninsured vehicles 🙂

There is a much easier way, and it would ensure that all collisions are
actually covered by insurance. But if revenge, rather than justice, is
the goal then this will do nicely.

Quoted message said:

Endorsement of licence for mobile phone use whilst driving 🙂

No. Missed the mark again. All the new regs give is endorsement of
licence for being seen to be using a hand-held phone. It doesn't tackle
the dangerous part, that of /using/ a mobile phone whilst in control of
a vehicle, whether it is hand-held or hands-free. And it doesn't cover
using one when in charge of other dangerous machinery or plant either!!!
Another cop-out aimed at easy convictions rather than culpable actions.

Quoted message said:

Unlicenced drivers guilty of Causing Death Dangerous Driving if
they...Close 🙂

Why the obsession with creating low-proof, easy to prosecute, offences,
and only for motorists???

Quoted message said:

Ye Haaa

Pathetic.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Remember what I said a couple of weeks ago, well...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060049_en.pdf

Another desperate and poorly framed law specifically targeting motorists
rather than specifically dangerous or reckless criminal acts. Like the
kerb-crawling one mentioned in another thread.

Kerb crawling is "dangerous or reckless"? You're deranged.

Quoted message said:

Pathetic.

Get a grip.

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

mb said:

Matt B said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Remember what I said a couple of weeks ago, well...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060049_en.pdf

Another desperate and poorly framed law specifically targeting motorists
rather than specifically dangerous or reckless criminal acts. Like the
kerb-crawling one mentioned in another thread.

Kerb crawling is "dangerous or reckless"? You're deranged.

No, it's another desperate and poorly framed law specifically targeting
motorists rather than its specific criminal act. Why try to
misrepresent the point???

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>, Sniper805

(L96A1) (') said:

Remember what I said a couple of weeks ago, well...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060049_en.pdf

"CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING: UNLICENSED, DISQUALIFIED OR UNINSURED DRIVERS
(1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 3ZA (inserted by
section (Meaning of driving without due care and attention)) insert—
"3ZB CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING: UNLICENSED, DISQUALIFIED OR UNINSURED
DRIVERS A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he causes
the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road and, at
the time when he is driving, the circumstances are such that he is
committing an offence under—
(a) section 87(1) of this Act (driving otherwise than in accordance with
a licence),
(b) section 103(1)(b) of this Act (driving while disqualified), or
(c) section 143 of this Act (using motor vehicle while uninsured or
unsecured against third party risks)."

Sorry I could not copy the act as I only have Acrotat Reader but you get
the idea.

Not sure if it's been given a commencement date as yet, probably not as
I cant find any reference to an order but it's there.

If I were big headed I would say it's 3 out of 3 to me but I know
there's a lot more behind these things than the guidence meetings I have
attended. Still...

Seizure of uninsured vehicles 🙂

Endorsement of licence for mobile phone use whilst driving 🙂

Unlicenced drivers guilty of Causing Death Dangerous Driving if
they...Close 🙂

Now we have to wait and see whether the prosecuting authorities will take a
blind bit of notice.

Still, brilliant if they do.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote on 04/03/2007 20:40 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Sorry I could not copy the act as I only have Acrotat Reader but you get
the idea.

Use http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk for all you legislative needs.

Quoted message said:

Not sure if it's been given a commencement date as yet, probably not as
I cant find any reference to an order but it's there.

It received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006 and the fact it is called an
Act not a Bill means it is in force. So get booking ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

What's the betting the local troll objects to unfairness against motorists,
and shouldn't the police be looking at serious stuff etc., etc., etc., of
all the drivel it is known for :-D

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

What's the betting the local troll objects to unfairness against motorists,
and shouldn't the police be looking at serious stuff etc., etc., etc., of
all the drivel it is known for :-D

Don't feed. Whilst some of his points are valid, most are hopelessly
naive or deranged.

I'm sure he wouldn't object to removing any kind of licensing. I mean,
why do I need proof of medical training before I am allowed to carry
out surgery? Surely anyone who is competent should be allowed to do
it...

It is an excellent change in teh law and one which will make life much
easier for the police and judiciary, allowing the rest of us (who
behave responsibly and fulfil our social contract) to live life just
that bit safer.

...d

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Remember what I said a couple of weeks ago, well...

Quoted message said:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060049_en.pdf

Another desperate and poorly framed law specifically targeting motorists
rather than specifically dangerous or reckless criminal acts. Like the
kerb-crawling one mentioned in another thread. All this will result in
is even more lazy prosecuting, with the less serious offences being used
rather than manslaughter which is used for culpable violent deaths where
motor vehicles aren't involved.

Quoted message said:

If I were big headed I would say it's 3 out of 3 to me but I know
there's a lot more behind these things than the guidence meetings I have
attended. Still...

You should be ashamed, not proud, that you cannot see the paucity of
justice involved in these cop-out ideas.

Quoted message said:

Seizure of uninsured vehicles 🙂

There is a much easier way, and it would ensure that all collisions are
actually covered by insurance. But if revenge, rather than justice, is
the goal then this will do nicely.

Quoted message said:

Endorsement of licence for mobile phone use whilst driving 🙂

No. Missed the mark again. All the new regs give is endorsement of
licence for being seen to be using a hand-held phone. It doesn't tackle
the dangerous part, that of /using/ a mobile phone whilst in control of
a vehicle, whether it is hand-held or hands-free. And it doesn't cover
using one when in charge of other dangerous machinery or plant either!!!
Another cop-out aimed at easy convictions rather than culpable actions.

Quoted message said:

Unlicenced drivers guilty of Causing Death Dangerous Driving if
they...Close 🙂

Why the obsession with creating low-proof, easy to prosecute, offences,
and only for motorists???

Quoted message said:

Ye Haaa

Pathetic.

--
Matt B

Up jumped the troll...

Really if your brains were formed into rounds I could use them for
blowing holes in tanks.

Is it nice out there in La La Land, snice you seem to have the
intelect of a Tele Tubby.

Bye then.

Sniper8052

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:34:06 -0000, "wafflycat"

w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

What's the betting the local troll objects to unfairness against motorists,
and shouldn't the police be looking at serious stuff etc., etc., etc., of
all the drivel it is known for :-D

The local troll seems to be getting more and more desperate for
attention; he's fastening on to any post to which he can attempt to
attach a diversion into said drivel.

Don't bite.

Bad Sniper, no sticky buns for you.

wafflycat said:

What's the betting the local troll objects to unfairness against
motorists,

How is it unfair against motorists? Is it that they require "special"
laws with lower standards of proof to be more certain of convicting them
of something/anything?

You could perhaps argue that it is unfair to those who are victims of
non-motorists, because only time-tested common law is available to them,
and they therefore have no opportunity to seek revenge without a robust
case, and due consideration by twelve good men and true.

Quoted message said:

and shouldn't the police be looking at serious stuff etc.,
etc., etc., of all the drivel it is known for :-D

Whoever "it" might be. Evidently it isn't me at least, as I've never
commented on how I think the police should spend their time.

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

wafflycat' w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

What's the betting the local troll objects to unfairness against motorists,
and shouldn't the police be looking at serious stuff etc., etc., etc., of
all the drivel it is known for :-D

Don't feed.

She wouldn't be so /hypocritical/ - would she?

Quoted message said:

Whilst some of his points are valid, most are hopelessly
naive or deranged.

So "he" is /not/ a troll then.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure he wouldn't object to removing any kind of licensing.
why do I need proof of medical training before I am allowed to carry
out surgery? Surely anyone who is competent should be allowed to do
it...

What is the purpose of a licence if an acceptable level of competency
has been demonstrated? Cyclists don't need licences, but they can be
banned from cycling if it is determined that their cycling is a bad thing.

Quoted message said:

It is an excellent change in teh law and one which will make life much
easier for the police and judiciary, allowing the rest of us (who
behave responsibly and fulfil our social contract) to live life just
that bit safer.

It is a cop-out of having to deal with the real issues, and a sop -
which many here seem to have fallen for.

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Remember what I said a couple of weeks ago, well...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060049_en.pdf

Another desperate and poorly framed law specifically targeting motorists
rather than specifically dangerous or reckless criminal acts. Like the
kerb-crawling one mentioned in another thread. All this will result in
is even more lazy prosecuting, with the less serious offences being used
rather than manslaughter which is used for culpable violent deaths where
motor vehicles aren't involved.

Quoted message said:

If I were big headed I would say it's 3 out of 3 to me but I know
there's a lot more behind these things than the guidence meetings I have
attended. Still...

You should be ashamed, not proud, that you cannot see the paucity of
justice involved in these cop-out ideas.

Quoted message said:

Seizure of uninsured vehicles 🙂

There is a much easier way, and it would ensure that all collisions are
actually covered by insurance. But if revenge, rather than justice, is
the goal then this will do nicely.

Quoted message said:

Endorsement of licence for mobile phone use whilst driving 🙂

No. Missed the mark again. All the new regs give is endorsement of
licence for being seen to be using a hand-held phone. It doesn't tackle
the dangerous part, that of /using/ a mobile phone whilst in control of
a vehicle, whether it is hand-held or hands-free. And it doesn't cover
using one when in charge of other dangerous machinery or plant either!!!
Another cop-out aimed at easy convictions rather than culpable actions.

Quoted message said:

Unlicenced drivers guilty of Causing Death Dangerous Driving if
they...Close 🙂

Why the obsession with creating low-proof, easy to prosecute, offences,
and only for motorists???

Quoted message said:

Ye Haaa

Pathetic.

Up jumped the troll...

What troll?

Quoted message said:

Really if your brains were formed into rounds I could use them for
blowing holes in tanks.

Remember what you've always been told about ad hominen? All it does is
expose the weakness of your position.

Quoted message said:

Is it nice out there in La La Land, snice you seem to have the
intelect of a Tele Tubby.

Yes, like that.

Quoted message said:

Bye then.

That's what you said last time. ;-)

--
Matt B

Tony Raven said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote on 04/03/2007 20:40 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Sorry I could not copy the act as I only have Acrotat Reader but you
get the idea.

Use http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk for all you legislative needs.

Quoted message said:

Not sure if it's been given a commencement date as yet, probably not
as I cant find any reference to an order but it's there.

It received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006 and the fact it is called an
Act not a Bill means it is in force. So get booking ;-)

So does that mean that it could apply to the recent case where the
learner driver killed a cyclist.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Wit levels low. Attempting to compensate.

Don Whybrow said:

Tony Raven said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote on 04/03/2007 20:40 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Sorry I could not copy the act as I only have Acrotat Reader but you
get the idea.

Use http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk for all you legislative needs.

Quoted message said:

Not sure if it's been given a commencement date as yet, probably not
as I cant find any reference to an order but it's there.

It received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006 and the fact it is called
an Act not a Bill means it is in force. So get booking ;-)

So does that mean that it could apply to the recent case where the
learner driver killed a cyclist.

I don't know. I looked on the statute law site refered to by Tony, that
said Prospective, which I took to mean Prospective legislation. If it
is in force then I would think it would and should be applied.

Perhaps Tony would be better placed to comment?

Tony?

Sniper8052

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote on 08/03/2007 13:26 +0100:>

Quoted message said:

I don't know. I looked on the statute law site refered to by Tony, that
said Prospective, which I took to mean Prospective legislation. If it
is in force then I would think it would and should be applied.

Perhaps Tony would be better placed to comment?

Tony?

Sniper8052

You are indeed correct and on further investigation it appears they are
expected to come into effect in the Autumn.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy