[News] Just 3 years for killing a boy through dangerous driving

[Stat Brother]

Strictly speaking, there is no automatic right to drive, you have to pass a test. Unfortunately, a minority ignore this requirement.

Which means you're able to drive a car for the next 70 or so years - madness.

 

[drew]

Why bring cyclists into it? Here’s a better idea - motorists pay even more tax for polluting the atmosphere and can also finance more pollution absorbing roadside trees to be planted while us non-car owning cyclists get a reduction in our taxes. Sound good? Some people.

You are aware that combustion engines are in the process of being phased out? Also, exactly what tax should a cyclist get a reduction in bearing in mind you don't pay any tax as a cyclist?

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

So you agree that motorists are getting a tax break just because fuel duty hasn't gone up! I suppose you'd say the same about everyone that pays income tax if the rate doesn't go up or any other tax for that matter.

It was, in my opinion, a moronic comment by the OP and doesn't really add to the topic under discussion.

I don't have a problem with all cyclists, just those that seem to have a problem with every motorist which seems to Stat and the likes of Jeremy Vine.

This isn't about 'motorists', it's about 'motoring'. The distinction is slight, but massive.

Too many take criticism of motoring as direct personal criticism of motorists. Let go of that and you might have less of a Daily Mail reaction to cyclists, that are also likely motorists, and their views on motoring.

I'm a motorist - but I absolutely believe we have to change our attitude to motoring.

 

[drew]

Which means you're able to drive a car for the next 70 or so years - madness.

Well not quite. Licence lasts until you are 70 and then you have to renew it so based on learning at 17 means it's 53 years.

That said, I agree that drivers should face a periodic retest. However the other side of the coin is that there is no requirement for any cyclist to demonstrate competency on the road (or for that matter, have any insurance)!

In terms of road safety, every new car should be fitted with dashcam. Also telematics that insurers can use to determine premiums. Higher premiums for poor driving would encourage improvement.

 

[Stat Brother]

Well not quite. Licence lasts until you are 70 and then you have to renew it so based on learning at 17 means it's 53 years.

That said, I agree that drivers should face a periodic retest. However the other side of the coin is that there is no requirement for any cyclist to demonstrate competency on the road (or for that matter, have any insurance)!

In terms of road safety, every new car should be fitted with dashcam. Also telematics that insurers can use to determine premiums. Higher premiums for poor driving would encourage improvement.

Dunno about anyone else but I'd be happier if the conversation moved over to the other motoring thread.

Until such time, after yesterday saying my opinions were informed by my twitter bubble, this popped up:-
[tweet]1378750164798730241[/tweet]

Explaining my stance perfectly.

 

[drew]

This isn't about 'motorists', it's about 'motoring'. The distinction is slight, but massive.

Too many take criticism of motoring as direct personal criticism of motorists. Let go of that and you might have less of a Daily Mail reaction to cyclists, that are also likely motorists, and their views on motoring.

I'm a motorist - but I absolutely believe we have to change our attitude to motoring.

Ridiculous, it's motorists that do the motoring, there is no distinction. Like I said in an previous post, I don't have a problem with all cyclists, just those that lump all motorists into the same negative group. There are good drivers and bad drivers and there are good cyclists and bad ones.

And let's be honest, the thrust of this thread was not about bad driving, it was about grossly inadequate punishment under the law.

 

[drew]

Dunno about anyone else but I'd be happier if the conversation moved over to the other motoring thread.

Until such time, after yesterday saying my opinions were informed by my twitter bubble, this popped up:-
[tweet]1378750164798730241[/tweet]

Explaining my stance perfectly.

The thread seems to have been diverted from its subject matter due to your comments.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Ridiculous, it's motorists that do the motoring, there is no distinction. Like I said in an previous post, I don't have a problem with all cyclists, just those that lump all motorists into the same negative group. There are good drivers and bad drivers and there are good cyclists and bad ones.

And let's be honest, the thrust of this thread was not about bad driving, it was about grossly inadequate punishment under the law.

It's about attitudes to motoring. The sentencing is all part of a wider attitude to motoring. Every post you have made references cyclists, like there is some direct comparison between a car and a push bike: If a motorist needs to pass a test or pay tax why shouldn't a cyclist? This connection is part of the entire problem with our attitude to motoring.

Surely laws, rules and taxation are partly influenced by harm, cost to society etc. we tax alcohol & tobacco because there is a direct harm to society. Same with fuel, that is why fuel has a duty and vehicles have an emissions duty. The bicycle is irrelevant, despite you bringing it into it on every post.

There is a consequence of a high volume of vehicles. The whole there are bad drivers, good drivers is irrelevant if there are simply too many and too many accidents. Electric vehicles aren't going to change that if the only part that is addressed is emissions, and even that won't happen until all our electricity is produced cleanly.

No one is lumping motorists into a negative group - and this is also the problem, any changes to motoring, motorists feel it's an attack on them, not a logical consequence of too many vehicles, too many journeys, too many accidents, too many emissions, in the future; too much energy consumption...

 

[dazzer6666]

The numbers have fallen from 1.72m (the 2005 peak) to 1m now - insurance industry stats. I put that down to ANPR in many police cars and also mounted on gantries/posts in various places.

Still too high of course.

The rest may well included tossers on cloned plates.


Aside from that criminal rump, there are millions of drivers who text and use Instagram etc whilst driving. All sorts - lorry and van drivers, females and males on the school run. It’s a disgrace. Academics have studied driving competence whilst doing so, it’s possibly worse than drink and drug driving because there are literally no eyes on the road.

A few times recently I’ve seen delivery drivers in vans on their phones whilst navigating corners and junctions, the telltale sign was no indicating .... not enough hands!

A minimum ban of 18 months, no ifs, buts, “I live in the countryside”, should do the trick.

I recall when faux libertarians thought wearing seat belts was an anathema.

I see so many people texting or otherwise using mobiles whilst driving when I’m out running it’s ridiculous.........biggest culprits seem to be younger females (typically with the phone on their lap).

 

[drew]

It's about attitudes to motoring. The sentencing is all part of a wider attitude to motoring. Every post you have made references cyclists, like there is some direct comparison between a car and a push bike: If a motorist needs to pass a test or pay tax why shouldn't a cyclist? This connection is part of the entire problem with our attitude to motoring.

Surely laws, rules and taxation are partly influenced by harm, cost to society etc. we tax alcohol & tobacco because there is a direct harm to society. Same with fuel, that is why fuel has a duty and vehicles have an emissions duty. The bicycle is irrelevant, despite you bringing it into it on every post.

There is a consequence of a high volume of vehicles. The whole there are bad drivers, good drivers is irrelevant if there are simply too many and too many accidents. Electric vehicles aren't going to change that if the only part that is addressed is emissions, and even that won't happen until all our electricity is produced cleanly.

No one is lumping motorists into a negative group - and this is also the problem, any changes to motoring, motorists feel it's an attack on them, not a logical consequence of too many vehicles, too many journeys, too many accidents, too many emissions, in the future; too much energy consumption...

My comments were a rebuttal to Stat who seems to only promote cycling hence my reference to cyclists. As for your last paragraph, again, on the contrary, Stat is making no differentiation between good and bad drivers.

I'm all for improving attitudes to motoring but the biggest stumbling block is that politicians don't see it as a vote winner.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

My comments were a rebuttal to Stat who seems to only promote cycling hence my reference to cyclists. As for your last paragraph, again, on the contrary, Stat is making no differentiation between good and bad drivers.

I'm all for improving attitudes to motoring but the biggest stumbling block is that politicians don't see it as a vote winner.

Your comments are read by all of us, so you can facepalm all you want, but I'm not the only one to pick up on your comments. I've made my own points in several posts back to you, but clearly you only seem interested in rebutting one poster. I didn't realise it was that specific.

It's not a vote winner because of the overall attitude to motoring. Sentencing isn't tougher because of our overall attitudes to motoring. That is pretty much what we're discussing.

 

[marcos3263]

Im all for electric cars and hope that my next one is one however they are wonderfully quiet which will lead to an influx of road deaths as pedestrians will not hear them coming. Everyone is distracted these days by phones and I see so many walk out into the road without really looking, silent cars will be a nightmare hence I believe they are looking to add fake engine noise!
So with every driver and every pedestrian on their phone we will need more safeguarding.

Also I don't understand why people need to use their phones in the car full stop. Most modern cars have integrated systems and connect via bluetooth instantly. so I don't need to hold my phone etc. in fact it normally stays in my pocket or even in my coat on the back seat. my car controls the music and calls and my wifes car will even show/read out a text.

 

[Weststander]

Thread hijacked by an attempt to slag off cyclists.

This thread and the one about the two week old killed, are in essence about arrogant drivers butchering innocents.

I’m a car driver and have no problem with cyclists. Yes, those crossing red lights are tossers and should be fined, but they do not contribute to the thousands killed on our roads.

A complete and tiny side issue.

 

[Lenny Rider]

She has a life sentence, every night for the rest of her life, when the lights go out at night, she will be laying there, deep down knowing what she's done and having to reconcile that.

Forget all the bravado and public outrage and the signals she may give out to everyone else, strip it all down and the feelings of inner guilt will never go away.

 

[drew]

Your comments are read by all of us, so you can facepalm all you want, but I'm not the only one to pick up on your comments. I've made my own points in several posts back to you, but clearly you only seem interested in rebutting one poster. I didn't realise it was that specific.

It's not a vote winner because of the overall attitude to motoring. Sentencing isn't tougher because of our overall attitudes to motoring. That is pretty much what we're discussing.

And that is what you and I and a host of others agree on. It's also the point of this thread rather than one poster trying to change the agenda.

As you make reference to your previous comments then I'll respond. Instead of separating motorists from cyclists etc, why don't you just classify them as road users. Each can have an effect on the other and therefore each has a responsibility for their own safety and that of others. Motorists obviously have the greater responsibility as they're in control of a vehicle that can cause considerably more damage.

As for competency, why is it wrong to ensure that everyone that uses the roads is competent to do so?

 

[drew]

Thread hijacked by an attempt to slag off cyclists.

This thread and the one about the two week old killed, are in essence about arrogant drivers butchering innocents.

I’m a car driver and have no problem with cyclists. Yes, those crossing red lights are tossers and should be fined, but they do not contribute to the thousands killed on our roads.

A complete and tiny side issue.

If that's a dig at me then it's misplaced. I'm not slagging of cyclists, just one! I've got no problem with good cyclists, just as I suspect they have no problem with good drivers.

And as you say, this thread is should be about the inadequate sentencing.

 

[1066familyman]

You are aware that combustion engines are in the process of being phased out? Also, exactly what tax should a cyclist get a reduction in bearing in mind you don't pay any tax as a cyclist?

Well there's this for starters. In Belgium, people who cycle to work get a tax reduction

https://cycling.today/more-than-400000-belgians-get-paid-to-cycle-to-work/

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

And that is what you and I and a host of others agree on. It's also the point of this thread rather than one poster trying to change the agenda.

As you make reference to your previous comments then I'll respond. Instead of separating motorists from cyclists etc, why don't you just classify them as road users. Each can have an effect on the other and therefore each has a responsibility for their own safety and that of others. Motorists obviously have the greater responsibility as they're in control of a vehicle that can cause considerably more damage.

As for competency, why is it wrong to ensure that everyone that uses the roads is competent to do so?

So you are now diverting the discussion to cyclists. Again. And you're complaining about another poster trying to change the agenda.

I also classify pedestrians, pram walkers, wheelchair and mobility scooters, horse riders, dog walkers all as road users. Do we all need competency tests because motoring is so dangerous?

 

[1066familyman]

If that's a dig at me then it's misplaced. I'm not slagging of cyclists, just one! I've got no problem with good cyclists, just as I suspect they have no problem with good drivers.

And as you say, this thread is should be about the inadequate sentencing.

And the thread is about inadequate sentencing.

Because we live in a car led culture, there is inadequate sentencing. It really is that simple.

Hence it's appropriate to discuss how we should move away from a car led culture to one that puts pedestrians and cyclists first, given that, as you say, .... Motorists are in control of a vehicle that can cause considerably more damage.

 

[Weststander]

If that's a dig at me then it's misplaced. I'm not slagging of cyclists, just one! I've got no problem with good cyclists, just as I suspect they have no problem with good drivers.

And as you say, this thread is should be about the inadequate sentencing.

I know some people find [MENTION=435]Stat Brother[/MENTION] annoyinng on anything to do with transport, but he has my total respect on the subject.

What's his NSC crime? Wanting to see safer roads as there are in several continental nations, particularly in some cities.

He's a car driver and not anti cars full stop. He just wants kids and others to live. Plus he was ahead of the curve on pollution.

Petrolhead vs cyclist debates are the realm of pathetic The Argus comments sections.