MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
The car
It's pretty simple. If you wanted to off someone with minimal consequences, do it with your car
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37275528
His age should be irrelevant here. A £5,000 fine and a five year ban is laughably bad. The horrid old cretin denied responsibility continuously.
By my calculations he passed his test in 1931 when the criteria for driving would have been substantially different from what is required today. Yet other than applying to the dvla once you reach 70 there is no restriction other than medical related that would stop a licence being issued???
Luckily, we convinced the farther in law to surrender his driving licence before he did something that couldn't be undone.
Would have been nice to get a thank you letter back from the DVLA as some form or recognition as to just how much of a sacrifice he'd made.
Not 'murder' though, is it?
Should be manslaughter, really. Yes, ridiculously lenient - the other one announced today was a nurse who killed someone by overtaking a lorry without looking and wiping them out. Community service and 2 year ban.
clodhopper - Member
Not 'murder' though, is it?
No but the fact is killing someone with a car seems to result in ridiculously low penalties
It's all very well getting a Fly6 rear light with HD camera and something similar on the front, but until the courts start handing out stronger sentences for careless driving, these gadgets are giving cyclists a very false sense of security IMO.
Icicle?
It was an accident. It certainly wasn't helped by the fact the dumb old fool was too damn stubborn to hold his hands up and accept responsibility, but an accident all the same.
It was an accident.
Compare with corporate manslaughter - a quick example from Google:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/failed_company_and_its_manager_convicted/
2 years suspended sentence, £600,000 fine.
That's what it should be treated as.
[quote=johndoh ]It was an accident. It certainly wasn't helped by the fact the dumb old fool was too damn stubborn to hold his hands up and accept responsibility, but an accident all the same.
It was highly likely it was deliberate but te fact remains he somehow managed to "accidently" reverse a car over somone and leave it on to p of them
The real issue here is whether he could meet the necessary skill level and whether he knew his health was sufficient to let him drive
I have to wear contacts to drive
if i dont use them i wont mean to kill anyone but it would be beyond irresponsible to do this
Sometimes its a "foreseeable" accident - this may well have been
The broad point is the sentence for the death of someone caused by your lack of skill/stupidity in a car is beyond lenient
Tougher sentences for careless driving will not affect anything. Accidents are accidents and careless drivers don't tend to know or understand their driving is careless until something goes wrong. And even good drivers can, from time to time, be careless. it's not an issue where tough sentences will affect the risks. Better education and maybe re-testing every 20 years or so, but not tougher sentences.
i think if the risky drivers knew they were going down for 20 years they are their families may well intervene
As it stands they know elderly parents will not be banged up even if their ineptitude kills someone
If that changes its highly likely attitudes to driving will change
The poor victims family will probably never get over this. Automated cars with more safety features cant come soon enough.
It's not murder as there was no intent. Emotive click baiting thread titles don't help that aspect of the discussion.
The case highlights the importance of regular medical and driving skills tests for all drivers. The logistics and cost implications of this can be worked out by those who would have to do it.
That and short sharp bans for more minor offences might make people realise that a license is a privilege.
Terrible tragedy and needless loss of life. I do think there is a case for at least a short compulsory prison sentence for causing death by careless/dangerous driving. In relation to the other thread that should include being on the phone if a crash results in a fatality.
On the age issue. Is it not true that the (vast?) majority of fatal accidents involve young drivers ?
On the age issue. Is it not true that the (vast?) majority of fatal accidents involve young drivers ?
This is indeed true, J-
Hence the higher premiums for young drivers. At one time the leading cause of death in women under 25 was said to be their partners behind the wheel.
Never understood why society is so quick to demand retests for those over 70 when proportionally more road deaths are caused by younger drivers. Probably a refusal to look in the mirror and honestly admit that it could be "me" that is that driver one day, and that we should all be retested.
A problem with elderly drivers is that the decline in their abilities is gradual which makes it difficult for them to decide at which point they should stop driving.
And if their cognitive abilities have declined in parallel with their physical abilities that additionally makes it difficult for them to realise they have to stop.
There needs to be some external mechanism for judging their competence.
We should have mandatory retests for anyone involved in a crash and anyone accumulating more than (x) points on their licence
... and a suspended jail sentence for many of the more serious offences*, in addition to the miniscule fines. Get even a speeding ticket, off to jail
*drink/drugs/massive speeding/careless/dangerous driving
... and the law changed to enshrine (a better version of) the HC as the definition of what a safe driver should do
if he did this inside B&Q with a fork lift truck what charges would he realistically face?
As it stands they know elderly parents will not be banged up even if their ineptitude kills someone
Have you tried to get an elderly relative's licence removed? It isn't easy. GP refused to help confirm the lack of physical capacity. It took until we managed to get a formal diagnosis for my Dad from a consultant looking at him to notify the DVA and get a formal driving medical test done. Without the formal diagnosis of alzheimers the DVA was not interested in what the family thought.
I believe the GMC is looking at changing guidance for Doctors, which may help.
Not even elderly... My dad's going blind, it's a known condition on a completely predictable trajectory, he voluntarily stopped driving as soon as he felt he wasn't seeing well enough (later than he should have, but that's by the by), it was well over a year later before the dvla took it away- he couldn't even see the TV picture across the room by the time they took action. That is ****ed. And without blaming the doctors, the attitude was "we'll keep you driving as long as we possibly can" not "holy crap man, you are blind, you drove here?"
He's 83 and been banned for 5 years.
So, he'll get his licence back aged 88 having not driven for five years...
If it underlines one thing..
It's the need for EVERYBODY to be re-tested on a regular basis..
I really fail to understand why we dont have the legislation in place for a mandatory medical and re-test once you reach a certain age?. Is it too much like common sense or something?
It's all part of how we treat driving as a divine right, anything else is a War On Motorists.
Stabbed by a large icicle, will melt..
Speaking as somebody who lost their brother due to what was deemed careless driving. I would like to see mandatory evaluations for all drivers every ten years and harsher measures for driving that results in loss of life. A permanent ban and threat of prison sentence if caught driving after said ban is what I'd like to see. My views are perhaps a little harsh considering personal circumstances though.
Should have to re-take driving test every ~5 years, perhaps annually for 70+, in my opinion.
[quote=whatyadoinsucka ]Stabbed by a large icicle, will melt..
Beat them to death with a frozen leg of lamb - then cook it and feed it to the policemen when they turn up.
whatyadoinsucka » Stabbed by a large icicle, will melt..
Beat them to death with a frozen leg of lamb - then cook it and feed it to the policemen when they turn up.
Freeze giant Toblerone, use as bludgeon, eat evidence yourself.... Nom nom..... Sweet, sweet evidence!
Use a nuke. No witnesses left.
Beat them to death with a frozen leg of lamb - then cook it and feed it to the policemen when they turn up.
You Unexpectedly beat me to it.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-37276980 ]200 hrs + 2 yr ban. [/url]
an interesting piece
https://rdrf.org.uk/2016/07/04/supporting-safe-driving-into-old-age-a-dreadful-report/
Something on twitter tonight. Basically, a Tory councillor from Sandwell (ithink) tweeted something along the lines of 'cyclists, wear hi vis so elderly drivers can see you at night'.
Of course, she was taken apart over this & came back with the line that 'driving was a right' and a essential for the elderly. She actually made the claim that cyclists should wear hi vis because older drivers don't see very well at night - she couldn't understand the reaction to her tweeting this stupidity.
@funkmasterp a plus one from me. I have no personal tragedy to influence this. Kill a fellow citizen with a car and lose the privilege to drive for life as you are demonstrably incompetent.
Muddydwarf see the link I posted....that sort of attitude is mainstream
Muddy dwarf: it was Solihull, home of the aspiring middle class driver, riding a bike is for commoners.
How about this one:
http://m.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/14724217.Motorist_jailed_for_nine_years_after_causing_death_of_cyclist
Convicted 8 times of driving while using his phone, pleads hardship and keeps his licence. Kills a man while texting and driving. Deletes text messages to try to hide it. Actually got a substantial sentence, but that should have happened after the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth conviction, rather then waiting until Christopher Gard killed someone.
This was not an accident it was human error.
He's 83 and been banned for 5 years.So, he'll get his licence back aged 88 having not driven for five years...
He will need to re-sit and pass a practical driving test before he can reclaim his licence though.
There should be absolutely NO reason to keep your licence if you get a ban. The whole point of the ban is to punish and inconvenience you enough to make you realise how important/useful your licence is to try and make you change your ways.
Even if bans were shorter - 2 or 4 weeks - and employers couldn't sack you for a first ban, I believe this, plus more rigourous traffic enforcement, would make a massive difference to how people drive.
[quote="twisty"]He will need to re-sit and pass a practical driving test before he can reclaim his licence though.Didn't they change it to an extended test if you've been banned for more than 12 months?
I know it is here. Certain offenses and bans over a certain length of time.
The sad case on the A92 I think is a bit different to some cases, it happened 4.30 am in February, she didn't flee the scene.
Just think how she must feel. I know he had a high viz gear but it's a long straight road. I drive a lot and ride a bike on a road a lot and now expecting pelters for writing this
I'm not pelting - it is ridiculously easy to kill someone - with a car or in other ways - without intending to.
There should be higher standards and stiffer penalties for all motoring offences. But someone driving like a **** deliberately being reckless is a different kettle of fish to someone who makes a momentary error of judgement - which we all do - and then hits someone. The sentencing and internet pitchforking need to reflect this.
The problem comes when there is little evidence and/or no witnesses. Can I add "black boxes" to my list of driving "wants"?
Just managed to get my grandmother to hang up her string backs. She made a few inconsequential errors in a short space of time that helped the decision.