Re: Another wrist slapping

[spindrift]

Sorry, but she's got to go to jail for this.

The basic cause of the incident has nothing to do with shoes, it is
that she was indulging in "let's see what it'll do" style driving,
while in a busy 30mph zone. This indicates a complete lack of thought
as to the possible consequences of her actions.

Jail should only be for people who pose a danger to the public - I
think this meets that criteria amply. Sending poeple to jail for
failing to pay fines is a waste of moeny and time - far better to get
doing something constructuve in the community, but not appropriate
when you are a killer.

As for the driving ban - useless, check out the court reports in any
local paper to see how many people are caught for driving while
banned, and the pitifully low penalties they get.

If you kill someone as a result of not abeying the law you should be
jailed, end of argument.

The attempted suicide (if true, which i doubt) does indicate the
driver herself does not feel adequately punished.
Perhaps a few years in one of her majesty's compulsory hotels would
help her own state of mind

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> If you kill someone as a result of not abeying the law you should be
> jailed, end of argument.

The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death? To
answer that question you need to be clear that if that law was being
obeyed at the time, /no/ death could possibly have occurred.

--
Matt B

[Wally[_2_]]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:

> The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death?

Speeding and driving without due care and attention. What did the parked car
do? Jump out and surprise her??

She was driving far too fast, in an unfamiliar car, and was too stupid to
notice a ****ing *stationary* hazard until the last instant. She overreacted
to avoid it and lost control of the car. And this, after she's already had
her arse kicked twice for speeding. She's a moron who should be jailed.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

[spindrift]

On 29 May, 02:11, "Wally" > wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
> > The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death?
>
> Speeding and driving without due care and attention. What did the parked car
> do? Jump out and surprise her??
>
> She was driving far too fast, in an unfamiliar car, and was too stupid to
> notice a ****ing *stationary* hazard until the last instant. She overreacted
> to avoid it and lost control of the car. And this, after she's already had
> her arse kicked twice for speeding. She's a moron who should be jailed.
>
> --
> Wallywww.wally.myby.co.uk
> Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Exactly, well said.


What the pro-speeding lobby groups like safespeeding do is legitimise
this kind of dangerous driving. It's almost a weekly occurence for
someone to register on the safespeeding site, say that they have just
been caught speeding, and ask if there is anything that they can do to
get away with it.

Safespeeding is a magnet for poor drivers like Hunter, dangerous
drivers and drivers who wrongly think that they know best. And under
that definition the minority site is well deserved of its national
mockery and disgust.

[Matt B]

Wally wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>
>> The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death?
>
> Speeding and driving without due care and attention.

Which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and driving without due care
and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If, in this case, there was
no speeding or no careless driving, there would have been /no/ death.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> On 29 May, 02:11, "Wally" > wrote:
>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>>> The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death?
>> Speeding and driving without due care and attention. What did the parked car
>> do? Jump out and surprise her??
>>
>> She was driving far too fast, in an unfamiliar car, and was too stupid to
>> notice a ****ing *stationary* hazard until the last instant. She overreacted
>> to avoid it and lost control of the car. And this, after she's already had
>> her arse kicked twice for speeding. She's a moron who should be jailed.
>>
> Exactly, well said.

You'll know then, which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and
driving without due care and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If,
in this case, there was no speeding or no careless driving, there would
have been /no/ death.

> What the pro-speeding lobby groups like safespeeding do...

I thought they supported the intelligent enforcement of speed limits.
Hardly "pro-speeding" then - unless you have evidence to the contrary.

> is legitimise
> this kind of dangerous driving.

A non sequitur, then.

> It's almost a weekly occurence for
> someone to register on the safespeeding site, say that they have just
> been caught speeding, and ask if there is anything that they can do to
> get away with it.

So it's /not/ the site, as you said, but anonymous posters to a forum it
hosts. I'm sure even you would agree that it is difficult for a site to
control the views of its contributors. Would you censor the views you
disagree with?

> Safespeeding is a magnet for poor drivers like Hunter, dangerous
> drivers and drivers who wrongly think that they know best. And under
> that definition the minority site is well deserved of its national
> mockery and disgust.

It attracts the wrong sort of poster - does it. Hmmm. Should public
freedom of expression be suppressed?

--
Matt B

[Wally[_2_]]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:

> Which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and driving without due
> care and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If, in this case,
> there was no speeding or no careless driving, there would have been
> /no/ death.

What sort of bull**** line of argument are you seeking to deploy with this
crap?


For the record: Almost all accidents are the result of bad driving. The
solution, therefore, is to improve the standard of driving. Your argument
that we can mitigate stupidity and carelessness by changing the shape of the
roads, the features around them, segregation of users, or whatever, doesn't
hold in my view. There's no such thing as idiot-proof - they'll always come
up with a better idiot. The only way to fix idiocy is to get rid of the
idiots. Advanced driving tests for all drivers, and regular retests - fail,
and you're off the road.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 29 May, 19:38, "Wally" > wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
> > Which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and driving without due
> > care and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If, in this case,
> > there was no speeding or no careless driving, there would have been
> > /no/ death.
>
> What sort of bull**** line of argument are you seeking to deploy with this
> crap?
>
> For the record: Almost all accidents are the result of bad driving. The
> solution, therefore, is to improve the standard of driving. Your argument
> that we can mitigate stupidity and carelessness by changing the shape of the
> roads, the features around them, segregation of users, or whatever, doesn't
> hold in my view. There's no such thing as idiot-proof - they'll always come
> up with a better idiot. The only way to fix idiocy is to get rid of the
> idiots. Advanced driving tests for all drivers, and regular retests - fail,
> and you're off the road.
>
> --
> Wallywww.wally.myby.co.uk
> You're unique - just like everybody else.

Certainly a way forward, we can start with the cyclists...Since they
have demonstrated absolutely no competency or understanding at all.

[Wally[_2_]]

The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

> Certainly a way forward, we can start with the cyclists...Since they
> have demonstrated absolutely no competency or understanding at all.

There's a subtle difference between a troll that's transparent, and one
that's invisible.

I'm not a cyclist, I just happen to own a cycle. I'm a car driver.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

[Matt B]

Wally wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>
>> Which of the following is true: 1) Speeding and driving without due
>> care and attention /always/ results in death, 2) If, in this case,
>> there was no speeding or no careless driving, there would have been
>> /no/ death.
>
> What sort of bull**** line of argument are you seeking to deploy with this
> crap?

Do you remember the context of the question?

It was...

spindrift:
If you kill someone as a result of not abeying the law you should be
jailed, end of argument.

Matt B:
The breaking of which particular law directly resulted in the death?

Wally:
Speeding and driving without due care and attention.

From which it was reasonable to assume that you thought that it was the
breaking of those laws that lead directly to the unfortunate
consequences. My last question was a logical extension based on your
answers.

Do you now deny that it was a reasonable follow-up?

> For the record: Almost all accidents are the result of bad driving.

Not so much "bad driving", bur driver error. We are all human, and we
do, occasionally make a mistake. Usually those mistakes result in a
brief panic reaction, and then calm is restored. Sometimes, usually due
to an unpredictable set of coincidences, a nightmare scenario results.

> The
> solution, therefore, is to improve the standard of driving.

A solution based on a false premise, so not really a solution at all.

> Your argument
> that we can mitigate stupidity and carelessness by changing the shape of the
> roads, the features around them, segregation of users, or whatever, doesn't
> hold in my view.

The same false premise. We /can/ design into the system tolerance and
forgivingness for road user errors. We can minimise the chances of error.

> There's no such thing as idiot-proof - they'll always come
> up with a better idiot.

Deliberate, or wanton recklessness, and abuse of the roads, cannot
easily be catered for, those are the actions that we need the police to
deal with.

> The only way to fix idiocy is to get rid of the
> idiots.

Well yes. But that won't cure our road casualty problem.

> Advanced driving tests for all drivers, and regular retests - fail,
> and you're off the road.

Why? Surely the ideal would be to not have to rely on driver skill at
all. Let's try to make road safety sustainable, hey?

--
Matt B

[Wally[_2_]]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:

> From which it was reasonable to assume that you thought that it was
> the breaking of those laws that lead directly to the unfortunate
> consequences. My last question was a logical extension based on your
> answers.

You can't see the wood for the trees.


> Not so much "bad driving", bur driver error.

No. Bad driving is the result of a lack of skill or concern. That's
different from making a mistake. Bad driving is *negligent*. Bad driving
that results in death is *criminally* negligent.


> We are all human, and we
> do, occasionally make a mistake. Usually those mistakes result in a
> brief panic reaction, and then calm is restored. Sometimes, usually
> due to an unpredictable set of coincidences, a nightmare scenario
> results.

Bull****. Driving standards are *crap*. Take a look at the tailgating morons
on the motorway - I see dozens every day in a 15-minute drive. I don't go
with this liberal ****e that you spew that some poor dumb-**** 'made a
mistake'. See above re criminal negligence.


> The same false premise. We /can/ design into the system tolerance and
> forgivingness for road user errors. We can minimise the chances of
> error.

We can train people to drive better. Oh look - they're ****e drivers! Lets
spend christ knows how much on road redesign, rather than making the useless
*******s take responsibilty for their own actions (and take on the *social*
responsibilty that comes with chucking a ton of metal around), and make the
****ers drive properly.

You're argument's ****, pal - driving ****-ups are the problem, so remove
the ****-ups. All you're arguing for is the construction of layers of
insulation around stupidity and incompetence. A load of bleeding-heart
liberal ****. If you think your proposal is better, then please explain why
driver training can't work.


>> There's no such thing as idiot-proof - they'll always come
>> up with a better idiot.
>
> Deliberate, or wanton recklessness, and abuse of the roads, cannot
> easily be catered for, those are the actions that we need the police
> to deal with.

Dead simple - jail the ****ers. If the driver that's the subject of this
thread was banged up for 10-20 years and banned for life - and if that sort
of thing was regular headline news - don't you think there would be a
deterrent effect?


>> The only way to fix idiocy is to get rid of the
>> idiots.
>
> Well yes. But that won't cure our road casualty problem.

Why won't it? (Idiots = crap drivers for the purpose of this discussion.)

Crap drivers cause accidents.
Remove crap drivers.
No more accidents.

Something wrong with my loigic?




>> Advanced driving tests for all drivers, and regular retests - fail,
>> and you're off the road.

> Why? Surely the ideal would be to not have to rely on driver skill at
> all. Let's try to make road safety sustainable, hey?

I like driving. I like being skillful at it, and I like improving my skills.
This sort of thing is also part of being human - I happen to think that it's
more worthwhile than your accommodation of stupidity and incompetence. I
have no intention of sitting semi-catatonic in an auto-piloted rubber car.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife.
(Spike Milligan)

[Matt B]

Wally wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>
>> From which it was reasonable to assume that you thought that it was
>> the breaking of those laws that lead directly to the unfortunate
>> consequences. My last question was a logical extension based on your
>> answers.
>
> You can't see the wood for the trees.

You can't see that your careless generalisation was nonsense.

>> Not so much "bad driving", bur driver error.
>
> No. Bad driving is the result of a lack of skill or concern. That's
> different from making a mistake. Bad driving is *negligent*. Bad driving
> that results in death is *criminally* negligent.

Driver and rider error are factors in about 66% of all injury
collisions. Behaviour, or inexperience are factors in 25%.

>> We are all human, and we
>> do, occasionally make a mistake. Usually those mistakes result in a
>> brief panic reaction, and then calm is restored. Sometimes, usually
>> due to an unpredictable set of coincidences, a nightmare scenario
>> results.
>
> Bull****. Driving standards are *crap*. Take a look at the tailgating morons
> on the motorway - I see dozens every day in a 15-minute drive. I don't go
> with this liberal ****e that you spew that some poor dumb-**** 'made a
> mistake'. See above re criminal negligence.

Following too close is a factor in 8% of collisions.

>> The same false premise. We /can/ design into the system tolerance and
>> forgivingness for road user errors. We can minimise the chances of
>> error.
>
> We can train people to drive better. Oh look - they're ****e drivers! Lets
> spend christ knows how much on road redesign, rather than making the useless
> *******s take responsibilty for their own actions (and take on the *social*
> responsibilty that comes with chucking a ton of metal around), and make the
> ****ers drive properly.

I have nothing against more driver training, the more the better, and
I've often expressed my opinions on that, including providing free
driving training for all school children. But given that by far and
away the largest factor in injury collisions is driver/rider error, why
not concentrate proportionally on that rather than on a minority cause?

> You're argument's ****, pal - driving ****-ups are the problem, so remove
> the ****-ups.

Errors, yes. Design to minimise them, and to minimise the impact of
those which remain.

> All you're arguing for is the construction of layers of
> insulation around stupidity and incompetence.

Not at all. Look around you, open your eyes. Allow normal human
reactions and interaction skills to do what they have evolved to do
well. Do not funnel motor traffic down a protected track and expect all
drivers to defy human nature all of the time. Remove the distinction
between the "road" and the "path". Allow drivers to negotiate passage
with pedestrians and cyclists. Where traffic can be allowed, even
expected, to go fast, on inter-urban journeys, allow it to do so safely,
by segregating traffic travelling in opposite directions, and by
ensuring that slow vehicles and pedestrians don't get in the way
(motorways).

> A load of bleeding-heart
> liberal ****. If you think your proposal is better, then please explain why
> driver training can't work.

I've explained (I think). Driver training can help, but human nature
will prevail.

>>> There's no such thing as idiot-proof - they'll always come
>>> up with a better idiot.
>> Deliberate, or wanton recklessness, and abuse of the roads, cannot
>> easily be catered for, those are the actions that we need the police
>> to deal with.
>
> Dead simple - jail the ****ers. If the driver that's the subject of this
> thread was banged up for 10-20 years and banned for life - and if that sort
> of thing was regular headline news - don't you think there would be a
> deterrent effect?

Yes, like I say against the wanton criminal element, but they account
for a minority of road casualties, so even eliminating them entirely
will only dent the casualty figures. The big contributor to road
casualties has hardly been tackled yet. Witness the annual road carnage.

>>> The only way to fix idiocy is to get rid of the
>>> idiots.
>> Well yes. But that won't cure our road casualty problem.
>
> Why won't it? (Idiots = crap drivers for the purpose of this discussion.)

See above.

> Crap drivers cause accidents.

Yes, but a minority of them.

> Remove crap drivers.
> No more accidents.

No. Even removing all "crap" drivers will still leave us with most of
the accidents.

> Something wrong with my loigic?

You tell me. If you were being attacked by a lion and by a mouse at the
same time, would you be grateful if your saviours expended all their
efforts trying to subdue the mouse?

>>> Advanced driving tests for all drivers, and regular retests - fail,
>>> and you're off the road.
>
>> Why? Surely the ideal would be to not have to rely on driver skill at
>> all. Let's try to make road safety sustainable, hey?
>
> I like driving. I like being skillful at it, and I like improving my skills.

Admirable.

> This sort of thing is also part of being human - I happen to think that it's
> more worthwhile than your accommodation of stupidity and incompetence. I
> have no intention of sitting semi-catatonic in an auto-piloted rubber car.

Excellent. But should we allow public roads to remain dangerous so that
people like you can enjoy their hobby to the full on them? Should Joe
Public be denied access to public roads because you "have no intention"
of accepting that the roads could be safer? Today we are sacrificing
more than 3000 people per year unnecessarily. Are you happy for that
situation to continue?

--
Matt B