Sunday Times on lorries killing cyclists [Archive]

November 27th 07, 09:49 AM

On 26 Nov, 18:17, Garry from Cork > wrote:

> You use your mobile phone driving. You lose phone and licence (as in
> Poland).
> You read anything while driving. You lose licence.
> You kill cyclist. You lose licence for good.

It's worth bearing in mind that we don't live in a police state (yet).
This sort of decree is unlikely to have majority backing in the UK
(where it's probably true to say that most people drive), so it's
unlikely to be passed as law.

Even if it was- I'd expect this would result in a significant
increase in people driving unlicensed and without insurance, which I
don't see as an overall gain.

It's the road culture that needs to change- currently the attitude is
that road deaths are the unavoidable result of accidents and the price
[other people] have to pay for the freedom provided by the private
car. Laws reflect the society, they don't define it.

I perceive a significant part of the problem as the, largely
accurate, perception that serious accidents happen to other people.
Being quite rare events, most people don't drive with the constant
awareness that they need to avoid them and hence get caught out if
something goes wrong.

I think the challenge in improving road safety is getting people to
realise, on an instinctive level, that they need to be aware of that
risk.

Cheers,
W.

GeoffC

November 27th 07, 10:04 AM

Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>
>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>
> Indeed.
>
> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.

What would you suggest?
Make accidents illegal?

--

Geoff

Tony Raven[_2_]

November 27th 07, 10:40 AM

In article >,
says...
> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> > Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
> >
> >> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
> > hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
> > killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
> > virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>
> What would you suggest?
> Make accidents illegal?
>

No but make the consequences of a ksi accident a strong disincentive.
Most accidents are from taking a risk and not getting away with it or
simply not thinking. A sharp steel spike in the middle of the steering
wheel to equalise the consequences between the vulnerable road user and
the driver should do the trick ;-)

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

Simon Brooke

November 27th 07, 10:52 AM

in message >, GeoffC
') wrote:

> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>>
>>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>
> What would you suggest?
> Make accidents illegal?

In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
should be illegal.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

Paul Boyd

November 27th 07, 12:35 PM

Simon Brooke said the following on 27/11/2007 10:52:

> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
> should be illegal.

What, making an error should be illegal? Cars are driven by humans
(although I'm not so sure in some cases!) and humans err. Sometimes the
result of those errors is a lightly grazed indicator, sometimes it's a
fatality, but they're still errors. Taking stupid risks and losing I
wouldn't consider to be an error, but perhaps that's what you really meant.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

GeoffC

November 27th 07, 01:40 PM

Tony Raven > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>>>
>>>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>>> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>>> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>>> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>>
>> What would you suggest?
>> Make accidents illegal?
>>
>
> No but make the consequences of a ksi accident a strong disincentive.

Aha, the hang 'em and flog 'em approach as expounded by the Times article.

> Most accidents are from taking a risk and not getting away with it or
> simply not thinking. A sharp steel spike in the middle of the
> steering wheel to equalise the consequences between the vulnerable
> road user and the driver should do the trick ;-)

Well, as long as the discussion remains on the level of that last comment I
doubt if much progress can be expected.

--

Geoff

GeoffC

November 27th 07, 01:41 PM

Simon Brooke > wrote:
> in message >, GeoffC
> ') wrote:
>
>> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>>>
>>>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>>> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>>> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>>> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>>
>> What would you suggest?
>> Make accidents illegal?
>
> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
> should be illegal.

But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?

--

Geoff

Steve

November 27th 07, 03:17 PM

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:35:55 +0000, Paul Boyd wrote:

> Simon Brooke said the following on 27/11/2007 10:52:
>
>> [3 quoted lines suppressed]
>
> What, making an error should be illegal? Cars are driven by humans
> (although I'm not so sure in some cases!) and humans err. Sometimes the
> result of those errors is a lightly grazed indicator, sometimes it's a
> fatality, but they're still errors.

People need to take responsibility for what they do when using dangerous
equipment, and the current laws don't encourage them to do that.

Do you think if mcdonald's accidentally killed 3500 employees per year, or
if the airport police accidentally shot dead 10 people per day we would be
saying "well that's a shame, but accidents do happen"

Steve

Tony Raven[_2_]

November 27th 07, 03:28 PM

In article >,
says...

>
> > Most accidents are from taking a risk and not getting away with it or
> > simply not thinking. A sharp steel spike in the middle of the
> > steering wheel to equalise the consequences between the vulnerable
> > road user and the driver should do the trick ;-)
>
> Well, as long as the discussion remains on the level of that last comment I
> doubt if much progress can be expected.
>

Yep, your sense of humour bypass is working fine.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

Jon

November 27th 07, 03:47 PM

On 26 Nov, 20:04, Paul Boyd > wrote:
> On 26/11/2007 18:17, Garry from Cork said,
>
> > You use your mobile phone driving. You lose phone and licence (as in
> > Poland).
>
> Sounds like a good start. Poland is in the EU, so is the UK, so perhaps
> we could start picking up some of the better laws from around the EU.
> Let's harmonize!!!!
>
The French law under which cars are confiscated for serious speeding
offences or for having radar detectors fitted would be a good start.

Jon

Paul Boyd

November 27th 07, 04:15 PM

Steve said the following on 27/11/2007 15:17:

> Do you think if mcdonald's accidentally killed 3500 employees per year, or
> if the airport police accidentally shot dead 10 people per day we would be
> saying "well that's a shame, but accidents do happen"

I think you missed the point entirely.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

JNugent[_2_]

November 27th 07, 04:43 PM

Garry from Cork wrote:

> I read that. Interesting.

> However, allowing people to get away with using their mobiles while
> driving sends out a message that it is all right for "you" to be a bit
> careless while driving. In this case, I believe that the message is
> the message

It isn't actually illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving in the
UK*, so "get[ting] away with" it is a non-starter.

[*Provided that the "use" is done in a certain way with certain sorts
of equipment, of course.]

JNugent[_2_]

November 27th 07, 04:57 PM

Tony Raven wrote:

> says...
>>Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>>Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:

>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece

>>>>A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.

>>>Indeed.

>>>50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>>>hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>>>killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>>>virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.

>>What would you suggest?
>>Make accidents illegal?

> No but make the consequences of a ksi accident a strong disincentive.

That's OK for situations where an accident results from specific
deliberate or reckless behaviour which causes out-of-the-ordinary
risk. In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do (other than
punishing people for something they didn't do deliberately, which I
don't expect is the central thrust of your suggestion).

> Most accidents are from taking a risk and not getting away with it or
> simply not thinking.

And the second of those is not as blameworthy in moral philosophy (or
in law) as the first. A conviction for DD requires demonstration of
intent or recklessness. Absent-mindedness or failure to notice
something unexpected and out of the ordinary is not necessarily either
of those things.

Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
"consequence-based justice" were it otherwise. If a misted-up full
pint of lager slipped through your sweaty fingers on a hot night in
the pub (it's certainly happened to me), should you be liable for
criminal damage to the glass - and the brand new carpet? And for the
injuries to the drunk who manages to trip near the spot and falls onto
a piece of your broken glass? If you are cutting up your chateaubriand
in your favourite restaurant and some greasy vegetable ends up in the
lap of the well-dressed diner on the next table, should he be able to
have you arrested for that damage to his clothing?

Of course not, you might say. But why not, if you are proposing to
make other sorts of inadvertent mistake (this side of overtly
dangerous behaviour) a crime punishable by a much harsher penalty than
one could reasonably expect for burglary or mugging at knifepoint??

> A sharp steel spike in the middle of the steering
> wheel to equalise the consequences between the vulnerable road user and
> the driver should do the trick ;-)

Yeah, right.

Simon Brooke

November 27th 07, 05:01 PM

in message >, GeoffC
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>> in message >, GeoffC
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>>> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>>>>
>>>>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>>>> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>>>> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>>>> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>>>
>>> What would you suggest?
>>> Make accidents illegal?
>>
>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
>> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
>> should be illegal.
>
> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?

Yes.

90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences of
being involved in a collision would include never driving again, you'd
find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to zero, I
agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

Ian Smith

November 27th 07, 06:05 PM

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> > No but make the consequences of a ksi accident a strong disincentive.
>
> That's OK for situations where an accident results from specific
> deliberate or reckless behaviour which causes out-of-the-ordinary
> risk. In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
> reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
> normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do

Make them take care even in ordinary everyday situations, perhaps?

No, that would never do. We must not make motorists take
responsibility for the casualness with which they inflict danger on
others.

> Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
> "consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.

You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.

Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
machinery.

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

JNugent[_2_]

November 27th 07, 07:13 PM

Ian Smith wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:

>>>No but make the consequences of a ksi accident a strong disincentive.

>> That's OK for situations where an accident results from specific
>> deliberate or reckless behaviour which causes out-of-the-ordinary
>> risk. In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
>> reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
>> normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do

> Make them take care even in ordinary everyday situations, perhaps?

> No, that would never do. We must not make motorists take
> responsibility for the casualness with which they inflict danger on
> others.

Actually, we do exactly - and we do it on the basis of proven or
admitted negligence. We don't do it in the patently unjust manner
which some say they would like to see.

>> Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
>> "consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.

> You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
> a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
> Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
> offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.

That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would). So
when do we currently prosecute people for the unintended results of
their non-deliberate actions?

> Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
> careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
> we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
> they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
> encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
> machinery.

Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
more obsessive?

Adam Lea[_2_]

November 28th 07, 12:07 AM

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, GeoffC
> ') wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>> in message >, GeoffC
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>>>> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>>>>>
>>>>>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>>>>> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>>>>> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>>>>> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>>>>
>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>> Make accidents illegal?
>>>
>>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
>>> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
>>> should be illegal.
>>
>> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?
>
> Yes.
>
> 90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences of
> being involved in a collision would include never driving again, you'd
> find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to zero, I
> agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.
>

To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply in
countries that introduced capital punishment?

Tom Crispin

November 28th 07, 07:33 AM

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:07:04 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
wrote:

>
>"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
>> in message >, GeoffC
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>>> in message >, GeoffC
>>>> ') wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>>>>> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>>>>>> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>>>>>> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>>>>>> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>>> Make accidents illegal?
>>>>
>>>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
>>>> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
>>>> should be illegal.
>>>
>>> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> 90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences of
>> being involved in a collision would include never driving again, you'd
>> find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to zero, I
>> agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.
>>
>
>To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply in
>countries that introduced capital punishment?

The Chinese are baffled when it is explained to them that Europe gave
up capital punishment because it didn't work. "We have 100% success"
they proudly proclaim. "No executed person has ever gone on to commit
another offence. What method were you using?"

Dylan Smith

November 28th 07, 10:19 AM

On 2007-11-27, JNugent > wrote:
> That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
> windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would). So
> when do we currently prosecute people for the unintended results of
> their non-deliberate actions?

Remember the train driver at Purley who went through a red light and
crashed his train? He went to jail for that, and I bet he's never driven
a train since.

I bet airline captains never again see the left seat of an airliner if
they crash one.

Why should lorry drivers be any different if they kill someone with
their extremely heavy vehicles due to negligence?

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

JNugent[_2_]

November 28th 07, 10:35 AM

Dylan Smith wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>>That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
>>windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would). So
>>when do we currently prosecute people for the unintended results of
>>their non-deliberate actions?

> Remember the train driver at Purley who went through a red light and
> crashed his train? He went to jail for that, and I bet he's never driven
> a train since.

> I bet airline captains never again see the left seat of an airliner if
> they crash one.

> Why should lorry drivers be any different if they kill someone with
> their extremely heavy vehicles due to negligence?

I think you're confusing yourself; AFAIAA, people who kill themselves
in accidents are rarely recorded as repeating their mistake. But
perhaps you have an example which proves that rule?

As for driving a train through a red light, that would be an offence
in itself (whether criminal or disciplinary doesn't matter) and
whether just for that or the compounded offence of crashing the train
as a result of it, the TOC might well be justified in sacking the
driver, which would make his driving a train ever again rather
unlikely (given the close-knit nature of the industry and the fact
that there are only a relatively few potential alternative employers,
all of whom would be well aware of the incident). Driving a train is
something a train-driver can only do if they can find a TOC willing to
trust him with their train.

That's not quite the same thing as a lorry driver (or any sort of
professional road vehicle driver) being sacked from a particular job
(for whatever reason - it might be for fiddling the petty cash). He
would be free to drive home in his car. Or to ride on his bike. And,
of course, even in the unlikely event that no other transport company
would employ him, he'd be at liberty to start his own company.

Finally, you use the emotive phrase "killing someone" as a catch-all
to describe any fatal accident - even one where the driver was not at
fault. Perhaps penalising someone severely for something they didn't
do is your idea of justice. It wouldn't be most people's, which is the
central issue.

Simon Brooke

November 28th 07, 11:09 AM

in message >, Adam Lea
') wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, GeoffC
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
>>>> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
>>>> should be illegal.
>>>
>>> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> 90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences of
>> being involved in a collision would include never driving again, you'd
>> find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to zero, I
>> agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.
>
> To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply
> in countries that introduced capital punishment?

The murder rate has never been very high anyway, and murder is not a crime
of carelessness.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
; acquyntit with your Southeron
;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563

spindrift

November 28th 07, 12:15 PM

On 28 Nov, 11:09, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> in message >, Adam Lea
>
>
>
>
>
> ') wrote:
>
> > "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> in message >, GeoffC
> >> ') wrote:
>
> >>> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>
> >>>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
> >>>> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
> >>>> should be illegal.
>
> >>> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> >> 90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences of
> >> being involved in a collision would include never driving again, you'd
> >> find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to zero, I
> >> agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.
>
> > To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply
> > in countries that introduced capital punishment?
>
> The murder rate has never been very high anyway, and murder is not a crime
> of carelessness.
>
> --
> (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
> ; gif ye hes forget our auld plane Scottis quhilk your mother lerit you,
> ; in tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mind in Latin, for I am nocht
> ; acquyntit with your Southeron
> ;; Letter frae Ninian Winyet tae John Knox datit 27t October 1563- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As the feminist movement and the abortion debate have shown us, the
first thing you need to do to gain control of a political situation is
to take control of the lexicon. The motor industry has conveniently
given us the term "accident" to refer to any incident involving a car
injuring anybody, regardless of whether or not it was accidentally
caused. Accident = Crash. You got drunk and drove into a crowd of
peds? Accident. You were speeding and mowed down a ped on a pavement?
Accident. What we need to do is to start calling it anything but an
accident. At the very least it's an "incident," and it could be as
severe as "vehicular manslaughter." People driving into pedestrians or
cyclists is no "accident." At the very least, it is incompetent and
irresponsible driving and an excellent excuse to permanently remove
the perp's licence. I think a good place to start is to resolve that
there is no such thing as a traffic "accident."

95% of RTAs involve driver error. No accident.

Nobody speeds accidently- no accident.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/policy/preventaccidents.htm

[email protected]

November 28th 07, 12:20 PM

On Nov 28, 12:07 am, "Adam Lea" > wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > in message >, GeoffC
> > ') wrote:
>
> >> Simon Brooke > wrote:
> >>> in message >, GeoffC
> >>> ') wrote:
>
> >>>> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> >>>>> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
> >>>>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>
> >>>>>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>
> >>>>> Indeed.
>
> >>>>> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
> >>>>> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
> >>>>> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
> >>>>> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>
> >>>> What would you suggest?
> >>>> Make accidents illegal?
>
> >>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
> >>> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
> >>> should be illegal.
>
> >> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > 90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences of
> > being involved in a collision would include never driving again, you'd
> > find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to zero, I
> > agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.
>
> To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply in
> countries that introduced capital punishment?

AIUI mainstream theory in crime and punishment holds that percieved
likelihood of a penalty being applied has a far better correlation
with deterrent effect than the harshness of the penalty

best wishes
james

Paul Boyd

November 28th 07, 12:37 PM

spindrift said the following on 28/11/2007 12:15:

> 95% of RTAs involve driver error. No accident.

I believe that RTAs are now called RTCs for exactly the reasons you
state - Road Traffic Collision, I guess.

When the travel reporters on Radio 2 talk about delays caused by an
accident, I always cringe.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Sir Jeremy

November 28th 07, 01:34 PM

On 28 Nov, 12:37, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> >
> When the travel reporters on Radio 2 talk about delays caused by an
> accident, I always cringe.
>

You're such a sensitive little flower

spindrift

November 28th 07, 02:08 PM

On 28 Nov, 12:37, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> spindrift said the following on 28/11/2007 12:15:
>
> > 95% of RTAs involve driver error. No accident.
>
> I believe that RTAs are now called RTCs for exactly the reasons you
> state - Road Traffic Collision, I guess.
>
> When the travel reporters on Radio 2 talk about delays caused by an
> accident, I always cringe.
>
> --
> Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

The EDP did this after Zak Carr was run over and killed by a driver
that fell asleep at the wheel. Zak was a lovely guy. The driver got a
fraction of the maximum sentence:

http://www.londoncyclesport.com/news/article/mps/UAN/1571/V/1/SP/332563698677344752212

A cyclist is killed by an idiot killer driver, the local paper reports
"traffic chaos".

As was said:

Objecting to such disgraceful 'reporting' of a tragic death shows
much
more respect than the article itself did for Zak Carr's death, with
the
writer seemingly believing that most most newsworthy aspect of this
story was the resultant delay to car drivers...

Dylan Smith

November 28th 07, 02:50 PM

On 2007-11-28, JNugent > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> Remember the train driver at Purley who went through a red light and
>> crashed his train? He went to jail for that, and I bet he's never driven
>> a train since.
>
>> I bet airline captains never again see the left seat of an airliner if
>> they crash one.
>
>> Why should lorry drivers be any different if they kill someone with
>> their extremely heavy vehicles due to negligence?
>
> I think you're confusing yourself; AFAIAA, people who kill themselves
> in accidents are rarely recorded as repeating their mistake. But
> perhaps you have an example which proves that rule?

Where did I mention people killing themselves? The Purley driver didn't
die, and most airline crashes are not fatal.

> Finally, you use the emotive phrase "killing someone" as a catch-all
> to describe any fatal accident - even one where the driver was not at
> fault. Perhaps penalising someone severely for something they didn't
> do is your idea of justice.

Where, exactly, did I do that? Read the quote above "... if they kill
someone with their extremely heavy vehicles due to negligence", which by
the normal parsing of the English language rather strongly suggests I'm
talking about drivers who are at fault?

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

John Clayton

November 28th 07, 07:46 PM

"Jon" > wrote in message
news:545e8978-ebe4-48fc-809d-
>> Sounds like a good start. Poland is in the EU, so is the UK, so perhaps
>> we could start picking up some of the better laws from around the EU.
>> Let's harmonize!!!!
>>
> The French law under which cars are confiscated for serious speeding
> offences or for having radar detectors fitted would be a good start.
>
> Jon

I believe that our Transport Minister and the shadow both had these devices
fitted.
So they stated in the Commons c.18 months ago.

John

JNugent[_2_]

November 28th 07, 08:02 PM

Dylan Smith wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>>Dylan Smith wrote:

>>>Remember the train driver at Purley who went through a red light and
>>>crashed his train? He went to jail for that, and I bet he's never driven
>>>a train since.

>>>I bet airline captains never again see the left seat of an airliner if
>>>they crash one.
>>>Why should lorry drivers be any different if they kill someone with
>>>their extremely heavy vehicles due to negligence?

>>I think you're confusing yourself; AFAIAA, people who kill themselves
>>in accidents are rarely recorded as repeating their mistake. But
>>perhaps you have an example which proves that rule?

> Where did I mention people killing themselves? The Purley driver didn't
> die, and most airline crashes are not fatal.

Most air accidents not fatal? Are you including taxiing scrapes?

>>Finally, you use the emotive phrase "killing someone" as a catch-all
>>to describe any fatal accident - even one where the driver was not at
>>fault. Perhaps penalising someone severely for something they didn't
>>do is your idea of justice.

> Where, exactly, did I do that? Read the quote above "... if they kill
> someone with their extremely heavy vehicles due to negligence", which by
> the normal parsing of the English language rather strongly suggests I'm
> talking about drivers who are at fault?

I now see that I may have got you mixed up with another poster with
the same surname.

With the addition you pointed out (which was added to a thread
containing repeated calls for life bans for those involved in fatal
traffic incidents, with no mention of blame being necessary), you have
no problem. Anyone causing death, or contributing to the cause of
death, through simple negligence, is liable for that.

Adam Lea[_2_]

November 28th 07, 08:39 PM

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Adam Lea
> ') wrote:
>
>>
>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> in message >, GeoffC
>>> ') wrote:
>>>
>>>> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
>>>>> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
>>>>> should be illegal.
>>>>
>>>> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> 90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences of
>>> being involved in a collision would include never driving again, you'd
>>> find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to zero, I
>>> agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.
>>
>> To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply
>> in countries that introduced capital punishment?
>
> The murder rate has never been very high anyway, and murder is not a crime
> of carelessness.
>

The point I was trying to make was that the level of punishment is not
sufficient to reduce the accident rate significantly - I used the capital
punishment analogy as an example of the ultimate form of punishment. The
chance of actually being caught driving dangerously has to be sufficiently
high in order to trigger the risk compensation attitude in people.

Unfortunatly to increase the chance of being caught to that level would
require near continuous monitoring of all motorists at all times, which
firstly would be a huge logistical problem and secondly any government
proposing it would not see the next election.

I don't think there are any easy solutions to this.

Simon Brooke

November 28th 07, 09:35 PM

in message >, Adam Lea
') wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Adam Lea
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> in message >, GeoffC
>>>> ') wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I
>>>>>> would consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and
>>>>>> yes, that should be illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> 90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences
>>>> of being involved in a collision would include never driving again,
>>>> you'd find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to
>>>> zero, I agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.
>>>
>>> To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped
>>> sharply in countries that introduced capital punishment?
>>
>> The murder rate has never been very high anyway, and murder is not a
>> crime of carelessness.
>
> The point I was trying to make was that the level of punishment is not
> sufficient to reduce the accident rate significantly

Yes, but we aren't talking about punishment. We're talking about revocation
of a privilege. I agree with you that the probability of detection and
conviction needs to be a lot higher, of course.

> Unfortunatly to increase the chance of being caught to that level would
> require near continuous monitoring of all motorists at all times, which
> firstly would be a huge logistical problem and secondly any government
> proposing it would not see the next election.

I think you'd be surprised. They might win by a landslide. Boy racers make
a lot of noise, but I don't think they're a significant proportion of the
electorate.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from *religious*conviction." *********--*Pascal

tam

November 29th 07, 01:32 AM

> The point I was trying to make was that the level of punishment is not
> sufficient to reduce the accident rate significantly - I used the capital
> punishment analogy as an example of the ultimate form of punishment. The
> chance of actually being caught driving dangerously has to be sufficiently
> high in order to trigger the risk compensation attitude in people.
>
> Unfortunatly to increase the chance of being caught to that level would
> require near continuous monitoring of all motorists at all times, which
> firstly would be a huge logistical problem and secondly any government
> proposing it would not see the next election.
>
> I don't think there are any easy solutions to this.
In countries like Denmark Norway Sweden France Germany Belgium you hit
a pedestrian/bike with a vehicle-you are almost always going to jail-if the
police appear.
Since the motorist can never be sure if the police will appear they are
always deferential to
cyclists-except when they do-nt look of course.
Perhaps their attitude is softened by the fact that many of the drivers own
and use a bike
and admire the cyclist they see the activity as one with merit.
Tam

Mark[_3_]

November 29th 07, 12:45 PM

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:07:04 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
wrote:

>
>"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
>> in message >, GeoffC
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>>> in message >, GeoffC
>>>> ') wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>>>>> Tony Raven said the following on 26/11/2007 14:32:
>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2935510.ece
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A good article which powerfully sets out the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 50+ people were killed by bombs in London a few years ago, and all
>>>>>> hell let loose to try to stop it happening again. 150 cyclists are
>>>>>> killed (and about 3400 other road users) every year, and it's
>>>>>> virtually ignored by the law. Something's very wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you suggest?
>>>>> Make accidents illegal?
>>>>
>>>> In all my life I've only known of one motor vehicle collision I would
>>>> consider an accident. All the rest were driver error - and yes, that
>>>> should be illegal.
>>>
>>> But would making it illegal prevent it from occurring?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> 90% of it is pure carelessness. If drivers knew that the consequences of
>> being involved in a collision would include never driving again, you'd
>> find that the accident rate would go down very sharply. Not to zero, I
>> agree. But it would probably save two thousand lives a year.
>>
>
>To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply in
>countries that introduced capital punishment?

No. In the USA some states saw _increased_ murder rates after
introducing capital punishment.

M

Tony Raven[_2_]

November 29th 07, 03:55 PM

In article >,
says...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:07:04 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
> wrote:
> >
> >To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply in
> >countries that introduced capital punishment?
>
> No. In the USA some states saw _increased_ murder rates after
> introducing capital punishment.
>

Did that include the ones the state murdered with capital punishment
though?

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

[email protected]

November 30th 07, 04:28 AM

>> Unfortunatly to increase the chance of being caught to that level would
>> require near continuous monitoring of all motorists at all times
>> any government proposing it would not see the next election.
>
> I think you'd be surprised. They might win by a landslide. Boy racers make
> a lot of noise, but I don't think they're a significant proportion of the
> electorate.

Colour me surprised too, were that the case. Most people consider
themselves above-average drivers and mandating that they have Big
Brother installed in their cars is tantamount to telling them they're
not. OK, "the innocent have nothing to fear", but it's not just the
guilty who are campaigning against ID cards.

You'd have to find some way of doing it that makes law-abiding
citizens(sic) believe it's only going to be used against "other
people". Like town centre CCTV only works on hoodies and child molestors.

-dan

Mark[_3_]

November 30th 07, 11:03 AM

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:28:40 +0000, wrote:

>>> Unfortunatly to increase the chance of being caught to that level would
>>> require near continuous monitoring of all motorists at all times
> >> any government proposing it would not see the next election.
>>
>> I think you'd be surprised. They might win by a landslide. Boy racers make
>> a lot of noise, but I don't think they're a significant proportion of the
>> electorate.
>
>Colour me surprised too, were that the case. Most people consider
>themselves above-average drivers and mandating that they have Big
>Brother installed in their cars is tantamount to telling them they're
>not. OK, "the innocent have nothing to fear", but it's not just the
>guilty who are campaigning against ID cards.

In fact it is only the "innocent" that have to fear ID cards/NIR since
the "guilty" will find ways to circumvent the system.

M

Mark[_3_]

November 30th 07, 11:04 AM

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:55:29 -0000, Tony Raven
> wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:07:04 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >To be honest I seriously doubt this. Has the murder rate dropped sharply in
>> >countries that introduced capital punishment?
>>
>> No. In the USA some states saw _increased_ murder rates after
>> introducing capital punishment.
>>
>
>Did that include the ones the state murdered with capital punishment
>though?

LOL! And no, the figures did not include these.

M

CJ[_2_]

November 30th 07, 11:21 AM

On 28 Nov, 20:02, JNugent >
wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> > JNugent > wrote:
> > Where did I mention people killing themselves? The Purley driver didn't
> > die, and most airline crashes are not fatal.
>
> Most air accidents not fatal? Are you including taxiing scrapes?
>
As it happens, one of my MTBing buddies is an airline pilot. So far as
I know he's not had any taxiing scrapes, but did once fly through a
storm that didn't look as intense as it turned out to be, resulting in
hailstone damage to the front of his jet. He nevertheless landed
safely, passengers untroubled (until they got out and looked back at
the plane!) but was immediately grounded whilst the incident was
investigated. He didn't get to fly again for over a year, during which
he had to undergo and pass a rigourous course of re-training. All this
for misjudging the apperance of a cloud and safely landing a damaged
plane.

It's a bit like a coach driver misjudging the height of a low branch,
but managing to deliver his passengers safely to their destination
despite a dented roof and cracked windscreen. I frankly doubt that
driver would have his PSV licence suspended pending re-training and re-
examination.

Though it was a trying time for my friend, I'm sure we all agree it's
a good thing the airlines are that careful. I think it would be better
if similar strictures applied to all licensed drivers on the road, in
proportion to the class of license and the potential for causing
injury to others that goes with the type of vehicle they are thereby
entitled to drive.

Dylan Smith

November 30th 07, 12:40 PM

On 2007-11-28, JNugent > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> Where did I mention people killing themselves? The Purley driver didn't
>> die, and most airline crashes are not fatal.
>
> Most air accidents not fatal? Are you including taxiing scrapes?

An awful lot of aircraft do things like run off the end/sides of
runways, land hard and collapse landing gear, land with the parking
brake applied etc. The reason you have the perception that most air
crashes are nearly always fatal is that the bad ones are
the ones that get widespread news coverage. An airliner that runs off
the end of a runway may not even make the news (especially if it was a
small regional airliner in some small town), or may only make local
news.

Just look through airliners.net - there are so many photos of dented
aircraft where no one was hurt.

If you look at general aviation as well - looking at the US NTSB stats
for October, there were well over 100 accidents. Only a few were fatal.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

JNugent[_2_]

November 30th 07, 11:35 PM

CJ wrote:
> On 28 Nov, 20:02, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>>Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent > wrote:
>>>Where did I mention people killing themselves? The Purley driver didn't
>>>die, and most airline crashes are not fatal.
>>
>>Most air accidents not fatal? Are you including taxiing scrapes?
>>
>
> As it happens, one of my MTBing buddies is an airline pilot. So far as
> I know he's not had any taxiing scrapes, but did once fly through a
> storm that didn't look as intense as it turned out to be, resulting in
> hailstone damage to the front of his jet. He nevertheless landed
> safely, passengers untroubled (until they got out and looked back at
> the plane!) but was immediately grounded whilst the incident was
> investigated. He didn't get to fly again for over a year, during which
> he had to undergo and pass a rigourous course of re-training. All this
> for misjudging the apperance of a cloud and safely landing a damaged
> plane.

But would you call that an "air accident" (a phrase that seems to be
mainly applied to incidents which happen on the ground, even if the
aircraft has only been on it for a fraction of a second at the time)?

Ian Smith

December 1st 07, 08:52 AM

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
> >>
> >> In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
> >> reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
> >> normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do
>
> > Make them take care even in ordinary everyday situations, perhaps?
>
> > No, that would never do. We must not make motorists take
> > responsibility for the casualness with which they inflict danger on
> > others.
>
> Actually, we do exactly - and we do it on the basis of proven or
> admitted negligence. We don't do it in the patently unjust manner
> which some say they would like to see.

I'm not calling for anything unjust. In fact, I'm calling for rather
more justice than you seem to want - all negligent and irresponsible
driving should be penalised, not just the outlandishly dangerous.

> >> Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
> >> "consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.
>
> > You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
> > a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
> > Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
> > offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.
>
> That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
> windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would).

No we would not. I really don't mind you making up patently dumb
things and claiming them as a result of your own feeble mental
processes, but kindly do not say stupid things and claim that I
proposed them.

You seem to be under some seriously erroneous impressions about how
offences are decided and sentencing guidelines work. Here is a clue:

it is not necessary to have the same sentencing guidelines for every
single offence.

Further, you are STILL apparently working under the (very wrong)
assumption that the British justice system does not have what you are
calling consequence-based sentencing. It does. It doesn't currently
apply it to road traffic offences, but IF IT DID then it would no more
be automatically applied to breaking windows than it is ALREADY.

In what country (and/or planet) does breaking a window fall under the
offence of 'burglary', btw? (Though that's a different point from
those above).

> > Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
> > careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
> > we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
> > they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
> > encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
> > machinery.
>
> Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
> that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
> more obsessive?

I just did say what I really mean. I'll say it again if you want:
motorists that do not take proper care when operating their vehicles
should be penalised. What are you talking about?

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

Simon Brooke

December 1st 07, 10:48 AM

in message >, Ian Smith
') wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
>> >> reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
>> >> normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do
>>
>> > Make them take care even in ordinary everyday situations, perhaps?
>>
>> > No, that would never do. We must not make motorists take
>> > responsibility for the casualness with which they inflict danger on
>> > others.
>>
>> Actually, we do exactly - and we do it on the basis of proven or
>> admitted negligence. We don't do it in the patently unjust manner
>> which some say they would like to see.
>
> I'm not calling for anything unjust. In fact, I'm calling for rather
> more justice than you seem to want - all negligent and irresponsible
> driving should be penalised, not just the outlandishly dangerous.

Driving which kills and injures - any driving which kills and injures - is
outlandishly dangerous. We've got into a completely ludicrous position
where the law is completely at odds with common sense, and decides that
lethal driving may not be 'dangerous' but merely 'careless'. That's really
got to change. People whose driving puts others at unnecessary risk should
be prevented from driving, whether or not they actually manage to maim or
kill.

This isn't about 'punishment'. It's withdrawing a /privilege/ from people
who demonstrate that they aren't responsible enough to hold it.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans

Dylan Smith

December 1st 07, 11:58 AM

On 2007-11-30, JNugent > wrote:
> But would you call that an "air accident" (a phrase that seems to be
> mainly applied to incidents which happen on the ground, even if the
> aircraft has only been on it for a fraction of a second at the time)?

Yes I would.

The NTSB in the United States (I'll use them because they publish on the
internet - but these definitions are pretty standard thanks to ICAO. I
do have a paper copy of the UK's regulations but not to hand - they are
broadly similar):

NTSB 830.2 definitions:
Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation
of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the
aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have
disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or
in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

The case cited likely met the definition of "substantial damage".

"Air accident" seems to be mainly applied to incidents which happen on
the ground becuase, well... this is where a substantial number of them
actually happen (takeoff and landing phase). The next most substantial
set of accident statistics are weather related (particularly for general
aviation, but the weather claims its fair share of airliners, too).
Mechanical failure is a relatively UNcommon cause of accidents.
Something like 80% of accidents can be attributed to the decision making
of the crew.

Airline pilots operating privately owned aircraft, incidentally, don't
really fare much better in the accident rate than non-professional
pilots. Much of airline safety comes from having lots of expensive
equipment and a crew of more than one, and crew resource management
training (the days of the captain barking orders at the FO are long
gone).

Incidentally, I witnessed a non-fatal accident (which destroyed the
aircraft in question) in April this year. Being a light aircraft and
nobody being killed, it only made local news. Every month there are
about 20 air accidents in Britain - the vast majority result in a bit of
bent metal but no injuries and don't make the news any more than two
cars having a low speed collision on a mini-roundabout would.

(I hold an FAA private pilot license for single and multi engine
aircraft and gliders, plus an instrument rating, and have about 1200 hrs
flight time as pilot in command).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

JNugent[_2_]

December 1st 07, 02:37 PM

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2007-11-30, JNugent > wrote:

>>But would you call that an "air accident" (a phrase that seems to be
>>mainly applied to incidents which happen on the ground, even if the
>>aircraft has only been on it for a fraction of a second at the time)?

> Yes I would.

Fair enough.

In that case, we are talking of different things.

JNugent[_2_]

December 1st 07, 02:50 PM

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:

>>>>In an ordinary, everyday situation where the driver has no
>>>>reason to imagine that the risk of a collision is any greater than
>>>>normal, it's hard to see what good that policy would do

>>>Make them take care even in ordinary everyday situations, perhaps?
>>>No, that would never do. We must not make motorists take
>>>responsibility for the casualness with which they inflict danger on
>>>others.

>> Actually, we do exactly - and we do it on the basis of proven or
>> admitted negligence. We don't do it in the patently unjust manner
>> which some say they would like to see.

> I'm not calling for anything unjust. In fact, I'm calling for rather
> more justice than you seem to want - all negligent and irresponsible
> driving should be penalised, not just the outlandishly dangerous.

Driving does not have to be "outlandishly dangerous" to be judged
careless in a court. I can't imagine why you think it does. It may
suit you to pretend that it does.

>>>>Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
>>>>"consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.

>>>You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
>>>a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
>>>Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
>>>offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.

>> That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
>> windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would).

> No we would not. I really don't mind you making up patently dumb
> things and claiming them as a result of your own feeble mental
> processes, but kindly do not say stupid things and claim that I
> proposed them.

On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
irrelevant"), someone thrown through a shop window in fight or
landing up there as a passenger on a runaway bus would be as guilty of
burglary as someone inside shop late at night in a striped jersey and
mask, carrying a jemmy and bag marked "swag". You can't have that one
both ways. Intent is the (main) difference between them.

> You seem to be under some seriously erroneous impressions about how
> offences are decided and sentencing guidelines work. Here is a clue:
> it is not necessary to have the same sentencing guidelines for every
> single offence.

I'm not talking about sentencing. Neither, though you don't seem to
realise it, are you. We are discussing convicting people of offences
that they have not committed. You seem to think it would be a good
idea. I think it would be a rotten idea, but maybe I'm stuck in a
bygone age.

> Further, you are STILL apparently working under the (very wrong)
> assumption that the British justice system does not have what you are
> calling consequence-based sentencing. It does. It doesn't currently
> apply it to road traffic offences

Thank you.

> In what country (and/or planet) does breaking a window fall under the
> offence of 'burglary', btw?

On your imaginary planet, where the outcome is the only important
aspect of an incident and where intent is irrelevant. I remind you
that that is NOT my position - it is yours.

>>>Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
>>>careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
>>>we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
>>>they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
>>>encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
>>>machinery.

>> Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
>> that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
>> more obsessive?

> I just did say what I really mean. I'll say it again if you want:
> motorists that do not take proper care when operating their vehicles
> should be penalised. What are you talking about?

Those tried by a court and convicted - on specific and real evidence -
of DWDCAA can be (and are) punished right now.

Why do you want to cut out the trial? Or, if you don't, what do you
want that is different from what we have now?

Ian Smith

December 1st 07, 03:23 PM

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > JNugent <> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>
> >>>>Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
> >>>>"consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.
>
> >>>You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
> >>>a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
> >>>Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
> >>>offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.
>
> >> That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
> >> windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would).
>
> > No we would not. I really don't mind you making up patently dumb
> > things and claiming them as a result of your own feeble mental
> > processes, but kindly do not say stupid things and claim that I
> > proposed them.
>
> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
> irrelevant"),

That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID what
you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE of what
you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying about what I
have said.

All negligent, careless and dangerous driving should be penalised,
regardless of outcome. I've said that over and over and over and over
again, and you seem either too dumb to to read it or to busy arguing
with a straw man to pay attention to what I am saying.

I said it several times in the message you responded to.

> someone thrown through a shop window in fight or landing up there
> as a passenger on a runaway bus would be as guilty of burglary as
> someone inside shop late at night in a striped jersey and mask,
> carrying a jemmy and bag marked "swag". You can't have that one
> both ways. Intent is the (main) difference between them.

What are you talking about?

On your planet, are people really prosecuted for burglary when they
don't steal anything from anyone?

Even if someone deliberately broke a window (having previously
written a detailed account of their intentions) they should not be
prosecuted for burglary, regardless of their dress sense. Intention
to break windows has no relevance to prosecution for burglary.

> I'm not talking about sentencing. Neither, though you don't seem to
> realise it, are you. We are discussing convicting people of offences
> that they have not committed. You seem to think it would be a good
> idea.

You are being slanderous again.

I am not proposing convicting people for things they have not done,
and I do not think it would be a good idea.

> I think it would be a rotten idea, but maybe I'm stuck in a
> bygone age.

I don't know where you're stuck, but it's clearly too far up
somewhere for you to be able to read what's written.

> > In what country (and/or planet) does breaking a window fall under
> > the offence of 'burglary', btw?
>
> On your imaginary planet, where the outcome is the only important
> aspect of an incident

Listen you stupid imbecile. That is EXACTLY what I am NOT saying.

How many times does someone have to say something for it to
penetrate your thick skull? So far I'm at seven I think, and you
still haven't noticed.

ALL DRIVERS SHOULD BE PENALISED FOR ALL CARELESS, NEGLIGENT OR
DANGEROUS DRIVING.

Eight.

> >>>Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
> >>>careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
> >>>we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
> >>>they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
> >>>encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
> >>>machinery.
>
> >> Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
> >> that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
> >> more obsessive?
>
> > I just did say what I really mean. I'll say it again if you want:
> > motorists that do not take proper care when operating their vehicles
> > should be penalised. What are you talking about?
>
> Those tried by a court and convicted - on specific and real evidence -
> of DWDCAA can be (and are) punished right now.
>
> Why do you want to cut out the trial?

I don't. You must be hearing voices again. I imagine nurse will be
along with your medication shortly.

> Or, if you don't, what do you
> want that is different from what we have now?

I want all motorists that do not take proper care when operating their
vehicles to be penalised.

Nine.

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

JNugent[_2_]

December 1st 07, 05:12 PM

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>JNugent <> wrote:
>>>>Ian Smith wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, JNugent <> wrote:

>>>>>>Think about the logical extension of the consequences of
>>>>>>"consequence-based justice" were it otherwise.

>>>>>You are assuming that what you call 'consequence-based justice' is not
>>>>>a standard and routine part of the British justice system.
>>>>>Fortunately, it is. It could as easily be applied to motoring
>>>>>offences as it is to the areas where it is currently applied.

>>>>That is interesting. We do not prosecute people thrown through shop
>>>>windows in street fights for burglary (on your basis, we would).

>>>No we would not. I really don't mind you making up patently dumb
>>>things and claiming them as a result of your own feeble mental
>>>processes, but kindly do not say stupid things and claim that I
>>>proposed them.

>> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
>> irrelevant"),

> That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID what
> you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE of what
> you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying about what I
> have said.

I am doing nothing of the sort. If you don't want people punished for
doing things they didn't intend to do, but which have unpleasant
outcomes, why mention outcomes at all in the first place?

> All negligent, careless and dangerous driving should be penalised,
> regardless of outcome. I've said that over and over and over and over
> again, and you seem either too dumb to to read it or to busy arguing
> with a straw man to pay attention to what I am saying.
> I said it several times in the message you responded to.

That happens NOW. [1]

So what's your problem?

>> someone thrown through a shop window in fight or landing up there
>> as a passenger on a runaway bus would be as guilty of burglary as
>> someone inside shop late at night in a striped jersey and mask,
>> carrying a jemmy and bag marked "swag". You can't have that one
>> both ways. Intent is the (main) difference between them.

> What are you talking about?
> On your planet, are people really prosecuted for burglary when they
> don't steal anything from anyone?

No, but on yours (where you originally said that outcomes are
important, even though you have now modified that), they would (in the
situation you first described).

> Even if someone deliberately broke a window (having previously
> written a detailed account of their intentions) they should not be
> prosecuted for burglary, regardless of their dress sense. Intention
> to break windows has no relevance to prosecution for burglary.

It was the being on the premises without permission which would amount
to burglary, if assessed on a "outcomes-only" basis and without
reference to intent.

But you have withdrawn that. Fair enough.

>> I'm not talking about sentencing. Neither, though you don't seem to
>> realise it, are you. We are discussing convicting people of offences
>> that they have not committed. You seem to think it would be a good
>> idea.

> You are being slanderous again.
> I am not proposing convicting people for things they have not done,
> and I do not think it would be a good idea.

So you are a supporter of the current situation, where drivers cannot
be convicted of any offence requiring intention, without that
intention being proven. That's good. [2]

>> I think it would be a rotten idea, but maybe I'm stuck in a
>> bygone age.

> I don't know where you're stuck, but it's clearly too far up
> somewhere for you to be able to read what's written.

You do keep veering between those two positions, don't you?

>>>In what country (and/or planet) does breaking a window fall under
>>>the offence of 'burglary', btw?

>> On your imaginary planet, where the outcome is the only important
>> aspect of an incident

> Listen you stupid imbecile. That is EXACTLY what I am NOT saying.

So you never advocated the outcome dictating the result of a court
case in circumstances where intent could not be proved?

Again, that's good.

> How many times does someone have to say something for it to
> penetrate your thick skull? So far I'm at seven I think, and you
> still haven't noticed.

> ALL DRIVERS SHOULD BE PENALISED FOR ALL CARELESS, NEGLIGENT OR
> DANGEROUS DRIVING.

> Eight.

That is the position we have at present. [3]

I'm glad you require no change to it.

>>>>>Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all routinely
>>>>>careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or three) - then
>>>>>we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on the basis of what
>>>>>they caused. This would probably be even more effective at
>>>>>encouraging motorists to take proper care with their dangerous
>>>>>machinery.

You see, that's the bit that causes the problem. Whoever wrote that
was advocating convicting people of things they hadn't done (or
treating them for legal purposes as if they had done it, which amounts
to much the same thing). It's now buried five layers deep in
attributions, but I think it was you that wrote it (if it wasn't, I'll
apologise immediately for getting you mixed up with whoever did write it).

>>>>Why don't you just say what you really mean? Or are you frightened
>>>>that it would make your "argument" sound even less liberal and even
>>>>more obsessive?

>>>I just did say what I really mean. I'll say it again if you want:
>>>motorists that do not take proper care when operating their vehicles
>>>should be penalised. What are you talking about?

>> Those tried by a court and convicted - on specific and real evidence -
>> of DWDCAA can be (and are) punished right now.
>> Why do you want to cut out the trial?

> I don't. You must be hearing voices again. I imagine nurse will be
> along with your medication shortly.

>> Or, if you don't, what do you
>> want that is different from what we have now?

> I want all motorists that do not take proper care when operating their
> vehicles to be penalised.

> Nine.

Since that is *exactly* the position we currently have (provided only
that there is the little matter of sufficient evidence) what makes you
think you are not getting what you want, right now? [And that's four
times that I have reminded you that that is the current position - a
fact of which I am certain you were already well aware.]

It seems that you do have some problem or other (if only from of your
outburst above - the one about treating a "careless" driver as though
they had killed someone). Is it something to do with only being able
to convict where there is evidence of an offence? If not, what is it?

Ian Smith

December 1st 07, 08:06 PM

On Sat, 01 Dec, JNugent > wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > JNugent <> wrote:
>
> >> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is
> >> unimportant and irrelevant"),
>
> > That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID
> > what you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE
> > of what you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying
> > about what I have said.
>
> I am doing nothing of the sort.

You are, repeatedly. You did it above (quoted).

> If you don't want people punished for doing things they didn't
> intend to do, but which have unpleasant outcomes, why mention
> outcomes at all in the first place?

Because you were wrong to imply that the British justice system
disregards outcomes - in some parts of the justice system it does, and
in some it does not - there's no universal fundamental underpinning
disregard of consequence.

I was merely pointing out your factual error.

> > All negligent, careless and dangerous driving should be penalised,
> > regardless of outcome. I've said that over and over and over and over
> > again, and you seem either too dumb to to read it or to busy arguing
> > with a straw man to pay attention to what I am saying.
> > I said it several times in the message you responded to.
>
> That happens NOW. [1]

Nonsense. You yourself referred to 'out-of-the-ordinary risk' as the
only sort that should punished. By implication, you accept that there
is 'ordinary risk' that is not penalised. The level of 'ordinary
risk' that is accepted is far too high with respect to road-going
motor vehicles (and probably too low with respect to other things).

You referred to "absent-mindedness or failure to notice something
unexpected" as being something that should not be penalised.
Absent-mindedness in charge of dangerous machinery is negligent and
should be penalised. Failing to notice something just because it
doesn't normally happen is negligent, and should penalised.

> No, but on yours (where you originally said that outcomes are
> important, even though you have now modified that), they would (in
> the situation you first described).

I have not said what you repeatedly claim. I have repeatedly stated
exactly the opposite, yet you persist in repeating your lies.

> > You are being slanderous again. I am not proposing convicting
> > people for things they have not done, and I do not think it would
> > be a good idea.
>
> So you are a supporter of the current situation, where drivers
> cannot be convicted of any offence requiring intention, without
> that intention being proven. That's good. [2]

You are putting words in my mouth again.

> You do keep veering between those two positions, don't you?

No, I have one repeatedly stated view, but you seem to enjoy lying
about it.

> >> On your imaginary planet, where the outcome is the only important
> >> aspect of an incident
>
> > Listen you stupid imbecile. That is EXACTLY what I am NOT saying.
>
> So you never advocated the outcome dictating the result of a court
> case in circumstances where intent could not be proved?

The outcome DOES dictate the result of court case in some cases.
That's fact. Whether I advocate it or not, it does already. In some
cases, it is right and proper that it does so.

> >>>>>Further, it's not actually necessary. Simply prosecute all
> >>>>>routinely careless motorists as if they killed a pedestrian (or
> >>>>>three) - then we avoid your aversion to sentencing motorists on
> >>>>>the basis of what they caused. This would probably be even
> >>>>>more effective at encouraging motorists to take proper care
> >>>>>with their dangerous machinery.
>
> You see, that's the bit that causes the problem. Whoever wrote that
> was advocating convicting people of things they hadn't done (or
> treating them for legal purposes as if they had done it, which
> amounts to much the same thing). It's now buried five layers deep
> in attributions, but I think it was you that wrote it (if it
> wasn't, I'll apologise immediately for getting you mixed up with
> whoever did write it).

I wrote that. I was not advocating convicting people for doing things
they have not done. That quote is not actually advocating anything.

> >> Those tried by a court and convicted - on specific and real
> >> evidence - of DWDCAA can be (and are) punished right now. Why do
> >> you want to cut out the trial?
>
> > I don't. You must be hearing voices again. I imagine nurse will
> > be along with your medication shortly.
> >
> >> Or, if you don't, what do you want that is different from what we
> >> have now?
> >
> > I want all motorists that do not take proper care when operating
> > their vehicles to be penalised.
>
> Since that is *exactly* the position we currently have

No, it is not. The position we currently have is that general
carelessness in control of a potentially deadly piece of machinery is
considered ordinary and not prosecuted.

> It seems that you do have some problem or other (if only from of
> your outburst above - the one about treating a "careless" driver as
> though they had killed someone). Is it something to do with only
> being able to convict where there is evidence of an offence? If
> not, what is it?

In this particular case the 'problem' I have is with an idiot who
can't comprehend english lying about what I have said.

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

Simon Brooke

December 1st 07, 08:51 PM

in message >, Ian Smith
') wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
>> irrelevant"),
>
> That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID what
> you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE of what
> you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying about what I
> have said.

Ian, don't wrestle with trolls. They just pull you down to their level.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

[email protected]

December 2nd 07, 06:23 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Ian Smith
> ') wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007, JNugent <> wrote:
>>> On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is unimportant and
>>> irrelevant"),
>> That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID what
>> you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE of what
>> you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying about what I
>> have said.
>
> Ian, don't wrestle with trolls. They just pull you down to their level.

BTW, you might feel he's not a troll, but JNugent has previous posting
history of willful misinterpretation -

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/8a71c90ccea66826

(and you'll see a very similar message from Simon if you read further
down the thread ;-)

My conclusion is that he treats usenet as a place to "score points"
through schoolboy-style debate and rhetoric, rather than, say, a place
to have a sensible good-faith discussion. I think he adds more heat
than light.

-dan

JNugent[_2_]

December 5th 07, 07:29 PM

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is
>>>>unimportant and irrelevant"),

>>>That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID
>>>what you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE
>>>of what you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying
>>>about what I have said.

>> I am doing nothing of the sort.

> You are, repeatedly. You did it above (quoted).

At first, on reading your uncontrolled and petulant outburst, I
hesitated, wondering whether you had something of a point. Perhaps I
had misread the bit which first caused me to respond to your thoughts
and your prescriptive comments.

But I didn't misread it.

Here it is (verbatim):

QUOTE:
Simply prosecute all routinely careless motorists as if they killed a
pedestrian (or three) - then we avoid your aversion to sentencing
motorists on the basis of what they caused. This would probably be
even more effective at encouraging motorists to take proper care with
their dangerous machinery.
UNQUOTE

I questioned that:

>> You see, that's the bit that causes the problem. Whoever wrote that
>> was advocating convicting people of things they hadn't done (or
>> treating them for legal purposes as if they had done it, which
>> amounts to much the same thing). It's now buried five layers deep
>> in attributions, but I think it was you that wrote it (if it
>> wasn't, I'll apologise immediately for getting you mixed up with
>> whoever did write it).

You responded:

> I wrote that. I was not advocating convicting people for doing things
> they have not done. That quote is not actually advocating anything.

That quote is doing nothing *but* "advocating" something.

How can you deny it?

But I expect you will.

And yes, you may have the last word if you want it, since there is no
point in responding to it because you'll deny having said it, two
lines further down.

Ian Smith

December 5th 07, 07:56 PM

On Wed, 05 Dec, JNugent > wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > JNugent > wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>>On *your* basis ("outcomes are what matter - intent is
> >>>>unimportant and irrelevant"),
>
> >>>That IS NOT my basis. Kindly DO NOT slander me. I HAVE NOT SAID
> >>>what you report. What I have said I want is in fact the OPPOSITE
> >>>of what you are claiming I have said. You are repeatedly lying
> >>>about what I have said.
>
> >> I am doing nothing of the sort.
>
> > You are, repeatedly. You did it above (quoted).
>
> At first, on reading your uncontrolled and petulant outburst, I
> hesitated, wondering whether you had something of a point. Perhaps I
> had misread the bit which first caused me to respond to your thoughts
> and your prescriptive comments.
>
> But I didn't misread it.
>
> Here it is (verbatim):
>
> QUOTE:
> Simply prosecute all routinely careless motorists as if they killed a
> pedestrian (or three) - then we avoid your aversion to sentencing
> motorists on the basis of what they caused. This would probably be
> even more effective at encouraging motorists to take proper care with
> their dangerous machinery.
> UNQUOTE

Yes, a way to avoid your aversion to outcome dependant 'justice', were
such a thing necessary.

How you can take that quote - "prosecute all routinely careless
motorists [to the same degree]" - as saying that outcomes are all that
matter I do not know - it's EXPLICITLY OPPOSITE to what you claim I'm
saying. I say "treat them all the same, regardless of outcome" and
you quote this as evidence that my basis is that outcomes are all that
matter?

But then OVER and OVER and OVER again I have pointed out that I have
not said that intent is unimportant and irrelevant or that outcomes
are all that matter - and by repeatedly claiming that I have you are
blatantly and explicitly lying.

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