Debate in Westminster hall about Road Fatalities

[Martin Dann]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates

I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found
guilty of dangerous driving.


Martin.

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

"Martin Dann" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>
> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
> sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found guilty
> of dangerous driving.
>
>
> Martin.

Thanks for highlighting this debate.

It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence --- killing by
motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of driving licence not a
brief 6 month "let off"

I am quite doubtful whether increases in imprisonment is effective and these
days costs a huge amount of money.

But permanent removal of licence would seem to be an effective way of dealing
with these sort of killers. Effective provided that subsequent driving
offences of any kind for the disqualified driver should then be appropriately
severe

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Nigel Cliffe]

Trevor A Panther wrote:
> "Martin Dann" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>
>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the
>> short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been
>> found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>
>>
>> Martin.
>
> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>
> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"


Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.


I'm of the view that the current sentencing of bad/dangerous/inappropriate
driving is too low, but a knee-jerk reaction to the other extreme isn't
going to help the situation. We'd improve safety much more if the overall
incidence of bad driving were reduced. Just removing, at most, a few
thousand drivers per year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the
roads will make no noticable difference to road safety.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[David Damerell]

Quoting Nigel Cliffe >:
>Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.

However, I very much doubt you would be able to get a firearms license
after committing manslaughter with a firearm. Perhaps the difference is
that a pickaxe is not unusually dangerous compared to other items you
might lay your hands on; a firearm is, and so is a motor car.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!
Today is Teleute, December.

[Marc]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>> "Martin Dann" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>
>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the
>>> short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been
>>> found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin.
>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>
>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>
>
> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.

So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be treated
the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me, lock them up for
a number of years and let them keep their licence that they then can't
use, if it's murder with a vehicular style tool then lock them up for
life and effectively they get a life ban from driving. You're right a
very good suggestion.

[Nigel Cliffe]

marc wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>> "Martin Dann" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>>
>>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the
>>>> short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been
>>>> found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin.
>>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>>
>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>
>>
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>
> So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be treated
> the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me, lock them up
> for a number of years and let them keep their licence that they then
> can't use, if it's murder with a vehicular style tool then lock them
> up for life and effectively they get a life ban from driving. You're
> right a very good suggestion.


I could have predicted that one..

How many possible murder by vehicle incidents have their been in the last 10
years ? In my view, less than a handful where the charge may have been
justified.


Manslaughter is a much more realistic charge; unintentional killing of
another. Manslaughter attracts all sorts of different sentences from non
custodial to lots of years in prison.



- Nigel





--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Matt B]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Nigel Cliffe >:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>
> However, I very much doubt you would be able to get a firearms license
> after committing manslaughter with a firearm.

Do you have any evidence to support that suggestion? In any case, how
many of the 3200 or so annual road deaths result in a manslaughter charge?

> Perhaps the difference is
> that a pickaxe is not unusually dangerous compared to other items you
> might lay your hands on; a firearm is, and so is a motor car.

Motor cars are not "unusually dangerous", compared to other types of
road vehicles. The latest RCGB figures show the following vehicle
involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
million vehicle km):-

Motorcycles: 471
Pedal cycles: 361
Buses: 169
Cars: 67
HGV: 39
LGV: 24

We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
safest.

If we use the model of basing penalties on how dangerous things are,
rather than intention, negligence, etc. of the user, then motorcycle and
pedal cycles riders, and bus drivers should receive harsher penalties
than car drivers, and WVM should be treated most leniently.

Would you support the use of the item "danger level" in determining
charges and penalties???

--
Matt B

[Marc]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>> "Martin Dann" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the
>>>>> short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been
>>>>> found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin.
>>>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>>>
>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>
>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>> So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be treated
>> the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me, lock them up
>> for a number of years and let them keep their licence that they then
>> can't use, if it's murder with a vehicular style tool then lock them
>> up for life and effectively they get a life ban from driving. You're
>> right a very good suggestion.
>
>
> I could have predicted that one..
>

Of course you should have, it's your idea, don't treat vehicular deaths
differently to pick axe deaths
> How many possible murder by vehicle incidents have their been in the last 10
> years ? In my view, less than a handful where the charge may have been
> justified.

Your point is?
>
>
> Manslaughter is a much more realistic charge; unintentional killing of
> another. Manslaughter attracts all sorts of different sentences from non
> custodial to lots of years in prison.
>
Fine, and when in custody, they are barred from driving.

[Nigel Cliffe]

marc wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> marc wrote:
>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>>> "Martin Dann" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>>>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing
>>>>>> the short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have
>>>>>> then been found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin.
>>>>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss
>>>>> of driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>>
>>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract
>>>> a life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>> So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be
>>> treated the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me,
>>> lock them up for a number of years and let them keep their licence
>>> that they then can't use, if it's murder with a vehicular style
>>> tool then lock them up for life and effectively they get a life ban
>>> from driving. You're right a very good suggestion.
>>
>>
>> I could have predicted that one..
>>
>
> Of course you should have, it's your idea, don't treat vehicular
> deaths differently to pick axe deaths
>> How many possible murder by vehicle incidents have their been in the
>> last 10 years ? In my view, less than a handful where the charge
>> may have been justified.
>
> Your point is?

Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle will have
a negligible effect on road safety.


>> Manslaughter is a much more realistic charge; unintentional killing
>> of another. Manslaughter attracts all sorts of different sentences
>> from non custodial to lots of years in prison.
>>
> Fine, and when in custody, they are barred from driving.


Which is completely acceptable if society wants to pay for their prison
terms, but such a policy has a neglible impact on road safety. Take every
motorist involved in a fatality off the road, every year, permenantly, and
in 10 years time you have reduced the driver population by 35,000. You
won't notice that change in the number of drivers on the road. You might
notice it in your income tax bill, as its a 40% rise in the prison
population which will need to be paid for somewhere.


Instead, spend the time working out how to deal with bad driving. Most bad
driving does not result in an accident, let alone a fatality. But its the
amount of bad driving where people "get away with it" which re-inforces bad
driving standards.




- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[[email protected]]

On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B > wrote:

> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
> million vehicle km):-
>
> Motorcycles: 471
> Pedal cycles: 361
> Buses: 169
> Cars: 67
> HGV: 39
> LGV: 24
>
> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
> safest.
>
Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
malicious.

Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
vehicle km at all.

Tim.

[David Martin]

On Dec 7, 12:54 pm, " >
wrote:
> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B > wrote:
>
> > involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
> > million vehicle km):-
>
> > Motorcycles: 471
> > Pedal cycles: 361
> > Buses: 169
> > Cars: 67
> > HGV: 39
> > LGV: 24
>
> > We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
> > motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
> > safest.
>
> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
> malicious.
>
> Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
> vehicle km at all.

And listing deaths by vehicle operated is not the same as deaths
caused by vehicle. Most cyclist deaths are due to a collision with a
motor vehicle. Exclude those, and add in the pedestrian deaths caused
by cyclists, and things look different.

It is a question of which question you are asking.

...d

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:

> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
> difference to road safety.

Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
for that view?

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

[Andrew May]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Take every
> motorist involved in a fatality off the road, every year, permenantly, and
> in 10 years time you have reduced the driver population by 35,000.

Bet it wouldn't be. If you start locking people up for killing someone
with a motor vehicle then other drivers will start driving much more
carefully and the number of deaths on the road will go down markedly.
which is the desired result surely?

Andrew

[Steve]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:26:05 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:

> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle will have
> a negligible effect on road safety.

I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit was
given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't that have a
positive effect?

Steve

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
>
>> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
>> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
>> difference to road safety.
>
> Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
> for that view?

How long did you think about that reply before you wrote it?

Even if we assume that each of the 3000, or so, fatal collisions that
occurred last year, resulting in about 3200 fatalities, had one culpable
driver, then we have 3000 candidates for a ban. If we now assume that
none of the 1800, or so, drivers who were themselves killed in those
collisions are eligible to banned, that leaves us with 1200 bannable
drivers. If we now assume the unlikely scenario that none of those 1200
drivers would ever drive again if they were banned, then we would reduce
the 30 million, or so, drivers on our roads by about 0.004%.

Now, how many of those drivers do you think would have been involved in,
let alone be to blame for, another fatal road collision during their
driving lives?

Do you now see how foolish you have been (again).

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

wrote:
> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B > wrote:
>
>> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
>> million vehicle km):-
>>
>> Motorcycles: 471
>> Pedal cycles: 361
>> Buses: 169
>> Cars: 67
>> HGV: 39
>> LGV: 24
>>
>> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
>> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
>> safest.
>>
> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
> malicious.

That would be a convenient excuse to avoid losing the argument - if only
it were true.

--
Matt B

[Nigel Cliffe]

Steve wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:26:05 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
>> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle
>> will have a negligible effect on road safety.
>
> I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
> others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit
> was given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't
> that have a positive effect?


There will be (almost) no convictions for murder using a vehicle, because
you cannot bring a case for murder without showing intent.
A driver who killed because they lost control due to driving too quickly,
whilst over the limit in a car with illegal brakes, without a license, has
not committed murder. They might be stupid, they might be driving
recklessly, they might be driving dangerously, they might have committed
manslaughter.

Your claimed deterrant for murder will be zero.


So, you now go back to the bits you cut out of my previous posting.



- Nigel




--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> On Dec 7, 12:54 pm, " >
> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B > wrote:
>>
>>> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
>>> million vehicle km):-
>>> Motorcycles: 471
>>> Pedal cycles: 361
>>> Buses: 169
>>> Cars: 67
>>> HGV: 39
>>> LGV: 24
>>> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
>>> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
>>> safest.
>> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
>> malicious.
>>
>> Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
>> vehicle km at all.
>
> And listing deaths by vehicle operated is not the same as deaths
> caused by vehicle.

The stats do not specify which party "caused" the collisions.

> Most cyclist deaths are due to a collision with a
> motor vehicle.

That doesn't mean that they weren't to blame. Many motorists kill
themselves by colliding with other motor vehicles.

> Exclude those, and add in the pedestrian deaths caused
> by cyclists, and things look different.

Should motorists killed by other motorists be excluded?

> It is a question of which question you are asking.

And of your prejudices and preconceptions.

--
Matt B

[Nigel Cliffe]

Andrew May wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Take every
>> motorist involved in a fatality off the road, every year,
>> permenantly, and in 10 years time you have reduced the driver
>> population by 35,000.
>
> Bet it wouldn't be. If you start locking people up for killing someone
> with a motor vehicle then other drivers will start driving much more
> carefully and the number of deaths on the road will go down markedly.
> which is the desired result surely?



And, go back to the rest of my post, where I said that tackling bad driving
would have a much bigger impact on safety. If people thought they would be
caught for bad driving they would be far less likely to do it (overtaking
too close, overtaking in dangerous place, tailgating, intimidation, etc..).
People do not drive badly because they think "it doesn't matter if I kill
someone because I'll only get a £100 fine", they drive badly because either
they are too stupid to know it's bad driving (so they need educating), or
because they think they will get away with it (in the sense of not being
caught for any offence and not being involved in a collision).

At the moment, you can drive incredibly badly with no consequences (with the
exception of exceeding the speed limit near a working camera).



Next look at the economics. Locking up 35,000 people doesn't come cheap. The
government announced plans to add 10,000 or so prison places the other day
for £1.2Bn capital cost, running costs are extra. Quite how many extra
road traffic policemen could you get for that sum to deal with general cases
of bad driving ? And do you really think its worth the substantial rise in
income tax to pay for all those extra prison places for drivers involved in
fatalities.



(General thread comment, not specifically aimed at A.May) I am not going to
discuss further with a bunch of "lock them all up" idiots.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Marc]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>> marc wrote:
>>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>>>> "Martin Dann" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>>>>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing
>>>>>>> the short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have
>>>>>>> then been found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin.
>>>>>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss
>>>>>> of driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract
>>>>> a life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>> So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be
>>>> treated the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me,
>>>> lock them up for a number of years and let them keep their licence
>>>> that they then can't use, if it's murder with a vehicular style
>>>> tool then lock them up for life and effectively they get a life ban
>>>> from driving. You're right a very good suggestion.
>>>
>>> I could have predicted that one..
>>>
>> Of course you should have, it's your idea, don't treat vehicular
>> deaths differently to pick axe deaths
>>> How many possible murder by vehicle incidents have their been in the
>>> last 10 years ? In my view, less than a handful where the charge
>>> may have been justified.
>> Your point is?
>
> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle will have
> a negligible effect on road safety.

May I point out that you seem to now want to treat vehicle created death
differently to other deaths.Please make up your mind. Justice has a
number of aspects, deterence is one, punishment is another, protection
of the public is a third, I don't think road safety is anywhere on the
scale, in the same way that sending killer to jail for using a pick axe
isn't measured in the scale of reducing work related deaths from misuse
of pick axes.


You really do have to decide if you want vehicle related deaths to be
treated like other crimes or not, at the moment you seem to be swinging
back and fore
>
>
>>> Manslaughter is a much more realistic charge; unintentional killing
>>> of another. Manslaughter attracts all sorts of different sentences
>>> from non custodial to lots of years in prison.
>>>
>> Fine, and when in custody, they are barred from driving.
>
>
> Which is completely acceptable if society wants to pay for their prison
> terms, but such a policy has a neglible impact on road safety.

See above.
Take every
> motorist involved in a fatality off the road,

Not involved in a fatality but those proved criminaly liable.
every year, permenantly, and
> in 10 years time you have reduced the driver population by 35,000. You
> won't notice that change in the number of drivers on the road.

But you may notice a reduction in deaths, I think the word would quickly
get around the lorry drivers that it is worth looking for cyclists, that
companies shoudn't expect their employees to asnwer phones.How long do
you think a concrete compnay would last if it was known that their
employees/contractors employed murderers/manslaughters?

[Esra Sdrawkcab]

Matt B wrote:

Car apologist stuff


Who let him out of my Bozo bin?

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
>
>> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
>> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
>> difference to road safety.
>
> Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
> for that view?
>

It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in injury/death
to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming that any one driving
error has a finite chance of resulting in an injury or worse then if that
ratio is very small then removing a few thousand drivers won't reduce the
number of total driving errors significantly enough to affect the overall
probability of injury/death.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Trevor A
Panther ') wrote:

>
>
>
> "Martin Dann" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>
>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
>> sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found
>> guilty of dangerous driving.
>
> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>
> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence --- killing
> by
> motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of driving licence
> not a brief 6 month "let off"
>
> I am quite doubtful whether increases in imprisonment is effective and
> these days costs a huge amount of money.
>
> But permanent removal of licence would seem to be an effective way of
> dealing with these sort of killers. Effective provided that subsequent
> driving offences of any kind for the disqualified driver should then be
> appropriately severe

Hear, hear.

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

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

[naked_draughtsman]

On Dec 6, 11:53 pm, Martin Dann > wrote:
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>
> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
> sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found
> guilty of dangerous driving.

Well BBC News has a story about a driver who has been jailed for
killing someone when he shouldn't have been driving in the first place
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7133881.stm

Personally I think 3 years in prison is getting off a bit lightly but
I thought it was interesting that judge said the defendant didn't want
his epilepsy to "interfere with the convenience of having a motor
vehicle" and suggests that being allowed to drive is more of a
privilege rather than a right.

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea > wrote:
>
> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
> >
> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
> >> noticable difference to road safety.
> >
> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
> > for that view?
>
> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
> injury/death.

You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.

There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
have disproportionately more accidents, for example.

In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
off. That could easily be noticeable.

Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
that remain.

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

[_[_2_]]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:

> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
>>
>>> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
>>> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
>>> difference to road safety.
>>
>> Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>> for that view?
>>
>
> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in injury/death
> to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming that any one driving
> error has a finite chance of resulting in an injury or worse then if that
> ratio is very small then removing a few thousand drivers won't reduce the
> number of total driving errors significantly enough to affect the overall
> probability of injury/death.

The above asumes that driver error is an unvarying part of driving.

Howevere, the case could (and should, and I suspect is) be made that
removing such bad drivers will serve as an example. Driving varies not
just between drivers but also per driver - encouraging all of them to
improve is very likely to reduce the recentage of errors.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea > wrote:
>>
>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>> >
>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>> > for that view?
>>
>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>> injury/death.
>
> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>
> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>
> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>
> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
> that remain.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --

I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible reasoning
behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
noticable difference to road safety".

I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an effect
on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one occasion
is very low.

[Paul Luton[_2_]]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>
>
>>
>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>
>
>
> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>
>
If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
well do.

The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.

Paul

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Paul Luton" > wrote in message
. uk...
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>
>>
>>
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>
>>
> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
> do.
>
> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
> a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
> on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>

What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
driving license?

[Matt B]

Paul Luton wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>
> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
> well do.

Road deaths account for about 0.5% of the UK's total deaths each year.
Is that significant?

Should the causes of equivalent, and greater numbers, be treated similarly?

> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban.

No. The /real/ problem is to make our roads safe and inclusive. Do you
think licences, bans, etc. play a role in that? We don't have
"householder licences", yet household "accidents" account for more
deaths and hugely more injuries per year than motor cars do.

> The requirement to
> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start

More useless laws and regulations which will make life more difficult
for those who abide by the law, whilst at the same time causing little
or no inconvenience to the lawless. To add to the rafts of similarly
useless laws which we already have, also delivering zero extra safety.

> - together with a
> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.

LOL.

--
Matt B

[Steve]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:30:40 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:26:05 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>
>>> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle
>>> will have a negligible effect on road safety.
>>
>> I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
>> others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit
>> was given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't
>> that have a positive effect?
>
>
> There will be (almost) no convictions for murder using a vehicle, because
> you cannot bring a case for murder without showing intent.
> A driver who killed because they lost control due to driving too quickly,
> whilst over the limit in a car with illegal brakes, without a license, has
> not committed murder. They might be stupid, they might be driving
> recklessly, they might be driving dangerously, they might have committed
> manslaughter.
>
> Your claimed deterrant for murder will be zero.

We are talking about a parlimentry debate where laws are made, there is no
reason why we cannot have a Vehicular homicide law as is used in the
states. In that context a new law with a few harsh sentences would have
the desired deterrent effect.

Your ideas on enforcing current laws are a waste of time. I know a road
crash investigator who deals with dead peds/drivers and cyclists every day,
speaking with him makes it plainly obvious that the current set of laws are
totally useless, even with a million extra traffic officers a weak set of
laws and a **** poor cps make the current setup a failure.

Steve

[Paul Luton[_2_]]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "Paul Luton" > wrote in message
> . uk...
>
>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>
>>>Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>>life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
>>do.
>>
>>The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
>>a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
>>on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>>
>
>
> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
> driving license?
>
>
There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.

Paul

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

[_[_2_]]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:

> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>> >
>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>> > for that view?
>>>
>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>> injury/death.
>>
>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>
>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>
>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>
>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>> that remain.
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>> --
>
> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible reasoning
> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
> noticable difference to road safety".
>
> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an effect
> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one occasion
> is very low.

No.

If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite the
low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
product of both probability and consequence.

[_[_2_]]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:39:56 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:

> "Paul Luton" > wrote in message
> . uk...
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>
>>>
>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might well
>> do.
>>
>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to show
>> a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a similar ban
>> on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>>
>
> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't have a
> driving license?

No problem - if you do not arrive or depart as the driver of a motorcar.

You would, of course, carry your licence with you while driving...

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"_" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
>
>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>>> > for that view?
>>>>
>>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>>> injury/death.
>>>
>>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>>
>>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>>
>>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>>
>>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>>> that remain.
>>>
>>> regards, Ian SMith
>>> --
>>
>> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
>> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible
>> reasoning
>> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
>> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>> noticable difference to road safety".
>>
>> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an
>> effect
>> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
>> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
>> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one
>> occasion
>> is very low.
>
> No.
>
> If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
> the
> low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
> product of both probability and consequence.

Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.

[Chris Malcolm]

Matt B > wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 12:54 pm, " >
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B > wrote:
>>>
>>>> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
>>>> million vehicle km):-
>>>> Motorcycles: 471
>>>> Pedal cycles: 361
>>>> Buses: 169
>>>> Cars: 67
>>>> HGV: 39
>>>> LGV: 24
>>>> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
>>>> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
>>>> safest.
>>> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
>>> malicious.
>>>
>>> Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
>>> vehicle km at all.
>>
>> And listing deaths by vehicle operated is not the same as deaths
>> caused by vehicle.

> The stats do not specify which party "caused" the collisions.

That's why those stats are inappropriate when considering manslaughter
by the operator of a vehicle. When you exclude drivers who only
kill themselves the stats look very different.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[_[_2_]]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:47:29 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:

> "_" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
>>
>>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>>>> > for that view?
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>>>> injury/death.
>>>>
>>>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>>>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>>>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>>>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>>>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>>>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>>>
>>>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>>>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>>>
>>>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>>>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>>>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>>>
>>>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>>>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>>>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>>>> that remain.
>>>>
>>>> regards, Ian SMith
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
>>> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible
>>> reasoning
>>> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
>>> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>> noticable difference to road safety".
>>>
>>> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an
>>> effect
>>> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
>>> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
>>> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one
>>> occasion
>>> is very low.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
>> the
>> low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
>> product of both probability and consequence.
>
> Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
> at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.

I would suggest that such a comparison is unlikely to be a good predictor,
for two reasons:

a) murder is not viewed in the same light as speeding; those who would
murder do so in spite of transgressing a number of social mores and as they
are willing to go that far they may well do so irrespective of the legal
consequences; and

b) the number of speeders is much larger than the number of murderers and
as such is more likely to include people who have "normal" characteristics
when we examine their decision-making processes.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Steve wrote:

> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>Steve wrote:
>>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:

>>>>Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle
>>>>will have a negligible effect on road safety.

>>>I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
>>>others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit
>>>was given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't
>>>that have a positive effect?

>>There will be (almost) no convictions for murder using a vehicle, because
>>you cannot bring a case for murder without showing intent.
>>A driver who killed because they lost control due to driving too quickly,
>>whilst over the limit in a car with illegal brakes, without a license, has
>>not committed murder. They might be stupid, they might be driving
>>recklessly, they might be driving dangerously, they might have committed
>>manslaughter.
>>Your claimed deterrant for murder will be zero.

> We are talking about a parlimentry debate where laws are made, there is no
> reason why we cannot have a Vehicular homicide law as is used in the
> states. In that context a new law with a few harsh sentences would have
> the desired deterrent effect.

One *has* been enacted fairly recently - Causing Death by Careless
Driving. More serious than "mere" DWDCAA and less serious than DBDD or
manslaughter. It carries a prison sentence (which careless driving
never could).

> Your ideas on enforcing current laws are a waste of time. I know a road
> crash investigator who deals with dead peds/drivers and cyclists every day,
> speaking with him makes it plainly obvious that the current set of laws are
> totally useless, even with a million extra traffic officers a weak set of
> laws and a **** poor cps make the current setup a failure.

Terms such as "failure" or "waste of time" only make sense in the
context of a set of aims or objectives. What would they be?

[JNugent[_2_]]

Paul Luton wrote:

> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Paul Luton" > wrote:
>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:

>>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"

>>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.

>>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
>>> well do.
>>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
>>> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
>>> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.

>> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't
>> have a driving license?

> There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
> reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
> occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.

"Convicted" or "unlicensed"?

There's a difference.

I bought a fair amount of petrol before passing my test. I expect you
did too.

The police *know* how to enforce driving bans. It isn't perfect (just
as your scheme wouldn't be, for all the massive inconvenience it would
cause - not to mention queues at filling stations and the abolition of
"pay at pump" facilities), but it works remarkably well.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Adam Lea wrote:

>>If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
>>the low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk
>>is a product of both probability and consequence.

> Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
> at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.

Did you mean "introduction" or "abolition"?

[raisethe]

On 8 Dec, 15:18, Paul Luton > wrote:

> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban.

We've discussed this here before. Asset seizure and amputation (or the
threat of it) will all but eradicate unlicensed driving.

[raisethe]

On 9 Dec, 13:04, JNugent >
wrote:
> Paul Luton wrote:
> > Adam Lea wrote:
> >> "Paul Luton" > wrote:
> >>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> >>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
> >>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
> >>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
> >>>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
> >>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
> >>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
> >>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
> >>> well do.
> >>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
> >>> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
> >>> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
> >> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't
> >> have a driving license?
> > There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
> > reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
> > occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.
>
> "Convicted" or "unlicensed"?
>
> There's a difference.
>
> I bought a fair amount of petrol before passing my test. I expect you
> did too.
>
> The police *know* how to enforce driving bans. It isn't perfect (just
> as your scheme wouldn't be, for all the massive inconvenience it would
> cause - not to mention queues at filling stations and the abolition of
> "pay at pump" facilities), but it works remarkably well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Doesn't anyone know how to post any more?

Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.

Thank you.

[Marc]

raisethe wrote:
>
> Doesn't anyone know how to post any more?
>
> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
>
>

Which point was it you were replying to?

If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
header AND snip the rest!


Thank you.


Next turn!

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc >
wrote:
> raisethe wrote:
>
>> > Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
>
> Which point was it you were replying to?

The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.


>
> If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
> header

I'm not sure about that. I can find it disorientating when a subject
I've been following disappears from the discussion page.


> Thank you.
>

Thank you.


> Next turn!

Your turn!

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, raisethe > wrote:
> x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc >
> wrote:
> >
> > If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
> > header
>
> I'm not sure about that. I can find it disorientating when a subject
> I've been following disappears from the discussion page.

Use a proper threading newsreader, then. One that uses all the
headers, not just an incomplete subset.

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

[JNugent[_2_]]

raisethe wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>>Paul Luton wrote:
>>>Adam Lea wrote:
>>>>"Paul Luton" > wrote:
>>>>>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>>>>Trevor A Panther wrote:

>>>>>>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>>>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>>>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"

>>>>>>Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>>>>>life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.

>>>>>If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
>>>>>well do.
>>>>>The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
>>>>>show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
>>>>>similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.

>>>>What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't
>>>>have a driving license?

>>>There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
>>>reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
>>>occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.

>>"Convicted" or "unlicensed"?

>>There's a difference.

>>I bought a fair amount of petrol before passing my test. I expect you
>>did too.

>>The police *know* how to enforce driving bans. It isn't perfect (just
>>as your scheme wouldn't be, for all the massive inconvenience it would
>>cause - not to mention queues at filling stations and the abolition of
>>"pay at pump" facilities), but it works remarkably well.- Hide quoted text -

>>- Show quoted text -

[Now that's an interesting bit, isn't it?]

> Doesn't anyone know how to post any more?
> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
> Thank you.

My post was a model of conciseness. As is my usual practice, I left in
only what was necessary to correctly convey context. I also did away
with unnecessary paragraph breaks (some of which your software seems
to have reinstated - though I have excised them once more). In any
case, no-one is obliged to read all of it.

At the risk of sounding confrontational (not my aim at all), I wonder
how much advice on usenet etiquette I could possibly need from someone
posting to newsgroups through a web-based portal.

[Marc]

raisethe wrote:
> x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc >
> wrote:
>> raisethe wrote:
>>
>>>> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
>> Which point was it you were replying to?
>
> The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.

Which you snipped.
>
>
>> If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
>> header
>
> I'm not sure about that.

Doesn't anyone know how to post properly anymore?

I can find it disorientating when a subject
> I've been following disappears from the discussion page.

How do you know it has disappeared and not just ended? Do you spend your
life in a haze of disorientation due to Usenet threads ending?

[Ekul Namsob]

marc > wrote:

> raisethe wrote:
> > x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc >
> > wrote:
> >> raisethe wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
> >> Which point was it you were replying to?
> >
> > The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.
>
> Which you snipped.

Marc, as far as I can tell, you snipped it.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Ekul Namsob]

JNugent > wrote:

> Paul Luton wrote:
>
> > Adam Lea wrote:
> >> "Paul Luton" > wrote:

> >>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
> >>> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
> >>> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>
> >> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't
> >> have a driving license?
>
> > There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
> > reasonable alternatives. If there are then well tough ! Rather
> > occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.
>
> "Convicted" or "unlicensed"?
>
> There's a difference.
>
> I bought a fair amount of petrol before passing my test. I expect you
> did too.

Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
accompanying me.

However, it is very different for holders of provisional motorbike
licences.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Marc]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> marc > wrote:
>
>> raisethe wrote:
>>> x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc >
>>> wrote:
>>>> raisethe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
>>>> Which point was it you were replying to?
>>> The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.
>> Which you snipped.
>
> Marc, as far as I can tell, you snipped it.
>

Did I ? Ahh that must have been the point I was refering to!

[Matt B]

Paul Luton wrote:
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> "Paul Luton" > wrote in message
>> . uk...
>>
>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>>
>>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>
>>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
>>> well do.
>>>
>>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban. The requirement to
>>> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start - together with a
>>> similar ban on anyone who abets a banned driver.
>>
>> What happens if you want to buy fuel for some other purpose and don't
>> have a driving license?
>>
> There can't be many other purposes for which petrol or diesel have no
> reasonable alternatives.

Any motor vehicle on private land? Petrol lawn mowers? Petrol
chain-saws? Petrol boats?

> If there are then well tough ! Rather
> occasional inconvenience than convicted dangerous drivers on the roads.

A typical attitude often exhibited by those who, contrary to all the
evidence, still think that ever more regulation is always the way
forward. It wouldn't be occasional. Such measures would inevitably
lead to huge inconvenience for the uncomplaining majority of law-abiding
souls, without inconveniencing the lawless minority for one moment.
Witness the current raft of motoring regulations, and the knee-jerk gun
laws, dog laws, id laws, etc.

If you think that a law requiring a driving licence to be produced to
legitimately buy fuel would prevent, or even slightly deter, an
unlicensed driver from driving, then presumably you would be astonished
if I revealed to you the fact that certain other substances that were
already illegal to buy anywhere, with or without a licence, were
actually freely available to all-comers, of all ages, on practically
every street in the country, and that into the bargain no tax was
payable on them either!

--
Matt B

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-12-07, Matt B > wrote:
> Even if we assume that each of the 3000, or so, fatal collisions that
> occurred last year, resulting in about 3200 fatalities, had one culpable
> driver, then we have 3000 candidates for a ban.
<snip>

You are assuming zero deterrence of careless driving here: as if nothing
will change after stiff penalties for careless driving are put on the
law books.

Consider one form of dangerous driving: using a hand held mobile phone
when driving. The fine in the Isle of Man for getting caught is not 30
pounds (or whatever the trivial UK fine is), but 1000 pounds.

You never see people driving with a phone clamped to their ear here -
the hefty fine is a hell of a deterrent to that particular form of
negligence. No one wants to risk paying a grand. So people either
ignore their phones or find somewhere safe to stop to use their
phone when they ring.

Perhaps if people realise they can get a hefty fine and a ban for any
form of careless driving, they might treat driving a vehicle with the
respect it deserves.

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

[JNugent[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2007-12-07, Matt B > wrote:
>
>>Even if we assume that each of the 3000, or so, fatal collisions that
>>occurred last year, resulting in about 3200 fatalities, had one culpable
>>driver, then we have 3000 candidates for a ban.
>
> <snip>
>
> You are assuming zero deterrence of careless driving here: as if nothing
> will change after stiff penalties for careless driving are put on the
> law books.
>
> Consider one form of dangerous driving: using a hand held mobile phone
> when driving. The fine in the Isle of Man for getting caught is not 30
> pounds (or whatever the trivial UK fine is), but 1000 pounds.
>
> You never see people driving with a phone clamped to their ear here -
> the hefty fine is a hell of a deterrent to that particular form of
> negligence. No one wants to risk paying a grand. So people either
> ignore their phones or find somewhere safe to stop to use their
> phone when they ring.

That sounds very much as though there is no "fixed" penalty system in
the IoM (for the offence you mention at any rate) and as though only
the courts can decide guilt and the appropriate punishment. If that is
the case, then I suspect that your quoted "£1,000 fine" is the
maximum, rather than a typical, fine level.

> Perhaps if people realise they can get a hefty fine and a ban for any
> form of careless driving, they might treat driving a vehicle with the
> respect it deserves.

They *can* get a hefty fine and/or a ban for careless driving. But the
whole system has been watered down for easy (read: effort-free)
enforcement and bureaucratic convenience. There is almost no effective
enforcement endeavour against any offence that cannot be measured by
the doppler effect or by reading the time on a piece of paper.

[Nigel Cliffe]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2007-12-07, Matt B > wrote:
>> Even if we assume that each of the 3000, or so, fatal collisions that
>> occurred last year, resulting in about 3200 fatalities, had one
>> culpable driver, then we have 3000 candidates for a ban.
> <snip>
>
> You are assuming zero deterrence of careless driving here: as if
> nothing will change after stiff penalties for careless driving are
> put on the law books.
>
> Consider one form of dangerous driving: using a hand held mobile phone
> when driving. The fine in the Isle of Man for getting caught is not 30
> pounds (or whatever the trivial UK fine is), but 1000 pounds.
>
> You never see people driving with a phone clamped to their ear here -
> the hefty fine is a hell of a deterrent to that particular form of
> negligence. No one wants to risk paying a grand. So people either
> ignore their phones or find somewhere safe to stop to use their
> phone when they ring.
>
> Perhaps if people realise they can get a hefty fine and a ban for any
> form of careless driving, they might treat driving a vehicle with the
> respect it deserves.


Here we see the body-swerve in an argument. Having given up on long jail
terms or life bans for those drivers involved in fatalities, the argument is
changed to one of enforcing penalties for careless driving. This is a
different case.


If you go back up the thread, I was advocating directing any additional
effort on "bad driving", through a mixture enforcement and education.



I find it amusing to watch the thread go in circles.

- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Mark[_3_]]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 08:47:29 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
wrote:

>
>"_" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:12:11 -0000, Adam Lea wrote:
>>
>>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:29:38 -0000, Adam Lea > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ian Smith" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even
>>>>> >> all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>>>> >> noticable difference to road safety.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
>>>>> > for that view?
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on what the ratio of driving errors that result in
>>>>> injury/death to the total number of driving errors is. Assuming
>>>>> that any one driving error has a finite chance of resulting in an
>>>>> injury or worse then if that ratio is very small then removing a
>>>>> few thousand drivers won't reduce the number of total driving
>>>>> errors significantly enough to affect the overall probability of
>>>>> injury/death.
>>>>
>>>> You are apparently assuming that there is a near-constant number of
>>>> driving errors per driver. There is plenty of evidence that this is
>>>> not the case - some drivers make many more errors than others. If
>>>> there is a near-constant probability per error but a given driver has
>>>> hundreds of times more errors than average, then taking that one driver
>>>> off the road will be disproportionately beneficial.
>>>>
>>>> There is good evidence that drivers that routinely ignore speed limits
>>>> have disproportionately more accidents, for example.
>>>>
>>>> In which case, taking a few thousand such drivers off the roads would
>>>> be equivalent to taking a few hundreds of thousands of average drivers
>>>> off. That could easily be noticeable.
>>>>
>>>> Plus, that's assuming that the action of removing the drivers does not
>>>> influence the behaviour of those remaining - it's at least reasonably
>>>> plausible that such a policy could increase the care taken by those
>>>> that remain.
>>>>
>>>> regards, Ian SMith
>>>> --
>>>
>>> I admit I was making a lot of assumptions probably to the point of
>>> oversimplifying the problem but I was just suggesting a possible
>>> reasoning
>>> behind the statement "Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per
>>> year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no
>>> noticable difference to road safety".
>>>
>>> I would guess that in order for removing the bad drivers to have an
>>> effect
>>> on others, the probability of being caught driving badly would have to be
>>> high. After all, people don't like paying speeding fines but they speed
>>> nonetheless, because the probability of getting caught on any one
>>> occasion
>>> is very low.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> If the penalty for speeding was changed to immediate execution, despite
>> the
>> low probability I suggest you would see a significant effect. Risk is a
>> product of both probability and consequence.
>
>Possibly. You can make a rough guess whether this would be true by looking
>at murder rates before and after the introduction of capital punishment.

No you can't. It's a totally different situation.

Also murder rates have often increased in US states that introduced
capital punishment.

M

[Mark[_3_]]

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:32:02 +0000, Matt B
> wrote:

>Paul Luton wrote:
>> If hand digging tools were a significant cause of death then it might
>> well do.
>
>Road deaths account for about 0.5% of the UK's total deaths each year.
>Is that significant?
>
>Should the causes of equivalent, and greater numbers, be treated similarly?
>
>> The real problem is how to enforce a driving ban.
>
>No. The /real/ problem is to make our roads safe and inclusive. Do you
>think licences, bans, etc. play a role in that? We don't have
>"householder licences", yet household "accidents" account for more
>deaths and hugely more injuries per year than motor cars do.
>
>> The requirement to
>> show a licence when buying fuel might be a start
>
>More useless laws and regulations which will make life more difficult
>for those who abide by the law, whilst at the same time causing little
>or no inconvenience to the lawless. To add to the rafts of similarly
>useless laws which we already have, also delivering zero extra safety.

Hear Hear!

M

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

(Ekul Namsob)typed


> Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
> would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
> accompanying me.

> However, it is very different for holders of provisional motorbike
> licences.

I bought petrol to fuel my camping stove; driving licence not relevant...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> (Ekul Namsob)typed

>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>accompanying me.

[to Ekul Namsob:]

So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up. The
way to get round that would be to have a recorded database audit trail
back to every licence-holder for every drop of fuel sold - and a way
of establishing which particular drops of petrol or diesel were in the
combustion chamber at the moment of collision.

>>However, it is very different for holders of provisional motorbike
>>licences.

> I bought petrol to fuel my camping stove; driving licence not relevant...

Good job we don't smoke. But I suppose all lighters are butane-powered
these days.

[Ekul Namsob]

JNugent > wrote:

> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
> > (Ekul Namsob)typed
>
> >>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
> >>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
> >>accompanying me.
>
> [to Ekul Namsob:]
>
> So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
> temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.

To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[JNugent[_2_]]

Ekul Namsob wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
(Ekul Namsob)typed
>
>>>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>>>accompanying me.

>>[to Ekul Namsob:]

>>So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
>>temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.

> To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.
> Luke

Why would it? If the learner driver next door asked me to accompany
him down to the filling station, assist him with filling up and then
come straight home, why would I refuse? Would there be a legal
requirement for the licensed driver to show some sort of nexus with
the ownership or control of the vehicle's use? Would that need to be
recorded by the filling station?

Don't you think your scheme is starting to sound a little over-complex?

[Clive George]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
(Ekul Namsob)typed
>>
>>>>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>>>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>>>>accompanying me.
>
>>>[to Ekul Namsob:]
>
>>>So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
>>>temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.
>
>> To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.
>> Luke
>
> Why would it? If the learner driver next door asked me to accompany him
> down to the filling station, assist him with filling up and then come
> straight home, why would I refuse?

Cos you're busy/watching telly/doing the ironing/****ed/otherwise engaged
and don't have the time to spare for such a nonsense errand?

Are you insured to drive his car?

clive

[JNugent[_2_]]

Clive George wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>>>>> (Ekul Namsob)typed

>>>>>> Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>>>>> would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>>>>> accompanying me.

>>>> [to Ekul Namsob:]
>>>> So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
>>>> temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.

>>> To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.

>> Why would it? If the learner driver next door asked me to accompany
>> him down to the filling station, assist him with filling up and then
>> come straight home, why would I refuse?

> Cos you're busy/watching telly/doing the ironing/****ed/otherwise
> engaged and don't have the time to spare for such a nonsense errand?

That's no way to treat a neighbour I have known since he was a small boy.

> Are you insured to drive his car?

The answer to that last bit is "Yes - of course I am, I am insured
whilst driving *anyone's* car (with their permission)".

But who said anything about driving it?

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
JNugent > tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

> Good job we don't smoke. But I suppose all lighters are butane-powered
> these days.

Nope, Zippos have not yet been banned on H&S grounds. However, if you
choose to run a Zippo on Super Unleaded, be very careful where you carry it,
as it can:

o make your kecks small distinctly odd, and
o impart interesting chemical burns to your anatomy

Do not ask me how I know this...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
There ought to be a /La/ against it.

[Mark[_3_]]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:12:37 +0000, JNugent
> wrote:

>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
>> (Ekul Namsob)typed
>
>>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>>accompanying me.
>
>[to Ekul Namsob:]
>
>So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
>temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up. The
>way to get round that would be to have a recorded database audit trail
>back to every licence-holder for every drop of fuel sold - and a way
>of establishing which particular drops of petrol or diesel were in the
>combustion chamber at the moment of collision.

Oh my god! Not another population tracking database proposal. Do you
work for Nulabour?

M

[JNugent[_2_]]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In ,
> JNugent > tweaked the Babbage-Engine
> to tell us:
>
>
>>Good job we don't smoke. But I suppose all lighters are butane-powered
>>these days.
>
>
> Nope, Zippos have not yet been banned on H&S grounds. However, if you
> choose to run a Zippo on Super Unleaded, be very careful where you carry it,
> as it can:
>
> o make your kecks small distinctly odd, and
> o impart interesting chemical burns to your anatomy
>
> Do not ask me how I know this...

Ouch!

:-)

[JNugent[_2_]]

Mark wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:12:37 +0000, JNugent
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>>
>>
(Ekul Namsob)typed
>>
>>>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>>>accompanying me.
>>
>>[to Ekul Namsob:]
>>
>>So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
>>temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up. The
>>way to get round that would be to have a recorded database audit trail
>>back to every licence-holder for every drop of fuel sold - and a way
>>of establishing which particular drops of petrol or diesel were in the
>>combustion chamber at the moment of collision.
>
>
> Oh my god! Not another population tracking database proposal. Do you
> work for Nulabour?

I think the person who proposed it might - even if unknowingly. I was
pointing out that to work (meaningfully), a simple ban on selling
petrol to anyone not producing a full licence would not be sufficient.
A database would be necessary in order to make it work.

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 19:39, Ian Smith >
wrote:

> Use a proper threading newsreader, then. One that uses all the
> headers, not just an incomplete subset.
>
>

Thank you for the Ian.

Where would I get such a newsreader?

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:On 10 Dec, 00:25, JNugent
> wrote:

>
> At the risk of sounding confrontational (not my aim at all), I wonder
> how much advice on usenet etiquette I could possibly need from someone
> posting to newsgroups through a web-based portal.- Hide quoted text -
>

What does that mean?

Why does it disqualify me from complaining about lazy snippers?

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:On 10 Dec, 09:20, marc >
wrote:
> raisethe wrote:
> > x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 18:25, marc >
> > wrote:
> >> raisethe wrote:
>
> >>>> Please only include the point you are replying to and snip the rest.
> >> Which point was it you were replying to?
>
> > The point I replied to with all the dross attached to it.
>
> Which you snipped.
>
>
>
> >> If you're going to alter the subject of a thread, change the subject
> >> header
>
> > I'm not sure about that.
>
> Doesn't anyone know how to post properly anymore?
>
> I can find it disorientating when a subject
>
> > I've been following disappears from the discussion page.
>
> How do you know it has disappeared and not just ended? Do you spend your
> life in a haze of disorientation due to Usenet threads ending?

Dunno, but I can't really make much sense of any part of your reply.

[Tim Hall]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:24:05 -0800 (PST), raisethe
> wrote:

>x-no-archive:On 9 Dec, 19:39, Ian Smith >
>wrote:
>
>> Use a proper threading newsreader, then. One that uses all the
>> headers, not just an incomplete subset.
>>
>>
>
>Thank you for the Ian.
>
>Where would I get such a newsreader?

<http://www.google.com/search?q=newsreader>


--

Tim

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

[JNugent[_2_]]

raisethe wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>>At the risk of sounding confrontational (not my aim at all), I wonder
>>how much advice on usenet etiquette I could possibly need from someone
>>posting to newsgroups through a web-based portal.- Hide quoted text -

> What does that mean?

It means I shan't be taking lessons in usenet posting from anyone
posting via the web.

> Why does it disqualify me from complaining about lazy snippers?

It doesn't. Neither does it entitle you to have any notice taken of
your recommendations.

[Rob Morley]

In article <06754929-f1a0-4fc0-ae37-8f2247d93089
@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, raisethe
says...

> Where would I get such a newsreader?
>
http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/

[Ekul Namsob]

JNugent > wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > JNugent > wrote:
> >>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> (Ekul Namsob)typed
> >
> >>>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
> >>>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
> >>>>accompanying me.
>
> >>[to Ekul Namsob:]
>
> >>So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
> >>temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.
>
> > To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.

> Why would it?

Because most drivers have no good reason to help an unlicensed driver
buy fuel and have better things to do. For instance, I'd rather be
cycling or rambling on uk.rec.cycling.

> Don't you think your scheme is starting to sound a little over-complex?

It's not my scheme.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:On 13 Dec, 00:36, JNugent
> wrote:

> It means I shan't be taking lessons in usenet posting from anyone
> posting via the web.

Yes, I got that bit, but what is it about posting directly onto a
google group that has niggled you? Surely those using newsreaders are
similarly inconvenienced by lazy snippers, or am I missing something?

[raisethe]

On 12 Dec, 23:07, Tim Hall > wrote:
>
> >Where would I get such a newsreader?
>
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=newsreader>
>
> --

Thanks. Sorry, I should've googled or wikipeed before doing that post.

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:On 13 Dec, 03:20, Rob Morley > wrote:
> In article <06754929-f1a0-4fc0-ae37-8f2247d93089
> @i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, raisethe
> says...
>
> > Where would I get such a newsreader?
>
> http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/

Thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately I am suffering from a
Vista OS and I don't think it will work with that.

Nevertheless, at least I now know what a newsreader is and can
investigate whether or not its worth getting one.

[JNugent[_2_]]

raisethe wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>>It means I shan't be taking lessons in usenet posting from anyone
>>posting via the web.

> Yes, I got that bit, but what is it about posting directly onto a
> google group that has niggled you? Surely those using newsreaders are
> similarly inconvenienced by lazy snippers, or am I missing something?

It's the way that the thread becomes jumbled (for the Google poster as
well as others) and all the extraneous "see quoted material/text"
stuff (which could/should be trimmed out by the poster, since it
serves absolutely no function outside Google).

[JNugent[_2_]]

Ekul Namsob wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>>Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>>JNugent > wrote:
>>>>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
(Ekul Namsob)typed
>
>>>>>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
>>>>>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
>>>>>>accompanying me.

>>>>[to Ekul Namsob:]

>>>>So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
>>>>temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.

>>>To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.

>>Why would it?

> Because most drivers have no good reason to help an unlicensed driver
> buy fuel and have better things to do. For instance, I'd rather be
> cycling or rambling on uk.rec.cycling.

Most people have a general incentive to assist people they know as
friends/neighbours or relatives. I wouldn't hesitate.

>>Don't you think your scheme is starting to sound a little over-complex?

> It's not my scheme.

Oh, OK.

[JNugent[_2_]]

raisethe wrote:
> x-no-archive:On 13 Dec, 03:20, Rob Morley > wrote:
>
>>In article <06754929-f1a0-4fc0-ae37-8f2247d93089
>, raisethe
says...
>>
>>
>>>Where would I get such a newsreader?
>>
>>http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/
>
>
> Thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately I am suffering from a
> Vista OS and I don't think it will work with that.
>
> Nevertheless, at least I now know what a newsreader is and can
> investigate whether or not its worth getting one.

Thunderbird will work with Vista, and it's free.

<http://www.mozilla.org>

But how do you send email? You may well already use Outlook Express,
which also works (quite well) as a newsreader.

[Nigel Cliffe]

JNugent wrote:
> raisethe wrote:
>> x-no-archive:On 13 Dec, 03:20, Rob Morley >
>> wrote:
>>> In article <06754929-f1a0-4fc0-ae37-8f2247d93089
>>> @i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, raisethe
>>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Where would I get such a newsreader?
>>>
>>> http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately I am suffering from a
>> Vista OS and I don't think it will work with that.
>>
>> Nevertheless, at least I now know what a newsreader is and can
>> investigate whether or not its worth getting one.
>
> Thunderbird will work with Vista, and it's free.
>
> <http://www.mozilla.org>
>
> But how do you send email? You may well already use Outlook Express,
> which also works (quite well) as a newsreader.

If using Outlook Express or Thunderbird, I recommend not using the same one
as email program as well. Too much risk of posting with your email address
in clear as sender !

Also, recommend the plug-in for Outlook Express called Quote-Fix; it
auto-fixes a few problems which Outlook Express tends to insert into news
postings.


I find Outlook Express completely acceptable as a news reader, and then use
Thunderbird for email.
OE's only major shortcoming is lack of very sophisticated filtering for
heavily trolled newsgroups.


- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, raisethe > wrote:
> x-no-archive:On 13 Dec, 00:36, JNugent
> > wrote:
>
> > It means I shan't be taking lessons in usenet posting from anyone
> > posting via the web.
>
> Yes, I got that bit, but what is it about posting directly onto a
> google group that has niggled you? Surely those using newsreaders are
> similarly inconvenienced by lazy snippers, or am I missing something?

Google now is much like AOL then.

In general, people using google groups tend to be less likely to stick
around and form any sort of community. They are more likely to post a
question and never show up again, more likely to post a question that
even a few moment's effort on their own part would answer, more likely
to post rubbish and more likely to get arsey if any of this is pointed
out to them.

I've seen it claimed that the ratio of posts originating from google
can be correlated to the community feeling and civility of a group.
While I don't think it's been studied properly, it would certainly not
surprise me to discover that it's true.

Strictly, I don't think it's exclusively google's fault - I think it's
pretty much any web-based forum or interface that encourages this -
witness the dross that we get here from cycling forums. google is the
one that stands out only because it's the one with the most users.
That's doubly reinforcing - having the most users, it probably also
attracts the most naive users too.

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

[Pete Biggs]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:

> If using Outlook Express or Thunderbird, I recommend not using the
> same one as email program as well. Too much risk of posting with
> your email address in clear as sender !

I'm not sure what you mean. It's easy to use different email addresses for
your mail and news accounts with OE. Once set, you can't get them mixed up
by accident.

> Also, recommend the plug-in for Outlook Express called Quote-Fix; it
> auto-fixes a few problems which Outlook Express tends to insert into
> news postings.

Seconded.

~PB

[Nigel Cliffe]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
>> If using Outlook Express or Thunderbird, I recommend not using the
>> same one as email program as well. Too much risk of posting with
>> your email address in clear as sender !
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. It's easy to use different email
> addresses for your mail and news accounts with OE. Once set, you
> can't get them mixed up by accident.

I've managed to do it. Hence my comment.
And I know that in theory one can have multiple accounts (my thunderbird
email has four covering home, business and two hobby sites).




--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Ekul Namsob]

JNugent > wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>
> > JNugent > wrote:
> >>Ekul Namsob wrote:
> >>>JNugent > wrote:
> >>>>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> (Ekul Namsob)typed
> >
> >>>>>>Before I passed my test, there would have been no occasion on which I
> >>>>>>would have wanted to buy fuel when a fully-licensed driver was not
> >>>>>>accompanying me.
>
> >>>>[to Ekul Namsob:]
>
> >>>>So all an unlicensed driver has to do is enlist the ephemeral and
> >>>>temporary assistance of any old licensed driver while he fills up.
>
> >>>To which most drivers' response would be 'no'.
>
> >>Why would it?
>
> > Because most drivers have no good reason to help an unlicensed driver
> > buy fuel and have better things to do. For instance, I'd rather be
> > cycling or rambling on uk.rec.cycling.
>
> Most people have a general incentive to assist people they know as
> friends/neighbours or relatives. I wouldn't hesitate.

Despite living round the corner from a petrol station, I never meet
friends, neighbours or relatives there. I would happily help them.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Pete Biggs]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>
>>> If using Outlook Express or Thunderbird, I recommend not using the
>>> same one as email program as well. Too much risk of posting with
>>> your email address in clear as sender !
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean. It's easy to use different email
>> addresses for your mail and news accounts with OE. Once set, you
>> can't get them mixed up by accident.
>
> I've managed to do it. Hence my comment.

I would be interested to know how you managed to do it.

Thanks.

~PB

[Nigel Cliffe]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Pete Biggs wrote:
>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>
>>>> If using Outlook Express or Thunderbird, I recommend not using the
>>>> same one as email program as well. Too much risk of posting with
>>>> your email address in clear as sender !
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean. It's easy to use different email
>>> addresses for your mail and news accounts with OE. Once set, you
>>> can't get them mixed up by accident.
>>
>> I've managed to do it. Hence my comment.
>
> I would be interested to know how you managed to do it.


Sorry, a long time ago, and I forget how/what I did. I know a posting left
with the wrong settings and I said *?!*. I then decided to separate my
email and newsgroup tools to stop it happening again, and have had them
separated for ages.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[David Damerell]

Quoting Nigel Cliffe >:
>If using Outlook Express or Thunderbird, I recommend not using the same one
>as email program as well. Too much risk of posting with your email address
>in clear as sender !

Which, of course, is not a problem at all if things are sensibly arranged.

>Also, recommend the plug-in for Outlook Express called Quote-Fix; it
>auto-fixes a few problems which Outlook Express tends to insert into news
>postings.

Although it can't help with pilot error - for example, including the
entire previous article untrimmed; and at best it causes users to merely
sometimes post completely mangled articles instead of always.

>OE's only major shortcoming is lack of very sophisticated filtering for
>heavily trolled newsgroups.

And its susceptibility to simple tricks like;

begin explanation of why MSOE is crap

He won't see this.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, December.

[Nigel Cliffe]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Nigel Cliffe >:
>> OE's only major shortcoming is lack of very sophisticated filtering
>> for heavily trolled newsgroups.
>
> And its susceptibility to simple tricks like;
>
> begin explanation of why MSOE is crap
>
> He won't see this.


Please explain your little joke.


- Nigel ( who thinks MSOE is fine for modest reading of text newsgroups).


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting Nigel Cliffe >:
>>> OE's only major shortcoming is lack of very sophisticated filtering
>>> for heavily trolled newsgroups.
>>
>> And its susceptibility to simple tricks like;
>>
>> begin explanation of why MSOE is crap
>>
>> He won't see this.
>
>Please explain your little joke.

http://www.insideoe.com/problems/bugs.htm#beginattach

[Rob Morley]

In article >, David Damerell
says...

> And its susceptibility to simple tricks like;
>
> begin explanation of why MSOE is crap
>
> He won't see this.
>
I thought they'd fixed that now.

[Nigel Cliffe]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article >, Nigel Cliffe
> wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> Quoting Nigel Cliffe >:
>>>> OE's only major shortcoming is lack of very sophisticated filtering
>>>> for heavily trolled newsgroups.
>>>
>>> And its susceptibility to simple tricks like;
>>>
>>> begin explanation of why MSOE is crap
>>>
>>> He won't see this.
>>
>> Please explain your little joke.
>
> http://www.insideoe.com/problems/bugs.htm#beginattach


Ah, I see. DD's attempting to exploit a bug fixed ages ago, so it displayed
correctly on my copy of OE. Perhaps the lesson is keeping up to date with
bug fixes, particularly if trying to exploit them.


I still fail to understand his general point, except that a number of people
have a pathological anti-Microsoft stance on all software.



(btw. I think my original identity muddle which led to me separating email
and newsgroup clients may have been under MacOS 9.something or even 8.6)


- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[David Damerell]

Quoting Nigel Cliffe >:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>>http://www.insideoe.com/problems/bugs.htm#beginattach
>Ah, I see. DD's attempting to exploit a bug fixed ages ago, so it displayed
>correctly on my copy of OE. Perhaps the lesson is keeping up to date with
>bug fixes, particularly if trying to exploit them.

Cor. Microsoft said for many years they were never going to fix that one.

>I still fail to understand his general point,

MSOE's still going to be full of bugs, given the level of incompetence
that one exhibited. Also, it seems (albeit no more than Google, these
days) to be strongly correlated with mangled articles and poor posting
style. For example, posting the entire previous article untrimmed.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, December.

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:On 13 Dec, 17:45, JNugent wrote:

> raisethe wrote:

> > what is it about posting directly onto a
> > google group that has niggled you?

>
> It's the way that the thread becomes jumbled (for the Google poster as
> well as others) and all the extraneous "see quoted material/text"
> stuff (which could/should be trimmed out by the poster, since it
> serves absolutely no function outside Google).

Right, I see.

[Rob Morley]

In article >, David Damerell
says...

> MSOE's still going to be full of bugs, given the level of incompetence
> that one exhibited. Also, it seems (albeit no more than Google, these
> days) to be strongly correlated with mangled articles and poor posting
> style. For example, posting the entire previous article untrimmed.
>
That's just because they're the most readily available access to usenet,
so are more likely to be used by those who don't know any better, or
can't be bothered.

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:

>
> Thunderbird will work with Vista, and it's free.
>
> <http://www.mozilla.org>

Thank you for the link, this message has been sent using Thunderbird. I
hope it looks better to you. I'm not sure if its as easy to view
messages as it is on google, but I will have to play with the available
options.

>
> But how do you send email? You may well already use Outlook Express,
> which also works (quite well) as a newsreader.

I don't use OE because I like to access my emails when I am away, so
keep them on my email provider's server. I attempted to use it as a
newsreader, but it doesn't open on my pc.

[Pete Biggs]

raisethe wrote:
> x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:
>
>>
>> Thunderbird will work with Vista, and it's free.
>>
>> <http://www.mozilla.org>
>
> Thank you for the link, this message has been sent using Thunderbird.
> I hope it looks better to you. I'm not sure if its as easy to view
> messages as it is on google, but I will have to play with the
> available options.
>
>>
>> But how do you send email? You may well already use Outlook Express,
>> which also works (quite well) as a newsreader.
>
> I don't use OE because I like to access my emails when I am away, so
> keep them on my email provider's server. I attempted to use it as a
> newsreader, but it doesn't open on my pc.

OE has an option to leave copies of emails on the server.

~PB

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:On 15 Dec, 17:12, "Pete Biggs" <
>
> OE has an option to leave copies of emails on the server.
>
>

I now have Windows Mail up and running. Where is the option to leave
copies of emails on the server? I've had a good look, but can't see
anything.

Thanks

[Tim Hall]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:28:49 -0800 (PST), raisethe
> wrote:

>x-no-archive:On 15 Dec, 17:12, "Pete Biggs" <
>>
>> OE has an option to leave copies of emails on the server.
>>
>>
>
>I now have Windows Mail up and running. Where is the option to leave
>copies of emails on the server? I've had a good look, but can't see
>anything.
>

In Windows Mail choose Tools >Accounts, click the account name, click
Properties, click the Advanced tab.



--

Tim

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:Tim Hall wrote:

>
> In Windows Mail choose Tools >Accounts, click the account name, click
> Properties, click the Advanced tab.
>
>
got it, thanks

[JNugent[_2_]]

raisethe wrote:

> x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:

>> Thunderbird will work with Vista, and it's free.

>> <http://www.mozilla.org>

> Thank you for the link, this message has been sent using Thunderbird. I
> hope it looks better to you.

Much better.

> I'm not sure if its as easy to view
> messages as it is on google, but I will have to play with the available
> options.

If you want to retain a post you have already read, you may need to
"mark it as unread" using right-click. That's a disadvantage, but all
programs have unique "features". There are ways of avoiding that, but
they too have their drawbacks.

>> But how do you send email? You may well already use Outlook Express,
>> which also works (quite well) as a newsreader.

> I don't use OE because I like to access my emails when I am away, so
> keep them on my email provider's server. I attempted to use it as a
> newsreader, but it doesn't open on my pc.

That's surprising. Perhaps the installation has become corrupt.

[raisethe]

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:

>
> If you want to retain a post you have already read, you may need to
> "mark it as unread" using right-click. That's a disadvantage, but all
> programs have unique "features". There are ways of avoiding that, but
> they too have their drawbacks.

Yes, after a couple of days I'm now happily using Thunderbird and find
it noticably better than google.



>> I don't use OE because I like to access my emails when I am away, so
>> keep them on my email provider's server. I attempted to use it as a
>> newsreader, but it doesn't open on my pc.
>
> That's surprising. Perhaps the installation has become corrupt.

I can now open it, (had to change a default or something) and after it
was pointed out to me that I could keep copies on my email provider's
server, I thought it might be good to use it for email. Unfortunately it
is unable to access the email provider's outbound server. After a couple
of hours of trying to sort it, I have given up. It does seem, for a non
techie like myself, that it is quite difficult to get software in
general, and Microsoft's own in particular, to work with Vista HP.

I might give Linux a whirl in a few years time.

[Nigel Cliffe]

raisethe wrote:
> x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:

>>> I don't use OE because I like to access my emails when I am away, so
>>> keep them on my email provider's server. I attempted to use it as a
>>> newsreader, but it doesn't open on my pc.
>>
>> That's surprising. Perhaps the installation has become corrupt.
>
> I can now open it, (had to change a default or something) and after it
> was pointed out to me that I could keep copies on my email provider's
> server, I thought it might be good to use it for email. Unfortunately
> it is unable to access the email provider's outbound server. After a
> couple of hours of trying to sort it, I have given up. It does seem,
> for a non techie like myself, that it is quite difficult to get
> software in general, and Microsoft's own in particular, to work with
> Vista HP.

For most users, set outbound email SMTP server to that of your ISP. It need
not be your email provider. For example, my ISP is Demon, outbound email
usually goes via their SMTP server, but my routine email is one of
btinternet, 2mm.org.uk and fleetwith.co.uk.

People in receipt of email from me would have to dig deep into the mail
headers to realise that I use Demon for outbound.


Hope this is of some help.



- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[raisethe]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:

>
> For most users, set outbound email SMTP server to that of your ISP. It need
> not be your email provider.
>
> Hope this is of some help.
>
>


Yes, it certainly is. Worked immediately. Thank you Nigel.