Doug wrote:
On 13 Sep, 10:04, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 12 Sep, 10:36, "Brimstone" wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:
On 12 Sep, 08:03, "mileburner" wrote:

I would suggest that you keep an eye on the traffic and be
prepared to get out of it's way if it is coming at you and
looking like it is not going to stop. The roads are dangerous
donchaknow?

While I agree they are dangerous, the question is whether it is
tolerable in a civilised society to allow them to be this
dangerous? It seems to me that either the people who drive have
got to get a lot better at driving (I include myself), or slow
down drastically, or be prevented from driving. Current standards
of driving skill in this country are not acceptable.

How do you legislate for a driver suffering a heart attack whilst
in motion?

Give every driver a medical once a year and impose draconian
sentencing when they kill vulnerable road users.

How does that stop a driver suffering from a heart attack whilst
driving, how would you pay for the additional new doctors required
to carry out the check and what sentence would you impose on a dead
car driver?

With testing you can mimimise the chances of a heart attack. As things
stand heart attacks are being encouraged if there is no medical
testing. The drivers would have to pay for their own medicals.

Many very fit people, the kind who are in physically demanding jobs, run or
take physical exercise every day, die of heart attacks Doug. The people
paying for exams down't pay for the training of new doctors Doug, where are
they to come from and where will they be accommodated to carry out their
duties?

When a driver hits a vulnerable road user the driver is unlikely to
die.

Which shows your inability to follow an argument through. If a driver has a
heart attack and collides with anything or anyone, he is quite possibly
already dead or is shortly after.

Why should someone who has no history of heart trouble but suffers a heart
attack be imprisoned Doug?