"Police back 'Cassie's Law' campaign over unfit drivers"

On Mar 5, 8:21*am, Doug wrote:


Well of course car use is bound to be costly and it is advisable not
to let yourself become totally car dependent before old age sets in.
Anyway, a medical certificate of fitness to drive should be mandatory
not voluntary for all drivers, renewable every year like an MOT,
instead we have to suffer a general attitude of complacence about road
safety in the UK which puts everyone at risk.


I think it is the law that you have to inform the DVLA if any medical
condition arises which may affect your ability to drive.

--
Simon Mason

On 05/03/2012 08:21, Doug wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:30 am, "Janitor of wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 23:15:40 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

"A woman whose daughter was killed by an 87-year-old motorist in a
crash has gained the support of Essex Police in her campaign over
unfit drivers.

I don't approve of introducing hasty legislation to ban people from
driving as soon as they reach a certain age. (Consider the Dangerous
Dogs Act). There is, however, a strong argument for making all
drivers take a refresher course and a test, say, every 10 years or
so.

As I understand it, licensing expires at age 70 and is therefore renewable
at three-yearly intervals subject to being still medically to drive:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...fety/DG_195006

There's no requirement for a medical certificate of competence to drive, but
it wouldn't be unreasonable for a GP's certificate to be usable, with the
caveat that it would probably be as useful as an MOT certificate in relation
to a vehicle.


I passed my driving test many years ago when traffic and road
conditions were very different from those today. I have doubtless
picked up many bad habits over the years and I would have no objection
to taking a refresher course and, if necessary, taking a test. My
only concern is the cost.

Well of course car use is bound to be costly and it is advisable not
to let yourself become totally car dependent before old age sets in.
Anyway, a medical certificate of fitness to drive should be mandatory
not voluntary for all drivers, renewable every year like an MOT,
instead we have to suffer a general attitude of complacence about road
safety in the UK which puts everyone at risk.

It is outrageous that people are allowed to drive around in all sorts
of states of unfitness, such as defective eyesight, under the effects
of medication, and a variety of ailments, etc.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.


Would that include users of mobility scooters & electric bicycles under
the effect of medication?

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
news
"R. Mark Clayton" considered Sun, 4 Mar
2012 20:37:55 -0000 the perfect time to write:

If the police had spent two hours taking Mr. Shortfall to court and
getting
a bail condition of no driving that might have been more useful.

It seems that they did not have sufficient grounds to keep him in
custody until such a condition could be imposed.

Police can [and do] grant bail themselves, in any event they could have
summonsed fairly quickly.

I can't help thinking thay have missed a trick here.


The police can confiscate cars.

Only under certain circumstances, and subject to strict conditions.
None of which were met in the case highlighted.

That is the reason for the campaign to give them the power to require
surrender of a licence in circumstances where it is warranted.
This would be temporary, until a court could decide whether to extend
the suspension (probably while the process of disqualification took
place) or overturn it.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
These killer drivers should have their cars confiscated as well as
their licences. Why are our police so ineffective when it comes to
motorists and yet so effective by comparison at stopping peaceful
political protesters who don't even kill? Is it because motorists are
a powerful majority who protect their own?

"A woman whose daughter was killed by an 87-year-old motorist in a
crash has gained the support of Essex Police in her campaign over
unfit drivers.

Cassie McCord, 16, was pinned against a wall when Colin Horsfall's car
mounted a pavement at speed in Colchester.

Mr Horsfall had been warned three days earlier by police not to drive.

Essex Police said it fully supported Jackie McCord's "Cassie's Law"
campaign to give officers the power to immediately suspend licences.

Officers had spent two hours trying to persuade Mr Horsfall not to
drive his automatic Vauxhall Astra again after he was involved in a
minor incident, failed an eye test and had to be driven home..."

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17245130

Incredible!

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On Mar 5, 10:55*am, Norman Wells
wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:07*am, Doug wrote:









On Mar 4, 11:28*am, Norman Wells
wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:15*am, Doug wrote:

These killer drivers should have their cars confiscated as well as
their licences. Why are our police so ineffective when it comes to
motorists and yet so effective by comparison at stopping peaceful
political protesters who don't even kill? Is it because motorists are
a powerful majority who protect their own?

"A woman whose daughter was killed by an 87-year-old motorist in a
crash has gained the support of Essex Police in her campaign over
unfit drivers.

Cassie McCord, 16, was pinned against a wall when Colin Horsfall's car
mounted a pavement at speed in Colchester.

Mr Horsfall had been warned three days earlier by police not to drive.

Essex Police said it fully supported Jackie McCord's "Cassie's Law"
campaign to give officers the power to immediately suspend licences..

Officers had spent two hours trying to persuade Mr Horsfall not to
drive his automatic Vauxhall Astra again after he was involved in a
minor incident, failed an eye test and had to be driven home..."

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17245130

Incredible!

So, now you fully support extra-judicial powers of seizure and
punishment by the police? *That's strange. *I'm sure you were utterly
opposed just a few days ago.

Are you serious or are you just confused? Obviously the police should
be allowed to act when lives are being put at serious risk. Why should
a car-weapon be treated any differently to any other weapon? If you
were toting a licenced gun in a street you would be surrounded by
police and the gun taken away from you. You would be lucky to remain
alive.

I quite agee that the police should be allowed to act extra-judicially
as you put it when there is a threat to life, including dangerous
drivers. *I don't want them on the roads any more than you do.

Then how do you explain that they seem to be allowed on roads at
present and in some cases the police seem to be powerless to stop
them?

Now we've established the principle, though, perhaps you'd now condemn
the death threats, violence, arson and poisoning of food on
supermarket shelves that are the stock in trade of your animal rights
mates, including your girlfriend Heather who is now enjoying life as a
guest of Her Majesty?

Your examples are too vague and general and ignores the fact that
Heather didn't kill anyone. Obviously I would condemn any threat to
human life, as you should, but that doesn't include extra-judicial
policing of empty threats.

And don't say she was only convicted of conspiracy. *We're talking
here about extra-judicial punishment. *She should be locked up
regardless, shouldn't she?

Why should her punishment be longer than that of a motorist who kills?
That is the question you should be trying to answer here.

Doug.

On Mar 5, 4:12*pm, Simon Mason wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:21*am, Doug wrote:



Well of course car use is bound to be costly and it is advisable not
to let yourself become totally car dependent before old age sets in.
Anyway, a medical certificate of fitness to drive should be mandatory
not voluntary for all drivers, renewable every year like an MOT,
instead we have to suffer a general attitude of complacence about road
safety in the UK which puts everyone at risk.

I think it is the law that you have to inform the DVLA if any medical
condition arises which may affect your ability to drive.

Is it a law which is enforced and if so what are the punishments?

The problem is it is left to the discretion of the driver to report
any health problems and there is an incentive for them not to do so as
it could prejudice their licence to drive. Medical tests for drivers
should be mandatory and the reason it is not is because there is a
general complacency about road safety which favours motorists in
particular in our car obsessed society.

-- .
Carfree UK.
http://carfree.org.uk/
Promoting carfree development and its environmental, social, financial
and health benefits.

On Mar 5, 6:17*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 05/03/2012 08:21, Doug wrote:









On Mar 5, 12:30 am, "Janitor of *wrote:
*wrote in message

. ..

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 23:15:40 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

"A woman whose daughter was killed by an 87-year-old motorist in a
crash has gained the support of Essex Police in her campaign over
unfit drivers.

I don't approve of introducing hasty legislation to ban people from
driving as soon as they reach a certain age. (Consider the Dangerous
Dogs Act). *There is, however, a strong argument for making all
drivers take a refresher course and a test, say, *every 10 years or
so.

As I understand it, licensing expires at age 70 and is therefore renewable
at three-yearly intervals subject to being still medically to drive:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...fety/DG_195006

There's no requirement for a medical certificate of competence to drive, but
it wouldn't be unreasonable for a GP's certificate to be usable, with the
caveat that it would probably be as useful as an MOT certificate in relation
to a vehicle.

I passed my driving test many years ago when traffic and road
conditions were very different from those today. *I have doubtless
picked up many bad habits over the years and I would have no objection
to taking a refresher course and, if necessary, taking a test. *My
only concern is the cost.

Well of course car use is bound to be costly and it is advisable not
to let yourself become totally car dependent before old age sets in.
Anyway, a medical certificate of fitness to drive should be mandatory
not voluntary for all drivers, renewable every year like an MOT,
instead we have to suffer a general attitude of complacence about road
safety in the UK which puts everyone at risk.

It is outrageous that people are allowed to drive around in all sorts
of states of unfitness, such as defective eyesight, under the effects
of medication, and a variety of ailments, etc.

Would that include users of mobility scooters & electric bicycles under
the effect of medication?

Do you think manual wheelchairs should be included also?

Where the examples you mention are used for disability reasons they
should be exempt, as would be cars for the disabled. They would have
no other means of getting around and would therefore become housebound
and a cost liability for the country. Obviously too, they are much
less dangerous anyway than millions of motorists.

All that is required is a mandatory medical test for drivers at
reasonable intervals.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On Mar 7, 9:09*am, Doug wrote:
On Mar 5, 10:55*am, Norman Wells
wrote:



On Mar 5, 9:07*am, Doug wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:28*am, Norman Wells
wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:15*am, Doug wrote:

These killer drivers should have their cars confiscated as well as
their licences. Why are our police so ineffective when it comes to
motorists and yet so effective by comparison at stopping peaceful
political protesters who don't even kill? Is it because motorists are
a powerful majority who protect their own?

"A woman whose daughter was killed by an 87-year-old motorist in a
crash has gained the support of Essex Police in her campaign over
unfit drivers.

Cassie McCord, 16, was pinned against a wall when Colin Horsfall's car
mounted a pavement at speed in Colchester.

Mr Horsfall had been warned three days earlier by police not to drive.

Essex Police said it fully supported Jackie McCord's "Cassie's Law"
campaign to give officers the power to immediately suspend licences.

Officers had spent two hours trying to persuade Mr Horsfall not to
drive his automatic Vauxhall Astra again after he was involved in a
minor incident, failed an eye test and had to be driven home..."

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17245130

Incredible!

So, now you fully support extra-judicial powers of seizure and
punishment by the police? *That's strange. *I'm sure you were utterly
opposed just a few days ago.

Are you serious or are you just confused? Obviously the police should
be allowed to act when lives are being put at serious risk. Why should
a car-weapon be treated any differently to any other weapon? If you
were toting a licenced gun in a street you would be surrounded by
police and the gun taken away from you. You would be lucky to remain
alive.

I quite agee that the police should be allowed to act extra-judicially
as you put it when there is a threat to life, including dangerous
drivers. *I don't want them on the roads any more than you do.

Then how do you explain that they seem to be allowed on roads at
present and in some cases the police seem to be powerless to stop
them?

It is because the police subscribe to the principle of innocent until
proven guilty. Until they have adequate evidence of a crime being
committed, they cannot arrest but only advise. I thought that's how
you like it.


Now we've established the principle, though, perhaps you'd now condemn
the death threats, violence, arson and poisoning of food on
supermarket shelves that are the stock in trade of your animal rights
mates, including your girlfriend Heather who is now enjoying life as a
guest of Her Majesty?

Your examples are too vague and general and ignores the fact that
Heather didn't kill anyone.

No, she just indulged in a 6 year unrelenting campaign of terror
against perfectly law abiding citizens, their families and their
employees.

Obviously I would condemn any threat to
human life, as you should, but that doesn't include extra-judicial
policing of empty threats.

If threats of any description are made, they have to be taken
seriously and, I suggest, at face value, as she clearly intended her
victims to take them. It's no good saying later that she didn't
really mean them and wouldn't have carried them out. That's utterly
disingenuous and in itself deserves an inreased tariff.

And don't say she was only convicted of conspiracy. *We're talking
here about extra-judicial punishment. *She should be locked up
regardless, shouldn't she?

Why should her punishment be longer than that of a motorist who kills?
That is the question you should be trying to answer here.

Why? It's as futile as comparing apples with oranges. I'm happy to
leave such matters up to judges who have heard all the facts and
possible mitigating circumstances.

On Mar 7, 10:12*am, Norman Wells
wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:09*am, Doug wrote:









On Mar 5, 10:55*am, Norman Wells
wrote:

On Mar 5, 9:07*am, Doug wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:28*am, Norman Wells
wrote:

On Mar 4, 8:15*am, Doug wrote:

These killer drivers should have their cars confiscated as well as
their licences. Why are our police so ineffective when it comes to
motorists and yet so effective by comparison at stopping peaceful
political protesters who don't even kill? Is it because motorists are
a powerful majority who protect their own?

"A woman whose daughter was killed by an 87-year-old motorist in a
crash has gained the support of Essex Police in her campaign over
unfit drivers.

Cassie McCord, 16, was pinned against a wall when Colin Horsfall's car
mounted a pavement at speed in Colchester.

Mr Horsfall had been warned three days earlier by police not to drive.

Essex Police said it fully supported Jackie McCord's "Cassie's Law"
campaign to give officers the power to immediately suspend licences.

Officers had spent two hours trying to persuade Mr Horsfall not to
drive his automatic Vauxhall Astra again after he was involved in a
minor incident, failed an eye test and had to be driven home..."

Mohttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17245130

Incredible!

So, now you fully support extra-judicial powers of seizure and
punishment by the police? *That's strange. *I'm sure you were utterly
opposed just a few days ago.

Are you serious or are you just confused? Obviously the police should
be allowed to act when lives are being put at serious risk. Why should
a car-weapon be treated any differently to any other weapon? If you
were toting a licenced gun in a street you would be surrounded by
police and the gun taken away from you. You would be lucky to remain
alive.

I quite agee that the police should be allowed to act extra-judicially
as you put it when there is a threat to life, including dangerous
drivers. *I don't want them on the roads any more than you do.

Then how do you explain that they seem to be allowed on roads at
present and in some cases the police seem to be powerless to stop
them?

It is because the police subscribe to the principle of innocent until
proven guilty. *Until they have adequate evidence of a crime being
committed, they cannot arrest but only advise. *I thought that's how
you like it.

But this doesn't seem to apply to political protest where the police
act pre-emptively before an alleged crime has been committed.


Now we've established the principle, though, perhaps you'd now condemn
the death threats, violence, arson and poisoning of food on
supermarket shelves that are the stock in trade of your animal rights
mates, including your girlfriend Heather who is now enjoying life as a
guest of Her Majesty?

Your examples are too vague and general and ignores the fact that
Heather didn't kill anyone.

No, she just indulged in a 6 year unrelenting campaign of terror
against perfectly law abiding citizens, their families and their
employees.

That's an exaggeration and the families were associated with animal
torture methods, which although still legal is extremely unethical.

Obviously I would condemn any threat to
human life, as you should, but that doesn't include extra-judicial
policing of empty threats.

If threats of any description are made, they have to be taken
seriously and, I suggest, at face value, as she clearly intended her
victims to take them. *It's no good saying later that she didn't
really mean them and wouldn't have carried them out. *That's utterly
disingenuous and in itself deserves an inreased tariff.

But not a sentence which is more than for killing someone.

And don't say she was only convicted of conspiracy. *We're talking
here about extra-judicial punishment. *She should be locked up
regardless, shouldn't she?

Why should her punishment be longer than that of a motorist who kills?
That is the question you should be trying to answer here.

Why? *It's as futile as comparing apples with oranges. *I'm happy to
leave such matters up to judges who have heard all the facts and
possible mitigating circumstances.

In other words, you are complacent about injustice and misuse of the
law.

Doug.