Cyclists on Sunday training ride 'left for dead' by Usk driver who’d ‘topped up’ after eight-hour drinking session the day before

alansmurphy wrote:

We just need people to identify their own idiocy and end the "I drive my children to school as the roads are dangerous" mentality. 

Funnily enough, I went through this myself, preferring to drop my children off at the village school on the way to work.  Its not a long way at all, but despite being a 30 limit you get some idiots driving far too fast.

Anyhow, we decided to let them walk.

Then a few days later, a lady on her way to the opticians (I kid you not) managed to drive her car at speed straight across the pavement and into a hedge more of less opposite our house. No harm done, but only because my kids or some other unfortunates did not happen to be in her way at the time.

They are still walking to school, but I find myself far too regularly yelling at passing drivers to slow the fuck down.

And until those drivers are faced with a) a strong likelihood of being caught and b) punished properly nothing is going to change.

PRSboy wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

We just need people to identify their own idiocy and end the "I drive my children to school as the roads are dangerous" mentality. 

Funnily enough, I went through this myself, preferring to drop my children off at the village school on the way to work.  Its not a long way at all, but despite being a 30 limit you get some idiots driving far too fast.

Anyhow, we decided to let them walk.

Then a few days later, a lady on her way to the opticians (I kid you not) managed to drive her car at speed straight across the pavement and into a hedge more of less opposite our house. No harm done, but only because my kids or some other unfortunates did not happen to be in her way at the time.

They are still walking to school, but I find myself far too regularly yelling at passing drivers to slow the fuck down.

And until those drivers are faced with a) a strong likelihood of being caught and b) punished properly nothing is going to change.

You could always set up  Community Speed Watch https://www.communityspeedwatch.org/

But be prepared to be rather unpopular with other residents, as the data shows that it is the locals who do most of the speeding.

alansmurphy wrote:

Aren't you wasting energy by speaking against it in a forum of those that are likely to oppose your view?

Alternatively, people can do things to invoke a change in attitudes and even the law:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47902522

Unless you're also of the opinion that we should be freely allowed to photograph a woman's vagina and then run them over?

Photographing a woman's vagina?  How far up her skirt was that camera being put?

(I'll get my coat...).

alansmurphy wrote:

Aren't you wasting energy by speaking against it in a forum of those that are likely to oppose your view?

Probably, but as I said I'm hoping to clear out all the chaff of - frankly - pointless comments saying how bad the authorities act. We know, you've said a thousand times. Change the bloody record.

alansmurphy wrote:

Alternatively, people can do things to invoke a change in attitudes and even the law:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47902522

Unless you're also of the opinion that we should be freely allowed to photograph a woman's vagina and then run them over?

In deed they can, if they choose the right subject. And all credit to Gina Martin. But like Greta Thunberg, you're wasting your time unless to can make the economics of change work. Given that our economy it built on mobility of goods and people, quickly and conveniently, it will be worth the annual sacrifice that has to be paid on our roads; and that includes cases like Louisa Griffths. Because once they start clamping down on motorists, the slippery slope will hit the economy  bad as over time they would have to be ever more draconian in sentencing. This would have the unitended consequence that mobility will be impeded, resulting in enormous cost rises for everything.

As Dacia would say, you do the maths..

gcommie wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Aren't you wasting energy by speaking against it in a forum of those that are likely to oppose your view?

Probably, but as I said I'm hoping to clear out all the chaff of - frankly - pointless comments saying how bad the authorities act. We know, you've said a thousand times. Change the bloody record.

alansmurphy wrote:

Alternatively, people can do things to invoke a change in attitudes and even the law:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47902522

Unless you're also of the opinion that we should be freely allowed to photograph a woman's vagina and then run them over?

In deed they can, if they choose the right subject. And all credit to Gina Martin. But like Greta Thunberg, you're wasting your time unless to can make the economics of change work. Given that our economy it built on mobility of goods and people, quickly and conveniently, it will be worth the annual sacrifice that has to be paid on our roads; and that includes cases like Louisa Griffths. Because once they start clamping down on motorists, the slippery slope will hit the economy  bad as over time they would have to be ever more draconian in sentencing. This would have the unitended consequence that mobility will be impeded, resulting in enormous cost rises for everything.

As Dacia would say, you do the maths..

I don't see how stricter sentencing is going to affect the mobility of goods and services. Seriously, what percentage of drivers are involved in scenarios like this one? If you take them off the road, you'll probably marginally increase the mobility of everyone else as there's one less idiot on the road.

The fallacy is thinking that having lines of motorists stuck in traffic is doing anyone any good (except for the people selling cars and fuel).

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't see how stricter sentencing is going to affect the mobility of goods and services.

I'll try and dig out the report from several years ago that evaluated the economic cost of strict adherence to speed limits, given that at the time it was being reported that something like 80% of journeys the driver would exceed speed limits. Can't remember the numbers quoted, but remember the inference was that it was economically beneficial to allow speeding even taking account of the costs dealing with RTAs.

gcommie wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't see how stricter sentencing is going to affect the mobility of goods and services.

I'll try and dig out the report from several years ago that evaluated the economic cost of strict adherence to speed limits, given that at the time it was being reported that something like 80% of journeys the driver would exceed speed limits. Can't remember the numbers quoted, but remember the inference was that it was economically beneficial to allow speeding even taking account of the costs dealing with RTAs.

Switching the topic onto speeding now? Okay, I suspect that the maximum speed isn't really the issue as there is an optimum flow of traffic and generally that is obtained through a smoother, "laminar" flow of vehicles. Constantly accelerating and braking tends to reduce the capacity of the road as people's reactions lag which leads to phantom traffic jams.

As a simple demonstration, have a go at this game: https://madewithmonsterlove.itch.io/error-prone

hawkinspeter wrote:

As a simple demonstration, have a go at this game: https://madewithmonsterlove.itch.io/error-prone

Cute little game, but of little relevance.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Switching the topic onto speeding now? Okay, I suspect that the maximum speed isn't really the issue as there is an optimum flow of traffic and generally that is obtained through a smoother, "laminar" flow of vehicles. Constantly accelerating and braking tends to reduce the capacity of the road as people's reactions lag which leads to phantom traffic jams.

Not switching the topic, the point is still the same. Endless noise about something you can't change, and won't be able to change, until you can provide an economic solution to the problem.

This country will have to continue to pay Charon his dues until it becomes un-economical to do so; and all the bleating in the world isn't going to change that.

gcommie wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

As a simple demonstration, have a go at this game: https://madewithmonsterlove.itch.io/error-prone

Cute little game, but of little relevance.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Switching the topic onto speeding now? Okay, I suspect that the maximum speed isn't really the issue as there is an optimum flow of traffic and generally that is obtained through a smoother, "laminar" flow of vehicles. Constantly accelerating and braking tends to reduce the capacity of the road as people's reactions lag which leads to phantom traffic jams.

Not switching the topic, the point is still the same. Endless noise about something you can't change, and won't be able to change, until you can provide an economic solution to the problem.

This country will have to continue to pay Charon his dues until it becomes un-economical to do so; and all the bleating in the world isn't going to change that.

So, the topic is now the futility of discourse without effecting immediate political change? I would consider that changing public opinion is paramount to effective policy change, otherwise you can simply get a backlash to any changes later on. As to an economic case, I'd consider replacing as many journeys as possible with cycling/walking/public transport and thus enable a quicker and more efficient use of the roads to transport goods and services without getting stuck e.g. in the school run. Cost in the reduction of NHS expenditure due to a healthier population and everyone is a winner (except car manufacturers and petrol companies). By the way, have you considered the irony of complaining about useless noise in comments, whilst not really adding anything except noise yourself?

hawkinspeter wrote:

 So, the topic is now the futility of discourse without affecting immediate political change?

It always was. The endless bleating about inaction by the authorities when nothing is going to change, is the modern day equivilent of King Canute trying to hold back the tide. A complete waste of time, effort and energy.

If Canute wanted to hold back the tide, he should have built a dam. If you want to stop RTAs, address the economics that drive our use and behaviour with respect to transport.

hawkinspeter wrote:

By the way, have you considered the irony of complaining about useless noise in comments, whilst not really adding anything except noise yourself?

If I can get just one idiot to stop posting yet another "ban them for life" comment, it'll have been worth it, i.e. one less useless comment per news story to read equals eternity over a life time.

BTW, this will be my last post as I'm going home now. It's been fun.

gcommie wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

 So, the topic is now the futility of discourse without affecting immediate political change?

It always was. The endless bleating about inaction by the authorities when nothing is going to change, is the modern day equivilent of King Canute trying to hold back the tide. A complete waste of time, effort and energy.

If Canute wanted to hold back the tide, he should have built a dam. If you want to stop RTAs, address the economics that drive our use and behaviour with respect to transport.

hawkinspeter wrote:

By the way, have you considered the irony of complaining about useless noise in comments, whilst not really adding anything except noise yourself?

If I can get just one idiot to stop posting yet another "ban them for life" comment, it'll have been worth it, i.e. one less useless comment per news story to read equals eternity over a life time.

BTW, this will be my last post as I'm going home now. It's been fun.

Canute wasn't trying to hold back the tide, but to demonstrate to his sycophantic court that he couldn't.

Have you considered the futility of posting so many useless comments about useless comments?

the little onion wrote:

If I recall, a lifetime ban has not been imposed in the UK for at least 5 years. Sounds like something Sir Lord St Christopher of Boardman might want to campaign on.

But I suspect that's a consequence of the relative inability to enforce it properly, what makes you think a drink driving, speeding, absconding driver who left someone basically to die at the roadside after theyd crashed into them would remotely have any scruples or conscience about getting behind the wheel of a car without a license? Theyd simply join the ranks of the other roughly 1 million unlicensed drivers on the road.

Awavey wrote:

the little onion wrote:

If I recall, a lifetime ban has not been imposed in the UK for at least 5 years. Sounds like something Sir Lord St Christopher of Boardman might want to campaign on.

But I suspect that's a consequence of the relative inability to enforce it properly, what makes you think a drink driving, speeding, absconding driver who left someone basically to die at the roadside after theyd crashed into them would remotely have any scruples or conscience about getting behind the wheel of a car without a license? Theyd simply join the ranks of the other roughly 1 million unlicensed drivers on the road.

So you think they should be given back their license and clapped on the back and allowed to carry on maiming innocents?

Ban them from driving and then if they're ever caught again driving whilst banned, lock them up for a while. Just because they may be driving for a while without getting caught again is no reason to give them a license again.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Awavey wrote:

the little onion wrote:

If I recall, a lifetime ban has not been imposed in the UK for at least 5 years. Sounds like something Sir Lord St Christopher of Boardman might want to campaign on.

But I suspect that's a consequence of the relative inability to enforce it properly, what makes you think a drink driving, speeding, absconding driver who left someone basically to die at the roadside after theyd crashed into them would remotely have any scruples or conscience about getting behind the wheel of a car without a license? Theyd simply join the ranks of the other roughly 1 million unlicensed drivers on the road.

So you think they should be given back their license and clapped on the back and allowed to carry on maiming innocents?

absolutely not, I would want them to be off the road as much as you, if you could convince me a life ban meant they could never got behind the wheel of a car again, Im totally for it in a case like this,  but I recognise from their actions especially in this case but other cases like it that led people to this point, they would be highly unlikely to comply with such a restriction because the chances of them being caught again are tiny.

and when you talk to the police about why they dont lobby more for longer or even lifetime driving bans, theyll tell you theyve found drivers like this are more likely to comply with a time limited ban,which ultimately does keep them off the road and not maiming innocents, whilst a life ban theyll almost certainly break very quickly in fact  because theyve got nothing to lose anymore, send them to jail sure, theyll be out again after a while and back to driving again, because thats just the way things are.

Im not saying its right thats how things are, Im trying to be realistic

Awavey wrote:

the little onion wrote:

If I recall, a lifetime ban has not been imposed in the UK for at least 5 years. Sounds like something Sir Lord St Christopher of Boardman might want to campaign on.

But I suspect that's a consequence of the relative inability to enforce it properly, what makes you think a drink driving, speeding, absconding driver who left someone basically to die at the roadside after theyd crashed into them would remotely have any scruples or conscience about getting behind the wheel of a car without a license? Theyd simply join the ranks of the other roughly 1 million unlicensed drivers on the road.

But the potential difficulty of enforcing sanctions against a criminal act should not determine whether that act is criminal or not. By that reasoning, we would pretty much give up on trying to prevent sophisticated tax evasion. Yet political will CAN make a difference. Look at the forthcoming EU anti-tax avoidance directive (nothing to do with Brexit, of course) - that is potentially a game changer. The same thing could happen with criminal driving behaviour.

Eton Rifle wrote:

Awavey wrote:

the little onion wrote:

If I recall, a lifetime ban has not been imposed in the UK for at least 5 years. Sounds like something Sir Lord St Christopher of Boardman might want to campaign on.

But I suspect that's a consequence of the relative inability to enforce it properly, what makes you think a drink driving, speeding, absconding driver who left someone basically to die at the roadside after theyd crashed into them would remotely have any scruples or conscience about getting behind the wheel of a car without a license? Theyd simply join the ranks of the other roughly 1 million unlicensed drivers on the road.

 

But the potential difficulty of enforcing sanctions against a criminal act should not determine whether that act is criminal or not. By that reasoning, we would pretty much give up on trying to prevent sophisticated tax evasion. Yet political will CAN make a difference. Look at the forthcoming EU anti-tax avoidance directive (nothing to do with Brexit, of course) - that is potentially a game changer. The same thing could happen with criminal driving behaviour.

Ive no idea where you think youve got that Im remotely even suggesting that the difficulty of enforcing sanctions determines whether an act should be criminal or not.