jules1967 wrote:

jimbob4755 wrote:

When i passed my driving test many many moons ago, in preparation and practical learning, this included driving the car safely and not taking risks. Has this element of driving changed - I don't think so, as legally permitted drivers we all know of the risks, i.e not overtaking on a hump back bridge, on a bend and where it is not safe to do so and driving in a manner not conducive to the prevailing road conditions and obviously drink driving. I certainly do have sympathy for those in this case you describe which was not pre planned - but it was avoidable. Too many people these days put it down to 'i didn't think'! as responsible drivers we should think.

Yes - we were all taught this, as no doubt was this poor fool. But - as they sa, let he who is without sin etc. Every time we drive we make risk judgements. Sometimes we travel over the speed limit, sometimes overtake where others may have been more reticent, sometimes pull out when ideally we should have waited. Most of us on here (I assume) have 20+ years of driving experience and for many of us, that covers well over 500,000 miles. In that time, we have learned a lot and as age has progressed, we have matured too. But thats the point. If this was a 35 year old with an impretza then throw the book away, he should have known better. But it wasn't. It was a kid with a car that was way too powerful for him, in the wrong place at the wrong time. 10 seconds later and chances are the accident wouldn't have happened. 5 seconds earlier and he'd have had a near miss, scared himself half to death and learned from the experience.
As an 18 year old, I took a 4L V8 merc down the A61 between Leeds and Harewood and in an attempt to catch my friend up, put my foot down. I glanced down to see the speedo flying past 130. Was I stupid? yes. Did I deserve to go to jail? probably not. It scared me and I backed off.
Another time I went down a country lane, too quick, put my foot down and found myself head to head with an oncoming car coming out of a blind dip. Somehow we missed each other and I never did nor ever will do that again. I learned more in that 5 seconds than the previous 5 months.

We do seem to view a crime, not by the crime itself (like the scroats I mentioned earlier), but by the results of that crime, which 99% of the time is simply down to dumb luck good or bad.

Just because his parents are loaded is no excuse for leniant treatment, but neither is it a reason to be extra harsh on him. In any case, it's doubtful that you could do anythig financial to affect him. We don't know the people involved or the exact circumstances but as npinks points out, people who live with such a thing on their conscience (with the possible exception of a certain low life sheffield boxer) are generally affected for the rest of their lives anyway. I just don't think he 'got away with it'.

I suppose your right, with age comes experience, mind you my first car a cortina mk2 would shake like hell before I ever got to 70mph and before boy racers, smashing windows to nick from cars, commit grafitti, oh for those less complicated hectic days - don't remember sort of crimes reported then must be altzheimers creaping in! but it was front page national news if a policeman was shot, it is likely to not be mentioned now, blimey, I starting to talk like a twirly! I'm going to dig out me flares and tank top like CG  Freelander 2 - SE
Sumatra Black - TD4 -4X4 Jack Russel in boot.

jules1967 wrote:

jimbob4755 wrote:

When i passed my driving test many many moons ago, in preparation and practical learning, this included driving the car safely and not taking risks. Has this element of driving changed - I don't think so, as legally permitted drivers we all know of the risks, i.e not overtaking on a hump back bridge, on a bend and where it is not safe to do so and driving in a manner not conducive to the prevailing road conditions and obviously drink driving. I certainly do have sympathy for those in this case you describe which was not pre planned - but it was avoidable. Too many people these days put it down to 'i didn't think'! as responsible drivers we should think.

Yes - we were all taught this, as no doubt was this poor fool. But - as they sa, let he who is without sin etc. Every time we drive we make risk judgements. Sometimes we travel over the speed limit, sometimes overtake where others may have been more reticent, sometimes pull out when ideally we should have waited. Most of us on here (I assume) have 20+ years of driving experience and for many of us, that covers well over 500,000 miles. In that time, we have learned a lot and as age has progressed, we have matured too. But thats the point. If this was a 35 year old with an impretza then throw the book away, he should have known better. But it wasn't. It was a kid with a car that was way too powerful for him, in the wrong place at the wrong time. 10 seconds later and chances are the accident wouldn't have happened. 5 seconds earlier and he'd have had a near miss, scared himself half to death and learned from the experience.
As an 18 year old, I took a 4L V8 merc down the A61 between Leeds and Harewood and in an attempt to catch my friend up, put my foot down. I glanced down to see the speedo flying past 130. Was I stupid? yes. Did I deserve to go to jail? probably not. It scared me and I backed off.
Another time I went down a country lane, too quick, put my foot down and found myself head to head with an oncoming car coming out of a blind dip. Somehow we missed each other and I never did nor ever will do that again. I learned more in that 5 seconds than the previous 5 months.

We do seem to view a crime, not by the crime itself (like the scroats I mentioned earlier), but by the results of that crime, which 99% of the time is simply down to dumb luck good or bad.

Just because his parents are loaded is no excuse for leniant treatment, but neither is it a reason to be extra harsh on him. In any case, it's doubtful that you could do anythig financial to affect him. We don't know the people involved or the exact circumstances but as npinks points out, people who live with such a thing on their conscience (with the possible exception of a certain low life sheffield boxer) are generally affected for the rest of their lives anyway. I just don't think he 'got away with it'.

avtur wrote:

This is extreme but its the only way to test your commitment to your comments. Can you imagine being quite so logical about the antics of some errant youngster if they had just killed someone dear to you?

Having been involved in the consequences of fatal road traffic collisions, having had to wake people up in the middle of the night and take them to identfiy bodies at the morgue, having seen the sheer human misery caused by 'laddish behaviour' I can't be so logical.

Jules 1967,

This is a very interesting thread, thanks for taking the time to explain your views, I appreciate them, even if perhaps don't fully agree with them. I do understand the point you make about objectivity, and the notion of trying to get away from justice by revenge. In my mind I still struggle with the idea that justice (and therefore the punishment) is not more closely tied to the consequence of the act, rather than the level of premeditation involved in committing the act.

The motor car is a very capable killing machine, I don't think it is acceptable to allow loss of life due to misuse of the machine to be mitigated in anyway. The reality is we live in a very tolerant society, so tolerant that as a 'society' we accept the loss of 10 lives per day (on average) as a result of motoring incidents. If it was a medical illness taking 10 lives a day then it would probably be called an epidemic, it would be constantly in the news; but somehow we 'society' appear to be somewhat more accepting of these deaths because they are called 'motor accidents'. We could save these lives if we REALLY wanted to. We would construct a framework of rules and punishment that was completely intollerant to any mistakes, however we choose not to do that. That's fine, that's what democracy is all about; however if such a loss strikes close to home, then all of a sudden people have a habit of questioning if we've got our balance quite right.

I second that avtur. Well put.

waaxh03

Quote:

The reality is we live in a very tolerant society, so tolerant that as a 'society' we accept the loss of 10 lives per day (on average) as a result of motoring incidents. If it was a medical illness taking 10 lives a day then it would probably be called an epidemic, it would be constantly in the news; but somehow we 'society' appear to be somewhat more accepting of these deaths because they are called 'motor accidents'.

You know what..... I have never thought of it that way......  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

I don't think there is any winning in the arguments which surround such cases, and if a person has feelings of any sort then this sort of incident will change them for the rest of their lives in such a way that they may be better or worse for it. If they are better for it then they may go on to help other people in life and that is then a positive result......................but who can judge.........

If we said a life for a life, then would we say the same for teh surgeon who makes a mistake?

This is a debate that will go on long after we are all gone I am sure.

On the black box aspect, most of the individual systems on a modern car have individual controllers that report back to the main controller, but this sill be general information. For detailed info as found in this case the manufacturer is the one that can pull out the data...not just your local dealer, or maybe not even the car manufacturer, but the controller supplier.

More people die from the Super Bugs in hospitals in a year than die on the roads. Not that this should make us complacent. The problem is too much emphasis is placed purley on numerical speed, but speed is only relative to conditions. If more attention was given to the real problem of poor observation and poor potential hazard recognition, which if carried out properly will automatically give the correct speed for the condition, then the death rate on our roads may start falling. I was lucky when I was taught to drive, my instructor was an ex Hendon police instructor. It was always being instilled in me that if you have to make an emergency stop then you have failed in recognising and reacting to a potential hazard.
TonyJ Remember there are never problems, just new challenges

My driving instructor told me to drive over a 12" X 12" box laying in the middle of the road.

I opted to slow, mirror signal etc and go round it, arguing it could have had bricks in it or a kitten.

He said if i did that i would have failed my test

Drive over box kill kitten or go round it avoiding potential accident fail test, Crazy  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

Surely you should stop if safely possible and pick it up, for the safety of other road users? Kittens for tea  At work
At home

"I can't always believe facts I read on the web" - Charles Dickens

winner by default of the tractor vs caravan race

Gi Guys,

The LR handbook says the data is stored and can be used by the police if required  Grumpy

This is one of the most intersting discussion strings on the forum so far ... the original black box topic and the debate about justice and punishment!  Life is not a dress rehearsal!