The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[Gunk]

Followed a young lad this afternoon in an old Fiat Panda, not only did it have a brake light out, his phone was stuck in the middle of the windscreen and he was watching videos on TikTok!

 

[brommieinkorea]

If by "most" you mean maybe 1-2% at best, then yes.

You seem to be working on the premise that these are deliberate actions. They aren't. You will only be deterred from doing something if it is something you are deliberately choosing to do.

Yes, they are deliberate.

 

[brommieinkorea]

There is no evidence that he decided to commit road crime. That's rather the point of the sentence. The Judge agreed that he was guilty of inattention, but it couldn't be proven that he was watching YouTube at the time, only that his phone was playing it (i.e. he could have been listening to music or a videocast for example).

Given his clear remorse, early guilty plea and disabled son, the Judge was minded to suspend his prison sentence.

If his phone was playing a video, it meant he intended to be messing with his phone. Intentional negligence. Like going to a crowded street with a semi-automatic firearm, closing your eyes and pulling the trigger until the magazine is empty...except a car at speed is more likely to kill more people.

 

[Alex321]

Yes, they are deliberate.

False, in the actual human world.

People are not robots. They make mistakes, they get carelkess. They do not usually do these things deliberately, and suggesting they do is not going to help solve the issues.

 

[icowden]

If his phone was playing a video, it meant he intended to be messing with his phone. Intentional negligence. Like going to a crowded street with a semi-automatic firearm, closing your eyes and pulling the trigger until the magazine is empty...except a car at speed is more likely to kill more people.

That's just nonsense. You can listen to a video just as you would a podcast. An episode of Fully Charged lasts for around an hour. There are also plenty of audio only youtubes.

 

[Drago]

Intentional negligence.

Absolute recklessness.

Any reasonable person can foresee that such behaviour could lead to someone being killed, and it should be treated and sentenced as murder.

Indeed, any action recklessly taken outside the law that results in a death should be treated and sentenced as murder on the basis it was reasonably foreseeable outcome yet they continued to do so anyway. Such an act is neither accidental or even careless - it is deliberate and premeditated.

Manslaughter should be reserved for those acting within the law, albeit still not sensibly or wisely, who kill.

 

[icowden]

Absolute recklessness.
Any reasonable person can foresee that such behaviour could lead to someone being killed, and it should be treated and sentenced as murder.
Indeed, any action recklessly taken outside the law that results in a death should be treated and sentenced as murder on the basis it was reasonably foreseeable outcome yet they continued to do so anyway. Such an act is neither accidental or even careless - it is deliberate and premeditated.
Manslaughter should be reserved for those acting within the law, albeit still not sensibly or wisely, who kill.

So you never listen to the radio in your car?

 

[grldtnr]

So you never listen to the radio in your car?

In my car ,radio comes on with traffic announcements , I don't have media playing when driving, boring old fart I maybe,but I am paying attention to what I am doing, not what's on the radio!
Driving is stimulation enough for me, I don't need other distractions from what I'm doing.

So I'm boring, but put it this way, do you see bus drivers , coach drivers or any professional driving with a radio or music playing.......answers to the Cycle Chat forum

 

[icowden]

So I'm boring, but put it this way, do you see bus drivers , coach drivers or any professional driving with a radio or music playing.......answers to the Cycle Chat forum

Yes. Many a time in a coach the radio has been playing. See also taxis, ubers, lyfts etc. Music often aids concentration and breaks up monotony.

 

[Dogtrousers]

False, in the actual human world.

People are not robots. They make mistakes, they get carelkess. They do not usually do these things deliberately, and suggesting they do is not going to help solve the issues.

Well there's a spectrum isn't there? From intent and recklessness through negligence to minor carelessness.

Take an idealised simple case of speeding : A person was exceeding the speed limit in a 30 limit in a built up area. Was it because they saw the restriction signs and chose to disregard them (intent)? Because the restriction signs were present and visible but they failed to see them because of a lack of competence (distracted, fiddling with the aircon, not looking)? Because they saw the signs but were unaware of their speed (incompetence again)? Because they saw the signs but the car ahead was speeding so they thought "hell, why not?" (intent). Because the all restriction signs, including repeaters, were missing or hidden (eg by trees) and they failed to notice other indications like street lights and driveways suggesting that this is likely to be a 30 limit and caution is called for? (misfortune and/or incompetence)

From this we can see that you can either be intentionally reckless and disregard the law, or incompetent. It's pretty much impossible to break the speed limit blamelessly. There may be some edge cases but they're pretty much negligible. It's a simple case but it can be applied more widely.

So if we're going to be kind and generous to offenders, and give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intent, then the word we're looking for is incompetent, not careless.

This is why the lack of any requirement for retraining/education (except for speed awareness courses) is puzzling. Surely if you lose your licence you should be required to re-qualify (at your own expense, of course). Just handing back licenses to people in the vague hope they might not re-offend is optimistic at best, stupid at worst. Now I'm aware that there's a question mark over the efficacy of such training (reverting to bad habits), and it's also true that raising the bar too high might simply encourage driving without a licence, but doing nothing is just the ostrich approach.

 

[Alex321]

Well there's a spectrum isn't there? From intent and recklessness through negligence to minor carelessness.

There is (though Drago would disagree). And the law takes that spectrum into account when setting sentences.

Take an idealised simple case of speeding : A person was exceeding the speed limit in a 30 limit in a built up area. Was it because they saw the restriction signs and chose to disregard them (intent)? Because the restriction signs were present and visible but they failed to see them because of a lack of competence (distracted, fiddling with the aircon, not looking)? Because they saw the signs but were unaware of their speed (incompetence again)? Because they saw the signs but the car ahead was speeding so they thought "hell, why not?" (intent). Because the all restriction signs, including repeaters, were missing or hidden (eg by trees) and they failed to notice other indications like street lights and driveways suggesting that this is likely to be a 30 limit and caution is called for? (misfortune and/or incompetence)

From this we can see that you can either be intentionally reckless and disregard the law, or incompetent. It's pretty much impossible to break the speed limit blamelessly. There may be some edge cases but they're pretty much negligible. It's a simple case but it can be applied more widely.

I agree that it is very rare to break speed limits blamelessly, thouygh I would disagree that it is always incompetence rather than simlpe carelessness.

Carelessness doesn't mean blamelessness of course.

I got done last year for 35 in a 30 limit. I had set the speed limiter on my car, but that only stops you accelerating manually, it doesn't apply brakes, so if you hit a hill, it won't stop you speeding. I came over the brow of a slight uphill onto a sudden fairly steep dwonhill, on a road I was unfamiliar with. It took me a couple of seconds to register that I was going too fast now and hit the brakes, by which time the camera van at the bottm of the hill had got me. I would describe that as carelessness on my part rather than incompetence.

Still absolutely my fault, and I deserved the ticket.

So if we're going to be kind and generous to offenders, and give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intent, then the word we're looking for is incompetent, not careless.

It varies.

This is why the lack of any requirement for retraining/education (except for speed awareness courses) is puzzling. Surely if you lose your licence you should be required to re-qualify (at your own expense, of course). Just handing back licenses to people in the vague hope they might not re-offend is optimistic at best, stupid at worst. Now I'm aware that there's a question mark over the efficacy of such training (reverting to bad habits), but doing nothing is just the ostrich approach.

The magistrates/judges always have the option when disqualifying, of requiring a re-test (or Even an extended re-test) before you get your licence back.
But they only tend to use that option in the most egregious of cases.

 

[mjr]

That's just nonsense. You can listen to a video just as you would a podcast. An episode of Fully Charged lasts for around an hour. There are also plenty of audio only youtubes.

No reports yet say the phone was playing podcasts or other audio-only material. I expect the watch history was available to evidence like the app usage history clearly was. Surely the defence would have mentioned if it wasn't playing video. Let's not clutch at straws.

 

[Dogtrousers]

There is (though Drago would disagree). And the law takes that spectrum into account when setting sentences.



I agree that it is very rare to break speed limits blamelessly, thouygh I would disagree that it is always incompetence rather than simlpe carelessness.

Carelessness doesn't mean blamelessness of course.

I got done last year for 35 in a 30 limit. I had set the speed limiter on my car, but that only stops you accelerating manually, it doesn't apply brakes, so if you hit a hill, it won't stop you speeding. I came over the brow of a slight uphill onto a sudden fairly steep dwonhill, on a road I was unfamiliar with. It took me a couple of seconds to register that I was going too fast now and hit the brakes, by which time the camera van at the bottm of the hill had got me. I would describe that as carelessness on my part rather than incompetence.

Still absolutely my fault, and I deserved the ticket.


It varies.



The magistrates/judges always have the option when disqualifying, of requiring a re-test (or Even an extended re-test) before you get your licence back.
But they only tend to use that option in the most egregious of cases.

And yet there seems to be no requirement for re-testing in the Bassam case, which is about as egregious as it gets. Might this not be the mythical low-hanging-fruit that could result in a small improvement.

Incidentally, I think you're being a bit generous to yourself in putting your ticket down to carelessness rather than incompetence. Did you not learn anything from your experience? Did you not use it as an opportunity to improve your skills? (For example learning that cars accelerate when going downhill)

 

[Alex321]

And yet there seems to be no requirement for re-testing in the Bassam case, which is about as egregious as it gets. Might this not be the mythical low-hanging-fruit that could result in a small improvement.

Incidentally, I think you're being a bit generous to yourself in putting your ticket down to carelessness rather than incompetence. Did you not learn anything from your experience? Did you not use it as an opportunity to improve your skills? (For example learning that cars accelerate when going downhill)

I knew that cars accelerate when going downhill, it just took me a little too long to notice on this occasion, partly because I wasn't familiar with the road and wasn't actually expecting a sudden fairly steep downhill.

It is not incompetence if you can normally handle it perfectly well, but a momentary lapse of concentration meant you didn't this time.

 

[mjr]

[...] the camera van at the bottm of the hill had got me. I would describe that as carelessness on my part rather than incompetence.

No, it's both. However, speeding of that level (35 in 30) does not currently prevent you from passing the driving test if done only once, as I did it in mine, having failed one test for going too slowly past a primary school.

Society currently agrees with you more than me, but that's part of the point of this discussion: why do criminal motorists get off so lightly?