The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[Drago]

It also requires you to maintain concentration and care throughout your journey, not just at the start.

If that is unduly onerous then driving is not for them.

There are numerous safety critical activities that require concentration throughout. Driving isn't a special case where it is somehow acceptable or understandable to lapse if you didn't really mean it. It's a good thing pilots, scuba divers, firefighters, transplant surgeons, and electricity linemen (or linewomen in these enlightened times) dont have your attitude.

And nope, I've never cocked up on the road in 40 years. No collisions, not even parking dings, and no tickets or court appearances. I spent some years driving at speeds in excess of twice that you are allowed to drive at and I survived unscathed because I stuck to my training and didn't f*** up so didn't have to make lame excuses to excuse my ineptitude.

Indeed, being an advanced driver from the day I passed my test (my Dad taught me and he was RoSPA observer so I learned to drive to the system from day one) I knew the drills to make safe progress and force myself to increase awareness and recognise when I am no longer safe or effective due to tiredness, etc.

Conversely, most people are simply taught how to pass a driving test and know this. They then do zero training beyond that, thus making a conscious decision from the off not to learn to drive in the safest possible manner - their stated goal ismto pass that test, and no more.

Right from the moment the average Joe applies for their provisional ticket they are making a series of long term strategic and then daily tactical decisions to prioritise other aspects of motoring above driving in the safest possible manner.

If you're having a problem with your concentration then safer alternatives exist, such as the bus. No one is being forced into an activity they can't discharge with care and consideration. Yet they wilfully do so anyway and then expect society to be understanding or lenient when their actions, and the decisions in the seconds, hours, or even years leading up to those actions, foxtrot up some innocent sods life.

 

[Alex321]

If that is unduly onerous then driving is not for them.

There are numerous safety critical activities that require concentration throughout. Driving isn't a special case where it is somehow acceptable or understandable to lapse if you didn't really mean it. It's a good thing pilots, scuba divers, firefighters, transplant surgeons, and electricity linemen (or linewomen in these enlightened times) dont have your attitude.

What "attitude" is that which you think I have and they don't?

And people die every year undertaking most of those activities too.

And nope, I've never cocked up on the road in 40 years. No collisions, not even parking dings, and no tickets or court appearances.

That is not what I asked.

You are saying you have never made a mistake when driving? Of any sort, whether it had consequences or not?

If you're having a problem with your concentration then safer alternatives exist, such as the bus. No one is being forced into an activity they can't discharge with care and consideration. Yet they wilfully do so anyway and then expect society to be understanding or lenient when their actions, and the decisions in the seconds, hours, or even years leading up to those actions, foxtrot up some innocent sods life.

I don't know of anybody who expects that - though I have seen or heard of cases where people do seem to have thought that way.

 

[lazybloke]

All of that is nonsense. Humans are fallible. To err is human. Our brains work on prediction models, we don't see what is actually there until it isn't. We make a prediction based on what is going to happen. We have blind spots and many different systems which sometimes mean we miss something. You can't just turn all of that off by making a decision. We are not robots.

So you think there's nothing to be done?
It might not be possible to "just turn all of that off", but all risks can be mitigated with:
Driver education.
Better testing.
Retesting.
Incentives and disincentives.
Enforcement of laws/standards.
A criminal justice system with meaningful punishment of negligence behind the wheel.

 

[Alex321]

So you think there's nothing to be done?

Why are so many in this thread putting words into oter people's mouths?

He said no such thing.

It might not be possible to "just turn all of that off", but all risks can be mitigated with:
Driver education.
Better testing.
Retesting.
Incentives and disincentives.
Enforcement of laws/standards.
A criminal justice system with meaningful punishment of negligence behind the wheel.

Yes, all of these would help. You will never eliminate errors, but all these things can help reduce them.

 

[Gunk]

And nope, I've never cocked up on the road in 40 years

That is the kiss of death saying that!

 

[grldtnr]

Why are so many in this thread putting words into oter people's mouths?

He said no such thing.



Yes, all of these would help. You will never eliminate errors, but all these things can help reduce them.

It bemuses me that certain posters have an antagonist attitude to road safety for cyclist,, you would think they would be more Proforma for cyclist, but there you are!
Something can be done to immeasurable improve cycle safety here, just by adopting a 'continental' attitude towards cyclists, which I. The grand scheme of things wouldn't cost that much, as opposed to the costs of scraping mangled remains of the roads,
I'll expand on that, if the respect for cyclist & pedestrians is there maybe it will stretch to other road users.
An example of a cycling super infrastructure is over in the Netherlands, where motor and non motorist seem to co- exist, mainly through attitudes, and road engineerig.
I don't hold with the arguement 'it can't happen here's ,well it can, The Dutch had a way worse problem with road safety back in the '70's , this improved because the public actually actively campaigned for better facilities,there were massive demonstrations , of the Critical mass kind, and the government gave in ,and invested in road engineering to improve things, at the time there was a high degree of road deaths with children fatalities, which corresponded with adult ones too
So, all those who argue it won't happen here because it's too congested, well that is no argument, Netherlands is quite a compact country and heavily built up, ... And yet they constantly are improving non motorised traffic.
It's Public opinion that demanded change, , perhaps it's because of the way the Dutch think, but they are very inclusive.

 

[Drago]

That is the kiss of death saying that!

I'm hoping to dodge that bullet by not owning a car myself and getting Mrs D to drive the camper.

 

[lazybloke]

Why are so many in this thread putting words into oter people's mouths?

He said no such thing.

I don't need to put words in someone's mouth; they've already sought to defend lenient sentencing and to explain away poor standards of driving. Until I see them state otherwise, it's reasonable to interpret their stance as tacitly accepting and excusing bad driving.

Yes, all of these would help. You will never eliminate errors, but all these things can help reduce them.

That's exactly what I said.
I'm not saying anything controversial so I'm glad we're in agreement.

 

[grldtnr]

I'm hoping to dodge that bullet by not owning a car myself and getting Mrs D to drive the camper.

You damn piker! Man up and own it .

 

[grldtnr]

I don't need to put words in someone's mouth; they've already sought to defend lenient sentencing and to explain away poor standards of driving. Until I see them state otherwise, it's reasonable to interpret their stance as tacitly accepting and excusing bad driving.



That's exactly what I said.
I'm not saying anything controversial so I'm glad we're in agreement.

It's Panto time!

'Oh no your not.....

 

[icowden]

I don't need to put words in someone's mouth; they've already sought to defend lenient sentencing and to explain away poor standards of driving.

I'm not sure I was defending it, just pointing out that within the guidelines laid down by the Justice system the sentences are not lenient. nor have I explained away poor standards of driving - what I have explained is that humans make mistakes. We are notorious for it.

Until I see them state otherwise, it's reasonable to interpret their stance as tacitly accepting and excusing bad driving.

Not really. Bad driving is bad driving. This is why we have a distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving.

 

[mjr]

Not really. Bad driving is bad driving. This is why we have a distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving.

And the distinction is that careless driving is driving past a marshalled barrier and into two small children, while dangerous is... I really don't know... doing the same with a live nuclear missile strapped to the bonnet?

 

[mjr]

If you're having a problem with your concentration then safer alternatives exist, such as the bus. No one is being forced into an activity they can't discharge with care and consideration.

Except in a lot of the country a lot of the time, that alternative doesn't exist any more, so we have a load of people driving who don't want to and we probably have even more who can't drive properly. Then the final kicker is that this means judges are reluctant to stop the ones who demonstrate they really can't drive properly, because having to rely on active and public transport is seen as too much hardship!

Fix active and public transport, help the courts to ban really bad drivers, and the pathetic punishments might matter less!

 

[Drago]

That's chicken and egg I guess. Who is going to invest in public transport while we live in world where the majority of motorists think it's OK to use a car for a 1/4 journey to the corner shop?

 

[Alex321]

And the distinction is that careless driving is driving past a marshalled barrier and into two small children, while dangerous is... I really don't know... doing the same with a live nuclear missile strapped to the bonnet?

Dangerous driving has to be such that there is significant risk of injury or significant damage. We don't know the exact circumstances here, but given that there were no injuries reported, even though the driver apparently "clipped" two brownies, suggests they may have been driving slowly enough to not be a danger.

I honestly cannot think of any other reason they would only have been reported under section 3 (Careless or inconsiderate driving). Unless of course, the people ding the reporting were just incompetent.

If they were just driving through regardless, at a "normal" speed for the road, then I can't see any way it could have been anything but dangerous.