The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[Alex321]

I can see that not every RTC is caused by someone going 140 through a 20 zone by a primary school as children are spilling out of class, but I'm very uncomfortable (to put it mildly) that in a thread that discusses a death on the roads, that some here are keen to make excuses for poor driving.

"error"
"mistake"
etc
I'm of the firm opinion that RTCs and KSIs would be significantly eliminated if drivers just took their responsibilities more seriously.

One of my jobs is driving , doing my best to keep my passengers and my professional record/reputation in perfect condition. I'm deeply troubled by attitudes and behaviours that I see on the roads, but I'm hugely saddened that intelligent people on here are excusing careless/negligent and dangerous behaviour.

Nobody is making excuses.

Just pointing out that there IS a difference in culpability, and that sentencing guidelines reflect that.

I agree with everything else you say there.

 

[mjr]

Nobody is making excuses.

Just pointing out that there IS a difference in culpability, and that sentencing guidelines reflect that.

I agree with everything else you say there.

Surely it's a difference in degree of culpability, not in culpability itself? Drivers shouldn't do an inattentive or imprudent approach to driving and then be allowed to say that wasn't culpable. It's obviously better than being reckless, but driving carelessly is still an offence.

 

[Alex321]

Surely it's a difference in degree of culpability, not in culpability itself? Drivers shouldn't do an inattentive or imprudent approach to driving and then be allowed to say that wasn't culpable. It's obviously better than being reckless, but driving carelessly is still an offence.

Absolutely.

Saying "a difference in culpability" was I suppose shorthand for saying "Difference in degree of culpability". I certainly did not mean to suggest that culpability was removed.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I agree - someone who has been shown to have made a phone call - and still be on the phone talking about a complex business deal
while doing 70 (yes - I know - it would be over 70 and an Audi or BMW buts lets keep it legal to that extent) and then fails to notice a lorry stopping in front
is far more culpable than a parent whose kid suddenly throws up in the back just the same lorry stops

still not an total excuse but better

 

[Drago]

The kid in the back chunders. We've ll been there. The road still remains the priority, morally and legally. Don't drive if you can't maintain control when a kid pukes.

It's not better.

 

[Profpointy]

The kid in the back chunders. We've ll been there. The road still remains the priority, morally and legally. Don't drive if you can't maintain control when a kid pukes.

It's not better.

You genuinely seem to be saying that any departure from perfection is just as bad as wilfully egregious driving. Racing another motorist at 130mph whilst high on cocaine is the same as scratching a parked car by making an error. It would be absurd to claim one isn't worse than the other.

 

[mjr]

You genuinely seem to be saying that any departure from perfection is just as bad as wilfully egregious driving. Racing another motorist at 130mph whilst high on cocaine is the same as scratching a parked car by making an error. It would be absurd to claim one isn't worse than the other.

Why are you turning it into a false dichotomy? One might be worse than the other but isn't scratching a parked car by deciding to keep driving forwards when you're not sure where the extremities of your vehicle are also a culpable offense? That seems like incompetence — at best carelessness, possibly recklessness — and these days it gets far too easily brushed off as the sort of mistake we should expect drivers to make. Why should we accept that? Aren't drivers trained and tested? Shouldn't they have the backbone to admit and own their deficiencies?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

On this subject the News has just been talking about a older driver who could "only see a few yards clearly" and had been told by an optician not to drive

but was still driving and had hit someone

Quote "The Association of Optometrists found six in 10 of its members have seen a patient who is driving illegally within the past month."

link - sorry it's the Sun

which is scary - not sure if knowingly driving with bad eyesight is better or worse than driving knowingly drunk???

 

[Vantage]

When in control of a lump of steel weighing a ton or more, it is a drivers duty to operate it with caution. Anything else is careless or dangerous.
Whether the driver is reversing out of their driveway onto a farm track and accidently hits a fence post due to a "blind spot" or rocketing down a country lane in excess of 100mph leading to the deaths of an entire family, both are careless driving.
Both are inexcusable and had caution been applied, both are preventable.
A driver should be aware of the danger a motor vehicle poses and must accept it is his or her duty to use it carefully. No exceptions.

 

[mjr]

which is scary - not sure if knowingly driving with bad eyesight is better or worse than driving knowingly drunk???

I think it's worse. If you're drunk, even if you know you're drunk, your judgment is impaired. You don't really have that mitigation if your eyesight is bad and then you decide to drive.

Of course, drivers should try to avoid being in a situation where they'll be tempted to drive drunk (like make other travel plans for getting home from a pub), but sometimes events unfold in surprising ways. It's difficult to think how something similar could happen with poor eyesight, except maybe for the journey home after the eye test if no other driver can collect your car.

 

[Alex321]

Why are you turning it into a false dichotomy? One might be worse than the other but isn't scratching a parked car by deciding to keep driving forwards when you're not sure where the extremities of your vehicle are also a culpable offense? That seems like incompetence — at best carelessness, possibly recklessness — and these days it gets far too easily brushed off as the sort of mistake we should expect drivers to make. Why should we accept that? Aren't drivers trained and tested? Shouldn't they have the backbone to admit and own their deficiencies?

Nobody is suggesting it should be accepted.

Just that there is a difference in degree of cuplability, and that sentencing should reflect that - which it does, but one poster here is suggesting there is no difference. It isn't @Profpointy turning it into a false dichotomy, he is responding to the false dichotomy created by another.

 

[mjr]

Have you seriously injured another road user? Offer to surrender your driving licence and the authorities will consider not prosecuting you! Well, I guess it worked for old Prince Phil. 🫤

Driver, 90, seriously injured biker in North Walsham crash | Eastern Daily Press – https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24753474.driver-90-seriously-injured-biker-north-walsham-crash/?ref=rss

 

[Emanresu]

Have a look at this one. 87 years old and highly visible - and yet West Yorkshire Police decided there was nothing to prosecute.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGajEX9flzw


Mind you on the country roads near me, a farmer decided to rearrange the back of my car which was written off. Since then I've found it's much safer on a bike as there is less to go at and a ditch is always an option.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Have a look at this one. 87 years old and highly visible - and yet West Yorkshire Police decided there was nothing to prosecute.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGajEX9flzw


Mind you on the country roads near me, a farmer decided to rearrange the back of my car which was written off. Since then I've found it's much safer on a bike as there is less to go at and a ditch is always an option.

True
but if the tractor does hit you it will do more damage to you than if you have a hunk of metal behind you

 

[Drago]

Have a look at this one. 87 years old and highly visible - and yet West Yorkshire Police decided there was nothing to prosecute.

Holy Trump! I've put less than that successfully before a court and prevailed. This was giftwrapped dose of careless with a bow on top. Outrageous.