Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I'm not going to disagree with or dismiss the evidence such as it is, but I will point out that it is weak and insubstantial, and in any case there is the point raised earlier about passengers in the car and the practical difficulties with such a law.

In your opinion it may be weak and insubstantial but the TRL evidence was strong enough to make a relatively large company take action! And where is your evidence to counter that provided and demonstrate hands-free use has no detrimental effect on concentration whilst driving?

Or maybe they just used it as a reason to stop their employees chatting with their friends and families. How many other big companies have banned hands-free phones? That's where your point fails.

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

In the case of the biker, once again you point out that he didn't kill or injure anybody, and once again I point out that that is not the point.

I raised that again purely to contrast the way the individual concerned was treated compared with someone who was actually involved in an accident - as a consequence in part of being distracted by using a hands-free mobile - and killed two people as a result. How can a custodial sentence be appropriate for him when someone who's been negligent behind the wheel and killed two people can walk free with a fine and a ban?

You'll have to ask the judge.

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Nobody apart from those that would like to drive faster is obsessed with speed and speed limits.

Really? The authorities seem very keen to extend the use of cameras and, as our biker found out, the courts seem very keen to dish out punishments which to some of us at least seem wholly disproportionate to the crime. Could just be me being paranoid but personally I think speeding has assumed a priority with the authorities which is not really merited (at least not from a safety point of view).

Well personally I think you are wrong. Not one of the people who continually complain that authorities concentrate on speed to the detriment of other road safety have ever proved that to be true. It's just something they like to say because they want to drive faster.

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Speed limit enforcement in inexpensive in comparison to other prosecuting other offences and every sort of accident that might occur is less severe if it happens at a lower speed.

Just because speed enforcement is relatively low cost doesn't mean it's the best place to focus your efforts if safety is the objective.

I refer you to my previous answer.

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

I appreciate it's a different topic, I was merely illustrating that focus on something which happens relatively rarely (excessive speeding) isn't necessarily a sensible priority when at the same time we allow other activities to continue to happen regularly and often (and remain legal) even when the evidence suggests they're very distracting. I'm not suggesting use of a hands-free mobile should be deemed dangerous driving (although in some circumstances it certainly could be), I'm questioning why - if safety is their priority - the authorities seem to have no desire to even recognise it's a problem.

They don't focus resources on it. The deal with it when somebody throws themselves in front of them.

The speed trap wouldn't have been there if resources hadn't been committed to it (and in Scotland I don't think it was there courtesy of any self-funding model as I don't think they run SAC's up there?).

The focus isn't on excessive speeding with those resources, those resources are for speed enforcement (not limited to dealing with dangerous driving through grossly excessive speeds), something which is far more prevalent than mobile phone use whilst driving. They weren't sat there waiting in hope for an elusive 149mph biker, he just happened along when they were doing far more mundane stuff.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I'm not going to disagree with or dismiss the evidence such as it is, but I will point out that it is weak and insubstantial, and in any case there is the point raised earlier about passengers in the car and the practical difficulties with such a law.

In your opinion it may be weak and insubstantial but the TRL evidence was strong enough to make a relatively large company take action! And where is your evidence to counter that provided and demonstrate hands-free use has no detrimental effect on concentration whilst driving?

Or maybe they just used it as a reason to stop their employees chatting with their friends and families. How many other big companies have banned hands-free phones? That's where your point fails.

Just because lots of other companies haven't followed suit doesn't invalidate the research. I also see you've still not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that hands-free use is significantly safer than hand-held; could that be because there isn't any?

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

In the case of the biker, once again you point out that he didn't kill or injure anybody, and once again I point out that that is not the point.

I raised that again purely to contrast the way the individual concerned was treated compared with someone who was actually involved in an accident - as a consequence in part of being distracted by using a hands-free mobile - and killed two people as a result. How can a custodial sentence be appropriate for him when someone who's been negligent behind the wheel and killed two people can walk free with a fine and a ban?

You'll have to ask the judge.

That's really a bit of a cop-out answer isn't it? Surely you have an opinion on what's worse, driving carelessly to the point of killing two people or riding well beyond the speed limit but with no other consequences? So come on, who do you think should receive the harsher punishment? I'm not saying either necessarily deserves a custodial sentence but if you had to pick one to go to jail which would it be?

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Nobody apart from those that would like to drive faster is obsessed with speed and speed limits.

Really? The authorities seem very keen to extend the use of cameras and, as our biker found out, the courts seem very keen to dish out punishments which to some of us at least seem wholly disproportionate to the crime. Could just be me being paranoid but personally I think speeding has assumed a priority with the authorities which is not really merited (at least not from a safety point of view).

Well personally I think you are wrong. Not one of the people who continually complain that authorities concentrate on speed to the detriment of other road safety have ever proved that to be true. It's just something they like to say because they want to drive faster.

Well when you look at the North Yorkshire Speed Camera Partnership there's nothing in the accident statistics to show their efforts have done anything to improve road safety in the County; lots of effort to run up a blind alley as far as safety is concerned. We'll just have to agree to differ on this one!

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

Speed limit enforcement in inexpensive in comparison to other prosecuting other offences and every sort of accident that might occur is less severe if it happens at a lower speed.

Just because speed enforcement is relatively low cost doesn't mean it's the best place to focus your efforts if safety is the objective.

I refer you to my previous answer.

Ditto!

[anonymous-user]

RobinOakapple said:

TBH I can see his point, calling someone a hypocrite is going a bit far. You come across as one of those people who thinks that anyone who disagrees with you must have something wrong with them. Have a look in the mirror.

I am not the one having a flounce.

[anonymous-user]

JNW1 said:

That's really a bit of a cop-out answer isn't it? Surely you have an opinion on what's worse, driving carelessly to the point of killing two people or riding well beyond the speed limit but with no other consequences? So come on, who do you think should receive the harsher punishment? I'm not saying either necessarily deserves a custodial sentence but if you had to pick one to go to jail which would it be?

Agreed. If you applied a standard risk assessment to this scenario would you treat both parties the same. Of course not.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I'm not going to disagree with or dismiss the evidence such as it is, but I will point out that it is weak and insubstantial, and in any case there is the point raised earlier about passengers in the car and the practical difficulties with such a law.

In your opinion it may be weak and insubstantial but the TRL evidence was strong enough to make a relatively large company take action! And where is your evidence to counter that provided and demonstrate hands-free use has no detrimental effect on concentration whilst driving?

Or maybe they just used it as a reason to stop their employees chatting with their friends and families. How many other big companies have banned hands-free phones? That's where your point fails.

Just because lots of other companies haven't followed suit doesn't invalidate the research. I also see you've still not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that hands-free use is significantly safer than hand-held; could that be because there isn't any?

If you can't work out for yourself that it's safer to have a hands-free phone conversation while driving than it is to do the same while holding the phone as well, then there is no way I can explain it to you.

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

In the case of the biker, once again you point out that he didn't kill or injure anybody, and once again I point out that that is not the point.

I raised that again purely to contrast the way the individual concerned was treated compared with someone who was actually involved in an accident - as a consequence in part of being distracted by using a hands-free mobile - and killed two people as a result. How can a custodial sentence be appropriate for him when someone who's been negligent behind the wheel and killed two people can walk free with a fine and a ban?

You'll have to ask the judge.

That's really a bit of a cop-out answer isn't it? Surely you have an opinion on what's worse, driving carelessly to the point of killing two people or riding well beyond the speed limit but with no other consequences? So come on, who do you think should receive the harsher punishment? I'm not saying either necessarily deserves a custodial sentence but if you had to pick one to go to jail which would it be?

But I don't have to pick one. You are trying to force a false dilemma on me. And I've already made my thoughts clear on your 'judging on outcomes' preferences. I prefer (like the courts) to focus on what was in the mind of the accused before the outcome. I don't think people who get away with it on the day through luck should be treated less harshly just because it worked out alright that time.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

JNW1 said:

That's really a bit of a cop-out answer isn't it? Surely you have an opinion on what's worse, driving carelessly to the point of killing two people or riding well beyond the speed limit but with no other consequences? So come on, who do you think should receive the harsher punishment? I'm not saying either necessarily deserves a custodial sentence but if you had to pick one to go to jail which would it be?

Agreed. If you applied a standard risk assessment to this scenario would you treat both parties the same. Of course not.

When you drive carelessly or dangerously you are now relying on luck, if you are lucky you don't have a collision if not you can.
Somebody isn't convicted on the basis of how unlucky they were, they are convicted in relation to the action they committed that resulted in them relying on luck. The actions regarded as more serious/dangerous/committed resulting in a dangerous driving offence & the more minor/lapses resulting in a careless offence.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 17th February 17:30

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

When you drive carelessly or dangerous you are now relying on luck, if you are lucky you don't have a collision if not you can.
Somebody isn't sentenced on the basis of how unlucky they were, they are sentenced in relation to the action they committed that resulted in them relying on luck. The actions regarded as more serious/dangerous/committed resulting in a dangerous driving offence & the more minor/lapses resulting in a careless offence.

But you don't personally believe that jail is the best solution to this?

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

When you drive carelessly or dangerous you are now relying on luck, if you are lucky you don't have a collision if not you can.
Somebody isn't sentenced on the basis of how unlucky they were, they are sentenced in relation to the action they committed that resulted in them relying on luck. The actions regarded as more serious/dangerous/committed resulting in a dangerous driving offence & the more minor/lapses resulting in a careless offence.

But you don't personally believe that jail is the best solution to this?

I don't know in this particular case because I don't have all the info that the court did, which I suspect is the same for everybody else here.
I do know I favour the way E&W courts appear to look at & interpret danger in Sec 2 over the Scottish courts, but that's what results in convictions not sentences. Sentences will be based on all the information including that which we aren't party to.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I'm not going to disagree with or dismiss the evidence such as it is, but I will point out that it is weak and insubstantial, and in any case there is the point raised earlier about passengers in the car and the practical difficulties with such a law.

In your opinion it may be weak and insubstantial but the TRL evidence was strong enough to make a relatively large company take action! And where is your evidence to counter that provided and demonstrate hands-free use has no detrimental effect on concentration whilst driving?

Or maybe they just used it as a reason to stop their employees chatting with their friends and families. How many other big companies have banned hands-free phones? That's where your point fails.

Just because lots of other companies haven't followed suit doesn't invalidate the research. I also see you've still not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that hands-free use is significantly safer than hand-held; could that be because there isn't any?

If you can't work out for yourself that it's safer to have a hands-free phone conversation while driving than it is to do the same while holding the phone as well, then there is no way I can explain it to you.

I know it's uncomfortable for you to accept but the available research and evidence shows that most of the distraction comes from having the conversation; whether it's hand-held or hands-free makes little difference. You have evidence to prove otherwise?

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

In the case of the biker, once again you point out that he didn't kill or injure anybody, and once again I point out that that is not the point.

I raised that again purely to contrast the way the individual concerned was treated compared with someone who was actually involved in an accident - as a consequence in part of being distracted by using a hands-free mobile - and killed two people as a result. How can a custodial sentence be appropriate for him when someone who's been negligent behind the wheel and killed two people can walk free with a fine and a ban?

You'll have to ask the judge.

That's really a bit of a cop-out answer isn't it? Surely you have an opinion on what's worse, driving carelessly to the point of killing two people or riding well beyond the speed limit but with no other consequences? So come on, who do you think should receive the harsher punishment? I'm not saying either necessarily deserves a custodial sentence but if you had to pick one to go to jail which would it be?

But I don't have to pick one. You are trying to force a false dilemma on me. And I've already made my thoughts clear on your 'judging on outcomes' preferences. I prefer (like the courts) to focus on what was in the mind of the accused before the outcome. I don't think people who get away with it on the day through luck should be treated less harshly just because it worked out alright that time.

Not a false dilemma, two real cases. So basically you're saying the biker was lucky he didn't cause all sorts of mayhem and therefore should go to prison but the lady talking on her mobile, speeding and running a set of traffic lights deserved a lesser sentence even though through her actions she killed two people? You're entitled to your opinion but once again we'll have to agree to differ; I'm not suggesting you sentence purely on the outcomes but IMO it is equally wrong to ignore them completely or fail to give them appropriate weighting.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I'm not going to disagree with or dismiss the evidence such as it is, but I will point out that it is weak and insubstantial, and in any case there is the point raised earlier about passengers in the car and the practical difficulties with such a law.

In your opinion it may be weak and insubstantial but the TRL evidence was strong enough to make a relatively large company take action! And where is your evidence to counter that provided and demonstrate hands-free use has no detrimental effect on concentration whilst driving?

Or maybe they just used it as a reason to stop their employees chatting with their friends and families. How many other big companies have banned hands-free phones? That's where your point fails.

Just because lots of other companies haven't followed suit doesn't invalidate the research. I also see you've still not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that hands-free use is significantly safer than hand-held; could that be because there isn't any?

If you can't work out for yourself that it's safer to have a hands-free phone conversation while driving than it is to do the same while holding the phone as well, then there is no way I can explain it to you.

I know it's uncomfortable for you to accept but the available research and evidence shows that most of the distraction comes from having the conversation; whether it's hand-held or hands-free makes little difference. You have evidence to prove otherwise?

It's nothing to do with being uncomfortable, and I don't need 'available research' to tell me that holding a phone is worse than not holding it. Funnily enough, the law agrees with me.

I personally am not distracted by having a conversation while driving but maybe some people are. Whether they are talking to someone in the car or on the phone makes no real-world difference.

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

In the case of the biker, once again you point out that he didn't kill or injure anybody, and once again I point out that that is not the point.

I raised that again purely to contrast the way the individual concerned was treated compared with someone who was actually involved in an accident - as a consequence in part of being distracted by using a hands-free mobile - and killed two people as a result. How can a custodial sentence be appropriate for him when someone who's been negligent behind the wheel and killed two people can walk free with a fine and a ban?

You'll have to ask the judge.

That's really a bit of a cop-out answer isn't it? Surely you have an opinion on what's worse, driving carelessly to the point of killing two people or riding well beyond the speed limit but with no other consequences? So come on, who do you think should receive the harsher punishment? I'm not saying either necessarily deserves a custodial sentence but if you had to pick one to go to jail which would it be?

But I don't have to pick one. You are trying to force a false dilemma on me. And I've already made my thoughts clear on your 'judging on outcomes' preferences. I prefer (like the courts) to focus on what was in the mind of the accused before the outcome. I don't think people who get away with it on the day through luck should be treated less harshly just because it worked out alright that time.

Not a false dilemma, two real cases. So basically you're saying the biker was lucky he didn't cause all sorts of mayhem and therefore should go to prison but the lady talking on her mobile, speeding and running a set of traffic lights deserved a lesser sentence even though through her actions she killed two people? You're entitled to your opinion but once again we'll have to agree to differ; I'm not suggesting you sentence purely on the outcomes but IMO it is equally wrong to ignore them completely or fail to give them appropriate weighting.

Of course it's two real cases. But trying to force me to choose between them is where the false dilemma part comes in. Nor am I saying the biker should go to prison. If you want to know what I am saying then please just read it. Don't read things into it.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I'm not going to disagree with or dismiss the evidence such as it is, but I will point out that it is weak and insubstantial, and in any case there is the point raised earlier about passengers in the car and the practical difficulties with such a law.

In your opinion it may be weak and insubstantial but the TRL evidence was strong enough to make a relatively large company take action! And where is your evidence to counter that provided and demonstrate hands-free use has no detrimental effect on concentration whilst driving?

Or maybe they just used it as a reason to stop their employees chatting with their friends and families. How many other big companies have banned hands-free phones? That's where your point fails.

Just because lots of other companies haven't followed suit doesn't invalidate the research. I also see you've still not provided any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that hands-free use is significantly safer than hand-held; could that be because there isn't any?

If you can't work out for yourself that it's safer to have a hands-free phone conversation while driving than it is to do the same while holding the phone as well, then there is no way I can explain it to you.

I know it's uncomfortable for you to accept but the available research and evidence shows that most of the distraction comes from having the conversation; whether it's hand-held or hands-free makes little difference. You have evidence to prove otherwise?

It's nothing to do with being uncomfortable, and I don't need 'available research' to tell me that holding a phone is worse than not holding it. Funnily enough, the law agrees with me.

I personally am not distracted by having a conversation while driving but maybe some people are. Whether they are talking to someone in the car or on the phone makes no real-world difference.

The debate isn't whether holding a phone is worse than not holding it, the debate is whether most of the distraction comes from holding the phone or whether it comes from having the conversation; the research and evidence suggests the latter. Hopefully the law will come to recognise this in due course and people will cease to be vitriolic in their condemnation of hand-held conversations while being happy to condone hands-free.

In my experience there's a distinct difference between talking to a passenger and talking on a mobile phone (the latter is far more distracting IMO); however, as you're not distracted by conversations you won't have noticed...

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

In the case of the biker, once again you point out that he didn't kill or injure anybody, and once again I point out that that is not the point.

I raised that again purely to contrast the way the individual concerned was treated compared with someone who was actually involved in an accident - as a consequence in part of being distracted by using a hands-free mobile - and killed two people as a result. How can a custodial sentence be appropriate for him when someone who's been negligent behind the wheel and killed two people can walk free with a fine and a ban?

You'll have to ask the judge.

That's really a bit of a cop-out answer isn't it? Surely you have an opinion on what's worse, driving carelessly to the point of killing two people or riding well beyond the speed limit but with no other consequences? So come on, who do you think should receive the harsher punishment? I'm not saying either necessarily deserves a custodial sentence but if you had to pick one to go to jail which would it be?

But I don't have to pick one. You are trying to force a false dilemma on me. And I've already made my thoughts clear on your 'judging on outcomes' preferences. I prefer (like the courts) to focus on what was in the mind of the accused before the outcome. I don't think people who get away with it on the day through luck should be treated less harshly just because it worked out alright that time.

Not a false dilemma, two real cases. So basically you're saying the biker was lucky he didn't cause all sorts of mayhem and therefore should go to prison but the lady talking on her mobile, speeding and running a set of traffic lights deserved a lesser sentence even though through her actions she killed two people? You're entitled to your opinion but once again we'll have to agree to differ; I'm not suggesting you sentence purely on the outcomes but IMO it is equally wrong to ignore them completely or fail to give them appropriate weighting.

Of course it's two real cases. But trying to force me to choose between them is where the false dilemma part comes in. Nor am I saying the biker should go to prison. If you want to know what I am saying then please just read it. Don't read things into it.

Well if you got off the fence and answered the question I wouldn't have to read anything into what you're saying! Don't really understand why you're finding it so hard to express an opinion on this - not something you're usually slow to voice!

[nonsequitur]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

...I'm not suggesting use of a hands-free mobile should be deemed dangerous driving (although in some circumstances it certainly could be), I'm questioning why - if safety is their priority - the authorities seem to have no desire to even recognise it's a problem.

You keep saying about evidence, the usual thing is to link to an authoritative source if you have one. But even if there was such evidence, you then need to address the issue of practicality. What about passengers in the car, would it become illegal to speak to them, especially if they are in the back seat? Children can be pretty distracting too. Where are you going to draw the line?

Apologies, been out and about and just catching-up with this.

Contrary to the impression I've obviously given, I wasn't seeking to turn this thread into a long debate about the use of hands-free mobile phones. However, as you and Surveyor have asked for some evidence, a quick look on Google produced the article below and within it there are a couple of links to different bits of research; unfortunately the one to the Transport Research Laboratory no longer appears to be working but I believe it was the result of that study which prompted First Group to ban the use of all mobile phones for its employees when driving on company business (whether hands-free or not).

Now you can obviously dismiss or disagree with the evidence if you want but if you do perhaps you can provide some evidence of your own to demonstrate that the use of a hands-free mobile has no significant effect on concentration when driving?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/goodlife/11670579/Pleas...

Should be read by all PHers who use mobiles in any configuration who make excuses and try to dodge around the law as it stands. It. Is. Dangerous.

PITB.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

1) The debate isn't whether holding a phone is worse than not holding it, the debate is whether most of the distraction comes from holding the phone or whether it comes from having the conversation; the research and evidence suggests the latter. Hopefully the law will come to recognise this in due course and people will cease to be vitriolic in their condemnation of hand-held conversations while being happy to condone hands-free.


2) Well if you got off the fence and answered the question I wouldn't have to read anything into what you're saying! Don't really understand why you're finding it so hard to express an opinion on this - not something you're usually slow to voice!

1) That's the debate you are having, but AFAIAC I am answering your earlier point that hand held was as almost as bad as hands free.

JNW1 said:

but if the evidence is that hands-free is almost as bad...

2) Why not post half a dozen different real cases and ask me to put them in order? I'm not going to do that either. You can try to divert and distract if you like, but it won't work on me. What matters most is what was in the guy's mind when he opened it up and started travelling at that speed. So he didn't hit anyone, that's good for all concerned but it's not the most important thing.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

1) The debate isn't whether holding a phone is worse than not holding it, the debate is whether most of the distraction comes from holding the phone or whether it comes from having the conversation; the research and evidence suggests the latter. Hopefully the law will come to recognise this in due course and people will cease to be vitriolic in their condemnation of hand-held conversations while being happy to condone hands-free.


2) Well if you got off the fence and answered the question I wouldn't have to read anything into what you're saying! Don't really understand why you're finding it so hard to express an opinion on this - not something you're usually slow to voice!

1) That's the debate you are having, but AFAIAC I am answering your earlier point that hand held was as almost as bad as hands free.

I did say that and the reason for doing so was because the evidence shows it's the conversation that's the main distraction, not the physical holding of the device. Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to argue for a ban on hands-held use based on safety grounds whilst at the same time advocating the continued use of hands-free; the conversation obviously happens either way and that's the main cause of the distraction.

Now I appreciate you don't accept the evidence and of course that's your prerogative. However, if you're going to dismiss work from independent and reputable organisations like the Transport Research Laboratory I think the least you can do is provide some counter evidence to support your own position; your reluctance to do so is therefore rather ironic given how quick you are to demand evidence from others - perhaps your reluctance is because you can't find any evidence to support your position? I imagine you'll just fall-back on the "well it isn't illegal" argument but that doesn't mean the evidence is wrong; could just be that the authorities haven't worked out how to grasp the nettle yet.

singlecoil said:

2) Why not post half a dozen different real cases and ask me to put them in order? I'm not going to do that either. You can try to divert and distract if you like, but it won't work on me. What matters most is what was in the guy's mind when he opened it up and started travelling at that speed. So he didn't hit anyone, that's good for all concerned but it's not the most important thing.

No point posting half a dozen cases when you can't give an opinion on two!

I see you're back to talking about the biker's intent but, as we discussed several pages ago, you don't know what was in that rider's mind before he started his journey any more than I do; he may have gone out with the express intention of doing 149mph, but equally he might just have taken a spur of the moment decision to open the bike up when he came to a clear, straight, piece of road. Personally I doubt very much he went out with an intention of driving dangerously and in some respects I'm not even convinced he did - he obviously pleaded guilty but I suspect was advised to do so because of the case law precedent in Scotland for similar offences.

In terms of intent, the lady who killed two people must also have made a conscious decision to either make or take the hands-free call which led to her being distracted, speeding and running a set of traffic lights. The fact that initial hands-free call was legal doesn't make everything that followed ok and to me at least her multiple errors of judgement - which ultimately resulted in two fatalites - were far worse than what our biker did. Now I don't think for a minute there was any intent on her part to drive dangerously or carelessly before she started her journey but I don't think you can say that's what matters most and dismiss or down-play the outcome of her actions; would you feel the same if it had been your children or grandchildren in those push chairs?

Several pages back you made a reference to being concerned for the safety of your loved ones on the roads (which is perfectly understandable, we all are). Therefore, I put it to you that in reality the chances are they're far more likely to encounter a risk from someone behaving like the lady in the BMW than from someone behaving like the man on the bike; in that context I find your apparent attitude to these two offences rather strange...

[cmaguire]

singlecoil said:

I note that you are continuing the theme of 'he didn't kill or hurt anybody' as mitigation for an offence which would surely have seen him imprisoned for the maximum term if he had killed somebody while riding at that speed.

There is more to the context than that though. He could do the same 149mph on the same road on the same day but with much greater traffic volume and maintain that speed in that instance by indulging in some enthusiastic overtaking in the face of oncoming vehicles. In both cases let's assume 'he didn't kill or hurt anybody', but in the second case there is input from him that significantly increased the likelyhood of doing so and therefore could legitimately be argued as justification for a more serious offence.
Unlike some hypothetical 'pie in the sky' nonsense about children riding on the backs of badgers leaping into his path as they try to avoid all the leprecauns rolling about drunk in the gutter.

[Crackie]

singlecoil said:

The fact that people get caught speeding vividly proves that many some would like to drive faster than the limits

Fixed that for you.

singlecoil said:

leaving up to the driver is fine if they are skilled and sensible. Most drivers are neither, but believe they are.

Several of your contributions on PH suggest you have pretty low opinion of the abilities of other motorists. You posted above most drivers are not sensible, in your opinion what percentage are not sensible ? 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% ?

Edited by Crackie on Saturday 18th February 18:06

[singlecoil]

I haven't the energy or the will to reply in detail to all three posts, I'm afraid.

I think a lot of arguments about speed limits and their enforcement come about because some people want to be able to choose their own speed without interference from the authorities. I on the other hand am prepared to drive within the limits (for the most part) because I don't want other drivers to be given free rein. I have little respect for the abilities of most drivers to choose suitable speeds. And that's because of the stuff I used to do myself. Fortunately nothing bad came of any of it, but I realise now that was sheer luck

[Johnnytheboy]

singlecoil said:

I haven't the energy or the will to reply in detail to all three posts, I'm afraid.

[Crackie]

singlecoil said:

I haven't the energy or the will to reply in detail to all three posts, I'm afraid.

Regarding confirming what percentage of drivers are sensible ? You said most drivers so that implies you have an approximate figure in mind already. Hope you're feeling better soon and feel well enough to answer.

singlecoil said:

I have little respect for the abilities of most drivers to choose suitable speeds.

However almost every driver chooses suitable speeds on every journey they undertake. When a driver (or rider) applies the brakes, for example to slow for a corner at a lower speed than the NSL, they are choosing a suitable speed. You seem to think most other motorists are inconsiderate fools who are oblivious to the hazards and risks involved on publics roads.

Edited by Crackie on Sunday 19th February 02:46