Should people who crash be punished more

[xRIEx]

RWD cossie wil said:

rlg43p said:

surveyor said:

in reality very few accidents can't be avoided by good observant driving.

what an utter pile of self righteous idealistic bullst.

Somebody involved in the "accident" might well have made an error of judgement, but it is also just as likely that one of the parties involved is totally blameless.

The law as it stands does punish those determined to have driven: without due care and attention, dangerously etc etc That's quite sufficient.

Anyone who thinks all accidents can be avoided by careful driving clearly hasn't been on the receiving end of some unpredictable event.

Sorry but surveyor is totally correct. Look at the state of people's driving in general, motorways in particular... People drive far too close to the vehicle in front of them, less than 1 second gap which is crazy.... Then you get the non-indicating lane changers, so dangerous but people are just oblivious to the fact changing lanes is a risky business on a busy road... Mobile phone use, it was less dangerous IMHO when it was just a fine, now it is points, all the Tossers drive along with their phone below the window line, but the eyes down for long periods of time & barely being able to stay in their lane gives them away.

Most accidents are TOTALLY avoidable, most are caused by bad driving, it is that simple, I would wager less than 5% of accidents are down to mechanical failure or a totally random outside event causing it?

Simply put, people just do not concentrate on driving enough!

Agree with surveyor and Will.



You want evidence accidents are totally avoidable? Simply ask yourself, have you ever completed a journey without having an accident? If so, then yes accidents are avoidable, because on that journey you avoided every potential accident.

You could almost define 'driving skills' as "how to avoid accidents". Car maintenance also falls under that 'avoidance' umbrella, as does not being intoxicated, driving to the conditions, etc. etc. Driving vehicles is dangerous (to self or others), and the whole point of the various tests required is to avoid accidents.

[Drawweight]

The police and legal system are overworked as it is.

Do you expect them to send an accident team out to every accident so they can see if they need to bring charges or not.

And where do you draw the line?

Is causing a pile up worthy of being charged but running into the back of someone at 5mph not?

[Nedzilla]

rlg43p said:

what an utter pile of self righteous idealistic bullst.

Somebody involved in the "accident" might well have made an error of judgement, but it is also just as likely that one of the parties involved is totally blameless.

The law as it stands does punish those determined to have driven: without due care and attention, dangerously etc etc That's quite sufficient.

Anyone who thinks all accidents can be avoided by careful driving clearly hasn't been on the receiving end of some unpredictable event.

Couldnt of put it better myself. Ridiculous post from the OP.

[xRIEx]

Nedzilla said:

rlg43p said:

what an utter pile of self righteous idealistic bullst.

Somebody involved in the "accident" might well have made an error of judgement, but it is also just as likely that one of the parties involved is totally blameless.

The law as it stands does punish those determined to have driven: without due care and attention, dangerously etc etc That's quite sufficient.

Anyone who thinks all accidents can be avoided by careful driving clearly hasn't been on the receiving end of some unpredictable event.

Couldnt of put it better myself. Ridiculous post from the OP.

So you're saying an error of judgement isn't avoidable by, say, getting it right instead of making an error?

[Pete317]

xRIEx said:

So you're saying an error of judgement isn't avoidable by, say, getting it right instead of making an error?

So you're saying you've never made any sort of error?

[Nedzilla]

Human beings will always make errors of judgement. Always have and always will. Penaltys are in place for people who step beyond this but if you can't accept that on today's roads with the amount of cars out there that every now and again,even the best drivers in the world might make an 'error of judgement' you'd be better off staying at home!

[xRIEx]

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

So you're saying an error of judgement isn't avoidable by, say, getting it right instead of making an error?

So you're saying you've never made any sort of error?

No, I'm not saying that. Where did you get that idea?

[RWD cossie wil]

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

So you're saying an error of judgement isn't avoidable by, say, getting it right instead of making an error?

So you're saying you've never made any sort of error?

No one is saying punish errors, the point being made is there are hundreds of accidents every week that are totally avoidable. Running into the back of someone is almost unforgivable, you have so many chances to stop the accident chain before it even starts!

Motorways should be the easiest place to avoid accidents, yet every day the nation suffers hours of delays due to terrible driving leading to stupid accidents. We are not talking error of judgements here, as in pulling out of a poorly sighted junction, not judging another vehicles speed correctly etc, that have some more complex factors, we are talking about managing to not run into the vehicle in front or to the side of you, with no blind, poorly signposted junctions or opposing traffic flow! Yet people seem incapable of this simple task, instead choosing to drive far too close to each other, change lanes without indicating, play on their phone, sleep, etc etc.

[bitchstewie]

I'd say not but it depends.

I thought we already have laws so that people can be punished if they do something wrong, and by definition nobody really sets out to cause an accident even if most are avoidable with some hindsight.

A year or so back I came within half a second of killing someone, quite literally, and if it had gone differently I'm sure my life would be very different now.

Would some kind of magic punishment system have avoided it happening? I don't think so.

And this being PH you'd all be complaining when you're being taxed more to pay for more prisons and all the benefits to support families who have no breadwinner etc.

Most of the time it's a simple case of "st happens".

[Pete317]

xRIEx said:

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

So you're saying an error of judgement isn't avoidable by, say, getting it right instead of making an error?

So you're saying you've never made any sort of error?

No, I'm not saying that. Where did you get that idea?

You're strongly implying that errors are always avoidable and so people should never make them.

[Pete317]

RWD cossie wil said:

No one is saying punish errors

But that's what this whole thread is about - punishing errors.

RWD cossie wil said:

Motorways should be the easiest place to avoid accidents, yet every day the nation suffers hours of delays due to terrible driving leading to stupid accidents. We are not talking error of judgements here, as in pulling out of a poorly sighted junction, not judging another vehicles speed correctly etc, that have some more complex factors, we are talking about managing to not run into the vehicle in front or to the side of you, with no blind, poorly signposted junctions or opposing traffic flow! Yet people seem incapable of this simple task, instead choosing to drive far too close to each other, change lanes without indicating, play on their phone, sleep, etc etc.

You know for a fact that most delays on motorways are caused by people running into the back of others?

[CorvetteConvert]

Very complicated and heat-making debate.
Most (especially sports car) drivers drive way over the speed limit at times. I do. Show me a Nissan GTR driver or even one who owns a Clio 200 who sticks to every single speed limit always. Most accidents would not happen if every party involved had been sticking to the rules and the speeds and had total awareness, politeness for others and perfect eyesight, etc. But one PH-er said to me that if you don't crash from time to time you are not trying hard enough. Okay, that particular bloke is a pr*t, but many people are accidents waiting to happen.
Few of us are angels, i like to think that the drivers of most fast cars know where and when to go quickly, but yes, i think if someone puts their car backwards into someone else's house at 3am driving like an idiot, eg, the punishment should be higher.

[Pete317]

eyebeebe said:

Switzerland has this.

I had a meeting of cup tyres and standing water incident on the motorway. Outcome was spinning and hitting the armco. Fortunately no other cars involved. Car was a write off. On top of this I got a tariff three month ban and a £400 fine for "not being in control of the vehicle". I think there may have been some other admin fees as well. This is pretty common if you have an accident here - basically someone is always to blame.

That might be as a vain attempt on the part of their politicos to bring their road casualty rate down to similar levels as those of the UK

Edited by Pete317 on Sunday 2nd August 15:11

[DaveCWK]

eyebeebe said:

Switzerland has this.

I had a meeting of cup tyres and standing water incident on the motorway. Outcome was spinning and hitting the armco. Fortunately no other cars involved. Car was a write off. On top of this I got a tariff three month ban and a £400 fine for "not being in control of the vehicle". I think there may have been some other admin fees as well. This is pretty common if you have an accident here - basically someone is always to blame.

Have to say I agree with this approach. I broadly agree with the op too - just adopting a driving style which gives you a proper 2 second gap, combined with a basic care of mechanicals and tyres will probably decrease your chances of being in an accident by 50+% when compared with the average stats.

[Driver101]

There is too many variables to punish people for accidents. They never set out to have an accident and it's hard to change their mindset.

What they should do us make the driving test much harder. I've lost count of hearing about people that have had lots of lessons and had to sit the test countless times to pass. It's clear they aren't capable of driving and the one time they managed to pass the test, was likely down to luck.

I'd also like to see older drivers having to resit the rest to make sure they are ok.

[xRIEx]

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

So you're saying an error of judgement isn't avoidable by, say, getting it right instead of making an error?

So you're saying you've never made any sort of error?

No, I'm not saying that. Where did you get that idea?

You're strongly implying that errors are always avoidable and so people should never make them.

You're making an illogical connection that doesn't exist. Every error is avoidable, but that is not the same as saying every error will be avoided.

'Can' does not equal 'will'.

Remember, 50% of drivers are below average skill/intelligence

[Pete317]

xRIEx said:

You're making an illogical connection that doesn't exist. Every error is avoidable, but that is not the same as saying every error will be avoided.

You're the one who first started implying that errors should always be avoided, not me.

Otherwise, what exactly are you saying?

[xRIEx]

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

You're making an illogical connection that doesn't exist. Every error is avoidable, but that is not the same as saying every error will be avoided.

You're the one who first started implying that errors should always be avoided, not me.

Otherwise, what exactly are you saying?

I didn't say or imply that.

I've just told you, you've just fking quoted it!

[CorvetteConvert]

I believe he is saying that most accidents could be avoided, which they could, with better driving, better anticipation, more care, more consideration, etc.

[jimmybobby]

0000 said:

jimmybobby said:

A law that is set to deter drink driving is no different to a law set to dissuade people from driving dangerously which if you have an accident means gnerally you were driving dangerously.

It is also not a tiny subset. It is a HUGE group. I do 1000s of miles a week and see an accident or the aftermath of on a near daily basis. Thats too many.

You can't deter dangerous driving by punishing people who crash. The two aren't strongly correlated.

If the number of people who go through red lights and then crash aren't a tiny subset I'd love to know what you think the percentage is.

Sorry misread the red light thing. A change in drivers ed and roads policing would make the biggest difference but its never going to happen. Likewise the suggestion that people be made to resit the driving test or a lighter test. No point since at present the driving tests process is massively flawed and is part of the reason people have so many accidents in the first place.

Edited by jimmybobby on Sunday 2nd August 17:39