Should people who crash be punished more

[Pete317]

xRIEx said:

I didn't say or imply that.

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

So what exactly did you mean by the following?

xRIEx said:

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

Errors are things that us humans make because, not being fking perfect, we can't always avoid making them. We can't always get it right.

[Pete317]

CorvetteConvert said:

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

How do we know that most accidents are not in fact already being avoided?

[surveyor]

A couple of points to generally redirect things.

First of all, my totally inaccurate surveys indicates most motorway crashes seem to involve artics, or perhaps more 'normal' cars. It's relatively rare (though not unheard of) for it to be a PH'er going for broke in a sports car. They are probably on a B road, or perhaps better drivers generally, being more interested in the art of driving. Contentious? maybe.

Secondly

One idea on the thread I think is marvellous. It takes away the punishment angle (that I am uneasy with) and turns it educational. That idea is after being involved in such a bump you should have to have mandatory driving assessments from a qualified individual (preferably an advanced instructor, not a 'DSA' instructor. The odd person might be completely not to blame, but they will still learn, the ones who perhaps need more instruction on the motorway can be picked up and sorted.

[xRIEx]

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

I didn't say or imply that.

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

So what exactly did you mean by the following?

xRIEx said:

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

Errors are things that us humans make because, not being fking perfect, we can't always avoid making them. We can't always get it right.

It's a pretty simple concept: for every error, there was another course of action that would have resulted in no error. Now, as you find it fairly difficult to think, one last time: I never stated that errors should never happen, just that something different could have been done to avoid it.

Pete317 said:

How do we know that most accidents are not in fact already being avoided?

This is exactly the point I've been making, so you do get it. Every time you pass a car, negotiate a junction, don't hit a lamppost, etc. etc. you're avoiding an accident.

[Pete317]

xRIEx said:

Now, as you find it fairly difficult to think, one last time:

I love you too

[kiseca]

xRIEx said:

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

I didn't say or imply that.

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

So what exactly did you mean by the following?

xRIEx said:

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

Errors are things that us humans make because, not being fking perfect, we can't always avoid making them. We can't always get it right.

It's a pretty simple concept: for every error, there was another course of action that would have resulted in no error. Now, as you find it fairly difficult to think, one last time: I never stated that errors should never happen, just that something different could have been done to avoid it.

Pete317 said:

How do we know that most accidents are not in fact already being avoided?

This is exactly the point I've been making, so you do get it. Every time you pass a car, negotiate a junction, don't hit a lamppost, etc. etc. you're avoiding an accident.

xRIEx, what is your point exactly? You agree that people make mistakes, and that mistakes could have been avoided by miking different decisions.. all very logical but I'm strugglingt to work out how you want to apply this truism practically? Are you saying people should stop making bad decisions, or make fewer bad decisions, and do you support greater punishment for these mistakes, or are you saying something different?

[xRIEx]

kiseca said:

xRIEx, what is your point exactly? You agree that people make mistakes, and that mistakes could have been avoided by miking different decisions.. all very logical but I'm strugglingt to work out how you want to apply this truism practically? Are you saying people should stop making bad decisions, or make fewer bad decisions, and do you support greater punishment for these mistakes, or are you saying something different?

The only point (if it's even a point, I don't think it is) I'm making is that what Pete317 said I said, I didn't say.

[Pete317]

xRIEx said:

The only point (if it's even a point, I don't think it is) I'm making is that what Pete317 said I said, I didn't say.

Look, thicko, "imply" doesn't mean "say"

Now go away and play somewhere else

[xRIEx]

Pete317 said:

xRIEx said:

The only point (if it's even a point, I don't think it is) I'm making is that what Pete317 said I said, I didn't say.

Look, thicko, "imply" doesn't mean "say"

Now go away and play somewhere else

If you're going to call someone else "thicko", you should really check what you posted first:

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?

[bitchstewie]

Jesus wept, because being right on the internet matter so much, right

[Pete317]

xRIEx said:

If you're going to call someone else "thicko", you should really check what you posted first:

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?

I'll give you a big clue: a question mark at the end of a sentence means it's a question, not a statement!

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

[lostkiwi]

This without doubt has to be one of the daftest threads on PH.

1. The police don't believe in accidents. They refer to them as 'incidents' and take the view that every incident has a cause and therefore a potential for prosecution.
2. No one is perfect. Not even PH driving gods or the OP (no matter how perfect he thinks he is or isn't). People make mistakes. Deal with it. The police will prosecute where they deem appropriate.
3. Bad drivers already pay. Its called 'insurance premiums'. Its a system where those that crash most pay most. That makes it hard for anyone who isn't a PH director or Saudi prince with wads of cash.

I can just hear the bleats from the OP if his idea became law and he had an at fault accident.....

[NRS]

Couple of points; some of the "good" drivers here would probably fail their retest if they were involved in an accident because of learning bad habits that are marked on during the test (type of turning the wheel for example). So even if someone has good observation they would get marked down on other stuff they view as less important.

Second, as mentioned a lot of problems are MLM, people with erratic speed etc that are mentioned on PH. However spirited driving is ok because people are generally better drivers. Not really. Speed does have an effect, and if nothing else spirited driving will involve a lot of speed changes for example. People are quite happy to complain about what they view others as doing bad, but view it differently when it is something they do that others disapprove of.

[nipsips]

My take on this is that there is a form of punishment when insurers penalise drivers for accidents in higher premiums/loss of NCB etc.

However what should be penalised is the people who lie to get blame shifted onto the other party. I also believe those who maintain the other driver is at fault yet it is clearly not, should be recommended for some education before they get insurance again.

For example a "pleasant" lady who would not accept blame for pulling out onto a roundabout colliding with a car coming from the right. Her attitude was the other driver needed to stop at the line before entering the roundabout. When I asked her if she stopped - she declined to answer. I have to have a conversation like this at least once a week with people, and in my opinion its nothing short of negligence.

Unfortunately insurers don't have the power to prosecute drivers, and the police are not interested in attending accidents where people aren't hurt so people will effectively get away with it.

[V8forweekends]

[quote=lostkiwi]This without doubt has to be one of the daftest threads on PH.

1. The police don't believe in accidents. They refer to them as 'incidents' and take the view that every incident has a cause and therefore a potential for prosecution.

I call bks - TV Police docco a while back - big smash up on the A1 some pillock ran into the back of someone.

Copper says to camera - oh well, it was just one of those things really nobodies fault, whilst bemoaning that fact that us ordinary plebs are useless because we can't see why the road needs to be closed for hours.....

[Artey]

We actually reward ignorant drivers and punish innocent victims. Like when some distracted crashes into me my insurance will go up because I was involved in an accident, even if it was a non fault one. My only fault was that I was where I was in space–time continuum. The culprit will carry on driving like they did before they crashed into me because there is no penalty (their premium might even not change at all FFS). What sort of socialist idea is this.

[allergictocheese]

The law already proportionately deals with people who cause unnecessary accidents. I would argue that with death by careless, the law now goes too far in holding low level negligence as high level criminal behaviour.

[Artey]

allergictocheese said:

The law already proportionately deals with people who cause unnecessary accidents. I would argue that with death by careless, the law now goes too far in holding low level negligence as high level criminal behaviour.

Operating a weapon that is a 1-3.5 tonne vehicle without due care and attention is worse than operating a 9mm Magnum blindfolded. It's a highest level criminal behaviour.

[lostkiwi]

V8forweekends said:

I call bks - TV Police docco a while back - big smash up on the A1 some pillock ran into the back of someone.

Copper says to camera - oh well, it was just one of those things really nobodies fault, whilst bemoaning that fact that us ordinary plebs are useless because we can't see why the road needs to be closed for hours.....

You can call what you like.
A friend who is a copper in Lincolnshire has told me that's how its now viewed.
I can pretty much bet that whoever tail ended the first car didn't get away without some penalty irrespective of anything the copper said to camera. Lets face it - its easy money for the courts.

[V8forweekends]

lostkiwi said:

You can call what you like.
A friend who is a copper in Lincolnshire has told me that's how its now viewed.
I can pretty much bet that whoever tail ended the first car didn't get away without some penalty irrespective of anything the copper said to camera. Lets face it - its easy money for the courts.

Why would they tell lies on telly? I thought half the point of these shows was PR for the rozzers?

Edit - maybe we should do a FOI to see how many RTAs attended by Police result in charges - I bet it's fewer than you think.