Should people who crash be punished more
Discussion
I think that if you have been caught on camera and are judged to have caused an accident through bad driving, then yes, I think there should be repercussions.
It amazes me how often people moving in the same direction (ie a motorway) manage to conjure up an accident. And that accident, even if no lives are lost, causes costs and inconvenience to all affected.
The judgement should probably be made by a 'panel of experts' a bit like F1.
It amazes me how often people moving in the same direction (ie a motorway) manage to conjure up an accident. And that accident, even if no lives are lost, causes costs and inconvenience to all affected.
The judgement should probably be made by a 'panel of experts' a bit like F1.
surveyor said:
In this country it seems accepted often that a crash is sufficient punishment and drivers often face no recupursions other than insurance costs etc.
But then you look at the chaos these muppets cause on the road network. In the summer it multiplies as people who should not go near our motorways do, and promptly crash into each other. Usually on a Friday afternoon.
Should there be a much harsher punishment for those involved?
There's an argument that some will make that the innocent party should not be punished, but in reality very few accidents can't be avoided by good observant driving.
Whilst I largely agree that most accidents are avoidable with good anticipation, we also all make mistakes. I would go so far as to say every driver (with the exception of PH driving Gods of course) has made numerous mistakes that would have resulted in an accident if it wasn't for another's good driving or just plain old luck. With that in mind, I think any punishment beyond the existing costs/hassle seems a bit over the top, I also think it's a little judgmental and foolish to assume they are all 'muppets' rather than just humans.But then you look at the chaos these muppets cause on the road network. In the summer it multiplies as people who should not go near our motorways do, and promptly crash into each other. Usually on a Friday afternoon.
Should there be a much harsher punishment for those involved?
There's an argument that some will make that the innocent party should not be punished, but in reality very few accidents can't be avoided by good observant driving.
Oh and if you think you've never made a mistake which could have resulted in an accident sans luck, I would say you're actually just a really poor driver who hasn't noticed when it's happened.
Edited by Dark85 on Saturday 1st August 21:34
jimmybobby said:
That frankly is a less sever punishment than for drink driving yet the results of accidents caused by poor driving can have exactly the same after effect.
That's deliberate; drink driving laws there to prevent behaviour not punish results. Quite rightly - it's better to stop people going through a red light in the first place than to just punish for the sake of it those who do it and find themselves in the tiny subset unlucky enough to crash. Especially as they're probably then less likely than the next person to repeat that particular mistake.
I'm aware of my mistakes, I don't however believe I have left accidents in my wake.
I do thi though that drivers who cause miles and miles of traffic, and delay thousands of people, should have their responsibility examined and challenged.
I'd go as far to argue that if there is an offence the punishment should be doubled if it resulted in a collision.
Harsh? Maybe, but I'm sick of people causing chaos by crashing into each other, when everyone around them manages not to. It's absoluty worse k the summer when less travelled drivers join the motorway network.
I do thi though that drivers who cause miles and miles of traffic, and delay thousands of people, should have their responsibility examined and challenged.
I'd go as far to argue that if there is an offence the punishment should be doubled if it resulted in a collision.
Harsh? Maybe, but I'm sick of people causing chaos by crashing into each other, when everyone around them manages not to. It's absoluty worse k the summer when less travelled drivers join the motorway network.
0000 said:
jimmybobby said:
That frankly is a less sever punishment than for drink driving yet the results of accidents caused by poor driving can have exactly the same after effect.
That's deliberate; drink driving laws there to prevent behaviour not punish results. Quite rightly - it's better to stop people going through a red light in the first place than to just punish for the sake of it those who do it and find themselves in the tiny subset unlucky enough to crash. Especially as they're probably then less likely than the next person to repeat that particular mistake.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.
vikingaero said:
I think that anyone who causes a crash should have live footage of themselves streamed, moping around the crash site, direct to a PH thread where we can all be judgemental...
I am judgemental and some could say hypocritical as many many years ago I aquaplaned off a motorway and crashed thankfully hitting nothing but the barriers. I was not best pleased with myself for crashing and learnt from it. I have since then done hundreds of thousands of miles and have not hit anyone or anything else. Crashing itself did not really scare me and only cost me a lot because my premiums went up for getting six points for non valid insurance reasons.It is not that I am highly skilled. It is simply that I pay attention when driving. I simply cannot fathom how anyone can crash on a clear dry motorway. I got points at the time of my accident for insurance reasons but if i had got points simply for crashing I would have been severely peeved and would have taken driving a lot more seriously.
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 bulls
t. 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.
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!
Accidents, generally, no. But stupid things like breaking down in lane 2/blocking a junction and not pushing the car out of the way, or getting a puncture and being unable to change it, or running out of fuel, or other avoidable things (by anyone half competent) should be punished.
In fact thinking about it, anyone who runs out of petrol and causes bad traffic should be (made to by the Police) stood at the front of the queue with a sign around his neck explaining to all the delayed motorists what's happened and why. Or passing motorists should be allowed a free open hand slap as they pass.
But I sympathise with surveyors PoV.
In fact thinking about it, anyone who runs out of petrol and causes bad traffic should be (made to by the Police) stood at the front of the queue with a sign around his neck explaining to all the delayed motorists what's happened and why. Or passing motorists should be allowed a free open hand slap as they pass.
But I sympathise with surveyors PoV.
Edited by OpulentBob on Sunday 2nd August 05:28
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.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.
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.
I remember an old Jasper Carrott comedy sketch, it was about his mother in laws driving and he said something like "she's been driving for 40 years and never had an accident........... But she's seen thousands."
No I do not think people should have repercussions for accidents as there are just far to many variables. We have Current driving laws and they fine should someone be found to be drunk or just plain reckless etc.
No I do not think people should have repercussions for accidents as there are just far to many variables. We have Current driving laws and they fine should someone be found to be drunk or just plain reckless etc.
How about not "punishing" people who are involved in crashes more, but simply saying "take a retest within 3 months or lose your license. Perhaps a shorter version of the current test.
If you are half way competent it's no real punishment, a couple of hours which will serve to check that you are up to scratch....
If you're not, then it's a different matter.
And I'd apply it without trying to assess blame, or having appeals procedures or whatever. We don't want a system where we close roads for microscopic investigations when Joe runs into the back of Tony but says he deliberately braked. I'd like to think that we could then focus a lot less on trying to define, detect and punish things that may lead to accidents.
The person 1 second behind the car in front because they've just moved into the same lane behind it and it is traveling faster than them is way less dangerous than the person 3 seconds behind a car, but on prescription drugs, tired and day-dreaming.
The person on the phone saying "I'm 2 minutes away" and hanging up in a slow moving queue is way less dangerous than the one trying to find a particular radio station using the search functions driving past a school at kicking out time.
Why do we have speed limits, driving hours regulations, drink drive laws etc? Because we think people are more likely to crash or crash badly outside those limits. So we accept crashing is a bad thing. But we very rarely bother trying to change the behaviour of people involved after the event.
I'm surprised how many people are focusing on a few types of behaviour that may lead to crashes - tailgating, speeding, drinking. A different subset of the population will come up with a list including driving round corners quickly, driving on twisty roads, riding motorbikes and owning fast cars as things "that may increase the chance of a crash" as their personal wish list for things to be more tightly regulated and severely punished.
Andy
If you are half way competent it's no real punishment, a couple of hours which will serve to check that you are up to scratch....
If you're not, then it's a different matter.
And I'd apply it without trying to assess blame, or having appeals procedures or whatever. We don't want a system where we close roads for microscopic investigations when Joe runs into the back of Tony but says he deliberately braked. I'd like to think that we could then focus a lot less on trying to define, detect and punish things that may lead to accidents.
The person 1 second behind the car in front because they've just moved into the same lane behind it and it is traveling faster than them is way less dangerous than the person 3 seconds behind a car, but on prescription drugs, tired and day-dreaming.
The person on the phone saying "I'm 2 minutes away" and hanging up in a slow moving queue is way less dangerous than the one trying to find a particular radio station using the search functions driving past a school at kicking out time.
Why do we have speed limits, driving hours regulations, drink drive laws etc? Because we think people are more likely to crash or crash badly outside those limits. So we accept crashing is a bad thing. But we very rarely bother trying to change the behaviour of people involved after the event.
I'm surprised how many people are focusing on a few types of behaviour that may lead to crashes - tailgating, speeding, drinking. A different subset of the population will come up with a list including driving round corners quickly, driving on twisty roads, riding motorbikes and owning fast cars as things "that may increase the chance of a crash" as their personal wish list for things to be more tightly regulated and severely punished.
Andy
If the OP's original assertion is that only the person whose inattention or whatever caused the crash is punished then it is less contentious.
The problem then lies with determining who is the person at fault - because people will always tell a different story as to how the crashed happened.
Where fault is clear the law does punish the guilty party - through driving without due care etc etc.
So there's no need to do anything different than we do now. The current law is sufficient.
The problem then lies with determining who is the person at fault - because people will always tell a different story as to how the crashed happened.
Where fault is clear the law does punish the guilty party - through driving without due care etc etc.
So there's no need to do anything different than we do now. The current law is sufficient.
andyalan10 said:
How about not "punishing" people who are involved in crashes more, but simply saying "take a retest within 3 months or lose your license. Perhaps a shorter version of the current test.
If you are half way competent it's no real punishment, a couple of hours which will serve to check that you are up to scratch....
If you're not, then it's a different matter.
And I'd apply it without trying to assess blame, or having appeals procedures or whatever. We don't want a system where we close roads for microscopic investigations when Joe runs into the back of Tony but says he deliberately braked. I'd like to think that we could then focus a lot less on trying to define, detect and punish things that may lead to accidents.
The person 1 second behind the car in front because they've just moved into the same lane behind it and it is traveling faster than them is way less dangerous than the person 3 seconds behind a car, but on prescription drugs, tired and day-dreaming.
The person on the phone saying "I'm 2 minutes away" and hanging up in a slow moving queue is way less dangerous than the one trying to find a particular radio station using the search functions driving past a school at kicking out time.
Why do we have speed limits, driving hours regulations, drink drive laws etc? Because we think people are more likely to crash or crash badly outside those limits. So we accept crashing is a bad thing. But we very rarely bother trying to change the behaviour of people involved after the event.
I'm surprised how many people are focusing on a few types of behaviour that may lead to crashes - tailgating, speeding, drinking. A different subset of the population will come up with a list including driving round corners quickly, driving on twisty roads, riding motorbikes and owning fast cars as things "that may increase the chance of a crash" as their personal wish list for things to be more tightly regulated and severely punished.
Andy
I've long held the belief that this should be so. You can add 'driving with impaired or failing vision' to the list, A LOT of people drive without glasses on when they should be using them.If you are half way competent it's no real punishment, a couple of hours which will serve to check that you are up to scratch....
If you're not, then it's a different matter.
And I'd apply it without trying to assess blame, or having appeals procedures or whatever. We don't want a system where we close roads for microscopic investigations when Joe runs into the back of Tony but says he deliberately braked. I'd like to think that we could then focus a lot less on trying to define, detect and punish things that may lead to accidents.
The person 1 second behind the car in front because they've just moved into the same lane behind it and it is traveling faster than them is way less dangerous than the person 3 seconds behind a car, but on prescription drugs, tired and day-dreaming.
The person on the phone saying "I'm 2 minutes away" and hanging up in a slow moving queue is way less dangerous than the one trying to find a particular radio station using the search functions driving past a school at kicking out time.
Why do we have speed limits, driving hours regulations, drink drive laws etc? Because we think people are more likely to crash or crash badly outside those limits. So we accept crashing is a bad thing. But we very rarely bother trying to change the behaviour of people involved after the event.
I'm surprised how many people are focusing on a few types of behaviour that may lead to crashes - tailgating, speeding, drinking. A different subset of the population will come up with a list including driving round corners quickly, driving on twisty roads, riding motorbikes and owning fast cars as things "that may increase the chance of a crash" as their personal wish list for things to be more tightly regulated and severely punished.
Andy
I think that a lot of people see crashing and accidents as not being very serious, they can't do given they drive so badly so persistently, know why they do it and there are so many accidents every day.
Anyone involved in an accident should be made to take an advanced driving test in order to keep their licence, that way you would have less people on the road and the ones on there would be better educated.
We need to educate, not fine.
Pebbles167 said:
It's the kind of thing I'd agree with, until it was me doing the crashing.
People make mistakes, sure you can lessen your chance of having an accident, but you can't eliminate it. Human error happens. Provided that they don't hurt anyone, and the cause wasn't overly negligent, then i don't think they should.
I agree that it sucks sitting in traffic, only to see some moron caused it because of carelessness.
This completely. Any one of us can make a mistake at the wrong time. Even professional pilots make bad calls or miss clear signs of danger, with all their training, and their lives are on the line. And even with that price to pay for crashing, they still manage it. You think that bigger punishment gor crashing is going to make a difference?People make mistakes, sure you can lessen your chance of having an accident, but you can't eliminate it. Human error happens. Provided that they don't hurt anyone, and the cause wasn't overly negligent, then i don't think they should.
I agree that it sucks sitting in traffic, only to see some moron caused it because of carelessness.
Humans are human and have limits. If you think incentives can change those limits and make everyone superhuman when it matters, you are mistaken. It's those of you who think that you're too good to crash that worry me the most, or those that think that because you've managed 100k miles without crashing (statistically an unremarkable feat) it makes you any different to the driver of the crashed car you passed on the motorway this morning.
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.
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.
Jader1973 said:
Yes.
They should be made to stand by the side of the road on which they caused a hold up with a sign round their neck that reads "I am a fking muppet. Sorry for holding you up last Tuesday."
Passing drivers should also be allowed to throw fruit and vegetables at them.
Yep - and they should have to walk back and give everyone in the jam a fiver, too.They should be made to stand by the side of the road on which they caused a hold up with a sign round their neck that reads "I am a f
king muppet. Sorry for holding you up last Tuesday."Passing drivers should also be allowed to throw fruit and vegetables at them.
Seriously - I asked this a while back and got flamed, but we really aren't doing enough to deter obviously moronic driving. I'm not saying I don't make mistakes - but I don't drive around like a total imbecile all the time.
Last night I travelled to/from Leics to York on the M1. About 95% of folk were driving perfectly sensibly - but there were some who I thought were dangerous not because of speed/tailgating etc, but just out of sheer crazy unpredictability - speeding up and slowing down for no apparent reason, changing lanes without warning (or perhaps more importantly for no discernible reason) - not many, but enough to make me wonder what these people are thinking - and they are certainly relying on the rest of us to keep them out of trouble, even if they don't realise it.
The Motorway was quiet on the way home - I had the cruise set for 70ish in lane 1. A Seat came past not much faster in L3 - then a Golf in L2, neither showed any sign of wishing to change lanes - they seemed to together - what are these people thinking?
Later I came upon a Mini in L2 - passed him (still on cruise) - he instantly sped up and passed me, then slowed right back down - this happened several times - then I overtook him up hill (still on cruise), we came down the other side and from the 60-80 he'd been doing, he suddenly just floored it and disappeared - of course people can do what they like and it wasn't inherently dangerous - but it does make the rest of us trying to stay safe and predict what's going to happen uneasy at best.
There was a bloke in a Zafira earlier in the day who really didn't look as if he could see. He utterly refused to move from L3 and braked at random with no visible change in what was ahead (he wasn't brake testing me - or if he was it was an odd approach as I never had to brake - I was keeping well back due to his odd driving). Eventually I and a few others had no choice but to gently pass on the inside - he appeared totally oblivious to anyone else and seemed to be genuinely straining to see anything though his specs.
Edited by V8forweekends on Sunday 2nd August 12:27
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff