like to see a speed camera deal with this
Discussion
splatspeed said:
The Police dealt with it.
over_the_hill said:
Why do the media and so many others insist on referring to the "fast lane" ?
I don't know, but it irritates me.
I notice that they let him off. Any reason why they haven't taken him to court to get his license revoked?!?!?!? I mean, I know he wasn't speeding so clearly was safe, BUT still, the wrong way on a motorway takes some doing.. If he is that confused, perhaps the next time he will kill someone.
I like the sound of the fast lane. Makes it sound exciting. Excitement has been outlawed by the PC brigage, and therefore so has the term "fast lane".
It is the lane you go in if you want to go faster than the other bloke and overtake him...
SM
It is the lane you go in if you want to go faster than the other bloke and overtake him...
SM
Edited by supermono on Thursday 22 February 10:22
Parrot of Doom said:
I complained a few hours ago. Perhaps they took note.
Of course it should be called lane 3, not the outside lane.
Of course it should be called lane 3, not the outside lane.
so what is lane 1 velocitly ley challenged
stop this PC B*** ***T
we all know he was in the lane on the right as normal traffic drives in this direction
jasandjules said:
over_the_hill said:
Why do the media and so many others insist on referring to the "fast lane" ?
I don't know, but it irritates me.
I notice that they let him off. Any reason why they haven't taken him to court to get his license revoked?!?!?!? I mean, I know he wasn't speeding so clearly was safe, BUT still, the wrong way on a motorway takes some doing.. If he is that confused, perhaps the next time he will kill someone.
because it was an honest mistake from a confused old man, i imagine his licence will be taken away quietly, by a doctor...
i hope people have as much sympathy and understand for me i i ever makwe it to old age
hairydave said:
because it was an honest mistake from a confused old man, i imagine his licence will be taken away quietly, by a doctor...
i hope people have as much sympathy and understand for me i i ever makwe it to old age
And would you still hold that view if he had smacked head on into your wife and children who were travelling the correct way on the M6, killing them all?
If he was that confused then he ought to have made the decision himself not to drive. If someone was drunk and "got confused" about which way to drive, would they have been culpable or not?
splatspeed said:
Parrot of Doom said:
I complained a few hours ago. Perhaps they took note.
Of course it should be called lane 3, not the outside lane.
Of course it should be called lane 3, not the outside lane.
so what is lane 1 velocitly ley challenged
stop this PC B*** ***T
we all know he was in the lane on the right as normal traffic drives in this direction
Many on here are quick to criticise the middle lane numpty and the like. It is terms such as "fast lane" that these types adere to and helps reinforce their behaviour.
e.g. lane 1 is the "slow lane" for lorries so I won't drive in that. I will sit in the middle at a nice steady speed and stay out of the "fast lane' because that's for people with bigger cars !
Edited by over_the_hill on Thursday 22 February 15:39
jasandjules said:
hairydave said:
because it was an honest mistake from a confused old man, i imagine his licence will be taken away quietly, by a doctor...
i hope people have as much sympathy and understand for me i i ever makwe it to old age
And would you still hold that view if he had smacked head on into your wife and children who were travelling the correct way on the M6, killing them all?
If he was that confused then he ought to have made the decision himself not to drive. If someone was drunk and "got confused" about which way to drive, would they have been culpable or not?
someone who drinks, knows they are drunk, adn knows they have been drinking, they have a choice. This old boy, from the sounds of it, was/is suffering from dementia, the isssue with this is not loosing your marbles, but not knowing you had any in the first place, he needs putting into care, not prison, as something tells me that he didn't disobey the traffic laws on purpose
hairydave said:
because it was an honest mistake from a confused old man, i imagine his licence will be taken away quietly, by a doctor...
i hope people have as much sympathy and understand for me i i ever makwe it to old age
I was hit head on by an 83 year old man driving the wrong was down lane 3 of the A2. I walked away with a broken arm and a few bruises, but if I had been carrying a passenger it would have been a different story
. I have no sympathy whatsoever for "confused" old people in cars. I see no difference between a drunk driver injuring someone and an old person doing it. I'd like to see compulsory driving tests every ten years or so - that way anybody who's skills had deteriorated over time would lose their license, and the roads would be safer for those of us still capable of driving safely.
Luke
hairydave said:
someone who drinks, knows they are drunk, adn knows they have been drinking, they have a choice. This old boy, from the sounds of it, was/is suffering from dementia, the isssue with this is not loosing your marbles, but not knowing you had any in the first place, he needs putting into care, not prison, as something tells me that he didn't disobey the traffic laws on purpose
He MAY have had a choice as to whether or not to drive. Depending on the circumstances which we don't know. I know elderly people who are aware they are hopeless and know they have the reaction time of a small cucumber, yet still choose to drive. Someone who is an alchoholic may not have any choice in the matter either.
So, had he smacked head on in to your wife and children, killing them, would you still hold that view?
jasandjules said:
hairydave said:
someone who drinks, knows they are drunk, adn knows they have been drinking, they have a choice. This old boy, from the sounds of it, was/is suffering from dementia, the isssue with this is not loosing your marbles, but not knowing you had any in the first place, he needs putting into care, not prison, as something tells me that he didn't disobey the traffic laws on purpose
He MAY have had a choice as to whether or not to drive. Depending on the circumstances which we don't know. I know elderly people who are aware they are hopeless and know they have the reaction time of a small cucumber, yet still choose to drive. Someone who is an alchoholic may not have any choice in the matter either.
So, had he smacked head on in to your wife and children, killing them, would you still hold that view?
you do have a point, we are talkking about an even on which we have only the bbc's poor journalism to rely on. perhaps he's been assesed? perhaps not..
here's the honesty bit, if i was in the situation you suggest, then yes, i imagine i would be a little upset with the gentman in question, to put it mildly. HOwever, i'm not sure that demanding the man be improsoned for, what appears to be an accident with no malicious intent, would be the right and moral thing to do, although i can imagine that being in the upset state i would be, i would think differntly... i don't know if i'm making sense here
the big issue we appear to be discussing is should you be punished for a crime you didn't intend to, or perhaps didnt know you've commited (two different issues).. yes, he should not have been driving, BUT, there is every chance he didn't know that he shouldnt. compulsory retest over 70? i'm inclined to agree with you..
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff