PDA

View Full Version : Sky News - shock revelation


Brizzo
2nd Nov 2004, 21:57
Soft penalties 'cost lives' (says Sky News, 2 Nov. 2004)


Slack enforcement of traffic laws and light penalties for motorists are costing lives, according to an influential cross-party committee of MPs.

The Transport Select Committee rounded on the police, the courts and the Government in its report on enforcement. Published yesterday, the report says a radical and urgent overhaul is needed at every level to curb the number of people killed or seriously injured each year.

The committee is fundamentally opposed to the Department for Transport's proposals to impose fewer points on some speeding motorists and says the Government should not be 'bullied' into softening unpopular penalties.

It also says rules on where the police are allowed to site cameras should be relaxed so that more can be used. It believes motorists would be appalled if they realised that four people have to be killed or seriously injured within three years on a stretch of road before a camera can be used.

Proposals to introduce new 'alco-locks', which would prevent convicted drink-drivers from taking to the road after drinking alcohol are welcomed, but the committee says it is 'extremely disturbed' that dwindling numbers of drivers are being breathalysed as more and more drunken motorists are convicted or cause an accident.

The lax attitude of police and the courts towards motorists who cause death or serious injury is also out of kilter with public opinion, according to the committee. It is calling for more drivers to be tried by jury at Crown Court rather than dealt with by local magistrates.

Far tougher sentences for motorists who kill or injure are needed, the committee says, complaining that the Home Office's report into stiffer penalties is now nearly a year late.

The Home Office has welcomed the report and, like the Department for Transport, said it will prepare a detailed response in the next few weeks.

Feeton Terrafirma
2nd Nov 2004, 22:30
RANT ON/

Yet another example of "influential cross-party committee of MPs" suddenly becoming experts on the cause of accidents.

Why do twits think that they know anything about a specialist field just because they have been elected into public office?

One would have hoped that they atleast knew enough to seek the opinion and guidence of experts.

I'm not shocked or appalled that "that four people have to be killed or seriously injured within three years on a stretch of road before a camera can be used". What I am shocked at is the rash assumption that a camera is the solution to the problem. Why not actually look into the cause of the accidents and address those, rather than just assume a speed camera will solve it.

In aviation where a proper investigation into an accident is conducted there is ALWAYS a number of contributing factors, some more important than others, but always a number. We dont assume that because the plane hit the ground at 250 kts that speed was the problem, we dont make stupid statements like "if the plane was going slower it might have avoided the ground", we actually look into the causes and when identified we address them.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to do the same with traffic accidents? If a fatality occurs and investigation can identify the causual factors we have a real oppotunity to address them before a second fatality occurs in the same stretch of road. Wouldn't that be a much better approach than waiting for another 3 people to die before we assume speed is the problem and install a camera?

/ RANT OFF

Training Risky
3rd Nov 2004, 09:37
Ban all cars.... yes that's the solution. Take them out of circulation so they can't hurt anyone ever again.

Ban all aeroplanes too... no more 9/11's ever again.

Ban kitchen knives too.... very dangerous if ever in the wrong hands.



The sooner this country and Parliament is out of the grip of the liberal elite... the better:mad: :rolleyes: :*

Nigerian Expat Outlaw
3rd Nov 2004, 09:48
All good points. But if a drunk or drugged driver killed or maimed my missus/kid(s) I'd want him treated as a murderer and given a proper punishment (not that they get properly punished these days either), not given a 3 year ban and told not to do it again.

tony draper
3rd Nov 2004, 09:58
Banning all private cars would indeed be the obvious solution to a lot of problems, but no politician would ever have the guts.
:confused:

zeeoo
3rd Nov 2004, 10:23
and the balls...

Jerricho
3rd Nov 2004, 14:58
And if Prescott is anything to go by, the physical fitness to walk everywhere.

(Although, he throws a good punch Only one though)

tinpis
4th Nov 2004, 00:14
Tony

Banning all private cars would indeed be the obvious solution to a lot of problems, but no politician would ever have the guts.

Then of course public transport would be made available by lawyer owned limited liability taxi companies.

Feeton Terrafirma
4th Nov 2004, 00:25
The problem with public transport is the cost!!

Serious!!

If I used it to get around from job to job my bill to the customer for travel time would be much higher than the bill for the actual work. It would have to be that way to maintain my income, such as it is. It wouldn't be long before both my customers and myself were out of business..... there is the real cost of public transport.


Jumps back in his big thirsty very fast V8 and rumbles off to the next job

tinpis
4th Nov 2004, 00:30
Feets get an Echo.

Toyota are sponsors of mine [official lie]

Send Clowns
4th Nov 2004, 13:00
Cheerio

You have to be joking, right? Someone who cannot keep his temper when hit by a single thrown egg, when this is an occasional hazard of his chosen profession, goes up in your estimation? What on Earth do you look for in your politicians? Nasty, vindictive, small-minded thugs?

You choose that someone "deserves" to be the recipient of an assault, not entirely unprovoked but certainly out of proportion, due to his face? Certainly Prescott did not think he was threatened as he claimed (he turned towards the egg thrower, could see he had hands by his side, not in a threatening manner, then threw the punch in a rage).

XXTSGR
4th Nov 2004, 16:55
And today a man who killed a teenager and seriously injured her boyfriend on Christmas Day by driving at 50 in a 30 limit whilst 1.5 times over the drink limit has had his sentence reduced from 6 to 5 years and his driving ban reduced as well. One report states that he has had previous for drink/driving and casts doubt on whether he had insurance.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with this man. He knew perfectly well that driving whilst over the limit can cause death or serious injury, yet he went ahead and did it, reckless as to who was damaged or killed by it. In my book, that makes it murder and he should get life.

Send Clowns
4th Nov 2004, 17:40
It's quite a serious flaw in a senior politician, Cheerio! Should have been prosecuted for assault. Both people I mean, if Prescott wanted to press charges for common assault, but you really cannot justify hitting someone who is no threat, especially when you have police close by! I have been hit repeatedly by a drunken thug, and not responded as I was in no danger of real hurt and did not want to risk my own prosecution, as I was fairly sober and could have hurt him. It's one rule for them, another rule for the rest of us.

You can dislike a person on their face, feel free. However it is nasty to think they deserve to be attacked on that basis!

radeng
5th Nov 2004, 09:15
There seems almost a conspiracy in society to avoid convictions for death by dangerous driving. The woman who killed the train driver on the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch is case in point. According to some reports at the time, there were witnesses who claimed that they had been waiting at the crossing where the lights were flashing, and she drove round them and onto the railway line. The steam train hit her, jacknifed, and the driver was killed. At the trial, she said she hadn't seen the lights and was found guilty of careless driving - and fined 500 quid (I'm using a a computer in Switzerland and it hasn't a pound sign!) and banned for 12 months.

My only hope is that the railway company will sue her to the extent that she can't get insured again.

Gary Hart got jailed for driving onto the railway line after falling asleep at the wheel, but there's been a lot of argument in the technical press that had the railway used a different method of working, with a locomotive leading, the crash would have been minor. Interesting that those arguments were either considered too technical for a jury, or maybe his lawyers didn't know about it..