Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while usingmobile phones
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
Next: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
From: Bod on 22 Mar 2010 12:18 On 22/03/2010 16:11, Brimstone wrote: > > > "Bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > news:80pirpFvtfU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 22/03/2010 16:01, Brimstone wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:80phu4Fjn6U39(a)mid.individual.net... > >>>> Exactly that situation happened to my mother last year. Some fuckwit >>>> coming the other way decided to overtake the car in front of him. >>>> Narrow >>>> country lane. High hedges, both sides, negligible verge. >>>> >>>> She survived, completely uninjured, and drove her Peugeot 306 home. >>>> >>>> See if you can guess why. >>> >>> She wasn't on the phone, was under the speed limit, wearing a seat belt, >>> her child was secured in the latest Euro approved baby seat (oh, maybe >>> not that one), she had top of the range tyres fitted and wasn't >>> distracted by any in car gadgetry? >>> >>> >> I would be more inclined to say it was because of the modern safety >> design of the car; crumple zones/airbags/seat belts etc. >> > WWWOOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHH!!!! > > > Adrian replied to an immediate post, where the poster said that sometimes a collision is unavoidable. He replied by saying that his mother had EXACTLY the same situation. Therefore impling that a crash had occurred. Bod
From: Adrian on 22 Mar 2010 12:36 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> I would be more inclined to say it was because of the modern safety >> design of the car; crumple zones/airbags/seat belts etc. > WWWOOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHH!!!! Was that the airbag inflating?
From: Adrian on 22 Mar 2010 12:37 Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > I would be more inclined to say it was because of the modern safety > design of the car; crumple zones/airbags/seat belts etc. The airbag didn't deploy. The pyrotechnic seatbelt tensioners didn't deploy. The car had only minor panel damage and was driveable.
From: JNugent on 22 Mar 2010 15:21 Ret. wrote: > JNugent wrote: >> Ret. wrote: [ ... ] >>> But the problem is that the cover-all offence is usually only >>> detectable *after* the damage has been done. Let's face it - driving >>> whilst drunk is covered within 'dangerous driving' is it not? >> No, it isn't. >> There need be absolutely no element of one's driving being far below >> the standard excpected of a cometent driver in order for the "driving >> with excess alcohol" offence to be relevant. >> It is legally possible for one's driving to be 100% lawful (except >> for the alcohol) and perhaps even praiseworthy - but the offence of >> excess alcohol still subsists. >> I thought you used to be a traffic police officer of some substantial >> rank? > You will note that I specifically stated: 'Driving whilst drunk'. What does "drunk" mean? According to traffic law it means "scoring more than 80" (or whatever). >>> Should we then have >>> not bothered with specific drink/driving legislation? >> The mere fact that the breathalyser (etc) were brought in by the 1967 >> Act tells you the answer to that one. "Dangerous driving" is too >> severe a charge to stick just because the driver has had three pints >> of bitter and may have exhibited no obkective fall-off in driving >> standards at all. > But the punishment is very severe for being over the limit is it not? *Too* severe in marginal cases to be just. Being banned for a year for a score of 85 instead of a max 80 is not justice - it is a mere expression of state control freakery. Other European countries go in for punishments which fit the offence.
From: JNugent on 22 Mar 2010 18:20
Ret. wrote: > JNugent wrote: >> Ret. wrote: >>>> The mere fact that the breathalyser (etc) were brought in by the >>>> 1967 Act tells you the answer to that one. "Dangerous driving" is >>>> too severe a charge to stick just because the driver has had three >>>> pints of bitter and may have exhibited no obkective fall-off in >>>> driving standards at all. >>> But the punishment is very severe for being over the limit is it not? >> *Too* severe in marginal cases to be just. >> Being banned for a year for a score of 85 instead of a max 80 is not >> justice - it is a mere expression of state control freakery. >> Other European countries go in for punishments which fit the offence. > You mean like being arrested if you cannot produce your driving > documents on the spot? You're not having a good day today. Being arrested is not a punishment. But... if UK law requred drivers to have evidence of their licence/ID about them when driving, with liability to arrest until able to prove identity, then fair enough. |