Changes to the law

[Bea Smith]

You have completely lost it

 

 

I am not wishing you lose a relative in a road accident through someone speeding, but if you do, your post, its tone, its selective attacking, and your complete life will change and you might, just might understand what is clearly beyond you now.

Why racing to work because you are too lazy to get up 5 minutes earlier, why racing to the pub or the match because you are disorganised, why vn missing a train or a flight are less important than life itself.

 

If you can come to your senses withoug that something tragic happening to you or your family because of bad road behaviour, then that will be far better.

 

Those bans are a deterent and need to be enforced strictly, even after 10 years ban someone can get another car, but cannot gate back the child, partner or parent they have had taken from them.

[Doha]

I don't know why you think that.

 

He made no mention of drink driving.

 

He said people should have 10/20/lifetime bans from owning a vehicle for not paying a speeding fine.

 

Come on.

 

Fines are issued for being a few mph over. Faster is when the prosecutions start. Are you really agreeing with the view that doing 34 in a 30 and not paying the PCN is sufficient grounds to be permanently banned from owning a car?

 

Watch any episode of Traffic Cops or Road Wars and people doing 90 on the wrong side of the road after failing to stop for Police get a few months in prison and a 3 year driving ban. Those are the candidates for permanent bans.

[Bea Smith]

You have completely lost it

 

Post reported to admin as a personal attack that does not mention the post.

[Bea Smith]

He made no mention of drink driving.

 

He said people should have 10/20/lifetime bans from owning a vehicle for not paying a speeding fine.

 

Come on.

 

Fines are issued for being a few mph over. Faster is when the prosecutions start. Are you really agreeing with the view that doing 34 in a 30 and not paying the PCN is sufficient grounds to be permanently banned from owning a car?

 

 

 

Of course, it makes all the difference is some maniac doing 90 mph or whatever kills your loved one(s) after a drink doesn't it ? Far too may people have died from reckless driving and it doesn't matter if drinking is involved or not - though of course it is worse if the driver is over the minit.

 

I thought, it seems probably wrongly, that you had enough common sense to realise that I was not talking about taking away someone's car for doing 35moh in a 30 limit once - but you people and your posts are always the same, twisting things, manipulating words - when you know I mean the cases like Mr H described.

 

However, if someone was caught speeding at 35 in a 30 limit 10 times, say, in a year then it might not be inappropriate for them to do 200 hours community service and be banned for a year and evenlose their car for higher over-the-limit speeds. Needs discussion, but err on the side of making someone THINK before driving like a maniac.

[Doha]

Post reported to admin as a personal attack that does not mention the post.

 

Brilliant. This is like Martino reporting a post for being a wind up.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Watch any episode of Traffic Cops or Road Wars and people doing 90 on the wrong side of the road after failing to stop for Police get a few months in prison and a 3 year driving ban. Those are the candidates for permanent bans.

 

Those kind of cases are more the kind of thing I'm talking about although I am increasingly of the opinion that speeding of any kind, even the few miles over 30 that you cite should be treated far more seriously. I live in a 20mph zone, the majority of the village is, yet you still get people ignoring it and going much faster. Even an extra 10 mph can significantly increase the likelihood of death if hit by a car.

Cars are hugely dangerous things if the driver opts to ignore speed/ drinking limits. I really don't get why judges are so determined to give drink drivers and speeding drivers the chance to get behind the wheel again. If I walked down the road, all lagered up and swinging a sword around my head and hurt someone, I wouldn't expect a judge to confiscate it but give it me back in 3 years.

 

Do you think there should be less speed cameras? Not singling you out, just interested in what argument those against them might put forward.

[Bea Smith]

Brilliant. This is like Martino reporting a post for being a wind up.

 

Far too serious a matter for your games.

 

One day if you lose someone to a speeding driver you might remember these posts, and would it make you feel better if they hadn't been drinking ?

 

I have nothing more to say to you on this subject, you clearly place your own self-importance, pig-headedness and points scoring on posts above respect and dignity for anyone affected by this, or who wants to see no more lives lost in this stupid, wasteful way.

[Paul6754]

Can someone tell me the thinking behind people who complain about the amount of speed cameras. I really don't understand that. Isn't it like a shoplifter complaining about the amount of store detectives?

I'd like to see speed cameras on every road with significant fines and points on licences on 3rd offence (that might be happening already, I don't know). Nice little earner for councils and keep the roads safer for the rest of us.

 

The more speed cameras the better for me. A car is the most dangerous weapon most people in the UK get their hands on (that's not attached to them). A driver's license should be earned day in day out, it is not a right.

[Aussie Rules]

Throw in 12% Italian and 10% German (give or take all figures) and I guess that's why I'm pro European ! Oh and a miserly 17% English. And to think I've traced my paternal side back to Bucknall For nearly 200 years.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

 

Proper posh genes us Buknall mob

[Aussie Rules]

The more speed cameras the better for me. A car is the most dangerous weapon most people in the UK get their hands on (that's not attached to them). A driver's license should be earned day in day out, it is not a right.

 

Not too sure how it works in the UK but 'Downunder you can guarantee if a traffic camera takes a pic for speeding or going through a red light the owner of said vehicle will received a traffic citation in their letterbox - whether or not he/she was in the driver's seat.

[geosname]

The more speed cameras the better for me. A car is the most dangerous weapon most people in the UK get their hands on (that's not attached to them). A driver's license should be earned day in day out, it is not a right.

 

The simplest solution would be to restrict vehicles from exceeding speed limits.

[Andyregs]

We will all be in driverless cars in the next ten years. So the debate will no longer be relevant soon.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Having a mutation in your DNA doesn't guarantee that you will develop the disease.

 

Indeed but for insurance companies and the like it's all about risk assessment..you are more likely to develop the condition if you have the gene and so are a higher risk..hence for example we have women having their breasts removed cos they have a breast cancer gene.

 

 

 

There is much more concrete data/evidence used today to prevent the above rather than a piece of DNA data which may or may not mean anything. The power of using DNA is comparing it to other DNA.

 

I'm not overly concerned about 'today' I'm concerned about the future use

 

 

 

The vast majority, if not all people, who give birth would want to raise the child that they produced, DNA technology to confirm the parents of a child is being used today, what the heck is wrong with it.

 

I said it could be taken from you. You may think you are the father, turns out your not, the state decides to take the child away from you even when you are quite willing to raise the child and give it to the real father to raise

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I don't know why you think that. I'm constantly amazed when hearing or reading news reports of terribly dangerous driving - driving so dangerous that the ******** has been imprisoned - but then been basically told that they can drive again in 3 years. Why? Same with drunk drivers. It's not a right to drive, to get behind the wheel of a machine that can do untold damage, so why are people allowed to have another go?

 

Where I live, there was a really tragic case of a much loved member of the local community being hit and killed by two speeding racing drivers. One hit him up in the air and the one behind caught him on the way down. So so sad. This guy has left children and a wife behind. The driving ban for the wnkers that did it was set to run concurrent with the prison sentence!

 

I'm randomly googling stuff now and a man who did 172mph (!) in a 70 zone was given a 3 year ban. Luke McCormick, the Plymouth goalkeeper who killed 2 young children thanks to his ******* idiocy had a driving ban that was less than his prison sentence. A woman who i saw on the news earlier this year went out 3 times over the drink driving limit, with a toddler in the car with her, was was banned from driving for three years.

 

Genuinely, I don't understand why people who have shown such a flagrant and serious disregard should be given another chance. I am all for the rehabilitation of offenders but don't see why they need to drive again.

 

Whilst I am all in favour of more speed cameras and harsher penalties and agree that there is rarely if ever an excuse for breaking the speed limit it is also worth bearing in mind that the majority of road accidents and deaths do not involve excessive speed...so continuous education re driver behaviour is important. It's also about driving appropriately for the conditions..just cos the limit is 60 doesn't mean it's OK to do 60!!

 

 

I'm regularly horrified by the speeds at which people drive on the country lanes around where I live and whilst I'm not perfect, having been injured in a crash caused by a driver who lost control due to excessive speed there really is no excuse.

 

http://www.driving-test-success.com/causes-car-crash.htm

[Regal Beagle]

We will all be in driverless cars in the next ten years. So the debate will no longer be relevant soon.

 

I agree, even without driverless cars, I think that technology (such as gps for example) will put a stop to speeding soon. For that reason I don't see much point in changing the law now.