Search results

The point being it won't happen overnight. Change is happening and the more it happens the faster the pace of change. Look at smoking. Widely accepted that smokers could light up where ever they chose, and frequently did. You had non smoking carriages on trains I think from about 1949 and...

So how long did it take, guessing it wasn't overnight.

Now that is daft. Obviously if they are driving the car legally, ie it's theirs or with the owners permission.

With regard to phone usage, the first penalty should be seizure and disposal of the vehicle regardless of who owns it. If they've caused injury then it should be the same levels of punishment you would get if you were prosecuted for assaulting someone in the street and if you kill them then the...

But it isn't just changing sentencing though is it? In London there are emission controls which, over time will have a health benefit, even more so as we transition towards all electric. There are more and more 20mph zones which should reduce the worse outcomes from a collision. There are...

Afraid I'm going to disagree. I think there is a shift in attitudes to driving and town planning etc is moving in that direction. It isn't going to change overnight and that change is, regrettably, not going to be in time for too many. There are far more cycle lanes than there has ever been...

Just looking at the court record. Death by careless driving Death whilst driving uninsured and without a licence Failure to stop after an accident/collision Causing death by careless driving. Seems the judged sentenced him on the basis that he wasn't under the influence despite visual...

It seems in this case the sentencing wasn't the problem. Why did the judge only give him three and half years when he could have given him four times as much?

Maximum for manslaughter is Life, maximum for death by dangerous driving is only 14 years (out in 7 probably on good behaviour). If you deliberately drive at someone it's likely to be GBH with intent which carries a maximum life sentence.

I agree, they all are, and do you not think that there are varying degrees of competency required, especially if you separate out those that mainly use the road and those that are just crossing it? Do you let a child cross the road without teaching the highway code and then checking that do it...

If that's a dig at me then it's misplaced. I'm not slagging of cyclists, just one! I've got no problem with good cyclists, just as I suspect they have no problem with good drivers. And as you say, this thread is should be about the inadequate sentencing.

And that is what you and I and a host of others agree on. It's also the point of this thread rather than one poster trying to change the agenda. As you make reference to your previous comments then I'll respond. Instead of separating motorists from cyclists etc, why don't you just classify...

:facepalm: My comments were a rebuttal to Stat who seems to only promote cycling hence my reference to cyclists. As for your last paragraph, again, on the contrary, Stat is making no differentiation between good and bad drivers. I'm all for improving attitudes to motoring but the biggest...

:facepalm: The thread seems to have been diverted from its subject matter due to your comments.

Ridiculous, it's motorists that do the motoring, there is no distinction. Like I said in an previous post, I don't have a problem with all cyclists, just those that lump all motorists into the same negative group. There are good drivers and bad drivers and there are good cyclists and bad...

Well not quite. Licence lasts until you are 70 and then you have to renew it so based on learning at 17 means it's 53 years. That said, I agree that drivers should face a periodic retest. However the other side of the coin is that there is no requirement for any cyclist to demonstrate...

You are aware that combustion engines are in the process of being phased out? Also, exactly what tax should a cyclist get a reduction in bearing in mind you don't pay any tax as a cyclist?

:facepalm: So you agree that motorists are getting a tax break just because fuel duty hasn't gone up! I suppose you'd say the same about everyone that pays income tax if the rate doesn't go up or any other tax for that matter. It was, in my opinion, a moronic comment by the OP and doesn't...

Strictly speaking, there is no automatic right to drive, you have to pass a test. Unfortunately, a minority ignore this requirement.

Doesn't matter how long, it's still odd to describe it as a tax break when motorists pay a tax for owning a car and pay fuel duty when they fill up and VAT on top of that. Cyclists on the other hand!!!!