Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Posts: 94 Location: God knows!! Ask Jane
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject:
crazylegs wrote:
Why oh why do the police not come down on these individuals harder, its become antisocial to drink drive so why is it not anti-social to talk on the bl**dy phone and pay no attention to whats going on around you when you are at the wheel of a killing machine..
I'm not sure on the penalty i think its about 30 quid, and because of this paltry amount no one gives a toss about getting caught, least of all the flashy business types who drive large expensive cars, they earn that amount in about 15 minutes...
If i had my way it would be £200 on the spot or i confiscate the phone...
Thats my Rant over........Hmmmmm that felt good....
Trouble is, that the mobile is easy to pick on, cos the law can do anything to people changing CDs, arguing, lighting a cig etc and all these thing distract as much or more, but use a phone for a couple of seconds and the lynch mob comes out ... so too speak
But to cheer you up, did government not announce that 3 penalty points for using a mobile, was coming into play sometime??
TomDavison wrote:
I thought like this until my daughter gave birth. The staff advised that she put a "baby on board" sticker in the window, so that in the event of a serious accident, the emergency services would search the car for the tiny object that was the child in the back, rather than assume that the single driver in the front was the only occupant.
That's a very good idea about the emergancies services.
But what REALLY drives me insane is the cars with the "Baby On Board" in the window driving 90+ up the arse of people and generally looking for a spot to kill someone .... or is it just me being overly sensitive 8O
nej wrote:
People seem to think that calling something an "accident" somehow absolves them of all responsibility. This is crap, it's a child's argument. My 9-yr old daughter knocked an ashtray off a ledge and broke it the other week. She claimed it was an accident. There is no such thing as an accident (well, rarely), it is just somebody not being careful.
So glad I'm not the only one to mention this, just put much better than me :D
People seem to think that calling something an "accident" somehow absolves them of all responsibility. This is crap, it's a child's argument. My 9-yr old daughter knocked an ashtray off a ledge and broke it the other week. She claimed it was an accident. There is no such thing as an accident (well, rarely), it is just somebody not being careful.
The major problem with this argument is that there are no allowances at all, nobody is perfect 100% of the time - we are not machines or bits of computer code that will never break or go wrong (unless there is an outside influence). If we took this argument to it's full conclusion I doubt many would even move out of a bed for fear of blame!
Personally I think there are degrees of blame, take for example one: somebody driving under the influence and due to this they fail to stop in time as a child steps off the pavement in front of them and for example two: somebody driving along as usual and the same thing happens, unfortunately they couldn't stop in time either as the wheels locked up (they were startled and panicked).
Now in the first example I'd say that the person driving has a large part of the blame and should be prosecuted whereas in the second instance, using your argument he/she is equal in the blame and I disagree strongly.
Oh and it makes me laugh when people differenciate between "drink" and "drugs" like they are different things.
Joined: Jun 16, 2004 Posts: 454 Location: London, Ingerlund
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 11:47 am Post subject:
CapSulE wrote:
The major problem with this argument is that there are no allowances at all, nobody is perfect 100% of the time - we are not machines or bits of computer code that will never break or go wrong (unless there is an outside influence). If we took this argument to it's full conclusion I doubt many would even move out of a bed for fear of blame!
Personally I think there are degrees of blame, take for example one: somebody driving under the influence and due to this they fail to stop in time as a child steps off the pavement in front of them and for example two: somebody driving along as usual and the same thing happens, unfortunately they couldn't stop in time either as the wheels locked up (they were startled and panicked).
Now in the first example I'd say that the person driving has a large part of the blame and should be prosecuted whereas in the second instance, using your argument he/she is equal in the blame and I disagree strongly.
Oh and it makes me laugh when people differenciate between "drink" and "drugs" like they are different things.
You make some good points there, although I stand by what I said: Most accidents are avoidable and are caused by somebody not concentrating. In your 2nd scenario, it could be argued that the driver should have seen the child on the pavement and therefore been prepared to react. However, your scenario is perhaps one that can legitimately be deemed an accident from the point of view of the driver. The actual blame though, must lie with the child for stepping into the road. Obviously I cannot condone your 1st scenario as strongly, as the driver should not be driving whilst under any influence, but there is still a degree of blame to be applied to the child for walking into the road. It may sound a little harsh, but it is true.
I got into an interesting "discussion" on another forum a little while back about the faults of drivers when they hit pedestrians. My view is that if a pedestrian steps in front of a car, then the car driver should not be prosecuted for it. If they were speeding, then perhaps they should, but you have to question the pedestrians intelligence for not looking and stepping into the path of 2 tons of metal going at speed. If the driver was on drink/drugs then they should not be allowed on the road anyway as they are not fit to control the vehicle, and naturally should be locked up.
Joined: Apr 29, 2006 Posts: 179 Location: Reading, UK
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject:
nej wrote:
The actual blame though, must lie with the child for stepping into the road
Or the parents of the child for allowing them to be near a road unsupervised in the first place. On the other hand, drivers have a responsibility to predict such incidents as far as is reasonably possible - slowing down when passing a group of children playing, or an ice cream van for example.
Part of the problem is that many drivers see the speed limit as an entitlement rather than a limit, and complacency plays a large part too. And of course the fact that many people are simply too thick to safely be allowed behind the wheel of a car.
Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Posts: 94 Location: God knows!! Ask Jane
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject:
nej wrote:
If the driver was on drink/drugs then they should not be allowed on the road anyway as they are not fit to control the vehicle, and naturally should be locked up.
I'm of the belief that if you drive a car whilst under the influence, then simply put you are driving with intent to kill or maim, you "Choose" to have a couple actually knowing you're gonna drive after then what else can it be described as??
I wonder if 5 year ban for 1st offence and lifetime ban for 2nd time caught over the limit would make people re-think thier choices?
Oh yea also if you hit the kid whilst drunk or whatever, then you are 100% to blame because no matter what the child did or didn't do, you shouldn't have actually been driving in the first place, and should go to jail untill hell freezes over.
Reading through this makes me chuckle. OK the use of phones is illegal but how many people use the TomTom device whilst driving? these devices will be the next to be controlled. A while ago i had an Alpine system in a vehicle that would not enter the menu mode unless you were stationary with the hand brake on, but just like everything else ways around it were found ( not by me, may i add).
Thommo, you made a great point about speed not being the be all and end all, i have been a subscriber to this theory for a long while, however couple speed with a dickhead who is angry and irrational for whatever reason then you have a problem.
Gatso's and the like will pale into insignificance when the powers that be develop a tool that can detect "Cokeheads" on the road from a roadside gantry Now that will be worth waiting for. Nothing against charlie,if thats your poison, just dont do it whilst driving.
...Part of the problem is that many drivers see the speed limit as an entitlement rather than a limit, and complacency plays a large part too...
I have been driving for around 30 years, and have certainly seen many changes. However, one which worries me the most is with speed limits and peoples perception of them.
30 years ago there were many instances where you could be driving at the legal speed limit, and to be honest you would be driving too fast, so most people didn't, they used common sense and drove appropriately.
Now with costantly reducing limits this situation is far less often the case, so on seeing a limit they assume that it is safe to drive at the limit when it may not be.
Such a simple thing as a change in perception (from it is not safe unless I know otherwise, to it is safe unless I know otherwise) can have a devastating effect on safety.
A less contentious example to demonstrate this effect is 'bend' signs, which to be honest are now often placed on nothing more than a 'curve'. So much so, that when you approach a 'real bend' without a sign - you can be taken by suprise. We simply expect things to be made safe for us - in my opinion too safe for our own good. As a society, we are starting to loose our natural ability to recognise danger - we have to have it pointed out to us (and sue if it is not - but that is another soapbox).
Joined: Apr 29, 2006 Posts: 179 Location: Reading, UK
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject:
GO-GO-910 wrote:
Reading through this makes me chuckle. OK the use of phones is illegal but how many people use the TomTom device whilst driving?
Well of course that can be dangerous too, although it shouldn't involve trying to control the car with one hand for an extended period. A better analogy would be adjusting a stereo (before they put the controls on the steering wheel) or the heater controls.
Joined: Apr 29, 2006 Posts: 179 Location: Reading, UK
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject:
neil01 wrote:
I have been driving for around 30 years, and have certainly seen many changes. However, one which worries me the most is with speed limits and peoples perception of them.
30 years ago there were many instances where you could be driving at the legal speed limit, and to be honest you would be driving too fast, so most people didn't, they used common sense and drove appropriately.
I've been driving for around the same time. There may well be something in what you suggest, but I suspect a part of this is the fact that over the years a person's driving style becomes far more sensible and subdued. I know mine has. It is quite possible that as a result, we are more likely to notice the aggression and stupidity in other people's driving - particularly the teenagers who seem to live their lives one street at a time with an alarming sense of immortality.
Conversely, when we were younger the driving of others probably seemed more sedate - because most of them were older than us, and it was.
Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Posts: 94 Location: God knows!! Ask Jane
Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject:
PatC wrote:
It is quite possible that as a result, we are more likely to notice the aggression and stupidity in other people's driving - particularly the teenagers who seem to live their lives one street at a time with an alarming sense of immortality.
Ahhh kids these days :D
Just kidding, I been driving for "Oh god " 20 yrs now and I think you'll find the problem isn't kids have changed so much, it's the power of the cars they can "Afford" & buy after they passed.
My 1st was a Citroen GS 1220 Estate with a possable 50ish BHP and just crawled it's way too 100mph on a very long run.
Nothing out there less than 100Bhp and alot lighter with heavy uses of plastic composites. There's some very fast small cars, Corsa and Saxo being the popular choice currantly.
I know how mad I was at 17+ I just didn't have access the technology of today, so I'd say kids are still the same all in all, not really thier fault that legislation hasn't moved with the times to protect general public and our kids at the same time, when technology accelarates forwards every single day.
Joined: Apr 29, 2006 Posts: 179 Location: Reading, UK
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 4:28 am Post subject:
MR_TiGGer wrote:
Ahhh kids these days :D
Quite. I blame cannabis and the abolition of national service.
Quote:
Just kidding, I been driving for "Oh god " 20 yrs now and I think you'll find the problem isn't kids have changed so much, it's the power of the cars they can "Afford" & buy after they passed.
Actually I wasn't suggesting that teenagers are any worse today than they/we have ever been - at least in terms of driving. Just that for most of us driving aggression fades as we get older.
But I know what you mean about newer cars being more powerful. Thankfully they also have better brakes, airbags (which my teenage son used on his new car, four hours after passing his driving test) and many other improvements.
My first car was so old it didn't even have seatbelts. Very few people wore them anyway at the time, but it's quite frightening to think about it now.
Joined: Jun 16, 2004 Posts: 454 Location: London, Ingerlund
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 10:01 am Post subject:
PatC wrote:
nej wrote:
The actual blame though, must lie with the child for stepping into the road
Or the parents of the child for allowing them to be near a road unsupervised in the first place. On the other hand, drivers have a responsibility to predict such incidents as far as is reasonably possible - slowing down when passing a group of children playing, or an ice cream van for example.
You got that right about the parents responsibility. I posted the exact same thing in the other discussion I had and got flamed for it.... my daughter nearly stepped in front of a car the other week when we were in Falmouth. The road looks like it's pedestrianised but it isn't (should be cos it'd make the town a lot nicer). The car wasn't going fast and I grabbed her and stopped her so no harm done. Now, how many people would blame the driver for not seeing her? Some would, and they'd have a point because the driver should have anticipated the event, but I chose to apologise to the driver and lecture my daughter instead, as IMO it was her own stupidity.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 69 Location: Canterbury, Kent
Posted: Fri May 12, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject:
MR_TiGGer wrote:
Ahhh kids these days :D
Just kidding, I been driving for "Oh god " 20 yrs now and I think you'll find the problem isn't kids have changed so much, it's the power of the cars they can "Afford" & buy after they passed.
My 1st was a Citroen GS 1220 Estate with a possable 50ish BHP and just crawled it's way too 100mph on a very long run.
100 mph!! I guess I've been driving even longer - my first car, a 1497cc side-valve Morris Oxford, was lucky to see 70 mph going downhill with a following wind! :-)
But the point about testosterone-fuelled youngsters is very valid, I guess most of us have "been there" and paid the insurance premiums!
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
" 20 yrs now and I think you'll find the problem isn't kids have changed so much, it's the power of the cars they can "Afford" & buy after they passed.
