Level crossing stupidity...

[Davexoc]

I think one of the problems with mobiles is that to some people using them has become an instinctive move because they are so addcted to them and sometimes don't even realising they are doing it.

There was item on a recent BBC program about road policing and a woman was pulled over and seemed to be totally unaware she had been using the mobile (I don't think she was acting)

Only when she was shown a video of herself using the 'phone without even looking ahead did she realised and seemed to be quite shocked.

 

keith

And the problem now is not because it's a phone, it's the Farcebook, Whatsap et al where it can't be hands-free. The woman pulling up behind me the other day at the lights was clearly too busy on some app, that when the lights changed and I moved off, the vehicle behind her went around her.

Probably sending someone a message to say she was stuck in traffic....

 

Dave

[Colin_McLeod]

Why, Oh Why isn't killing someone with a motor car the same as with any other sort of weapon .................. six months is PATHETIC !

  

Possibly because a car is not a "weapon" It is a machine that can be fatal in an accident. Like an electric saw or a hammer.

  

Anything can be a weapon it is just how it is used!

I agree Mark. I was responding to Wickham Green's post.

 

A car can be used as a weapon and has been in recent terrorist incidents but was not being so used in this case. This was an accident; not an 'on purpose.

[ejstubbs]

Then the meaning of the word needs to be re-emphasised. All "accident" means is "not deliberate"

 

But all too often the dangerous behaviour itself was deliberate - it's the consequences which were not intended.  As per the examples offered by Stationmaster Mike (and reference also some apologists for what happened at Great Heck).

 

Despite what melmerby wrote, I don't believe that a rational person who is applying an acceptable degree of concentration to their driving can "accidentally" text while proceeding along a dark road.

 

Hence, as Ohmisterporter noted, the police these days preferring the term 'collision' to 'accident'.  Apart from anything else,'collision' is a simple statement of fact: one or more vehicles has/have collided with something/each other.  Use of the word 'accident' to describe an incident at a time when the causes and contributory factors are wholly unknown implies an unjustifiable pre-supposition that there was no deliberate intent involved.

Edited October 8, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Compound2632]

Hence, as Ohmisterporter noted, the police these days preferring the term 'collision' to 'accident'.  Apart from anything else,'collision' is a simple statement of fact: one or more vehicles has/have collided with something/each other.  Use of the word 'accident' to describe an incident at a time when the causes and contributory factors are wholly unknown implies an unjustifiable pre-supposition that there was no deliberate intent involved.

 

As is clearly explained in Hot Fuzz.

[melmerby]

 

 

Despite what melmerby wrote, I don't believe that a rational person who is applying an acceptable degree of concentration to their driving can "accidentally" text while proceeding along a dark road.

 

 

Once something has become an addiction, rationality goes out the window. That's what it is.

 

Keith

[Reorte]

But all too often the dangerous behaviour itself was deliberate - it's the consequences which were not intended.  As per the examples offered by Stationmaster Mike (and reference also some apologists for what happened at Great Heck).

The behaviour, yes, but it's the consequences we're talking about. It's not being an apologist to point out that the consequences were unintended - that it was an accident. It in no way absolves someone of blame. "Your atrocious judgement caused the accident, off to prison" is entirely consistent and reasonable (assuming the specific circumstances add up to that). On a less serious scale I'm sure we've all seen children (or been that child) who's said "It's an accident!" when they break something, and accepted that they didn't mean to break it but were still too clumsy and need to be more careful.

 

Hence, as Ohmisterporter noted, the police these days preferring the term 'collision' to 'accident'. Apart from anything else,'collision' is a simple statement of fact: one or more vehicles has/have collided with something/each other. Use of the word 'accident' to describe an incident at a time when the causes and contributory factors are wholly unknown implies an unjustifiable pre-supposition that there was no deliberate intent involved.

That's true although it's rare that any deliberate intent was involved (even with some high-profile cases that were very deliberate). And if "collision" gets used all the time I wouldn't be at all surprised if eventually some people start claiming the same thing for that.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Reorte

[PatB]

It's also often said that "Soandso should not be excessively harshly punished for a single mistake". Often when it's actually fairly obvious to those who care to look that it wasn't a single mistake but an established pattern of behaviour that simply led to a fairly foreseeable conclusion.

[kevinlms]

Why o why do people think that a they need to use a mobile in the car?

Mine is never switched on when I'm driving and I would like to see more enforcement of the laws as people using them are still commonplace.

 

Keith

I don't see a need to turn it off. Very handy using it for Google Maps, LISTENING for the turning instructions.

 

But I never use it for making or receiving calls, texts etc. That is what voice mail is for.

[melmerby]

I don't see a need to turn it off. Very handy using it for Google Maps, LISTENING for the turning instructions.

 

But I never use it for making or receiving calls, texts etc. That is what voice mail is for.

I have a built in touch screen/voice activated Sat-Nav in my car and have never used it, (apart from noticing the pointer wandering along the road,) so I'm hardly going to turn on a phone for Google maps.

 

Keith

Edited October 9, 2018 by melmerby

[The Stationmaster]

The behaviour, yes, but it's the consequences we're talking about. It's not being an apologist to point out that the consequences were unintended - that it was an accident. It in no way absolves someone of blame. "Your atrocious judgement caused the accident, off to prison" is entirely consistent and reasonable (assuming the specific circumstances add up to that). On a less serious scale I'm sure we've all seen children (or been that child) who's said "It's an accident!" when they break something, and accepted that they didn't mean to break it but were still too clumsy and need to be more careful.

 

That's true although it's rare that any deliberate intent was involved (even with some high-profile cases that were very deliberate). And if "collision" gets used all the time I wouldn't be at all surprised if eventually some people start claiming the same thing for that.

 

I would always take the view that it is being wholly apologist to suggest that the consequences were unintended.  If you fail, by commission or commission to do something which you are required by the law, the Highway Code (or even common sense)  when you are on or about the highway then you are creating the opportunity for something untoward to happen, it would be a consequence of your action or maybe teh action of two or more people who have failed to do what is required.  Accidents very rarely happen in any situation at all, on the highway or in your kitchen or garden - they almost inevitably result from the failing of somebody or something.

 

For example a few weeks ago I slipped and landed on my backside on a grassy slope in my garden.  Was that an 'accident' or did I fail to make allowance for the fact that the morning dew hadn't yet evaporated so the grass was wet and I was carrying too many things to quickly regain my balance?  No doubt about it at all in my mind - an error of omission on my part and in no way an 'accident'.

[Wickham Green]

     I agree Mark. I was responding to Wickham Green's post.

 

A car can be used as a weapon and has been in recent terrorist incidents but was not being so used in this case. This was an accident; not an 'on purpose.

Maybe my choice of the word 'weapon' was unfortunate : I was thinking more along the lines of manslaughter rather than murder !

[beast66606]

It's also often said that "Soandso should not be excessively harshly punished for a single mistake the first time they were caught doing it".

 

Now corrected to what is probably more the case.

 

(Just quoting PatB, not having a go at him!)

[jamie92208]

Maybe my choice of the word 'weapon' was unfortunate : I was thinking more along the lines of manslaughter rather than murder !

If I remember my law research days Manslaughter is the unintended consequence, ie a death, of an intended action. We always used to say that the way to get away with a murder was to use a car to do the act.

 

Jamie

[BlackRat]

IIRC the police have dropped RTA (Road Traffic Accident) and adopted RTC (Road Traffic Collision). Perhaps recognising that most collisions are avoidable by the parties involved.

Yup, there's always fault or blame somewhere so.....no such thing as an accident any more.

[Mark Saunders]

Yup, there's always fault or blame somewhere so.....no such thing as an accident any more.

 

and it keeps a great number of Solicitors and their staff in gainful employment!

[Wickham Green]

If I remember my law research days Manslaughter is the unintended consequence, ie a death, of an intended action. We always used to say that the way to get away with a murder was to use a car to do the act.

 

Jamie

...... obviously before someone coined the term 'Diminished Responsibilty' ............... how I wish I'd got copyright on that - I'd be a zillionaire ! 

[Budgie]

...... obviously before someone coined the term 'Diminished Responsibilty' ............... how I wish I'd got copyright on that - I'd be a zillionaire !

It's about time the term "diminished responsibility" was banned in a court of law.

[Reorte]

I would always take the view that it is being wholly apologist to suggest that the consequences were unintended.  If you fail, by commission or commission to do something which you are required by the law, the Highway Code (or even common sense)  when you are on or about the highway then you are creating the opportunity for something untoward to happen, it would be a consequence of your action or maybe teh action of two or more people who have failed to do what is required.  Accidents very rarely happen in any situation at all, on the highway or in your kitchen or garden - they almost inevitably result from the failing of somebody or something.

 

For example a few weeks ago I slipped and landed on my backside on a grassy slope in my garden.  Was that an 'accident' or did I fail to make allowance for the fact that the morning dew hadn't yet evaporated so the grass was wet and I was carrying too many things to quickly regain my balance?  No doubt about it at all in my mind - an error of omission on my part and in no way an 'accident'.

 

When you slipped and fell it was either intentional or accidental. The two are simply the opposite of each other, it has to be one or the other. Either you were deliberately trying to fall or you weren't. Since I very much doubt you intended to fall it was therefore an accident. There's nothing inconsistent at all with saying it was an accident and that you really should've known better and that it shouldn't have happened.

 

Accidents happen frequently, and almost all of the time they happen the cause is someone who should've known better. This is why I find it insulting to be labelled as an apologist because I acknowledge no intent. You say "If you fail, by commission or commission to do something which you are required by the law, the Highway Code (or even common sense)  when you are on or about the highway then you are creating the opportunity for something untoward to happen, it would be a consequence of your action or maybe teh action of two or more people who have failed to do what is required," and I completely agree with that. Acnowledging a lack of intent does not contradict that, or let you (generic you) off the hook in the slightest. But there is a difference between slipping when you should've known better and falling over on purpose.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Reorte

[Reorte]

Yup, there's always fault or blame somewhere so.....no such thing as an accident any more.

Again, why this assumption that "accident" and "blame" are mutually exclusive. Just because someone caused an accident in no way absolves them of the consequences of their lack of responsibility. If the consequences are serious enough and the lack of responsibility in their actions glaring enough then the person might not deserve to be treated any better than if they had acted deliberately.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Reorte

[phil-b259]

I We always used to say that the way to get away with a murder was to use a car to do the act.

 

Jamie

 

Something various terrorists have now latched on to with fatal results.

 

Similarly the idea of deliberately flying a plane into something with the intent to kill wasn't something most folk would have considered a possibility till a certain event a 17 years ago.

[RJS1977]

Something various terrorists have now latched on to with fatal results.

 

Similarly the idea of deliberately flying a plane into something with the intent to kill wasn't something most folk would have considered a possibility till a certain event a 17 years ago.

 

Although Tom Clancy portrayed a similar event in his novel 'Debt of Honor' in 1994.

[laurenceb]

When removal of driving bans for drink driving became manditory a magistrate complained that it taking power away from them. the same thing should be aplied to using a mobile phone. If the magistrates wont penalise offenders properly. Too many get away with claiming hardship, "if you cant do the time dont do the crime"

Edited October 10, 2018 by laurenceb

[caradoc]

Although Tom Clancy portrayed a similar event in his novel 'Debt of Honor' in 1994.

 

And the Japanese did it towards the end of WW2.

[PhilJ W]

When removal of driving bans for drink driving became manditory a magistrate complained that it taking power away from them. the same thing should be aplied to using a mobile phone. If the magistrates wont penalise offenders properly. Too many get away with climing hardship, "if you cant do the time dont do the crime"

The mandatory ban for drink driving was brought in after a magistrate did not apply it to a drink driver as it would 'Interfere with his duties as master of the local foxhunt'. There was such an uproar that the magistrate was forced to retire from the bench. A prime example of not what you know but whome you know.

[Reorte]

The mandatory ban for drink driving was brought in after a magistrate did not apply it to a drink driver as it would 'Interfere with his duties as master of the local foxhunt'. There was such an uproar that the magistrate was forced to retire from the bench. A prime example of not what you know but whome you know.

Pity he had no sense of his duties as a magistrate.