I will repeat my manrtra..prosecute those who have accidents, those who
cause accidents, and prosecute them hard. Have a full blown
investigatuion whenever someone is killed, and make someone responsible.
Have a less throriough investigatin whenever a car has to be towed away
from the scene as well, and prosecute less severely.
And forget about speed as the 'only thing that causes acidents' because,
by itself, it has never ever caused a single accident. Its always in
conjunction with something else, and that something else may or may not
be affected by the speed at all.
The most damage I ever did to another car, and the most culpable I have
ever been of gross stupidity, was in cutting a corner at 15 mph which
should not have been blind, but due to extraordinary combinations of
screen pillars and trees and the times I actually checked it, was, and
writing off my own and a neigbours car.
I would not have been unhappy to have been docked 9 points and a 200
quid fine for that incident. Needless to say the police were not even
The number of times though I have been done for petty and minor
infringements of a technical nature....makes me sick.
But the person who has cause the accident is often miles down the road
by the time the accident is in the hands of the police, how are you
going to prosecute the idiot who has weaved at high speed in and out
of traffic driving at (or below) the limit and has thus caused the
Speed ALWAYS has a governing factor in the accident (and the resulting
damage), no accidents would ever happen if we all travel around at 1
mph, even the average walking speed (IIRC) of 3 mph is enough to cause
people to walk into each other at times.
In that case, you can't.. and provided all witnesses agree, then that's
Indeed. Its always some osrt of ator, because what causes damage is
acceleration, and you don't get acceleration without relative velocity.
However I maintain that the current state of road traffic engineering,
and the law, and the way its enforced, are at best neutral with respect
to road safety, and often actually make roads more dangerous, because of
the total insistence that speed is the only thing that makes roads
unsafe...whereas the truth is its the only law that can be enforced
blindly and rigidkly by a computerised system that generates a profit.
Whilst the speed debate rages, people are getting killed for entirely
different reasons. THAT is criminal.
Murder has to be premeditated. You've got to set out with the intention of
killing. But the penalties for both murder and manslaughter overlap, so a
judge - who knows the facts rather better than the Mail - can give the
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.
Dave Plowman email@example.com London SW
Exactly, but don't try being rational with Jerry. Not understanding the
difference between two entirely separate types of crimes and therefore
wanting to label them blindly as one kinda follows every aspect of his
thinking and is aptly demonstrated by his apparent IQ.
I know. He's unreal. During my life I have had two friends/colleagues
killed in car accidents, one kidnapped and beheaded in Saudi and one who got
out of 9/11 because she was in the South tower and had the sense to get out.
To me that's one murder, one attempted murder and two unfortunate events
which at the extreme limit might be cases for manslaughter.
But as many cases for manslaughter fail, including all rail accident cases
brought to date I believe, causing death by dangerous driving is the
No. Murder implies intent. Manslaughter is the correct legal charge.
Killing someone substantially by your own actions (or negligence) even
though you never planned or intended to.
Murder could only be used for e.g. road rage types who deliberately seek
Which is what I was trying to hint at earlier with my vehicle weight
argument. Speed and weight both apply energy to a crash in the same way.
Therefore both could be considered bad from that point of view as when a
crash does happen, both are equally going to cause damage (well, that may
not be 100% true as crashes are hugely complex things in terms of two
objects hitting, never mind the human aspects beforehand of reaction time,
driving ability, tyre performance, road grip, etc.).
However, what ties those two elements of force together to cause an accident
in the first place? Come on Jerry, rub your head to warm it up. What's
that? A driver? Really? You mean it takes someone driving like an idiot
regardless of speed to cause most crashes? Wow ... common sense at last ...
What about the ability of other lagitamate road users ?
Have you any experiance what so ever in this field, other than just a
Oh right, so kids never arrive late or leave early (legitimately that
is..), also, what about the times that children are taken out of
school by the staff ? If there needs to be a 20 mph limit outside
schools at the start and finish of the school day then there is an
argument that the limit needs to be there an hour before to an least
an hour after the official school day.
But there is a problem with that, I once witnessed what could have
been a very serious accident due solely to speed of a passing car, HGV
on the inside lane doing it's governed 55 mph, a (large) car and
caravan passing and just clearing the front of said lorry using the
centre lane, at this point a prat in a XR3 Escort (I think) passed by
in the outside lane doing well over 80 (I suspect ), this cause
'wind cut' to effect the caravan which then tried to overtake the
towing vehicle - swaying at least 45 degs from where is should have
been - If the caravan had rolled it would have taken the towing car
and it occupants with it, probably involved the HGV with it, I would
probably have also hit wreckage and what vehicles behind would have
been involved I can only guess....
 I was following behind the car and caravan in a 7.5t lorry.
But what is inappropriate conditions, in my example above the XR3
driver would not have known of the danger until he passed (he would
have just seen to lorries passing one another), the issue was speed
and speed alone - other than speed there was factor involved.
As for driving to close, the problem is often the prat in front, the
one who has filled the gap between two other vehicles...
Which is why caravans are limited to 50mph. Thger IS a definite issue
with light caravans being towed by light cars with articulated couplings.
It was the caravan driver who was at fault.
And if you wre following a caravan at 60mph in a large lorry close
enough to see what happened, you were too.
No, teh size of te lorry being overtaken and the pressure wave off its
front was the issue. The XR3 generates almost nothing. 30mph relative
overtaking velocity is a little higher than I care to use meself, but
its still well within the bounds of acceptable on all but a very crowded
No, its you, for not slowing down and giveing the prat the room he
hasn't given himself.
But they are NOT limited to 50, the limit for a car towing a trailer
is 60 mph on Duel carriage-ways and Motorways.
No it was not, it was caused by the excessive speed of the vehicle
passing in the outside lane.
You wanker, you might only look at the front of your bonnet, I look
Look you natural wanker, the caravan did not start it's violent
swaying until the XR3 passed - even though the car and caravan had
passed the HGV.
Your a utter wanker, the driver of the 'gap filling' vehicle should
not have attempted to pass unless they could clear all the vehicles,
HWC point 143. Go find a clue moron before you kill someone. The point
is, if the following vehicle has had to slow down after another
vehicle has pulled in it's already to late if the gap is to small.
Oh come on .. please ask a teenager around for some advice on how to argue.
I'm sure they'll tell you the "no you did" repetition of using the same lame
insult 15 times over shows a complete lack of imagination and intellect.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.