On Jun 15, 10:11*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
Dan O considered Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:15:40
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On Jun 14, 12:16*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

What we need are proper penalties for abuse of the privilege of motor
vehicle use.
Heavy fines for the responsible party in any collision - and if they
can't decide which party that was, the fine should be split between
them, not ignored. *The full cost of the clear up and medical
treatment necessary should be charged to their insurance.
Any injury should result in imprisonment, the duration depending on
the severity - why should the perpetrator recover any more quickly
than their victim? *Permanent disablement or death should equal life
imprisonment.
NOBODY who has caused any doubt to be raised over their ability to use
a motor vehicle safely should be allowed further use. *End of story.

Okay, but "any doubt" in *whose* *mind?

Any contact with another vehicle, object or person that can't be
entirely attributed to another party.

I repeat, the vagaries of human nature in all its splendor abound at
the controls of traffic. *(Whjee)

If people knew that these were the consequences of an "accident"
they'd take the necessary care to avoid them.

Absolutely right! *It's about time.

If licence suspensions and/or revocations were used more often, people
would get used to the idea of alternatives to driving, and it would be
economically viable to provide those alternatives.

No, they would get used to driving without a license -- and without
insurance.

The accident described in the original post involved an aparent
psychopathic driver. Most non-psychopathic drivers want to avoid
accidents and do not need further incentive -- e.g., the threat of
license suspension or revocation for an "accident." Psychopaths don't
care and are probably driving without a license anyway.

The people who do the most damage are rarely those who respond to
bland punishments.

-- Jay Beattie.