BBC article on cycling danger

JNugent wrote:
Matt B wrote:

JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

I'm not in favour of draconian penalties for technical offences either.

That depends on the technical offence, surely?

Can you think of any which, if broken, will in all circumstances
automatically lead to a significantly increased risk of damage or
injury to others?

Does it have to, in order to be a serious offence worthy of an exemplary
punishment?

In an ideal world why would we punish victimless "crimes", or "crimes"
which yield no increased risk of damage or injury?

And you could argue the same about contempt of court.

I'd argue that is a (possibly the only) special case.

It too is treated seriously and for the same reason: if it isn't treated
seriously, the authority of the courts (the authority of Parliament in
the case of drivers) is visibly diminished and we move a step nearer to
anarchy.

How a law making acts which are harmless to others an offence, a just
law or a law worth respecting (with the possible exception of CoC)?

After all, driving without a licence - or whilst disqualified - is
only a technical offence.

Yes, but if it's done safely and causes no significant increased risk
to others what's the actual harm in it?

The harm is in the affront to civilised values and the rule of law.

You could also argue that the creation of a law which would punish a
harmless act is an affront to civilised values, and undermines the rule
of law itself. Where would you stop? You could justify a permanent
24-hour curfew and the banning of free association with that argument.

--
Matt B

In article ,
Matt B wrote:

What I /should/ have said is:

In industrial "accidents" the unfortunate machine operator isn't
automatically held to blame. If the mandatory investigations finds that
the system, not the operator, was at fault, then it is those who
provided the unsafe operating conditions, environment and systems in the
first place that are held to to account.

It's STILL wrong, and the Herald of Free Enterprise is STILL a clear
counter-example. Sorry, but what you say is what would be needed
for justice, and what we have is law.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Chris Gerhard wrote:

JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

You seem to have made a logical leap to connect being banned from
driving to the death penalty which I can't grasp.

There's a common thread there. It's called "proportionality".
You obviously don't grasp it.

I fail to see what would not be proportional about being banned from
driving for a week for speeding.

AAMOF, it's available to the courts. The fact they they rarely impose
a ban of any length for a single, non-serious speeding "offence"
speaks volumes about how disproportionate it would be, in the eyes of
the public and therefore in the eyes of the courts, one of whose
functions os to reflect public concern.

I realise it is not available to the courts at the moment. I think it
should be.

It *is* available to the courts. Any offence for which an endorsement can be
levied can - in a serious enough case - be punished by immediate
disqualification. The courts don't exercise their discretion to ban for a
single "offence" of exceeding a speed limit because to do so would not be
proportionate or just and would not have public support.

For most motoring offences the punishment should be a
driving ban. Starting really short, a week, then escalating. A week of
not driving is not disproportionate at all. The goal is to encourage
people to drive safely and within the law.

That's your odd view and it is simply not supported by the majority. If the
problems on the roads were so severe that there was majority support for
disqualification for stopping on a yellow line or doing 24mph on Tower
Bridge, the situation would change. One can be reasonably coinfident that it
isn't going to happen soon. Sorry to have to break it to you. IOW, you are
expressing an unreasonable (and, I rather suspect, unreasoned) view.

But that's not the end of it. The thread above is *not* only about
one-week bans - is it?

That is exactly what I was proposing unless there is repeat offending or
the offence was so serious as to merit a hasher punishment.

Disqualification for a trivial offence *is* harsh.

Matt B wrote:

JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

I'm not in favour of draconian penalties for technical offences
either.

That depends on the technical offence, surely?

Can you think of any which, if broken, will in all circumstances
automatically lead to a significantly increased risk of damage or
injury to others?

Does it have to, in order to be a serious offence worthy of an
exemplary punishment?

In an ideal world why would we punish victimless "crimes", or "crimes"
which yield no increased risk of damage or injury?

These offences are not "victimless". The victim is the rule of law and
thebroken line in the sand across which civilised folk must not go or be
allowed to go.

And you could argue the same about contempt of court.

I'd argue that is a (possibly the only) special case.

What is?

It too is treated seriously and for the same reason: if it isn't
treated seriously, the authority of the courts (the authority of
Parliament in the case of drivers) is visibly diminished and we move a
step nearer to anarchy.

How a law making acts which are harmless to others an offence, a just
law or a law worth respecting (with the possible exception of CoC)?

Driving without a licence, never having had a licence (and thereby without a
certificate of competence to drive), is not a trivial matter.

Driving whilst disqualified is even less of a trivial matter than simple
unlicensed driving. It equates to contempt of court. Prison is normal for
that offence and is completely appropriate to disqualified driving.

Deliberately driving whilst uninsured is an affront to the rule of law and to
civilised values.
So, of course, is cycling along the footway (keeping the discussion on topic).

After all, driving without a licence - or whilst disqualified - is
only a technical offence.

Yes, but if it's done safely and causes no significant increased risk
to others what's the actual harm in it?

See above.

The harm is in the affront to civilised values and the rule of law.

You could also argue that the creation of a law which would punish a
harmless act is an affront to civilised values, and undermines the rule
of law itself.

You might, but it would be a wholly inappropriate "argument" in this context.

Where would you stop?

Where it is reasonable. Either we want a system which trains, tests and
licences drivers (with proper penalties for breaches) or we don't. And we
(collectively) do.

You could justify a permanent
24-hour curfew and the banning of free association with that argument.

Indeed you could. It's called "imprisonment" and is often meted out to those
who commit the offences of driving whilst disqualified or contempt of court.

Read Lord Denning on the subject of CoC. Driving without insurance and/or
without insurance are highly analagous to CoC.

On 10 Oct, 17:20, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:30:43 +0200, Ace wrote:
Presumably you're either not a driver yourself, or one who's
miraculously managed to avoid even so much as a single speeding
ticket?

It's not actually a miracle, all you have to do is observe the speed
limit.

Guy
--http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

I break the speed limit on some roads, keep my eyes open and have
never had a speeding ticket, indeed a conviction of any sort or an
accident in almost 40 years of driving. There are a lot of people like
me.

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..

Remember Charlie.

Yes, he did have quite a long catalogue of stupidity, didn't he. (just had
it shown to us at work).

"Ben C" wrote in message
...

Lorry drivers do drive carefully, and nobody wants to cause a fatality.

On the whole, I think you're right. But I've heard lorry drivers mentioning
that eg skip lorry drivers in London are a bunch of dangerous loons - think
an industry which has moved on only a little bit from Hell Drivers.
Piece-work is the problem.

JNugent wrote:

Would you include offences such as a faulty number plate light,
overstaying a parking limit, not wearing a seat-belt, VED and insurance
offences and other offences not related to the safety of other road users?

I don't know what SB's answer to that will be, but *I* would certainly
support driving bans for deliberate uninsured driving.

Such bans seem pretty pointless to me. The kind of people who are
relaxed about driving while uninusred are probably not too troubled by
the idea of being banned either.

Daniele

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Matt B wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Matt B wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Matt B wrote:
In industrial "accidents" it isn't usually the unfortunate machine
operator who is held to blames, but those who provided the unsafe
operating conditions, environment and systems in the first place.
You are spouting again. I do not believe you have any facts
supporting your assertion, and have just decided to sound of as if it
were true.
An industry which has parallels to the road system is the railways.

...etc, singularly failing to justify the statement that most
industrial accidents are not the fault of the operator. Thus
demonstrating that no, you didn't have any basis for your facile
assertion, it was just more baseless proof by assertion.

Yes, you got me there - I forgot how precise we have to be with our
wording if we are challenging the urc orthodoxy, when pedanticism reins
supreme.

What I /should/ have said is:

In industrial "accidents" the unfortunate machine operator isn't
automatically held to blame.

That is true, and also completely different from the first claim you
made. Thanks for admitting you were talking rubbish.

But you knew that didn't you.

It's terribly flattering, all these people that think I am blessed
with assorted super powers, but no, I am not telepathic. Even if I
was telepathic, I would still have pointed out that what you said was
wrong.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

JNugent wrote:
Matt B wrote:

JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

I'm not in favour of draconian penalties for technical offences
either.

That depends on the technical offence, surely?

Can you think of any which, if broken, will in all circumstances
automatically lead to a significantly increased risk of damage or
injury to others?

Does it have to, in order to be a serious offence worthy of an
exemplary punishment?

In an ideal world why would we punish victimless "crimes", or "crimes"
which yield no increased risk of damage or injury?

These offences are not "victimless". The victim is the rule of law and
thebroken line in the sand across which civilised folk must not go or be
allowed to go.

I agree that as a matter of principle laws should not be broken.

However, I'm not concerned with that point here. What I am concerned
about the justice of a laws which target acts regardless of whether they
harm, or even increase the risk of harming, others.

And you could argue the same about contempt of court.

I'd argue that is a (possibly the only) special case.

What is?

Contempt of court is. It (contempt of court) is a special case.

It too is treated seriously and for the same reason: if it isn't
treated seriously, the authority of the courts (the authority of
Parliament in the case of drivers) is visibly diminished and we move
a step nearer to anarchy.

How a law making acts which are harmless to others an offence, a just
law or a law worth respecting (with the possible exception of CoC)?

Driving without a licence, never having had a licence (and thereby
without a certificate of competence to drive),

But not necessarily meaning that one isn't competent to drive.

is not a trivial matter.

It is if you are not a danger. It is merely a technical offence. If
you drive like a nutter and cause, or appear to be quite likely to cause
a serious crash *and* do not have a licence that could be a different
matter. However, even with a licence, some people drive like that, so
what is the significance of the licence?

Driving whilst disqualified is even less of a trivial matter than simple
unlicensed driving. It equates to contempt of court. Prison is normal
for that offence and is completely appropriate to disqualified driving.

CoC though is a special case. Driving licences, at best, only prove
that you qualified to receive one (which for some mean that they passed
a driving test somewhere at some time in the past) - big deal.

Deliberately driving whilst uninsured is an affront to the rule of law
and to civilised values.

Maybe, but why is it like that, and why is insurance mandated for
driving a car, but not, say, for riding a horse? Why should you be
required to have it even if you don't need it, and even if you never
harm anyone else?

So, of course, is cycling along the footway (keeping the discussion on
topic).

Another act which is only bad if it is harmful. Which I guess is why it
is so widely tolerated and ignored by the law enforcers.

[...]
The harm is in the affront to civilised values and the rule of law.

You could also argue that the creation of a law which would punish a
harmless act is an affront to civilised values, and undermines the
rule of law itself.

You might, but it would be a wholly inappropriate "argument" in this
context.

Only because such an unjust law has not (yet) been enacted.

Where would you stop?

Where it is reasonable.

Yes, which means not penalising safe drivers for technical offences.

Either we want a system which trains, tests

Yes.

and
licences drivers (with proper penalties for breaches)

A technicality with no added value, in terms of safety.

or we don't. And
we (collectively) do.

We may want safe drivers, but that doesn't imply that want or need the
bureaucracy and unnecessary overhead of licences. Licences don't make
drivers safer. What do they add that a test pass certificate doesn't
already give?

[...]

--
Matt B