BBC article on cycling danger

JNugent wrote:
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.

It is not an unreasonable or unreasoned view. You don't like it but that
does not make it unreasonable or unreasoned. It is only odd in that
people have not thought about it, as you seem to show. Short bans would
not be disproportionate and would educate those banned as they become
pedestrians or cyclists during the ban.

Your view is that the status quo is fine costs lives, which since you
are not part of the out group who are disproportionately at risk that
is not unexpected. I don't share that 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.

It depends on your definition of trivial. Speeding trivial? I don't
think so but there is a small but vociferous group who have some very
strange ideas about safety who think it is.

D.M. Procida wrote:
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.

Not necessarily. It takes a particular sort of outlaw mentality to flout all
the rules, but less to take a chance with one (or a small number) of them.

But people who drive on a ban need to be imprisoned.

Chris Gerhard wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Chris Gerhard wrote:

[ ... ]

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.

It is not an unreasonable or unreasoned view.

You are wrong. It *is* unreasonable to expect citizens to receive harsh
punishment for an "offence" which is not serious.

You don't like it but that
does not make it unreasonable or unreasoned.

It is true that I don't like your odd ideas on this topic. It is also true
that my dislike for anything does not automatically make that thing unreasonable.

But in this case, your view is unreasonable and would be no matter what I
thought of it.

It is only odd in that
people have not thought about it, as you seem to show. Short bans would
not be disproportionate and would educate those banned as they become
pedestrians or cyclists during the ban.

That's merely your view. The courts have considered it. Parliament has
considered it. You are certainly not the first - by a mile or two - to have
suggested it. It is rejected by reasonable people because it is too harsh a
punishment for trivial offences.

Of course, you probably wouldn't feel a thing if such punishment became
widespread.

Your view is that the status quo is fine costs lives, which since you
are not part of the out group who are disproportionately at risk that
is not unexpected. I don't share that view.

I'm not sure whether I do either, since that paragraph approached being
gibberish. Care to rephrase it?

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.

It depends on your definition of trivial.

So it does.

Speeding trivial? I don't
think so but there is a small but vociferous group who have some very
strange ideas about safety who think it is.

It depends. Doing 24mph on Tower Bridge *is* totally trivial.

Doing 90mph past my house and the nearby school (in a village 30mph limit)
would not be trivial.

The second case might well attract an immediate ban (and probably wouldn't be
eligible for a "fixed" penalty in any case).

But you weren't talking about hard cases. You want trivia punished harshly.

JNugent wrote:

It is not an unreasonable or unreasoned view.

You are wrong. It *is* unreasonable to expect citizens to receive harsh
punishment for an "offence" which is not serious.

You don't like it but that does not make it unreasonable or unreasoned.

It is true that I don't like your odd ideas on this topic. It is also
true that my dislike for anything does not automatically make that thing
unreasonable.

No your are wrong. You seem to think a one week driving ban is harsh. It
is not.


But in this case, your view is unreasonable and would be no matter what
I thought of it.

My view is reasonable. Your inability to grasp any chance on the
otherhand is.


It is only odd in that people have not thought about it, as you seem
to show. Short bans would not be disproportionate and would educate
those banned as they become pedestrians or cyclists during the ban.

That's merely your view. The courts have considered it. Parliament has
considered it. You are certainly not the first - by a mile or two - to
have suggested it. It is rejected by reasonable people because it is too
harsh a punishment for trivial offences.

Have they really considered it. I don't think they have.


Of course, you probably wouldn't feel a thing if such punishment became
widespread.

?


Your view is that the status quo is fine costs lives, which since you
are not part of the out group who are disproportionately at risk that
is not unexpected. I don't share that view.

I'm not sure whether I do either, since that paragraph approached being
gibberish. Care to rephrase it?

No. learn to read.



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.

It depends on your definition of trivial.

So it does.

Speeding trivial? I don't think so but there is a small but vociferous
group who have some very strange ideas about safety who think it is.

It depends. Doing 24mph on Tower Bridge *is* totally trivial.

Why? It damages the infrastructure of the bridge. Not thought it
through have you.




Doing 90mph past my house and the nearby school (in a village 30mph
limit) would not be trivial.

The second case might well attract an immediate ban (and probably
wouldn't be eligible for a "fixed" penalty in any case).

But you weren't talking about hard cases. You want trivia punished harshly.

No I don't.

On 2009-10-10, Chris Gerhard wrote:
[...]
Speeding trivial? I don't think so but there is a small but vociferous
group who have some very strange ideas about safety who think it is.

It depends. Doing 24mph on Tower Bridge *is* totally trivial.

Why? It damages the infrastructure of the bridge. Not thought it
through have you.

Interesting. Why does 24mph damage the bridge where presumably 20mph
wouldn't?

Some kind of resonance thing? (so 40mph or 80mph, say, would be fine,
but not 48mph perhaps).

On 10 Oct, 20:20, Chris Gerhard wrote:

It depends on your definition of trivial. Speeding trivial? I don't
think so but there is a small but vociferous group who have some very
strange ideas about safety who think it is.-

Of course speeding is trivial- have you ever driven on a motorway?

Thousands and thousands break an arbitary speed limit hourly with no
problem

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:24:16 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
wrote:

Thousands and thousands break an arbitary speed limit hourly with no
problem

Well, they /think/ it's no problem, but of course most drivers
overestimate their own skill and underestimate the extent to which
documented risks apply to them.

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

"Matt B" wrote

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

If I come round to your house and teeal your television will that cause you
to die?

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

If I come round to your house and teeal your television will that cause you
to die?

Why do you ask that?

--
Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:24:16 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
wrote:

Thousands and thousands break an arbitary speed limit hourly with no
problem

Well, they /think/ it's no problem, but of course most drivers
overestimate their own skill and underestimate the extent to which
documented risks apply to them.

So you assert, but the evidence, at the population level, of their
immense skill and judgement is compelling.

--
Matt B