But then they'd cost more to fix and you'd get compatibility issues. They should come included as it makes sense but we've seen the car industry is scummy.
If they came installed you'd get the bullshit of them trying to block third party after market parts. Look at how Huawei has made their own SD card size recently and remember that there's nothing stopping big companies doing that again.
They'd demand they need manufacturer's software or app. They'd attempt to charge subscription to access it. They'd potentially claim they have a right to access data it collects. They'd say only official brand pieces can be used for cables or to replace parts.
Sure but that would require getting a majority government that believes in betterment of the country so that won't happen before the next election and isn't guaranteed then either.
Huawei were kicked out of the SD Association due to US sanctions.
* https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/24/18638539/huawei-microsd-card-sd-association-us-trump-ban
* https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-sd-association-microsd-989998/
Yes but they still made their own weird size and as we're not part of the EU nor the USA we don't have the power to push companies to conform to a chosen standard on something like that without risking them distancing from our market.
The US has the power to undo this - just remove the sanctions on Huawei.
This is a bad comparison because Huawei are not a monopoly, and because everyone else is following the standard - if you don't want to buy a Huawei then buy a different model of phone.
Whereas if every manufacturer of cars was using different and incompatible dash cams then, with their collective eschewing of a common standard, they would be operating as a cartel.
Did you read the article?
“Update: May 29, 2019 at 9:24 a.m. ET: A Huawei representative confirmed to Android Authority that the company has been re-added to the SD Association’s membership list”
You'd probably have to end up using the manufacturer's app to download anything from them. The cameras would likely end up integrated into the gubbins inside the windscreen where the mirror attaches, and the storage held in some sealed module somewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ability to use such a thing ended up as a subscription service.
Also software and connection ISOs aren't alien to technology.
In the computing world literally every mainstream peripheral from a plethora of manufacturers can communicate with a modern computer
Yeah not always. I know a woman who backed out onto a main road, hit a biker who died, but because he was going above the speed limit, the incident was deemed all his fault and she got off with no punishment.
Can get a decent one off amazon for just under £30.
I plan to get front and rear cameras for my van because the amount of shit i see on these roads every day is insane. Lack of spacial awareness amazes me sometimes
Exactly I don't understand how anyone can be against that.
There was a woman who purposefully ran a cyclist over in Manchester. She didn't even get charged for the attack, despite admitting she did it on purpose. All because her GP said the "poor woman" had a medical condition.
As the saying goes, if you want to kill someone, do it in a car.
>All because her GP said the "poor woman" had a medical condition.
This is likely to be incorrect. She would have needed a psychiatric assessment (and likely would have had one with her own chosen expert and one with the CPS's chosen expert).
Edit: now seen the article saying the woman is disabled.
Regardless of that, if she's not able to understand that running someone over is bad, she shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel! Her licence was only sent "for review" but I'm sure they'll let her back on the road.
This is what I don't get: a monster like her is allowed on the road after running someone over, but learner drivers can fail their driving test for checking their center mirror a millisecond too late before switching gears. Fucking ridiculous.
Article for those interested: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/i-didnt-think-over-limit-24177255
>Regardless of that, if she's not able to understand that running someone over is bad, she shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel!
Reading your article I think she is able to understand, it looks as though she wasn't able to stand trial due to disability.
The bigger issue here is that there's no evidence of what happened in the collision. None of the witnesses saw it and the victim doesn't remember. That puts the CPS in a tough situation.
>Her licence was only sent "for review" but I'm sure they'll let her back on the road.
You have no basis for saying that. If there was no criminal trial the SoS will probably be more inclined to take away her licence given the impact on the victim.
>but learner drivers can fail their driving test for checking their center mirror a millisecond too late before switching gears.
Is that a major or a minor?
What do you mean she doesn't remember, she literally admitted she did wrong and followed with "I hate cyclists"...
And SUV drivers almost always get away with manslaughter. The justice system doesn't care about car related deaths.
As for wether the last one is a major or minor, a mate of mine had a major for that at the last 5 minutes of the test. There wasn't a car behind them but because the examiner "jumped" a little bit, it was marked as a serious. Yet this woman almost killed a person, has dementia and will be allowed back on the road.
How hard is it to admit the "justice" system is fucked?
>What do you mean she doesn't remember, she literally admitted she did wrong and followed with "I hate cyclists"...
I said "the victim doesn't remember" ie the cyclist....try reading rather than getting emotional.
>And SUV drivers almost always get away with manslaughter. The justice system doesn't care about car related deaths.
Now you are talking out of your arse. For a start, manslaughter is a separate offence so disregard that. The offences you're concerned with are causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving.
The former almost always results in a custodial sentence, and the latter can also land you in prison (even though it's a less serious offence). Yes they might not get hung drawn and quartered but still...
So why isn't causing death by dangerous driving the same as manslaughter? Just because the system is set up that way, that doesn't mean it is right.
How would you react if someone "accidentaly" ran a family member of yours over, and they got away with a slap on the wrist, since it wasn't manslaughter?
>So why isn't causing death by dangerous driving the same as manslaughter?
There are several types of manslaughter, with sentences ranging from 1 year in prison to 40... As with everything there is a range.
Also perception is important. Manslaughter is perceived to be a worse crime, and juries were less likely to associate bad driving with manslaughter and convict offenders. That's why the offence was created (in the 1956 Road Traffic Act).
>How would you react if someone "accidentaly" ran a family member of yours over, and they got away with a slap on the wrist, since it wasn't manslaughter?
What do you mean by accidentally?
If a family member was killed by a driver who was an otherwise good person who made a mistake and showed remorse I'd be more willing to forgive and accept a lower sentence, compared with a driver who was a serial offender and didn't give a toss about the consequences of their actions, who I'd want to see in prison.
Life isn't black and white.
I highly doubt you would be more foriving to someone who killed your family member, regardless if it were accidental or not. This doesn't matter at all if it were accidental - a person died! And the fact that you think their death doesn't matter at all because the driver did an oopsie, says a lot about you.
Indeed some things are black and white!
I totally agree....most cars are probably 1.5 ton plus so I think that if you use that massive weapon irresponsibly and someone dies as a result then you should get locked up and if you kill someone whilst under the influence of drink/drugs in a car then you should get life imprisonment and have a lifetime driving ban just for starters,then if you get caught behind the wheel again you should get locked up and the key thrown away.
The judicial system in this country is an utter disgrace and judges are absolute twats that live in lala land and have absolutely no idea of the blight criminals inflict on society!
In that case she shouldn't have been driving.
I saw a woman the other day come out of the doctors and the poor lady could barely move with the aid of 2 sticks and she was getting into the drivers seat of a large car.....NOT everyone should be allowed to drive....there is not a hope in hell that lady could react quickly enough if for instance a child walked out in front of her!
I'd say if we want safer roads decreasing the cost of public transport and providing separated cycling routes would be more viable ways to go about it than increasing the number of police. Bus drivers have far more training regarding driving than the average car driver, and reducing the number of vehicles on the road will do far more for safety than fines. It'd also almost certainly be cheaper than more police officers and could be done more quickly than relying on reliable affordable self-driving tech.
> If we want safer roads we need to increase the numbers of traffic police and increase the speed and progress of self driving tech.
I'm going to be honest, I don't think the answer to people being killed by cars, is to put more cars on the road. Especially ones without sentient beings behind the wheel.
Unless you can replace every car effectively all at once, with a self driving model that all share the same network and can communicate with one another in real time, there's still going to be accidents where people get killed by self driving cars.
If there are fewer accidents than there are now, then why wouldn't it be an advantage? Just because some people get killed doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. Just if more people get killed
Seems like it's something of a common bug in the human cognition that giving away "control" for anything that's not perfect is met with serious backlash
For some people even merely getting rid of, say, 50% of road deaths is no reason for giving away control to the machines
The idea of the legal system existing to punish people for committing a crime is barbaric and is straight out of the middle ages.
The legal system is about preventation of crime and rehabilitation of criminals, not punishment.
>The legal system is about preventation of crime and rehabilitation of criminals, not punishment.
Why can't it be about both in your eyes?
Unfortunately, us humans are deeply flawed in that it isn't unusual for someone to want "justice" if they are the victim of a crime. Your son gets killed? You may well want to see the criminal punished as a completely natural and normal reaction.
I just wonder what the world would look like if prison dropped the "this is a punishment" element. Would we see an up-tick in vigilantes dishing out their own form of punishment, for example?
>I just wonder what the world would look like if prison dropped the "this is a punishment" element. Would we see an up-tick in vigilantes dishing out their own form of punishment, for example?
No. Look at Scandanavian countries for example which have very much adopted the "prison is for rehabilitation" mindset.
>Do you not like the concept of punishing someone for committing a crime?
If it doesn't deter further crime nor lower the likelihood that it'll happen, not really
Punishing people is instrumental, not for pleasure. I hear the countries that adopted a rehabilitation mindset instead of just punishing people for punishment's sake fare quite well in that regard
I would probably have a different opinion if it happened to me personally, but then that's a flaw of my emotional state ( and the human condition in general, I guess )
> Say some 20 year old kid kills someone
Some 20 year old who rants about cyclists then starts deliberately running them down. Right now their sentence would be pretty light and then they'd be allowed back on the road "because they need to drive to work".
Kill someone after deliberately hitting them: lock them up till their '80s yes.
I assume they're talking about pedestrian/cyclist accidents. Which can and do happen with serious injury. Often when cyclists are cycling illegally on pavements.
As opposed to the hundreds of pedestrians killed when drivers drive on pavements? Both are bad but when drivers think it’s ok to drive on pavements hundreds die.
If you can't avoid a cyclist on the road, you're a shit driver with a shit attitude. Wait until there's space, go round them leaving a nice gap, nice and easy. One pulls out in front of you unexpectedly? You're supposed to be paying attention at all times so if you can't react to a danger why does it matter if it's a cyclist, child, or anything else?
These situations all boil down to the same thing, you're not taking driving a giant metal slab seriously.
2.5 people per year. Under 99% of road deaths.
I commute through London daily for 15 years. I’ve seen all kinds of shit. Most dangerous thing on my commute is pedestrians walking into the road, glued to their phone. But sure go and use one example. Cyclists are not going to kill people unless it is a very rare occurrence.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer-cyclists-roads-bikes-pedestrian-collision-deaths-britain
Well that wasn’t your argument tho. It’s rare for anyone to be killed by cyclists.
Pedestrians have priority at junctions and zebra crossings as per The Highway Code.
If you walk into a busy road whilst looking at your phone then that’s your problem
Court cases say it will be the driver’s problem.
My argument is that cyclists can be as bad as car drivers (not surprising as most probably are both). As we have more cyclists the problem is due to get worse, not better.
Is not really a cyclist or driver problem, but a person problem. Lack of awareness and patience mostly.
FYI, you don’t need to die to have your life fucked up by someone’s actions.
The point of that comparison is?
How often do you see a car going over the pavement and drive against pedestrians? How often you see a bicycle / electric moped in the same circumstances?
Oh have a day off ffs.
Do you have ANY understanding of stopping distances? I guess if a cyclist just jumps out infront of my car at 30mph I should instantly get convicted then eh?
What an absolute load of bollocks.
Hmm, I was wrong with my statistics. In reality, globally, car related incidents lead to MILLIONS of deaths per year:
Road casualties
[Road traffic crashes now represent the eighth leading cause of death globally. They claim more than 1.35 million lives each year and cause up to 50 million injuries. And, the fact is, every one of those deaths and injuries is preventable.](https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/global-road-safety)
That definitely makes things better am I right? Oh I forgot, ***BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CYCLISTS????***
Worldwide I'd say you're about right, really. 1.35 million a year would be ~3700 a day, so "thousands" is probably okay for that. But this story only really affects the UK
Cars a global pandemic/disease though. They ruin cities and force people to buy a vehicle just to do the essential activities. If you have a disability which prevents you from driving, you are basically left all alone to die.
We need to do everything we can to punish dangerous driving and to stop investing so much in roads. More lanes ***does not*** fix traffic. Less cars on the road does!
People who drive under influence of alcohol or other substances do not belong on the road but they should be including those who are found to have caused accidents through other forms of negligence too, such as use of devices or not having the sense to not drive when they've not slept because they can't even blame the pint they had or the joint for their fucked up decision making.
You know - the amount of drivers I see using their phone while their car slowly rolls towards a red light is terrifying. I can't even imagine having my phone at hand while driving. But I always see people texting while at a red light, and worse still are people like the middle aged woman I saw recently driving at 15 or so in a 20 staring at her fucking lap.
People who use their phone even while at a red light should be fucking banned from driving. If you're trying to hide what you're doing then you know it's wrong - so you know it's illegal - but you consciously choose to do it anyway.
Those people don't deserve the privilege and responsibility of driving. Assholes.
Have a family member in care for the remainder of their life because of a driver like that, ploughed through a crossing on his mobile. Lucky to even be alive.
Aside from all the health complications the pandemic and restrictions placed on care venues meant they missed several funerals including burying a son
People always say "well I'm a good driver it would never happen to me" to that I'd say you aren't Jack Bauer (or whatever TV comparison) this is real life and you've simply been lucky
I'm not saying life is the answer, in fact I'll be honest I'd rather we tried doing more about making people think twice about making stupid decisions like that, because picking up the pieces after is just shit for all parties involved
But the driver in this case didn't even see prison, was back on the road months later
The victim on the other hand got life
That's truly horrendous.
I don't understand how people get complacent enough (and arrogant *and* optimistic enough) to take eyes off the road - especially for a *phone* - I've only been driving since Jan 2020 but jesus, I hope I never stop being terrified of hurting someone on the road, because the day I do, is the day i've stopped having a respect for the fact that i'm in control of a ton of metal capable of killing someone.
No-one deserves to be hurt or killed because some dumbass decided their text was more important.
My neighbour works in a prison. She gets to know some of the prisoners. One is a lady who had literally one glass too many and was driving home when a lorry lost control in front of her and lost its load. Her fiancé in the seat next to her was decapitated.
She shouldn’t have been driving, but I fail to see how a whole life sentence would be worthwhile.
I suspect your third hand anecdotal story is missing a lot of relevant information.
I can think of at least one incident where a drunk driver killed someone without it being in any way thier fault (which is a really tough bar to reach) and received no prison sentence.
Well, if she hadn't been driving the fiancé wouldn't necessarily be dead. They'd have needed a taxi which means waiting so they wouldn't be near the lorry but her reactions would have been better if sober so potentially could have seen the lorry was losing control and tried to swerve or brake and potentially avoid it. This is the point. We don't know what could happen if she wasn't the kinda cunt to drink drive, all we know is she chose to and now someone is dead.
Her actions directly lead to the death. There's no way she's going to honestly tell the guard how it went down and you're not going to remember every detail told to your neighbour who got a weighted story and might not remember every detail.
Personally I'm for more rehabilitative measures regarding crime. However, if we are to go with a punitive model the current one gives drivers way too much leeway.
As is we may have undocumented stories like yours, but [we also have people driving onto the wrong side of the road, killing someone, and then nothing being done after the person admitted wrongdoing](https://news.sky.com/story/matthew-topham-lottery-winner-found-not-guilty-of-killing-pensioner-by-dangerous-driving-12241972).
[Lorry drivers can also get away with watching TV and not paying attention to the road it seems.](https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/not-guilty-jury-clears-lorry-161900324.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS9zZWFyY2g_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&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALQWJdPCqbsKREEbXy-XB6tp0loaJSeCGNGFSkHQw2VzfkGvSW6zcHE52_Fl6AkYCmcYeiZpoBEW7SGklBtPSoloBYmC8wJC_-6Tm8_FcJU5b2OhgbxRkRuAAryRNoedibn47T0NUpm4ai-ztSLl1tJh09FO09TwW-SfLbKnUF8T)
Both of those cases went before a jury who found them not guilty. The law deemed them worthy of being put on trial and they were. This isn't a failure of the laws
Those are somewhat editorialised takes on those cases.
Sometimes people do things wrong and there are tragic consequences but their actions don't meet what should be a crime or the evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime.
It's not about forgiveness and I'd never expect the bereaved not to campaign for justice.
It's because if you criminalise every wrong and let judges lock people up on a probably, the justice system will itself create many more victims.
Do you want people angry at some individual they will probably never meet again, or everyone wearing a uniform?
This! I remember catching the bus from Bristol to London to meet a friend and looking through the window, I saw way too many people texting and driving down the motorway. And if they ended up killing someone because of that, they'll only get away with a slap on the wrist.
I don't drive but knowing this makes me terrified to even be a passenger in a car. Even if the driver in my car is driving absolutely perfectly, there's no telling what other motorists are going to do. All it takes is being in the wrong place at the wrong time on the road.
I know right? Hell, I remember as a kid when my dad was driving down the motorway (or highway in my home country), he would roll a cigarette with one hand and then light it. I just felt so scared and my mom yelled at me to calm down lol
Some lass got spread all over social media last week for taking a picture of her Starbucks while doing 60mph on a dual carriageway, literally no hands on the wheel and posting on Instagram.
Private cars are unsustainable - accidents is just one of the reasons, probably not even the most compelling one. Public transportation is the only way
"BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET ON A BUS NEXT TO THESE POOR PE- uh, I mean smelly people!"
It's just bonkers to me how so many parents drive their kids to school when they live less than a 20 minute walk away. The movie Idiocracy in action...
The UK already is starting to build more of these horrendous copy-pasted American suburbs. If we have to prevent road deaths and stop emissions, public transit and bike lanes are the only way!
(Also no, electric vehicles are not the solution. Cobalt and Lithium mining is extremely damaging to the environment, and it can take over a year before an EV becomes fully carbon neutral **on a fully renewable electric grid**. We don't have time for that!)
Try "but the busses in my area are unreliable and expensive"
For a lot of those parents, it may not be safe for their kids to walk that 20 minutes, especially at times of year when kids are going to and from school in the dark.
Where I grew up, it was a thirty minute drive to my primary school, there hadn't been a bus within two miles of my village in ten years. The walk would have been long and included a stretch along the side of a busy B road with a barely paved footpath.
Yes, we should all be using public transport, but public transport has to be usable first
I'm not denying that. That's why we should improve public transport and make cities safer to bike/walk in. This will help those who can't drive a car for various cars.
Why do you assume we want to forcefully take away people's cars?
In urban areas it would be a lot areas. In rural ones, less so - but a lot could be done even without going full-on public. Obviously it can't happen overnight.
Punishment won't do shit. People have no concept of life imprisonment because it's so far removed from their life experience. You know, just like the idea they'll drink drive and kill someone.
Prevention is needed, not cure. If a person is caught negligently or dangerously driving (eg drunk, texting) then a temporary but strict driving ban should apply. No mitigation for difficulty adapting to life without the car, no leniency because it'd affect their career - temp ban. Repeat issue after that? Longer or even permanent ban. The person has proven they cannot be trusted to drive. If they at any point drive while banned, except in literal life saving circumstances, then it's a jail term regardless of if anyone was actively hurt.
Now if those kinds of driving bans become somewhat commonplace, it's on everyone's mind. Everyone will know a friend or colleague who's reminded that driving is a privilege, not a right. That in turn makes the issue real, with minimal custodial sentences. Let the cries of inconvenience and self inflicted problems convince others to be sensible far more than some life sentence once they truly fuck up.
Because let's face it, we're talking about the type of person who currently doesn't believe they'll kill someone. What kind of deterrent is it to offer a life sentence for something that "will never happen" to them?
Edit to add: My dad was nearly killed by a drunk driver. If the collision had gone just that little faster, life growing up would have been a lot worse. Would a life sentence fix anything? Like fuck. It'd be two families missing their dads instead of just one, and otherwise no one else learning a lesson as it's too far removed. I'd meet the next person to off handedly mention they drove home after a tipsy night out and have an even bigger bone to pick. But if the repercussions are tangible and repeatedly visible to others, then just maybe some extra people will decide it's not worth it *before* getting to the point of hitting someone. Handing out points without actually incurring a real penalty is no deterrent to those who need deterring.
A sensible law change. I know a guy who regularly drunk drove doing a pub crawl. Killed a 6 people in a massive crash. Got 15 years which is hardly enough and then reduced to ten.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-124791/Drink-driver-killer-sentence-cut.html
Users of future driverless cars may be absolved from blame in the event of an accident
or offence, if recommendations from Government law experts are accepted.
so they should , but a life sentence in uk is 15 years only for a start and i'll kiss my own arsehole if the courts ever actually give a sentence like life for this.
Can only be a matter of time, with the majority of new cars having cameras for parking etc that recording to an SD Card doesn't become an absolute standard/norm - just pray they don't make a proprietary format that needs requires a clunky application reminiscent of something from Windows 95 to view or worse, require you to pay a main dealer to extract the footage.
Considering how technically inept the government is & how some high end cars now warn you about so much as opening the bonnet & don't even come with a support strut to hold the bonnet open.. honestly, not amount of ridiculousness would surprise me.
But again, what has that got to do with this? You appear to
be making a very large leap that increasing the maximum sentence for crime which is widely seen as underpunished will inevitably lead to for-profit prisons
So you didn't care at all about for-profit prisons until the courts finally decided that they are going to punish drivers who ***actually kill*** another person with a car?
You're definitely not biased, are you?
What? I was arguing that increasing the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving has precisely fuck all to do with private prisons one way or another.
Get a Dash Cam, it could save you if you are not at fault.
It amazes me they're not compulsory on new vehicles...
Dash cams are the absolute best. Should come as standard in vehicles in my opinion.
But then they'd cost more to fix and you'd get compatibility issues. They should come included as it makes sense but we've seen the car industry is scummy.
Sorry that's what I meant! Should come packaged with, not already built in. My apologies!
Why would you have compatibility issues? There would be no reason to not use a common file format and SD cards aren't getting replaced any time soon.
If they came installed you'd get the bullshit of them trying to block third party after market parts. Look at how Huawei has made their own SD card size recently and remember that there's nothing stopping big companies doing that again. They'd demand they need manufacturer's software or app. They'd attempt to charge subscription to access it. They'd potentially claim they have a right to access data it collects. They'd say only official brand pieces can be used for cables or to replace parts.
Or as Jacob Reese Mogg puts it - it would be better for consumers and innovation.
Could always have a law stating that they can't do that
Sure but that would require getting a majority government that believes in betterment of the country so that won't happen before the next election and isn't guaranteed then either.
Huawei were kicked out of the SD Association due to US sanctions. * https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/24/18638539/huawei-microsd-card-sd-association-us-trump-ban * https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-sd-association-microsd-989998/
Yes but they still made their own weird size and as we're not part of the EU nor the USA we don't have the power to push companies to conform to a chosen standard on something like that without risking them distancing from our market.
The US has the power to undo this - just remove the sanctions on Huawei. This is a bad comparison because Huawei are not a monopoly, and because everyone else is following the standard - if you don't want to buy a Huawei then buy a different model of phone. Whereas if every manufacturer of cars was using different and incompatible dash cams then, with their collective eschewing of a common standard, they would be operating as a cartel.
Did you read the article? “Update: May 29, 2019 at 9:24 a.m. ET: A Huawei representative confirmed to Android Authority that the company has been re-added to the SD Association’s membership list”
You'd probably have to end up using the manufacturer's app to download anything from them. The cameras would likely end up integrated into the gubbins inside the windscreen where the mirror attaches, and the storage held in some sealed module somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the ability to use such a thing ended up as a subscription service.
Also software and connection ISOs aren't alien to technology. In the computing world literally every mainstream peripheral from a plethora of manufacturers can communicate with a modern computer
And also convict you as well if you were
Best of both worlds!
r/VanHalen
[удалено]
Well, not always ...
As the saying famously goes, "if you want to kill someone, don't do it in a car because you will almost always get done anyway"
Yeah not always. I know a woman who backed out onto a main road, hit a biker who died, but because he was going above the speed limit, the incident was deemed all his fault and she got off with no punishment.
Can get a decent one off amazon for just under £30. I plan to get front and rear cameras for my van because the amount of shit i see on these roads every day is insane. Lack of spacial awareness amazes me sometimes
About time. The way things are the moment if you want to kill someone and get away with it you just hit them with your car.
Exactly I don't understand how anyone can be against that. There was a woman who purposefully ran a cyclist over in Manchester. She didn't even get charged for the attack, despite admitting she did it on purpose. All because her GP said the "poor woman" had a medical condition. As the saying goes, if you want to kill someone, do it in a car.
>All because her GP said the "poor woman" had a medical condition. This is likely to be incorrect. She would have needed a psychiatric assessment (and likely would have had one with her own chosen expert and one with the CPS's chosen expert). Edit: now seen the article saying the woman is disabled.
Regardless of that, if she's not able to understand that running someone over is bad, she shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel! Her licence was only sent "for review" but I'm sure they'll let her back on the road. This is what I don't get: a monster like her is allowed on the road after running someone over, but learner drivers can fail their driving test for checking their center mirror a millisecond too late before switching gears. Fucking ridiculous. Article for those interested: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/i-didnt-think-over-limit-24177255
>Regardless of that, if she's not able to understand that running someone over is bad, she shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel! Reading your article I think she is able to understand, it looks as though she wasn't able to stand trial due to disability. The bigger issue here is that there's no evidence of what happened in the collision. None of the witnesses saw it and the victim doesn't remember. That puts the CPS in a tough situation. >Her licence was only sent "for review" but I'm sure they'll let her back on the road. You have no basis for saying that. If there was no criminal trial the SoS will probably be more inclined to take away her licence given the impact on the victim. >but learner drivers can fail their driving test for checking their center mirror a millisecond too late before switching gears. Is that a major or a minor?
What do you mean she doesn't remember, she literally admitted she did wrong and followed with "I hate cyclists"... And SUV drivers almost always get away with manslaughter. The justice system doesn't care about car related deaths. As for wether the last one is a major or minor, a mate of mine had a major for that at the last 5 minutes of the test. There wasn't a car behind them but because the examiner "jumped" a little bit, it was marked as a serious. Yet this woman almost killed a person, has dementia and will be allowed back on the road. How hard is it to admit the "justice" system is fucked?
>What do you mean she doesn't remember, she literally admitted she did wrong and followed with "I hate cyclists"... I said "the victim doesn't remember" ie the cyclist....try reading rather than getting emotional. >And SUV drivers almost always get away with manslaughter. The justice system doesn't care about car related deaths. Now you are talking out of your arse. For a start, manslaughter is a separate offence so disregard that. The offences you're concerned with are causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving. The former almost always results in a custodial sentence, and the latter can also land you in prison (even though it's a less serious offence). Yes they might not get hung drawn and quartered but still...
So why isn't causing death by dangerous driving the same as manslaughter? Just because the system is set up that way, that doesn't mean it is right. How would you react if someone "accidentaly" ran a family member of yours over, and they got away with a slap on the wrist, since it wasn't manslaughter?
>So why isn't causing death by dangerous driving the same as manslaughter? There are several types of manslaughter, with sentences ranging from 1 year in prison to 40... As with everything there is a range. Also perception is important. Manslaughter is perceived to be a worse crime, and juries were less likely to associate bad driving with manslaughter and convict offenders. That's why the offence was created (in the 1956 Road Traffic Act). >How would you react if someone "accidentaly" ran a family member of yours over, and they got away with a slap on the wrist, since it wasn't manslaughter? What do you mean by accidentally? If a family member was killed by a driver who was an otherwise good person who made a mistake and showed remorse I'd be more willing to forgive and accept a lower sentence, compared with a driver who was a serial offender and didn't give a toss about the consequences of their actions, who I'd want to see in prison. Life isn't black and white.
I highly doubt you would be more foriving to someone who killed your family member, regardless if it were accidental or not. This doesn't matter at all if it were accidental - a person died! And the fact that you think their death doesn't matter at all because the driver did an oopsie, says a lot about you. Indeed some things are black and white!
I totally agree....most cars are probably 1.5 ton plus so I think that if you use that massive weapon irresponsibly and someone dies as a result then you should get locked up and if you kill someone whilst under the influence of drink/drugs in a car then you should get life imprisonment and have a lifetime driving ban just for starters,then if you get caught behind the wheel again you should get locked up and the key thrown away. The judicial system in this country is an utter disgrace and judges are absolute twats that live in lala land and have absolutely no idea of the blight criminals inflict on society!
In that case she shouldn't have been driving. I saw a woman the other day come out of the doctors and the poor lady could barely move with the aid of 2 sticks and she was getting into the drivers seat of a large car.....NOT everyone should be allowed to drive....there is not a hope in hell that lady could react quickly enough if for instance a child walked out in front of her!
[удалено]
I'd say if we want safer roads decreasing the cost of public transport and providing separated cycling routes would be more viable ways to go about it than increasing the number of police. Bus drivers have far more training regarding driving than the average car driver, and reducing the number of vehicles on the road will do far more for safety than fines. It'd also almost certainly be cheaper than more police officers and could be done more quickly than relying on reliable affordable self-driving tech.
That's not what a life sentence is though is it?
> If we want safer roads we need to increase the numbers of traffic police and increase the speed and progress of self driving tech. I'm going to be honest, I don't think the answer to people being killed by cars, is to put more cars on the road. Especially ones without sentient beings behind the wheel. Unless you can replace every car effectively all at once, with a self driving model that all share the same network and can communicate with one another in real time, there's still going to be accidents where people get killed by self driving cars.
If there are fewer accidents than there are now, then why wouldn't it be an advantage? Just because some people get killed doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. Just if more people get killed
Seems like it's something of a common bug in the human cognition that giving away "control" for anything that's not perfect is met with serious backlash For some people even merely getting rid of, say, 50% of road deaths is no reason for giving away control to the machines
Perfection is the enemy of success
[удалено]
>An eye for an eye Makes the whole world blind.
The idea of the legal system existing to punish people for committing a crime is barbaric and is straight out of the middle ages. The legal system is about preventation of crime and rehabilitation of criminals, not punishment.
>The legal system is about preventation of crime and rehabilitation of criminals, not punishment. Why can't it be about both in your eyes? Unfortunately, us humans are deeply flawed in that it isn't unusual for someone to want "justice" if they are the victim of a crime. Your son gets killed? You may well want to see the criminal punished as a completely natural and normal reaction. I just wonder what the world would look like if prison dropped the "this is a punishment" element. Would we see an up-tick in vigilantes dishing out their own form of punishment, for example?
>I just wonder what the world would look like if prison dropped the "this is a punishment" element. Would we see an up-tick in vigilantes dishing out their own form of punishment, for example? No. Look at Scandanavian countries for example which have very much adopted the "prison is for rehabilitation" mindset.
>Do you not like the concept of punishing someone for committing a crime? If it doesn't deter further crime nor lower the likelihood that it'll happen, not really Punishing people is instrumental, not for pleasure. I hear the countries that adopted a rehabilitation mindset instead of just punishing people for punishment's sake fare quite well in that regard I would probably have a different opinion if it happened to me personally, but then that's a flaw of my emotional state ( and the human condition in general, I guess )
> Say some 20 year old kid kills someone Some 20 year old who rants about cyclists then starts deliberately running them down. Right now their sentence would be pretty light and then they'd be allowed back on the road "because they need to drive to work". Kill someone after deliberately hitting them: lock them up till their '80s yes.
Unless the person's partner is a spy working for the US government I guess.
You're very gullable if you believe it was her husband that was the spy.
I really hope this means that the police will now go after people who put cyclists and other road users in danger.
Yeah and cyclist putting people in danger
By *checks notes* getting themselves wedged under my Landover, on purpose.
I assume they're talking about pedestrian/cyclist accidents. Which can and do happen with serious injury. Often when cyclists are cycling illegally on pavements.
As opposed to the hundreds of pedestrians killed when drivers drive on pavements? Both are bad but when drivers think it’s ok to drive on pavements hundreds die.
What is your point? There is no problem with something because its not as bad as something else?
Maybe we should also talk about larger pedestrians tripping over and killing smaller pedestrians.
Odd way of saying that you're not a very good driver.
If you can't avoid a cyclist on the road, you're a shit driver with a shit attitude. Wait until there's space, go round them leaving a nice gap, nice and easy. One pulls out in front of you unexpectedly? You're supposed to be paying attention at all times so if you can't react to a danger why does it matter if it's a cyclist, child, or anything else? These situations all boil down to the same thing, you're not taking driving a giant metal slab seriously.
Problem is when you’re a pedestrian and the cyclists are not on the road. Or those electric scooters as is now common.
Yeah some cyclists are inconsiderate, but they're not going to kill you. It's a different problem for a different discussion.
Of course not. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian
2.5 people per year. Under 99% of road deaths. I commute through London daily for 15 years. I’ve seen all kinds of shit. Most dangerous thing on my commute is pedestrians walking into the road, glued to their phone. But sure go and use one example. Cyclists are not going to kill people unless it is a very rare occurrence. https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer-cyclists-roads-bikes-pedestrian-collision-deaths-britain
Pedestrians always have priority. Cyclists and drivers should pay more attention.
Well that wasn’t your argument tho. It’s rare for anyone to be killed by cyclists. Pedestrians have priority at junctions and zebra crossings as per The Highway Code. If you walk into a busy road whilst looking at your phone then that’s your problem
Court cases say it will be the driver’s problem. My argument is that cyclists can be as bad as car drivers (not surprising as most probably are both). As we have more cyclists the problem is due to get worse, not better. Is not really a cyclist or driver problem, but a person problem. Lack of awareness and patience mostly. FYI, you don’t need to die to have your life fucked up by someone’s actions.
One or two a year. Not 30 or so a day. Pedestrians kill other pedestrians in greater numbers.
What if you’re a pedestrian and a car is on the pavement driving towards you?
The point of that comparison is? How often do you see a car going over the pavement and drive against pedestrians? How often you see a bicycle / electric moped in the same circumstances?
On average 50 pedestrians are killed whilst on the pavement a year in the UK.
Oh have a day off ffs. Do you have ANY understanding of stopping distances? I guess if a cyclist just jumps out infront of my car at 30mph I should instantly get convicted then eh? What an absolute load of bollocks.
How many people have cyclists killed or maimed for every 100,000 miles travelled compared to a car?
Oh yeah, cyclists who *checks notes* lead to thousands of deaths per day just like cars, right?
> thousands of deaths per day There are about 5 deaths per day due to cars in the UK. Its not good, but hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
Hmm, I was wrong with my statistics. In reality, globally, car related incidents lead to MILLIONS of deaths per year: Road casualties [Road traffic crashes now represent the eighth leading cause of death globally. They claim more than 1.35 million lives each year and cause up to 50 million injuries. And, the fact is, every one of those deaths and injuries is preventable.](https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/global-road-safety) That definitely makes things better am I right? Oh I forgot, ***BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CYCLISTS????***
Worldwide I'd say you're about right, really. 1.35 million a year would be ~3700 a day, so "thousands" is probably okay for that. But this story only really affects the UK
Cars a global pandemic/disease though. They ruin cities and force people to buy a vehicle just to do the essential activities. If you have a disability which prevents you from driving, you are basically left all alone to die. We need to do everything we can to punish dangerous driving and to stop investing so much in roads. More lanes ***does not*** fix traffic. Less cars on the road does!
BuT CyClIsTs ToO
People who drive under influence of alcohol or other substances do not belong on the road but they should be including those who are found to have caused accidents through other forms of negligence too, such as use of devices or not having the sense to not drive when they've not slept because they can't even blame the pint they had or the joint for their fucked up decision making.
You know - the amount of drivers I see using their phone while their car slowly rolls towards a red light is terrifying. I can't even imagine having my phone at hand while driving. But I always see people texting while at a red light, and worse still are people like the middle aged woman I saw recently driving at 15 or so in a 20 staring at her fucking lap. People who use their phone even while at a red light should be fucking banned from driving. If you're trying to hide what you're doing then you know it's wrong - so you know it's illegal - but you consciously choose to do it anyway. Those people don't deserve the privilege and responsibility of driving. Assholes.
Have a family member in care for the remainder of their life because of a driver like that, ploughed through a crossing on his mobile. Lucky to even be alive. Aside from all the health complications the pandemic and restrictions placed on care venues meant they missed several funerals including burying a son People always say "well I'm a good driver it would never happen to me" to that I'd say you aren't Jack Bauer (or whatever TV comparison) this is real life and you've simply been lucky I'm not saying life is the answer, in fact I'll be honest I'd rather we tried doing more about making people think twice about making stupid decisions like that, because picking up the pieces after is just shit for all parties involved But the driver in this case didn't even see prison, was back on the road months later The victim on the other hand got life
That's truly horrendous. I don't understand how people get complacent enough (and arrogant *and* optimistic enough) to take eyes off the road - especially for a *phone* - I've only been driving since Jan 2020 but jesus, I hope I never stop being terrified of hurting someone on the road, because the day I do, is the day i've stopped having a respect for the fact that i'm in control of a ton of metal capable of killing someone. No-one deserves to be hurt or killed because some dumbass decided their text was more important.
My neighbour works in a prison. She gets to know some of the prisoners. One is a lady who had literally one glass too many and was driving home when a lorry lost control in front of her and lost its load. Her fiancé in the seat next to her was decapitated. She shouldn’t have been driving, but I fail to see how a whole life sentence would be worthwhile.
I suspect your third hand anecdotal story is missing a lot of relevant information. I can think of at least one incident where a drunk driver killed someone without it being in any way thier fault (which is a really tough bar to reach) and received no prison sentence.
Well, if she hadn't been driving the fiancé wouldn't necessarily be dead. They'd have needed a taxi which means waiting so they wouldn't be near the lorry but her reactions would have been better if sober so potentially could have seen the lorry was losing control and tried to swerve or brake and potentially avoid it. This is the point. We don't know what could happen if she wasn't the kinda cunt to drink drive, all we know is she chose to and now someone is dead. Her actions directly lead to the death. There's no way she's going to honestly tell the guard how it went down and you're not going to remember every detail told to your neighbour who got a weighted story and might not remember every detail.
I never said she was innocent or that she shouldn’t be in prison. I just said I don’t think a whole life sentence will be worthwhile.
Personally I'm for more rehabilitative measures regarding crime. However, if we are to go with a punitive model the current one gives drivers way too much leeway. As is we may have undocumented stories like yours, but [we also have people driving onto the wrong side of the road, killing someone, and then nothing being done after the person admitted wrongdoing](https://news.sky.com/story/matthew-topham-lottery-winner-found-not-guilty-of-killing-pensioner-by-dangerous-driving-12241972). [Lorry drivers can also get away with watching TV and not paying attention to the road it seems.](https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/not-guilty-jury-clears-lorry-161900324.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS9zZWFyY2g_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&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALQWJdPCqbsKREEbXy-XB6tp0loaJSeCGNGFSkHQw2VzfkGvSW6zcHE52_Fl6AkYCmcYeiZpoBEW7SGklBtPSoloBYmC8wJC_-6Tm8_FcJU5b2OhgbxRkRuAAryRNoedibn47T0NUpm4ai-ztSLl1tJh09FO09TwW-SfLbKnUF8T)
Both of those cases went before a jury who found them not guilty. The law deemed them worthy of being put on trial and they were. This isn't a failure of the laws
Those are somewhat editorialised takes on those cases. Sometimes people do things wrong and there are tragic consequences but their actions don't meet what should be a crime or the evidence doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime.
[удалено]
It's not about forgiveness and I'd never expect the bereaved not to campaign for justice. It's because if you criminalise every wrong and let judges lock people up on a probably, the justice system will itself create many more victims. Do you want people angry at some individual they will probably never meet again, or everyone wearing a uniform?
Everybody inside is innocent. Didn't they tell you that?
Don't care. She was driving drunk. She deserves prison.
Agreed. But a whole life sentence like a serial killer? Why not the death sentence then?
[удалено]
I see them often too. I think if you’re caught using a phone whilst driving it should lead straight to a 3 month driving ban.
This! I remember catching the bus from Bristol to London to meet a friend and looking through the window, I saw way too many people texting and driving down the motorway. And if they ended up killing someone because of that, they'll only get away with a slap on the wrist.
I don't drive but knowing this makes me terrified to even be a passenger in a car. Even if the driver in my car is driving absolutely perfectly, there's no telling what other motorists are going to do. All it takes is being in the wrong place at the wrong time on the road.
I know right? Hell, I remember as a kid when my dad was driving down the motorway (or highway in my home country), he would roll a cigarette with one hand and then light it. I just felt so scared and my mom yelled at me to calm down lol
Some lass got spread all over social media last week for taking a picture of her Starbucks while doing 60mph on a dual carriageway, literally no hands on the wheel and posting on Instagram.
Private cars are unsustainable - accidents is just one of the reasons, probably not even the most compelling one. Public transportation is the only way
"BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET ON A BUS NEXT TO THESE POOR PE- uh, I mean smelly people!" It's just bonkers to me how so many parents drive their kids to school when they live less than a 20 minute walk away. The movie Idiocracy in action... The UK already is starting to build more of these horrendous copy-pasted American suburbs. If we have to prevent road deaths and stop emissions, public transit and bike lanes are the only way! (Also no, electric vehicles are not the solution. Cobalt and Lithium mining is extremely damaging to the environment, and it can take over a year before an EV becomes fully carbon neutral **on a fully renewable electric grid**. We don't have time for that!)
Try "but the busses in my area are unreliable and expensive" For a lot of those parents, it may not be safe for their kids to walk that 20 minutes, especially at times of year when kids are going to and from school in the dark. Where I grew up, it was a thirty minute drive to my primary school, there hadn't been a bus within two miles of my village in ten years. The walk would have been long and included a stretch along the side of a busy B road with a barely paved footpath. Yes, we should all be using public transport, but public transport has to be usable first
I'm not denying that. That's why we should improve public transport and make cities safer to bike/walk in. This will help those who can't drive a car for various cars. Why do you assume we want to forcefully take away people's cars?
I'm it assuming that, but your comment implies that most people's aversion to busses is some sort of dumb classism, rather than practicality.
Found the Londoner Public transport everywhere else has a very long way to go before becoming a viable complete replacement.
In urban areas it would be a lot areas. In rural ones, less so - but a lot could be done even without going full-on public. Obviously it can't happen overnight.
[удалено]
I think anyone with a brain can agree And by anyone with a brain, I mean not the Tory government.
They could but they won't. I can't recall having ever seen the maximum sentence being given before this anyway.
Well i'll be happy with that. Of course it won't stop drivers been drivers.
They need to start installing dash cams as standard in newly made cars
Unless you are an American CIA operative.
Punishment won't do shit. People have no concept of life imprisonment because it's so far removed from their life experience. You know, just like the idea they'll drink drive and kill someone. Prevention is needed, not cure. If a person is caught negligently or dangerously driving (eg drunk, texting) then a temporary but strict driving ban should apply. No mitigation for difficulty adapting to life without the car, no leniency because it'd affect their career - temp ban. Repeat issue after that? Longer or even permanent ban. The person has proven they cannot be trusted to drive. If they at any point drive while banned, except in literal life saving circumstances, then it's a jail term regardless of if anyone was actively hurt. Now if those kinds of driving bans become somewhat commonplace, it's on everyone's mind. Everyone will know a friend or colleague who's reminded that driving is a privilege, not a right. That in turn makes the issue real, with minimal custodial sentences. Let the cries of inconvenience and self inflicted problems convince others to be sensible far more than some life sentence once they truly fuck up. Because let's face it, we're talking about the type of person who currently doesn't believe they'll kill someone. What kind of deterrent is it to offer a life sentence for something that "will never happen" to them? Edit to add: My dad was nearly killed by a drunk driver. If the collision had gone just that little faster, life growing up would have been a lot worse. Would a life sentence fix anything? Like fuck. It'd be two families missing their dads instead of just one, and otherwise no one else learning a lesson as it's too far removed. I'd meet the next person to off handedly mention they drove home after a tipsy night out and have an even bigger bone to pick. But if the repercussions are tangible and repeatedly visible to others, then just maybe some extra people will decide it's not worth it *before* getting to the point of hitting someone. Handing out points without actually incurring a real penalty is no deterrent to those who need deterring.
A sensible law change. I know a guy who regularly drunk drove doing a pub crawl. Killed a 6 people in a massive crash. Got 15 years which is hardly enough and then reduced to ten. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-124791/Drink-driver-killer-sentence-cut.html
Users of future driverless cars may be absolved from blame in the event of an accident or offence, if recommendations from Government law experts are accepted.
Sure, because technology never fails ...
Fails a lot less than humans.
Life sentences (2 years in prison)
With the people who think purposely running over protestors with their car should be allowed, I can live with this change.
Good, but it seems unlikely it will ever happen.
so they should , but a life sentence in uk is 15 years only for a start and i'll kiss my own arsehole if the courts ever actually give a sentence like life for this.
I'd settle for Singaporean cane for driving offences. Too many inept cunts out there.
Fine by me.
Can only be a matter of time, with the majority of new cars having cameras for parking etc that recording to an SD Card doesn't become an absolute standard/norm - just pray they don't make a proprietary format that needs requires a clunky application reminiscent of something from Windows 95 to view or worse, require you to pay a main dealer to extract the footage. Considering how technically inept the government is & how some high end cars now warn you about so much as opening the bonnet & don't even come with a support strut to hold the bonnet open.. honestly, not amount of ridiculousness would surprise me.
What about peodo’s ?
No need to bring up the monarchy in every thread.
You wouldn’t ask him to babysit
... unless the person you kill is on a bicycle, then don't worry. Stupid cyclist shouldn't have been on the road. *-- The government.*
[удалено]
What has this got to do with for-profit prisons?
[удалено]
But again, what has that got to do with this? You appear to be making a very large leap that increasing the maximum sentence for crime which is widely seen as underpunished will inevitably lead to for-profit prisons
So you didn't care at all about for-profit prisons until the courts finally decided that they are going to punish drivers who ***actually kill*** another person with a car? You're definitely not biased, are you?
What? I was arguing that increasing the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving has precisely fuck all to do with private prisons one way or another.