Kill a cyclist GBP500

Our Society is prepared to accept a certain amount of loss of life as a price worth paying so we can all have our cars.

If a commercially available drug were to kill one or two people, it would be immediately withdrawn from sale.
Cars can kill thousands per year, and we shrug, and say it's a shame, but it doesn't stop people overtaking cyclists on blind corners or risking their lives to retune the radio and eat a pastie while going 90 on the M1.

It's like that saying about guns: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Not that I'm in favor of legal guns, mind you.

i was thinking this today, out on the bike. like : why isn't it a requirement for all driving instructors to have the advanced driving qualification? as it is, any old cunt can be an instructor.

Meh. It doesn't matter how good driving instructors are, or how tough they make it to pass driving exams. The fact is, plenty of people, as soon as they've passed the exam, will start to forget the "proper" way to drive, and start taking shortcuts in order to save themselves a few seconds.

Nimhbus says it best:

candidate for the next LFGSS t-shirt slogan?

Meh. It doesn't matter how good driving instructors are, or how tough they make it to pass driving exams. The fact is, plenty of people, as soon as they've passed the exam, will start to forget the "proper" way to drive, and start taking shortcuts in order to save themselves a few seconds.

with respect, i don't agree. if every driver had to learn to a much higher standard, over a much more stringent training program, in which they were repeatedly drilled with the need for absolute safety and respect at all times, it would surely have a postive effect.

this would ideally be combined with much, much higher penalties for causing collisions and or deaths.

it's just a question of sending out the message that dangerous driving will not be tolerated anymore.
when i drive on the motorway, it never fails to stagger and anger me to see just how many people are steaming up the inside lane, doing 100mph. and, if i happen to be in that lane overtaking someone at 70, i will immediately accrue a line of people behind me, dangerously tailgating me and flashing lights until i move.

this is so plainly illegal and in direct contravention of the law, and yet it is regarded as more or less acceptable behaviour. these people should lose their license, without question, for a minimum of 3 months. then the message might start to get across.

There are apparent and known contradictions in the social contract.

By defintion in a democracy they (MPs) must ignore the voice of some of their constituents, we call that group (in a democracy) the minority, cyclists are a minority (in relation to larger groups like the Road haulage Association or simply car drivers in general).

It's obvious that democracy is not a perfect system. However, your point about the minority is wrong. The minority is not defined by a head count and categorising the issue accordingly. Politics is hardly as simple as that. The minority is defined according to a combination of the issue and the implications (pros and cons) of the solution and is affected by how a campaign for change is promoted and managed.

Besides, it's not as if a vocal minority hasn't failed to outweigh a silent majority before. Not exactly the same but I present the case of the 1992 General Election for your consideration.

It's obvious that democracy is not a perfect system. However, your point about the minority is wrong. The minority is not defined by a head count and categorising the issue accordingly. Politics is hardly as simple as that. The minority is defined according to a combination of the issue and the implications (pros and cons) of the solution and is affected by how a campaign for change is promoted and managed.

Of course, in the interests of brevity I was not going to attempt a full summation of the democratic process, or even a small part of it.

Without drifting too far from the point, I will say to the idea that 'They [MPs] can't ignore the voice of their own constituents.' - that (in general) they must ignore at least some - and in this context, cyclists have always been the poorer cousin to other road users.

You won't beat Tynan at arguing - LFGSS TRUFAX.

:-)

and in this context, cyclists have always been the poorer cousin to other road users.

True, but that's just an issue of image and that can always be changed.

It's like that saying about guns: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Not that I'm in favor of legal guns, mind you.

Meh. It doesn't matter how good driving instructors are, or how tough they make it to pass driving exams. The fact is, plenty of people, as soon as they've passed the exam, will start to forget the "proper" way to drive, and start taking shortcuts in order to save themselves a few seconds.

The saying is "guns don't kill people, rappers do", I believe.

with respect, i don't agree. if every driver had to learn to a much higher standard, over a much more stringent training program, in which they were repeatedly drilled with the need for absolute safety and respect at all times, it would surely have a postive effect.

... this is so plainly illegal and in direct contravention of the law, and yet it is regarded as more or less acceptable behaviour. these people should lose their license, without question, for a minimum of 3 months. then the message might start to get across.

Exactly!!!

Ok, let's assume most of those people have UK licenses (excluding people with non-UK licenses and people driving illegally).

Each one of those people had to pass the theory test before they could get their licenses, so they ought to know what traffic laws are. They're all legally adults, so they should be sensible to the fact that the laws are there for everybody's safety. They should also be mature enough to understand that laws should be respected at all times... I mean, that is the definition of "law", isn't it? (Pointed glance at all the red-light jumpers out there)

Yet they do not, and are not. Which leads me to the conclusion that there's a short circuit in their brains somewhere, and they will not respond to positive reinforcement... because that's already been tried, and failed.

Another example of short-circuited brains: just look at all the people being arrested for stabbings. Even the dumbest knife-carrying moron out there ought to know that there are very harsh penalties for assaulting/murdering someone with a weapon. Even if you had zero respect for human life, the punitive consequences alone renders stabbing somebody a completely irrational act. Yet it happens every single day.

I think there is something very fundamentally wrong with such people, and I don't think it'll be fixed by merely reminding them what's right and what's not. It goes deeper than that.

with respect, i don't agree. if every driver had to learn to a much higher standard, over a much more stringent training program, in which they were repeatedly drilled with the need for absolute safety and respect at all times, it would surely have a postive effect.

this would ideally be combined with much, much higher penalties for causing collisions and or deaths.

it's just a question of sending out the message that dangerous driving will not be tolerated anymore.
when i drive on the motorway, it never fails to stagger and anger me to see just how many people are steaming up the inside lane, doing 100mph. and, if i happen to be in that lane overtaking someone at 70, i will immediately accrue a line of people behind me, dangerously tailgating me and flashing lights until i move.

this is so plainly illegal and in direct contravention of the law, and yet it is regarded as more or less acceptable behaviour. these people should lose their license, without question, for a minimum of 3 months. then the message might start to get across.

Put your foot down granddad!

From the Grauniad: "The success of Cooke, Wiggins, Hoy, Romero et al should lead to better treatment of cyclists on British roads": http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/08/17/time_to_give_us_cyclists_a_bit.html

Some chance. And some wonderfully rabid comments from the car lobby.

Exactly!!!

Ok, let's assume most of those people have UK licenses (excluding people with non-UK licenses and people driving illegally).

Each one of those people had to pass the theory test before they could get their licenses, so they ought to know what traffic laws are. They're all legally adults, so they should be sensible to the fact that the laws are there for everybody's safety. They should also be mature enough to understand that laws should be respected at all times... I mean, that is the definition of "law", isn't it? (Pointed glance at all the red-light jumpers out there)

Yet they do not, and are not. Which leads me to the conclusion that there's a short circuit in their brains somewhere, and they will not respond to positive reinforcement... because that's already been tried, and failed.

Another example of short-circuited brains: just look at all the people being arrested for stabbings. Even the dumbest knife-carrying moron out there ought to know that there are very harsh penalties for assaulting/murdering someone with a weapon. Even if you had zero respect for human life, the punitive consequences alone renders stabbing somebody a completely irrational act. Yet it happens every single day.

I think there is something very fundamentally wrong with such people, and I don't think it'll be fixed by merely reminding them what's right and what's not. It goes deeper than that.

+1

Its got nothing to do with better instruction and everything to do with the nature of the people behind the wheel. Plenty of boy-racers around my area, scary as hell to cycle around (had a fair few near misses), but it seems no amount of crazy insurance premiums and police warnings will stop them putting plastic spoilers on their Clios and racing each other two astride down the high street.

+1 on the 'ha ha ha . . . . '

There are apparent and known contradictions in the social contract.

By defintion in a democracy they (MPs) must ignore the voice of some of their constituents, we call that group (in a democracy) the minority, cyclists are a minority (in relation to larger groups like the Road haulage Association or simply car drivers in general).

Go to your MP and put forward a proposition that is outside of the prevailing orthodox - and it will, effectively, be ignored.

WRONG

If that were true then the rich (the minority) should be down trodden. Our society is Plutocratic so it depends on which camp the most powerful sit.

Fortunately you can't put value on human life.

Errrr, yes you can: £500.00

The solution is so simple.
We put together a whip round of [strike]£500[/strike] No wait, add a little more the hire of a HGV and kill the loved one of an MP or a Judge.
Pay off the fine.
Thus making the problem their problem.
Sit back and watch the sea change over night.
Maybe we could get some popcorn in and one of those strawberry cornetos.

... laws are there for everybody's safety.... laws should be respected at all times... I mean, that is the definition of "law", isn't it? (Pointed glance at all the red-light jumpers out there)...

no its not the definition of law.

no its not the definition of law.

Ok, the nitpicking about the exact definition of law notwithstanding... do you disagree that there's an implicit assumption of obedience in the term "law"?

And if one really wants to nitpick the definition of "law"...

According to your link:
S: (n) law, jurisprudence (the collection of rules imposed by authority)
S: (n) law (legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity)

According to the same site:
S: (n) rule, prescript (prescribed guide for conduct or action)

Unfortunately, if you look for the definition of "prescribed", you find a circular definition that isn't very helpful:
S: (adj) prescribed (set down as a rule or guide)

Here's a clearer definition:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1111&bold=||||
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience.

2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process.

We see words like "rule" and "regulation", but nowhere is the requirement for obedience explicitly stated. So does that mean the requirement doesn't exist? Or simply that neither of us have found a definition that's good enough?

I'm no jurisprudence expert, but I'm sure there's a long complicated debate on the philosophy of legal authority buried in here...

Ok, the nitpicking about the exact definition of law notwithstanding... do you disagree that there's an implicit assumption of obedience in the term "law"?

And if one really wants to nitpick the definition of "law"...

According to your link:
S: (n) law, jurisprudence (the collection of rules imposed by authority)
S: (n) law (legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity)

According to the same site:
S: (n) rule, prescript (prescribed guide for conduct or action)

Unfortunately, if you look for the definition of "prescribed", you find a circular definition that isn't very helpful:
S: (adj) prescribed (set down as a rule or guide)

Here's a clearer definition:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1111&bold=||||
n. 1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience.

2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process.

We see words like "rule" and "regulation", but nowhere is the requirement for obedience explicitly stated. So does that mean the requirement doesn't exist? Or simply that neither of us have found a definition that's good enough?

I'm no jurisprudence expert, but I'm sure there's a long complicated debate on the philosophy of legal authority buried in here...

Tell me more...
Buys rope and single to Bridgend

The solution is so simple.
We put together a whip round of [strike]£500[/strike] No wait, add a little more the hire of a HGV and kill the loved one of an MP or a Judge.
Pay off the fine.
Thus making the problem their problem.
Sit back and watch the sea change over night.

Excellent work. You've got to hit them where it hurts - only way to make these morons in power start paying attention rather than lip service.

Excellent work. You've got to hit them where it hurts - only way to make these morons in power start paying attention rather than lip service.

it kinda like cancers, it never really hit you how bad it is, until someone you know/in your family have one, is when you realise the impact of cancers.

no one care, until it happen to you/or someone you know, sad but true nowadays, I never worry about smoking until one of my friend die from throat cancer at 27, twenty seven! that's way too young and she not even a heavy smoker.

Excellent work. You've got to hit them where it hurts - only way to make these morons in power start paying attention rather than lip service.

Right, kids...

Tell me more...
Buys rope and single to Bridgend

Don't look at me, Chris started it!

Ok so maybe I should've been a bigger person and just let it slide... but I'm one of those argumentative types, so tough.

[Edit] Oh, and instead of buying a single to Bridgend, why don't you just cycle there? And then you can just hang yourself with your chain. HTFU.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVPAP62TvRY

[Edit] Oh, and instead of buying a single to Bridgend, why don't you just cycle there? And then you can just hang yourself with your chain. HTFU.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, that was good...

There are apparent and known contradictions in the social contract.

By defintion in a democracy they (MPs) must ignore the voice of some of their constituents, we call that group (in a democracy) the minority, cyclists are a minority (in relation to larger groups like the*** Road haulage Association or simply car drivers in general***).

Go to your MP and put forward a proposition that is outside of the prevailing orthodox - and it will, effectively, be ignored.

If that were true then the rich (the minority) should be down trodden. Our society is Plutocratic so it depends on which camp the most powerful sit.

They 'sit' with the Road Haulage Association and car drivers in general.

Are you supporting the idea that 'They (MPs) can't ignore the voice of their own constituents.' Or are you in disagreement with the idea, it is hard to work out from your post?

I've always thought it quite odd that after (cumulatively) a few days' training, we're considered qualified to pilot a metal guided missile, with the capacity to maim, kill and crush.

I'm an observed member (meaning I've taken my advanced driving test after several weeks of training and observation) of the Institute of Advanced Motorists and believe this should be the minimum standard before you're allowed on the road.

Thing is mooks, there is a minimum standard, set by the driving tests, that is in reality a fairly decent standard. The problem doesn't lie in the qualification but in what would seem to be the inevitable decline in standards shortly after obtaining that qualification.

What we need is a more draconian response to infractions of the law and good driving practice with a scaled approach to penalties. Minor infractions will allow the driver to choose between points or not driving for a week, far greater penalties should exist with the introduction of a lifetime driving ban. Driving has always been a priviledge, not a right and the legal system needs to start treating it as such.