90 year old escapes jail after killing two pedestrians

by Syl Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:43 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/90-year-old-philip-bull-13862715

He received a 2 year suspended sentence, much to the disgust of the dead womens families.
Its a sad case, but I dont see what good jailing him would have done.

"A 90 year-old man is due to be sentenced today after admitting killing a couple outside a hospital by ‘unintentionally’ pressing the accelerator in his automatic car.

Philip Bull had just dropped off his ‘elderly and infirm’ wife at Withington Community hospital when he crashed into Clare Haslam, 44 and Deborah Clifton, 49, in the car park outside, a court heard.

The ‘inseparable’ couple, who had a daughter and were ‘blissfully happy’ together, were rushed to A&E but later died of their injuries.

Bull has now admitted two counts of causing death by dangerous driving at Manchester Crown Court after hitting the pedestrians."

by Victorismyhero Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:43 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

and a cornerstone of justice is proportionality

Is retribution called for when a mistake, albeit tragic, not engendered by malice or deliberate negligence (i'e it would be different if he was drunk) results even in the loss of life?

have we got to the point where everyone is incapable of allowing that "shit happens" (I can understand the families reaction obviously) but the rest of you??????

the best would be the permanent loss of his licence, to ensure no repitition......At his age one serious loss of concentration should be enough to raise the red flag over his abilities.

I agree with Smelly too, Hypocritical old Lord Foul would be preaching the complete opposite if it where a 20 year old that killed people.

once you get too old for jail to be a deterrent (so 70) you should be off the road

You won't be saying that when you're 70 and still have all your faculties, and some bit of a kid thinks you're too senile to drive.

veyas already senile and lost his faculties if you ask me

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:46 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

You won't be saying that when you're 70 and still have all your faculties, and some bit of a kid thinks you're too senile to drive.

veyas already senile and lost his faculties if you ask me

It's like when teenagers declare, 'I'm gonna kill myself/hope I'm dead before I reach 30!' yeah yeah yeah....

by Syl Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:If he was some 20 year old spunker we would all be howling for his head.

Why does he get a free pass because he is old?? He still killed people.

I agree. The reasons for punishment are removal, rehabilitation, deterrence, and a part of it is for retribution. To hell with his circumstances.

Well the first three wouldn't apply, he wont ever drive again his licence wont be renewed, the only one that counts then is retribution....and is it really in societies interest to jail a 90 year old man of previous good character who cares for his wife who is a dementia sufferer?

by Syl Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:43 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
Syl wrote:

Do you think its a disgrace he wasnt jailed, or a disgrace that the families of the two dead women were so incensed he wasnt jailed?.

Both tbh

I hoped he would get a suspended sentence, (which he did) but I can also see why the families of the two women who died were so upset he wasn't jailed. Perhaps the way it was handled in court, with the judge seeming to concentrate more on his age, seeming to give that more consideration than the death of the 2 women, plus the old man didn't apologise, which may have helped.

SM. is that your dad in the photo? whoever it is he is extremely handsome.

by Syl Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:47 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

I agree with Smelly too, Hypocritical old Lord Foul would be preaching the complete opposite if it where a 20 year old that killed people.

once you get too old for jail to be a deterrent (so 70) you should be off the road

You won't be saying that when you're 70 and still have all your faculties, and some bit of a kid thinks you're too senile to drive.

Maybe we could also raise the driving age to 25 or 30.....as most rta's are caused by the younger age group that could prevent lots of havoc. Twisted Evil

by Original Quill Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:58 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I agree. The reasons for punishment are removal, rehabilitation, deterrence, and a part of it is for retribution. To hell with his circumstances.

Well the first three wouldn't apply, he wont ever drive again his licence wont be renewed, the only one that counts then is retribution....and is it really in societies interest to jail a 90 year old man of previous good character who cares for his wife who is a dementia sufferer?

You shouldn't consider such extraneous matters when it comes to retribution. It's like considering the cost of trial. It doesn't matter, if you want a society of law first.

If you start making exceptions, then we enter into an argument of which exceptions to we embrace? We've already got an exception that I want to see gone: society doesn't prosecute the rich and well-connected. If you add to that the old, infirm and the caretakers, why not include maids, gardeners and nannies. Then we get into quotas: too many mechanics and healthcare workers get the chair.

The point is: we lose sight of the original purpose of law.

by Syl Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well the first three wouldn't apply, he wont ever drive again his licence wont be renewed, the only one that counts then is retribution....and is it really in societies interest to jail a 90 year old man of previous good character who cares for his wife who is a dementia sufferer?

You shouldn't consider such extraneous matters when it comes to retribution. It's like considering the cost of trial. It doesn't matter, if you want a society of law first.

If you start making exceptions, then we enter into an argument of which exceptions to we embrace? We've already got an exception that I want to see gone: society doesn't prosecute the rich and well-connected. If you add to that the old, infirm and the caretakers, why not include maids, gardeners and nannies. Then we get into quotas: too many mechanics healthcare workers get the chair.

The point is: we lose sight of the original purpose of law.

But personal circumstances can be taken into consideration when sentences are given.
For eg a mother with young children may be spared jail whereas a woman without may not.
Previous character good or bad can be taken into consideration too.

This was a recent headline..." A mother-of-five who encouraged terror attacks on the UK after joining a pro-ISIS Facebook group was spared jail after a judge said 'the sooner you get back to your children the better'."

I know who I would rather have out on the street.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:17 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You shouldn't consider such extraneous matters when it comes to retribution. It's like considering the cost of trial. It doesn't matter, if you want a society of law first.

If you start making exceptions, then we enter into an argument of which exceptions to we embrace? We've already got an exception that I want to see gone: society doesn't prosecute the rich and well-connected. If you add to that the old, infirm and the caretakers, why not include maids, gardeners and nannies. Then we get into quotas: too many mechanics healthcare workers get the chair.

The point is: we lose sight of the original purpose of law.

But personal circumstances can be taken into consideration when sentences are given.
For eg a mother with young children may be spared jail whereas a woman without may not.
Previous character good or bad can be taken into consideration too.

This was a recent headline..." A mother-of-five who encouraged terror attacks on the UK after joining a pro-ISIS Facebook group was spared jail after a judge said 'the sooner you get back to your children the better'."

I know who I would rather have out on the street.

Everybody's got their druthers. If we gave in to everyone, no one (or, perhaps, everyone) would go to jail.

The rule of law was designed to prevent that. Equal justice under law was intended to mean that, other the facts going to liability, nothing else should be taken into account. Law means rules, and rules mean uniformity. Uniformity is destroyed if you have a plethora of exceptions.

by Syl Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:23 pm

Well if everyone was judged the same everyone would have the same sentences, sentences are guidelines surely ..in law circumstances have always been taken into consideration.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:09 pm

Syl wrote:Well if everyone was judged the same everyone would have the same sentences, sentences are guidelines surely ..in law circumstances have always been taken into consideration.

What you are talking about is very dangerous terrain. For example:

HuffPost wrote:The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes. Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project reports African Americans are 21% more likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants and 20% more like to be sentenced to prison than white drug defendants.

That's where leaving the path of equal justice under the law gets you. Evil or Very Mad

by Tommy Monk Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:20 pm

I think everyone should have to do a driving assessment every 3-5 years or so...

Then any bad/dangerous drivers should be forced to retake the full driving test to retain driving licence.

by Syl Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Well if everyone was judged the same everyone would have the same sentences, sentences are guidelines surely ..in law circumstances have always been taken into consideration.

What you are talking about is very dangerous terrain. For example:

HuffPost wrote:The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes. Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project reports African Americans are 21% more likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants and 20% more like to be sentenced to prison than white drug defendants.

That's where leaving the path of equal justice under the law gets you.

Well obviously that's clearly wrong to vary a sentence depending on colour, I don't think its comparable in any way to considering age or previous character though.

by Victorismyhero Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:06 pm

ANY absolute law is a bad law

by 'Wolfie Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:07 am

90 year old escapes jail after killing two pedestrians - Page 2 3356277174

Some wastrel retard oxygen thief wantonly kills two innocents...

Then let off, because he's 90..

Age should have nothing to do with it -- lock him away with Foul Victor and Fred the Mole' to bore him to death, then throw away the key -- that would be more punishment than a stint in jail !

by 'Wolfie Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:17 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

and a cornerstone of justice is proportionality

Is retribution called for when a mistake, albeit tragic, not engendered by malice or deliberate negligence (i'e it would be different if he was drunk) results even in the loss of life?

have we got to the point where everyone is incapable of allowing that "shit happens" (I can understand the families reaction obviously) but the rest of you??????

the best would be the permanent loss of his licence, to ensure no repitition......At his age one serious loss of concentration should be enough to raise the red flag over his abilities.

I agree with Smelly too, Hypocritical old Lord Foul would be preaching the complete opposite if it where a 20 year old that killed people.

once you get too old for jail to be a deterrent (so 70) you should be off the road

Picking some nominal age like 70 or 80 is plain silly, not to mention discriminatory...

Especially when there's still plenty of experienced drivers in their 80s who will be much more competent than a lot of clueless and arrogant dickwits in their teens and 20s..

by Guest Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:18 am

Lord Foul wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

yep, you hit it you're at fault
Can't handle that give back your license you're not fit to drive

bullshit...never heard of the concept of contributary negligence
you are a typical member of the snowflake generation...whatever shit happens to YOU is ALWAYS someone elses fault, even if YOU are in fact the cause.

and statistically you are FAR more likely to be run down by some pushy bmw driving rep or teen twat than an 80 year old...as the insurance companies show.

But that is a distortion of the stats is it not? And a piss poor strawman argument

Based on the number of drivers and age groups?

As people over 70, cause thousands of accidents a year in the UK?

So I agree that is poor to even go off any age group, but so was your argument

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not want to discriminate based on age, but to me, everyone, no matter their age should have to undergo a test every 5 years to drive and even more after they cause a crash.

That would elimate the age bias would it not?

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:27 am

yeah didge , and make the capitalist pigs really happy....

just think of all those £100's rolling in

by Guest Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:30 am

Lord Foul wrote:yeah didge , and make the capitalist pigs really happy....

just think of all those £100's rolling in

So let me get this straight

You want to save money over safety on the roads, when thousands die every year?

With the young, its a recklessness with speed.

With the elderly, the opposite in that their reaction time is reduced to incidents

So what price do you want to place on human lives here?

You think a couple of hundred quid to have another test is not needed to happen, over that of a human life?

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:25 am

HoratioTarr wrote:I think he must have been driving an automatic. It's easy to get the foot pedals mixed up on those, at least I think so. I much prefer gears. I think had the car been gears, it may not have happened. Everyone makes mistakes though, and it's mostly young people.

Yes, that will have been what happened. Automatics can be tricky if you're not used to them, and it's not clear how long he'd had the car. I drive an automatic, and you do have to get used to the car moving forward or backward on its own. Having said that, you would have to put your foot down hard to run people and kill them. I suppose he thought his foot was on the brake.

by HoratioTarr Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:27 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:I think he must have been driving an automatic. It's easy to get the foot pedals mixed up on those, at least I think so. I much prefer gears. I think had the car been gears, it may not have happened. Everyone makes mistakes though, and it's mostly young people.

Yes, that will have been what happened. Automatics can be tricky if you're not used to them, and it's not clear how long he'd had the car. I drive an automatic, and you do have to get used to the car moving forward or backward on its own. Having said that, you would have to put your foot down hard to run people and kill them. I suppose he thought his foot was on the brake.

Yeah, that's what he said. And research has shown that young people do that too.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:31 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, that will have been what happened. Automatics can be tricky if you're not used to them, and it's not clear how long he'd had the car. I drive an automatic, and you do have to get used to the car moving forward or backward on its own. Having said that, you would have to put your foot down hard to run people and kill them. I suppose he thought his foot was on the brake.

Yeah, that's what he said. And research has shown that young people do that too.

Yes, his age is not necessarily relevant re the actual accident.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:14 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What you are talking about is very dangerous terrain. For example:

That's where leaving the path of equal justice under the law gets you.

Well obviously that's clearly wrong to vary a sentence depending on colour, I don't think its comparable in any way to considering age or previous character though.

You don't believe in racial discrimination, but you do believe in ageist discrimination? It shows you how fickle are our political views.

That aside, most people don't recognize, least of all admit they are racially biased. Rather, they follow their inner gut feeling of whether the person before them is good or bad...judges as well as juries They are sympathetic toward Caucasian, pregnant women; they are hostile toward black males. What a surprise, eh?

That's how black males tend to be over represented in our prisons. 'Gut instincts' tend to be another term for 'racial bias', but it has be deloused and legitimized in the judicial/jury system. You have to get outside of human capriciousness in order to correct it...and that means following the rule: equal justice under law.

by Syl Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:24 pm

Yes I suppose the mans age, along with everything else about him, (good character, carer for his dementia suffering wife, being truthful about what happened and how) forms a view.

I served on a jury....I don't think any of the fellow jurors was influenced by anything other than what they heard in court.... but obviously you can only know for sure what's in your own mind no one else's.

Jurors cannot decide who is innocent or guilty on 'gut instinct' in the UK Quill, they have to go on facts presented.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:48 pm

Syl wrote:Yes I suppose the mans age, along with everything else about him, (good character, carer for his dementia suffering wife, being truthful about what happened and how) forms a view.

I served on a jury....I don't think any of the fellow jurors was influenced by anything other than what they heard in court.... but obviously you can only know for sure what's in your own mind no one else's.

Jurors cannot decide who is innocent or guilty on 'gut instinct' in the UK Quill, they have to go on facts presented.

Bullshit. It's the same species in the UK as in the US. First, what you hear inside the court is the same as what goes on outside...racism is a fact. Second, when everything is reduced to facts and the law, we bring up our life-experiences to make the tiny decisions. Those life-experiences reflect the outside world.

Bias is systemic. It's not always something that is said openly. It's in how you frame the question, and how you perceive the world. You just haven't begun to realize it yet. Read, Geo. Lakoff, Moral Politics; and Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors we Live By.

by Syl Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Yes I suppose the mans age, along with everything else about him, (good character, carer for his dementia suffering wife, being truthful about what happened and how) forms a view.

I served on a jury....I don't think any of the fellow jurors was influenced by anything other than what they heard in court.... but obviously you can only know for sure what's in your own mind no one else's.

Jurors cannot decide who is innocent or guilty on 'gut instinct' in the UK Quill, they have to go on facts presented.

Bullshit. It's the same species in the UK as in the US. First, what you hear inside the court is the same as what goes on outside...racism is a fact. Second, when everything is reduced to facts and the law, we bring up our life-experiences to make the tiny decisions. Those life-experiences reflect the outside world.

Bias is systemic. It's not always something that is said openly. It's in how you frame the question, and how you perceive the world. You just haven't begun to realize it yet. Read, Geo. Lakoff, Moral Politics; and Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors we Live By.

Its not bullshit in my eyes Quill...but then I believe we often see things very differently.

If you deliberately mislead people in the courts you are in that's your problem not mine, my very limited experience in court proved the opposite.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:35 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Bullshit. It's the same species in the UK as in the US. First, what you hear inside the court is the same as what goes on outside...racism is a fact. Second, when everything is reduced to facts and the law, we bring up our life-experiences to make the tiny decisions. Those life-experiences reflect the outside world.

Bias is systemic. It's not always something that is said openly. It's in how you frame the question, and how you perceive the world. You just haven't begun to realize it yet. Read, Geo. Lakoff, Moral Politics; and Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors we Live By.

Its not bullshit in my eyes Quill...but then I believe we often see things very differently.

If you deliberately mislead people in the courts you are in that's your problem not mine, my very limited experience in court proved the opposite.

You've abandoned the point. It's not about me, but about human nature generally.

by Syl Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:51 pm

Well according to you my points are bullshit, so there's no point in making anymore really.

Making allowances for someone's age in court, in a case like the one in the OP, is completely different from judging a person on their colour in court and varying the sentence whether they be black or white.

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:33 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

yep, you hit it you're at fault
Can't handle that give back your license you're not fit to drive

bullshit...never heard of the concept of contributary negligence
you are a typical member of the snowflake generation...whatever shit happens to YOU is ALWAYS someone elses fault, even if YOU are in fact the cause.

and statistically you are FAR more likely to be run down by some pushy bmw driving rep or teen twat than an 80 year old...as the insurance companies show.

But that is a distortion of the stats is it not? And a piss poor strawman argument

Based on the number of drivers and age groups?

As people over 70, cause thousands of accidents a year in the UK?

in which case, if te stats are to be considered young drivers must cause millions of accidents......

So I agree that is poor to even go off any age group, but so was your argument

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not want to discriminate based on age, but to me, everyone, no matter their age should have to undergo a test every 5 years to drive and even more after they cause a crash.

That would elimate the age bias would it not?

by Guest Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:37 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

But that is a distortion of the stats is it not? And a piss poor strawman argument

Based on the number of drivers and age groups?

As people over 70, cause thousands of accidents a year in the UK?

in which case, if te stats are to be considered young drivers must cause millions of accidents......

So I agree that is poor to even go off any age group, but so was your argument

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not want to discriminate based on age, but to me, everyone, no matter their age should have to undergo a test every 5 years to drive and even more after they cause a crash.

That would elimate the age bias would it not?

Millions?

In the UK?

You again miss the point.

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:38 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:yeah didge , and make the capitalist pigs really happy....

just think of all those £100's rolling in

So let me get this straight

You want to save money over safety on the roads, when thousands die every year?

With the young, its a recklessness with speed.

With the elderly, the opposite in that their reaction time is reduced to incidents

So what price do you want to place on human lives here?

You think a couple of hundred quid to have another test is not needed to happen, over that of a human life?

no, because the numbers involved dont justify it (when you take into account the ACTUAL NUMBER of accidents where age is A FACTOR, rather than other things

not every accident is caused by young drivers speeding or old drivers dithering, weather, road conditions bad light the actions of others around you are all causes.

drink driving , driving under the influence of drugs etc is still one of the worst causes.

by Guest Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:42 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

So let me get this straight

You want to save money over safety on the roads, when thousands die every year?

With the young, its a recklessness with speed.

With the elderly, the opposite in that their reaction time is reduced to incidents

So what price do you want to place on human lives here?

You think a couple of hundred quid to have another test is not needed to happen, over that of a human life?

no, because the numbers involved dont justify it (when you take into account the ACTUAL NUMBER of accidents where age is A FACTOR, rather than other things

not every accident is caused by young drivers speeding or old drivers dithering, weather, road conditions bad light the actions of others around you are all causes.

drink driving , driving under the influence of drugs etc is still one of the worst causes.

So thousands of unecessary deaths caused by accidents do not warrant it?

Really

How many have to die, for it to do so?

You want me to factor in other causes to accidents, when I think everyone should resist their test every 5 years?

Granted, that if they are not the cause of the accident, I have no problem that they then do not have to sit the test.

I fail to see how you can argue against people having to renew their licence with a test.

Countless jobs require such policies.

I mean what is the harm in having people revisit the methods on what is required to obtain a driving licence?

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:45 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

But that is a distortion of the stats is it not? And a piss poor strawman argument

Based on the number of drivers and age groups?

As people over 70, cause thousands of accidents a year in the UK?

in which case, if te stats are to be considered young drivers must cause millions of accidents......

So I agree that is poor to even go off any age group, but so was your argument

Now, do not get me wrong, I do not want to discriminate based on age, but to me, everyone, no matter their age should have to undergo a test every 5 years to drive and even more after they cause a crash.

That would elimate the age bias would it not?

Millions?

In the UK?

You again miss the point.

not at all didge

young drivers cause PROPORTIONATELY more accidents, not merely "more accidents" which is why their insurance is so high.

do you understand how insurance risk is calculated....dont forget the insurers are playing what is effectively a gambling game and the odds are carefully, VERY carefully calculated, on the PROPORTIONAL RISK each group poses....NOT the absolute number of accidents. since the idea is to balance the cost of the liabilities paid out to the amount of income received from premiums (plus the profit to be made)
so the actual number of accidents in any group is irrelevant to the equation, what matters is the number of accidents PER HEAD of that group.

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:49 pm

Didge wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

So let me get this straight

You want to save money over safety on the roads, when thousands die every year?

With the young, its a recklessness with speed.

With the elderly, the opposite in that their reaction time is reduced to incidents

So what price do you want to place on human lives here?

You think a couple of hundred quid to have another test is not needed to happen, over that of a human life?

no, because the numbers involved dont justify it (when you take into account the ACTUAL NUMBER of accidents where age is A FACTOR, rather than other things

not every accident is caused by young drivers speeding or old drivers dithering, weather, road conditions bad light the actions of others around you are all causes.

drink driving , driving under the influence of drugs etc is still one of the worst causes.

So thousands of unecessary deaths caused by accidents do not warrant it?

Really

How many have to die, for it to do so?

You want me to factor in other causes to accidents, when I think everyone should resist their test every 5 years?

Granted, that if they are not the cause of the accident, I have no problem that they then do not have to sit the test.

I fail to see how you can argue against people having to renew their licence with a test.

Countless jobs require such policies.

I mean what is the harm in having people revisit the methods on what is required to obtain a driving licence?

Well now...IF you want to go down THAT route

as I have suggested in the past, make vehicle licences as difficult to obtain and subject to the same rules/restrictions as firearms licences....

after all...if it saves one life its worth it..... Laughing

by Guest Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:50 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

Millions?

In the UK?

You again miss the point.

not at all didge

young drivers cause PROPORTIONATELY more accidents, not merely "more accidents" which is why their insurance is so high.

do you understand how insurance risk is calculated....dont forget the insurers are playing what is effectively a gambling game and the odds are carefully, VERY carefully calculated, on the PROPORTIONAL RISK each group poses....NOT the absolute number of accidents. since the idea is to balance the cost of the liabilities paid out to the amount of income received from premiums (plus the profit to be made)
so the actual number of accidents in any group is irrelevant to the equation, what matters is the number of accidents PER HEAD of that group.

I could care less how its calculated.
Its absurd how it is. When younger people who are good drivers suffer based off some maths.
So the view on proportionately is blatantly absurd and is a means for the insurance companies to exploit people.

Now again my view is simple and leads to all being treated equally as drivers.
Hence they have to resit a test every 5 years.
I mean a person can go through life never knowing of the many changes that does occur with road safety, signs etc. A test at such regular intervals, ensures all are kept up to date and ensures people do not become complacent, after they have passed their test.

As clearly many do become complacent

by Guest Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:51 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Didge wrote:

So thousands of unecessary deaths caused by accidents do not warrant it?

Really

How many have to die, for it to do so?

You want me to factor in other causes to accidents, when I think everyone should resist their test every 5 years?

Granted, that if they are not the cause of the accident, I have no problem that they then do not have to sit the test.

I fail to see how you can argue against people having to renew their licence with a test.

Countless jobs require such policies.

I mean what is the harm in having people revisit the methods on what is required to obtain a driving licence?

Well now...IF you want to go down THAT route

as I have suggested in the past, make vehicle licences as difficult to obtain and subject to the same rules/restrictions as firearms licences....

after all...if it saves one life its worth it.....

I have no issue with that

Happy to go down that route

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:56 pm

Thats not what you said last year when I suggested it.......

BUT, seriously......its a thought...

Itw ould do wonders for TfL's anti pollution drive, since ONE requirement of a firearms licence is Need and given londons excellent transport system (and many other cities too) few people in london "need" a private vehicle.

by Guest Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:03 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Thats not what you said last year when I suggested it.......

BUT, seriously......its a thought...

Itw ould do wonders for TfL's anti pollution drive, since ONE requirement of a firearms licence is Need and given londons excellent transport system (and many other cities too) few people in london "need" a private vehicle.

So you are not happy that I now agree with you?

There is no pleasing some people I guess

by Victorismyhero Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:07 pm

by veya_victaous Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:58 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

and a cornerstone of justice is proportionality

Is retribution called for when a mistake, albeit tragic, not engendered by malice or deliberate negligence (i'e it would be different if he was drunk) results even in the loss of life?

have we got to the point where everyone is incapable of allowing that "shit happens" (I can understand the families reaction obviously) but the rest of you??????

the best would be the permanent loss of his licence, to ensure no repitition......At his age one serious loss of concentration should be enough to raise the red flag over his abilities.

I agree with Smelly too, Hypocritical old Lord Foul would be preaching the complete opposite if it where a 20 year old that killed people.

once you get too old for jail to be a deterrent (so 70) you should be off the road

You won't be saying that when you're 70 and still have all your faculties, and some bit of a kid thinks you're too senile to drive.

After seeing how fucked up the current oldies are I hope I am decent enough to admit it and surrender my license. the problem is the first generation with such a long life expectancy are also notoriously the most selfish and self centered to have ever been.
The world would be far better served if the Oldies could just grow up and admit what's true, but the buggers have had it too good their whole lives.

I think even generation X will be much more capable of being honest with themselves and their capacities as they age.

by veya_victaous Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:00 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

and a cornerstone of justice is proportionality

Is retribution called for when a mistake, albeit tragic, not engendered by malice or deliberate negligence (i'e it would be different if he was drunk) results even in the loss of life?

have we got to the point where everyone is incapable of allowing that "shit happens" (I can understand the families reaction obviously) but the rest of you??????

the best would be the permanent loss of his licence, to ensure no repitition......At his age one serious loss of concentration should be enough to raise the red flag over his abilities.

I agree with Smelly too, Hypocritical old Lord Foul would be preaching the complete opposite if it where a 20 year old that killed people.

once you get too old for jail to be a deterrent (so 70) you should be off the road

Picking some nominal age like 70 or 80 is plain silly, not to mention discriminatory...

Especially when there's still plenty of experienced drivers in their 80s who will be much more competent than a lot of clueless and arrogant dickwits in their teens and 20s..

no more discriminatory than not letting people vote or drink until 18 etc
the laws have to work that way or else they are too open to corruption.

by Sponsored content