The Old Git Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 not quite as simple as your quote, The quote was from the police he came from an unrestricted section ( where the 100 speed will have been gained from brandish?? ) Which, as you state, is double the speed he was allowed to go on R plates and then two and a half times the posted limit for the corner. I don't know how accurate the speed estimate of 100mph is; he may even have being going faster before slowing for the corner. Whatever it actually was, the arrogance of youth has claimed another life. Also, the two nutters racing each other on Douglas prom last night at 19:30 should bear in mind the possible consequences of their actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 not quite as simple as your quote, The quote was from the police my mistake, you won't get any 'simpler' ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 The examiner thought he was competant enough to drive at 50mph max as thats the conditions of a newly gained license, to gain road experience for that first year and then its a suitable speed for the condtions after that. Now I don't know about anyone else, but I can spot that 40mph sign a mile off and slow down to 40 well before the sign, this driver was obviously tear arsing down there (and to crash at 100mph must have been going a fair bit more than that.), now even ignoring the 40mph limit there is no way a sane person would actually look at that corner and think "yeah that'll handle a ton easy", a bloody rally car would struggle a ton on that corner if trying to keep on the correct side) People with that sort of mentality should never be able to gain a licence as it was obviously going to result in death or very serious injury (just luck more weren't killed), sorry to mention the previous "accident" that occured there, but most people saw it in the paper, presumably this idiot also (who'd have been roughly the same age as the daughter, as I was at the time), what sort of complete and utter idiot does this?, even an idiot who doesn't know the road that well can sum up that road as a 40mph limit for a reason. Now i'm on "R" plates and also sick to death of people being on my bumper throughout 20, 30 zones, 40 zones and even 50mph zones, now bearing in mind this is the maximum limit ie maximum speed suitable for perfect conditions why do you do it?, the big "R" (also for many stands for "Retard") on my bumper means i've Recently gained my licence, I've just had to pay a fortune on insurance and buy my own car, (and don't want to lose that for the sake of an idiot trying to save 10 seconds on his destination.) I don't have the road experience and may well react differently than others in the event of something unfolding infront of me, so why do cock-ends like that drive so close, fuckwits! Can't help but feel that contributes to causing accidents among recent drivers though, its like i'm being pushed to drive faster than i'd like to (so if you're one of the twats that seems to be glued to my bumper trying to push me faster it isn't going to happen, i'd like my licence to stay clean and my insurance to go down not up, back off please!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Also, the two nutters racing each other on Douglas prom last night at 19:30 should bear in mind the possible consequences of their actions Saw them idiots while trying to look for a parking space along the prom, I turn around up by the terminas (sp?) tavern to come back down the prom, as these 2 idiots (a 3rd joined from summer hill), pulled out of the parking spaces there, as I pulled out onto the prom I was overtaken with the 3rd guy (clio I think) behind me. All on R plates and I was hoping people didn't think I associate with these clowns (on R's myself in what is normally described as an ideal first car, but for these guys is a racing tin box.), they raced off down the prom saving about 2 seconds (and breaking the speed limit by a good 10-15mph approx) only to catch up a van as the lights by broadway were red, idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 well put nitro. just one minor point to throw in bearing in mind i agree with what you say, the 30 limit and the stopping distances in the highway code came about way back in the day when cars, their handling and brakes along with tyre grip, were a lot more limited than todays vehicles. personally i think some limits ( not all) should be increased to allow for the progression in vehicle standards. the reason people are sat on your bumper is because no matter where you are going these days you are in a procession, with another one coming the other way so drivers just don't have the chance to overtake. 10 - 15 years ago there only seemed to be processions at weekends ( sunday drivers ).. there are that many vehicles around these days it's a surprise i don't find someone else parked on MY drive when i get home!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 the reason people are sat on your bumper is because no matter where you are going these days you are in a procession If I find myself stuck in a procession I'd rather chill out and drop back a bit instead of riding the bumper of the car in front and being on and off the brakes all the time. It does wonders for my blood pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Can I just remind people that we prefer to avoid mentioning a certain similar incident that a couple of people have made reference to (now removed) because we would prefer to avoid being threatened by lawyers. Sorry, that's just how it is. The slimy side of the IOM rears its ugly head again ( Not arguing with your decision ans but with the unpalatable environment that allows this sort of thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 well put nitro. just one minor point to throw in bearing in mind i agree with what you say, the 30 limit and the stopping distances in the highway code came about way back in the day when cars, their handling and brakes along with tyre grip, were a lot more limited than todays vehicles. personally i think some limits ( not all) should be increased to allow for the progression in vehicle standards. the reason people are sat on your bumper is because no matter where you are going these days you are in a procession, with another one coming the other way so drivers just don't have the chance to overtake. 10 - 15 years ago there only seemed to be processions at weekends ( sunday drivers ).. there are that many vehicles around these days it's a surprise i don't find someone else parked on MY drive when i get home!! If I've got a car/van up my arse in an unrestricted (and I don't know the roads, so hovering between 40 and 50) then i'll pull over, i'm not going to hurtle round a corner at 50mph not knowing whats there, plenty of cyclists and horses about these last couple of days, in the restricted areas that 30mph restriction is for everybody and its a different story, if you're behind me you'll be doing 30mph simple, I just switch to ingorant mode, switch off till another sign tells me otherwise. As for stopping distances, the limits are there to cater for all cars, not all cars have abs (mine doesn't and its only 10 years old), doesn't have power steering either, its also got drums on the rear and mines not the only one on the road!!, a lot of the breaking distances are probably about right because a lot of it is variable thinking time, plus factor in the way brakes are applied, ie some people stomp on the brakes, others more gradual. Also take into account 30mph limits are mostly through the islands towns, now at 30mph say a child runs infront of you, it gives you chance to stop completly (say thinking time was above average, brakes applied pefectly) or a slower thinking time, perhaps a frozon reaction with no braking at all, its a maxium of 30mph you're going to hit that child whom is more likely be seriously injured rather than killed, increase the speed and you increase the risks. Also to date a lot of cars still aren't passing pedestrain crash tests, doesn't matter what speed 10, 20 or 30 its going to do some damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Hill Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 "He had managed to reach 100mph in a 40mph zone" says it all for me Young lad, just passed his test, thinks he knows it all and is an ace driver. It's a hard lesson to learn. not quite as simple as your quote, he came from an unrestricted section ( where the 100 speed will have been gained from brandish?? ) into a 40 limit. he didn't start in 40 and then reach 100. that said, i would imagine as he'd only had a licence for 2 days!! he was ( or should have been? ) on 'R' plates which restricts your speed to a max of 50mph speed limit or not!! so speed limit or not, he was still double the speed his licence allows!!! Makes you wonder what his driving/speeds were like on top of the mountain where it is relatively flat with tempting sweeping bends ( windy corner for example). I travel up and down that road every day and the 40mph sign (going towards Hillberry) is very clear even at night it lights up from your headlights. Now I am prepared to bet that he would not of even seen this sign as he was probably more focussed on his speedo and maybe the road. He is a complete idiot and to attempt that bend at 100mph is suicidal but he would not know this as he would have no experience or knowledge of this type of high speed driving. Personnally - to all these people defending his actions (he is young etc.) lets hope that the next innocent person to lose their life is someone very close to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Hill Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Assuming this was the lad's first offence, jailing him for so long seems kind of pointless to me. It's unlikely to have a deterrent effect for other youngsters. We create and promote a culture of speed and rebellion and then we're surprised that these things occur. I feel sorry for this kid. It may have been his first offence but he did kill someone... You wouldn't think of letting a murderer off because it was his first offence. The driver was reckless, irresponsible, and stupid (as teenagers are expected to be) but unfortunately he was also in charge of a vehicle and ended up killing his mate. hang on now, obviously he wasn't wealthy or from a wealthy familly to be able to get the lawyers to obtain the desired verdict. unlike a similar speed related accident that took out the mother of 4 kids in the same place a few years earlier?? what erks is the dead people aren't usually the irresponsible twats that cause the deaths. edit; i may be referring to what brayhill posted a few posts earlier, but i posted after reading as far as my quote. Different fatality but same principle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Personnally - to all these people defending his actions (he is young etc.) lets hope that the next innocent person to lose their life is someone very close to you. From reading your other comments it's clearly a subject that stirs up emotion for you but that's a bit below the belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Hill Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Personnally - to all these people defending his actions (he is young etc.) lets hope that the next innocent person to lose their life is someone very close to you. From reading your other comments it's clearly a subject that stirs up emotion for you but that's a bit below the belt. The problem - was that the lad and his family were pretty cock sure of themselves going into court and after the verdict. Now I will stand to be corrected on this (I will have to speak to my brother) but I don`t even think there was any remorse or apologies to my brother just relief that his RAF career was still intact. I am not going to apologise if you think my comment was below the belt but rather an innocent life being lost - well as I said above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I actually agree with some of your previous comments, Bray Hill, but that's disgraceful to wish such grief and misery on others purely because they have a differing view to yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Can I just remind people that we prefer to avoid mentioning a certain similar incident that a couple of people have made reference to (now removed) because we would prefer to avoid being threatened by lawyers. Sorry, that's just how it is. The slimy side of the IOM rears its ugly head again ( Not arguing with your decision ans but with the unpalatable environment that allows this sort of thing) I'll second that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 As far as I can recall, the recognition of conventions is called culture and convention and culture in western Europe involves being held accountable for ones actions Accountable in the sense of being responsible, yes. (Though it can often depend on who it is and what is considered wrong) But you are talking about TAKING responsibility for something in the same sense as being punished for it. I don't see the connection. Now that doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do in every case, but incarceration is intended act on a number of levels. For a start, it should act as a deterrent to others, to punish the offender and lastly, to educate said offender in order that when they are released back into our society, that they understand their wrong-doings and maybe will think twice about re-offending. I doubt it works that way in every case although in this particular instance it might just work on all three levels. The deterrent effect is very doubtful. Incarceration can only be said to have a poor or irregular deterrent effect given the incidence of speeding and many other forms of crime. It MAY make someone less likely to commit the same crime again, but how long do you put them in gaol for? How do you be sure? Educating - well I don't see how incarceration educates. All it does it to tell the person that something they have done is punishable. In this case the driver is fully aware that he did something wrong. Though even if he thought he had not done anything wrong, being handed a sentence in itself it hardly going to enlighten someone. I am not convinced that the argument that because culpability is obvious, by not punishing someone does not necessarily absolve them of their wrongdoings is an adequate solution in terms of deterrent, punishment or rehabilitation.What then of the rapist, mugger or arsonist that our society needs to be protected from during their rehabilitation? Perhaps we should give them the freedom of the city to do as they please. Well incarveration is certainly not an adequate solution if you want to deter or definitely not to rehabilitate. And as for punishment, in this case I have to question why it is necessary. If you want to protect society from people who have raped, murdered, mugged, or set fire to things you could throw them in gaol for life. That will prevent them re-offending. But again, that is not very enlightened. It is like sweeping the problem under the carpet. Banging people up for one, five, or ten years doesn't remove the threat from that particular person when they leave gaol. I also speak from personal experience as someone who has lost a member of my family at the 'hands' of another, others eventually return to some sort of 'normal' life - have their own families, move on, indeed some do not even pause to consider the consequenses of their actions, but for the family concerned, the loss is eternal. Perhaps the 'bleeding hearts' of our society should consider that. I can understand the feeling that people have who want retribution in many cases. It is simply a form of revenge. That want done to that person what was done to their loved one. But if that person who committed the crime, for example, made a mistake. If they were sorry and recognised their wrongdoing and were remorseful, should revenge be pandered to? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.