[BBC News] Teenager jailed for death crash

[Bray Hill]

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.

 

Hi Minnie - what gets up my nose is the fact that it is the innocent bloke that always comes of worse and the injustice of it all. In our case that this lad would have no career if he received a sentance !!

 

A couple of months ago in England a female driving instructor is attacked in her car in daylight - she fights back ( I can`t quite remember the whole story) and the judge punishes her !! So rather than this lady who was doing nothing more than going about her daily business and protecting herself how would the judge who presided on this case feel if it was his wife/daughter who was attacked. I would bet he would want the attacker banged up big time.

 

You know yourself - I`m sure you read the papers and listen/watch the news there are countless stories like the one above, it`s just that me personnally cannot agree that these people get of so lightly.

[manxy]

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.

I quoted these replies, as they made some sense to me.

As most of you know, my partner works at Jurby and whilst listening to the radio, I brought this up in conversation and unbelievably, my partner actually clammed up on me!

Eventually, I got bits and pieces from him and the best I could say is this, that its a no win situation. The lad is apparently like chalk and cheese compared to other prisoners and between the words, I think he's upset a lot. Whether thats comforting or not to the victims families, then I wouldn't know, probably not, but I'd only be guessing which is wrong and presumptious of me.

Personally, I don't know how I'd feel to lose my child, especially at this moment in time, but I can say that my son has been upside down in a car with 3 friends and he has also been hit by a taxi resulting in a compound fracture which was very worrying for me. I can only use them as examples and also those concerning deaths of relations as guidelines and would be extremelly doubtful if this comes close. For those who've been through this nightmare of losing someone this way, my heart goes out to you and the rest of your family and friends.

 

I did think about it and asked the question, if it was my son and his best friend done the same as mentioned, would I want to see him killed or injured or suffer in some way? My answer would be a clear and definite NO, but the hurt, anger and upset would probably still be there in it's various stages and thats why I looked up a site called Roadpeace

Roadpeace site link

If it helps in any way, then I'm pleased that I could be of some assistance.

 

What I would like to bring up is this; By the opinions of those writing in this forum and also past threads, it would appear that youngsters go far too fast on our roads, so what might we do?

 

Would it therefore make sense that for those people under the age of 18 or even 19, that a speed restrictor be placed and used on any vehicle that they use, so that they can only travel a maximum speed of 40mph? I could however, see potential problems with this, ie, one car families, emergency use etc, but at least they wouldn't be driving fast around our roads and maybe it COULD save lives in the future? What do you think? Does it make sense or have I completely missread this or got it wrong? I'd appreciate some feedback and if you disagree with it, then thats fine, but is there another alternative that I've hastily overlooked? Like I said, I would appeciate your comments as it may (or may not) be helpful for those who've lost loved ones in this way, to prevent this from happening in the future.

[hboy]

Would it therefore make sense that for those people under the age of 18 or even 19, that a speed restrictor be placed and used on any vehicle that they use, so that they can only travel a maximum speed of 40mph?

 

Yes. And maybe we could also pump them full of ritalin, or morphine, or prozac. Anything to stop young excitable males acting like young excitable males.

 

There is no answer I'm afraid. Its a tragic situation which, I guess, nobody involved envisaged of fully thought through in the heat of the moment. Accidents do happen and society cannot eradicate accidents or bad judgement.

 

(I have total sympathy for all familes concerned, this is just my uninformed comment based on what I have read in this thread).

[Nitro]

As for a speed restrictor i'd say anyone on R plates (regardless of age, 16 or 32) should have a restricter fitted with possible insurance benefits, although a top speed of about 60mph would be more reasonable (leaving that extra 10mph if it was actually needed, not that i've seen many people actually accelerate thier way out of trouble).

 

Something like a black box or tachometer recorder (like truckers have) showing each breach of speed limits would be good also.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I`m sure you read the papers and listen/watch the news there are countless stories like the one above, it`s just that me personnally cannot agree that these people get of so lightly.

 

I just don't understand why you think that. Is it simply that you really want to see that the victim's family or a victim of a crime is made as happy as possible or simply feel that justice is being done by punishing the wrongdoer? Even if it is that that person COULD be very remorseful or very sorry.

What if the family do not revenge or retribution? Does society think they should?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What I would be interested in knowing is whether this really is an issue about youth. Everyone seems to pass it off as an issue of youth but young people are hardly the only ones who go over the speeding limit and drive dangerously.

[WTF]

What I would be interested in knowing is whether this really is an issue about youth. Everyone seems to pass it off as an issue of youth but young people are hardly the only ones who go over the speeding limit and drive dangerously.

it is youth primarilly who have trouble with speed because of the lack of experience. as you get experience ( which comes with time = getting older ) you learn to understand where speed is ok, and speed is/would be an unacceptable risk. everywhere i had a near miss, or even an accident as a young rider/driver, i NOW have a respect/understanding/education of the risk in that area. you cannot teach experience, which is why limiting speed is a good way to limit risk. older drivers going quick, tend to have the experience/skill to do it far morer safely than a driver with little unsupervised driving under their belt. when you first get in a vehicle, it feels like you are doing a ton in 2nd gear, and you only feel comfortable/in control at slower speed. the more you drive it you get used to the speed and go a bit faster. another factor not appreciated is the weight of passengers in the car. it will handle totally differently with 3 or 4 people in it than it does with just the driver. there could be an argument for no passengers in the rear seat of an R plated driver, a bit like no pillion passenger on L plates on a bike. it would give less people to show off too, and keep the car in a weight/balance the driver is accustomed to.

[Sebrof]

WTF? I have said it before and will reiterate for the 'hang em high' brigade. This young man has to live the rest of his life with the memory of the death of a friend on his conscience, is that not punishment enough?

 

@ Vulgarian, He killed someone? Do you suppose he KNEW he would crash and kill someone? Who was the examiner who let him pass? Surely this accident is a pointer at the test examiners failure to notice a 'reckless, irresponsible and stupid driver'.

 

If it were me I would appeal.

 

Quite right, Bees.

 

S

[Sebrof]

What I would be interested in knowing is whether this really is an issue about youth. Everyone seems to pass it off as an issue of youth but young people are hardly the only ones who go over the speeding limit and drive dangerously.

 

No, indeed, but they do cause many more accidents, hence the much higher insurance premiums.

 

It's a combination of inexperience and a feeling of immortality, as Lonan said.

 

S

[Minnie]

Bray Hill, I'm not questioning your views as like I said I do actually agree with some of your points, however what I do have a problem with is the fact that you're wishing hurt and grief on other posters/members of their family purely because they don't agree with your views on this topic. If you think that's acceptable behaviour then there's something seriously wrong.

[Tango]

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.

 

I never thought I'd say it - but I agree with Keyboarder 100%

[Frances]

It would appear that there have been three fatal crashes due to excessive speed at this spot within as many years - any where else would have installed traffic calming features - but because of the TT we cannot, thus once again I'm forced to agree with keyboarder - "We create and promote a culture of speed and rebellion and then we're surprised that these things occur."

[%age]

Traffic calming measures? What more can possibly be done?

 

There is a 40mph speed limit signed well before the corner. Try going round that long, wide, sweeping corner at the prescribed speed of 40mph. It will seem very, very slow and gentle indeed. The corner is perfectly safe.

 

True there have been a number of fatal accidents at this spot. More importantly, the various cases need to be discussed and compared in order to understand various aspects of how 'the law' 'works' on the Isle of Man. However this cannot be done here, as it will result in things being done to this forum and such.

[andrew]

They have already moved the 40 limit further up the road towards brandish. I remember when it used to be right on the exit of the corner by the end of the Grandstand area. I am guessing it has been moved so that there is plenty of time once you pass it to slow down to a safe speed (despite that fact that you should be doing 40 or less as you pass through the signs).

 

The only other thing they can do is stick a 50 by Brandish in the hope of gradually slowing people down, however as in this case if he was doing 100mph up by the Creg despite being restricted to 50mph, I think a 50mph sign would have been ignored as well as the 40mph sign that was there!!!

[keyboarder]

Try going round that long, wide, sweeping corner at the prescribed speed of 40mph. It will seem very, very slow and gentle indeed.

It's relative actually. It will appear a lot slower after thrashing at speed from Brandish. Not so slow from Onchan. A 40mph limit from the Creg, enforced of course, would make Hillberry safer at a stroke.

 

The corner is perfectly safe.

No it isn't - hence the fatalities.