The Old Git Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Traffic calming measures? What more can possibly be done? I never thought I'd say it, but if there have been three fatalities on that corner - presumably all as a result of exceeding the 40 limit by some margin - how about a speed camera? Better to have a few points or even lose you license than lose a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Traffic calming measures? What more can possibly be done? 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. such are the limits of 'free speech'?? as to what could be done?, they could put in a load of removable sleeping policemen, or even a load of removable bollards along the white line? the bollards may actually give you something to hit to help reduce your speed if you get it wrong?? but, as stated elsewhere, there are plenty of warning signs and restrictions already, it is just the mindless few that think it doesn't apply to them. perhaps ( i hate to say it ) a 'safety camera' in that area for a few months (36?) would address the problem somewhat. or even a police speed trap on a very regular basis. with the car itself out of sight instead of being in full display like a bloody flag so folks can see it from brandish and slow down as unusual!! i think the sentence he received was perhaps a bit severe, but i feel the courts were overcompensating for the others that got away with it in the hope of setting an example and avoiding another bout of why no custodial sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 There is no public road on the whole of the Isle of Man that is dangerous. None whatsoever. Incidents are caused by drivers driving too fast or carelessly/dangerously. How simple is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 How simple is that? It's over simplistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 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. LDV in a way I think it is - but more properly it is an issue of inexperience not age. New drivers have a few lessons on fundamentally knowing how to control a car 'mechanically' (clutch, steering, brakes, handbrake etc...) and they get some instruction on raod sense. But the latter is something that is learned over a period of time. After 40 years of driving I think in one sense I am a better driver than I used to be - that is in my ability to 'read the road' - which is related to observing other people' driving behaviour, anticipating the road layout from observing little landscape and marking signals, having a better idea of road speed and situation, monitoring 'escape strategies' (or lack of them). This does not make me a good driver - a combination of mechanical skill, knowledge of the abilities of the vehicle, road sense and my own physical and mental fitness determine that. The unfortunate thing in this case seems to be that an inexperienced driver got way beyond their competence and was not reading the road - I doubt that there is anything that will stop individuals doing this (experienced or inexperienced). It MAY be an idea to have some system of rechecking NEW drivers (I did not say young) that focuses on road sense over several months/years. Think of the UK - you get a licence and suddenly you're OK to drive on motorways - but it was illegal to do so before you had the licence - great training!!!! In Japan you were not allowed onto the road until you had learned basic road sense in an enclosed driver training area. Not perfect but a small step. We allow people to take control of one of the more complex bits of equipment to interface wth the outside world and occasionally their inexperience gets it horribly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 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. And yet their insurance costs are higher. I wonder why that is? Someone has obviously worked out they're a far higher risk on the roads. Most people I'd deem to be driving dangerously do seem to be young drivers who seem to be totally unaware of any risk to themselves or other road users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 The corner is perfectly safe. No it isn't - hence the fatalities. A corner is a corner - as an inanimate object it cannot be safe or unsafe in and of itself. The speed limit of 40mph implies that the corner can be taken safely, assuming no other factors, at up to that speed by a vehicle. If a driver wishes to do more than the maximum speed limit at that specific place, they will do so, and face the consequences if they get it wrong. Traffic calming measures would not be put into place in a 40mph limit section of road (speed bumps etc), and you don't tend to see them in 30s either. Traffic calming measures only tend to be put into place in 20mph zones, so the only option for Hillberry would be a speed camera or more traffic police radar/lidar etc patrols. Do you really think that this driver would've taken any notice of a 30mph limit? A speed camera? Even a traffic police officer in a hi-viz jacket with a speed detection device would probably have been ignored - you can't legislate for stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I've seen many speed calming measures in 40mph when approaching eg a roundabout after a high speed section - numerous examples in the midlands (uk) + elsewhere - simple slight bumps getting closer together - very effective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I've seen many speed calming measures in 40mph when approaching eg a roundabout after a high speed section - numerous examples in the midlands (uk) + elsewhere - simple slight bumbs getting closer together - very effective Like at the end of motorways. Of course, they won't use them here because road safety comes second to the TT (and they recently spent all that money making the previous corner into a flat out bend). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 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. The corner is perfectly safe if taken at a sensible speed. Fatalities have been caused by people travelling at excessive speeds, or driving recklessly. What else are you going to blame for the accident? The people who made the car? The workmen who built the road? The fact is the kid was driving far too fast, beyond his experience, and dangerously. The accident was his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1man Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 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. It is my understanding that we are indeed responsible for the consequences of our actions and that if those actions lead society to incarcerate for either the protection of the rest of society or in order to ‘punish’ (ie, remove civil liberties) then that is the price that must be paid. We do not live in a hippy compound where there is peace and love, people do occasionally hurt others deliberately and those perpetrators of such crimes ought to be punished by having their civil liberties withdrawn. In this particular case I believe the incarceration is as a deterrent to others rather than a ‘punishment’ for the actions of unintended consequences. 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. Part of the Prison Service’s remit, if I am not mistaken, is to educate and enlighten convicted criminals in the error of their ways. Of course this will not always be successful given the hardened nature of some criminals but there are, I believe, counselling services available to inmates. If the service rehabilitates then it also educates or are you inferring that on-one in prison is ever rehabilitated? If this is your belief then it must be that all convicted criminals that serve a prison sentence will return there since they have understood nothing of the process that put them there in the first place. 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. See above! One thing is for certain, 99.9% of prisoners will at sometime or other, be released back into the community and therefore it is essential that the prison services do rehabilitate as part of the incarceration process. That your view is that prison serves no use in providing protection to the general public and has a role to play in rehabilitation of criminals, is I believe, doing a great disservice to the people that work hard to achieve such ends. 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. Clearly (and thankfully) it would appear you are not in a position to know what it is like to lose a loved one because of the actions of a fellow human being but I think you miss the point that once the anger and indeed rage at such a loss has subsided, it is the greatest wish of the bereaved to do all they can to ensure the chances of the incident (whatever the ‘incident’ may be) being repeated are minimised so that no-one else has to suffer the same loss. Idealistic? Perhaps but it is I believe, the human condition and that is what families and friends of the deceased strive for. Look around at the various organisations that are set up in the wake of such losses to see that this is the human condition, not revenge as you suggest. In spite of your protestaions, I do believe that incarceration can be used as a deterrent to others and I am all in favour of it, along with any other (qualified, it depends on circumstance of course) measures that are used to prevent such unnecessary deaths. Or do you really believe that those people who are consumed with grief will ever imagine that there can be any recompense for the loss of a loved one? Do you really think that any punishment inflicted on the perpetrator of such a crime will ever compensate for your loss? There is a significant difference between revenge and wanting to deter, rehabilitate and educate convicted criminals and it is one that you appear to have completely missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 . . . What else are you going to blame for the accident? The people who made the car? . . . Let's not go there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 It is my understanding that we are indeed responsible for the consequences of our actions and that if those actions lead society to incarcerate for either the protection of the rest of society or in order to ‘punish’ (ie, remove civil liberties) then that is the price that must be paid. We do not live in a hippy compound where there is peace and love, people do occasionally hurt others deliberately and those perpetrators of such crimes ought to be punished by having their civil liberties withdrawn. In this particular case I believe the incarceration is as a deterrent to others rather than a ‘punishment’ for the actions of unintended consequences. A very subservient atttude to take. What makes you think that responsibility cannot be taken by other means? Having the attitude of "that is the price to be paid" is to assume that you recognise that some other authority has deemed it so and so as well as accepting it you believe it should be. Nobody OUGHT to have their civil liberties removed for committing a crime unless they are a certain danger to society and even then I think it is wrong to use this as punishment. People should not used as some form of example to others. That leaves the option of incarceration free to abuse. How much of example do you want to create? And once you start setting examples for others by punishing you move away from responding proportionately and fairly to the criminal in question. Part of the Prison Service’s remit, if I am not mistaken, is to educate and enlighten convicted criminals in the error of their ways. Of course this will not always be successful given the hardened nature of some criminals but there are, I believe, counselling services available to inmates. If the service rehabilitates then it also educates or are you inferring that on-one in prison is ever rehabilitated? If this is your belief then it must be that all convicted criminals that serve a prison sentence will return there since they have understood nothing of the process that put them there in the first place. I wonder whether you actually recognise the reality of crime in society. Simply because it is called rehabilitation does not in any case point to its effectiveness or success. If the whole system of dealing with criminals is wrong in the first place and actually makes rehabilitation problematic then how can you rehabilitate. How can you rehabilitate wrongdoers into a society that they have been utterly disconnected to? How do you make them recognise an illegitimate authority that has stolen their liberties, that exists in the law and in prison to dictates to them? No doubt, many prisoners learn a lesson. If you punish hard enough many people will do the same thing again. But this is different from questioning why there is need to punish in the first instance and the manner in which punishment is made. I tend to get the impression from your comments that you aren't so interested in the importance of understanding why things are wrong, but simply instilling in people that certain things are wrong AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT. See above! One thing is for certain, 99.9% of prisoners will at sometime or other, be released back into the community and therefore it is essential that the prison services do rehabilitate as part of the incarceration process. That your view is that prison serves no use in providing protection to the general public and has a role to play in rehabilitation of criminals, is I believe, doing a great disservice to the people that work hard to achieve such ends. I would assume that prison officers work their arse off, given the environment and difficulties of the job. But they are in a job that forms part of an ineffective process of dealing with crime and criminals. It isn't their problem. They just work there and do the best they can. Clearly (and thankfully) it would appear you are not in a position to know what it is like to lose a loved one because of the actions of a fellow human being but I think you miss the point that once the anger and indeed rage at such a loss has subsided, it is the greatest wish of the bereaved to do all they can to ensure the chances of the incident (whatever the ‘incident’ may be) being repeated are minimised so that no-one else has to suffer the same loss. Idealistic? Perhaps but it is I believe, the human condition and that is what families and friends of the deceased strive for. Look around at the various organisations that are set up in the wake of such losses to see that this is the human condition, not revenge as you suggest. In spite of your protestaions, I do believe that incarceration can be used as a deterrent to others and I am all in favour of it, along with any other (qualified, it depends on circumstance of course) measures that are used to prevent such unnecessary deaths. There is a significant difference between revenge and wanting to deter, rehabilitate and educate convicted criminals and it is one that you appear to have completely missed. I think every effort should be to look into prevention of crime and in supporting the victims of crime. However, we live in a society where prevention is given little important. Punishment is far more easier to carry out and acceptable through convention. Punishing is revenge. Prevention is not. Incarceration can be used as a deterrent. Bang people up for life and never let them out or make the conditions so utterly appalling that people will be filled with dread at the thought of entering gaol. That is more effective deterrence. But like I said, this isn't very enlightened. Prisons are an arcane form of dealing with criminals which have only relatively recently taken this all-encompassing role of trying to do many things at the same time. The compromises contradict each other and these compromises sit on top of the injustice of removing freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Nobody OUGHT to have their civil liberties removed for committing a crime unless they are a certain danger to society Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Nobody OUGHT to have their civil liberties removed for committing a crime unless they are a certain danger to society No problem with that: Murder = Danger to society Assault = Danger to society Drink Driving = Danger to society Causing death by dangerous driving = Danger to society Mugging = Danger to society Theft = Danger to society Sexual offences = Danger to society Drug dealing = Danger to society Child cruelty = Danger to society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.