Saw a program on the box a few nights ago about the escalating numbers of accidents where the driver involved simply drove off, leaving the unfortunate pedestrian dead or severely injured. A senior policeman interviewed said that anyone driving without a licence, insurance or MOT should have their car confiscated an crushed.
That, to me, sounds like a damn good idea.
Comments?
Andy
|
Andy
Sadly, this mentality is not confined to irresponsible drivers, but permeates the fabric of our whole society.
I was appalled at the recent reported case of a 33 year old man who was attacked and stabbed in the street. He staggered into a railway station and bled to death in front of 3 railway employees who judged themselves to be "powerless to act" as the man was not a railway employee and had not been injured on railway property.
They (reportedly) refused to even get out their fist aid kit for another helper to use. The names of the 3 employees have not been published.
Words completely fail me!
Ian
|
Is this not a symptom of our compensation culture?
"If you touch me and anything goes wrong, I'll sue you"
Very sad.
|
no its a symptom of crap culture among railway staff
ive seen them flag a train to pull away while people are still getting on, and this kills people!
poor management, poor morale, and some idiots at all levels
|
|
|
|
"anyone driving without a licence, insurance or MOT...................."
probably isn't driving their own car, or if they are, obtained it through less than legitimate means. And if they haven't, they certainly don't appear to be concerned about being caught and "punished".
It's noteworthy that Garry Hart, despite being an evil villain of the highest order, and totally incapable, stayed at the scene and tried his best to prevent the train crash. Some would argue that it would have been pointless him running away (so at least he was legal then), but the point is that his instinctive reaction was to stay and help, rather than cut and run in a blind, unthinking panic. How many do that when wide awake?
|
|
|
Ian
There is another reason why people, especially in an official position, are reluctant to get involved, and that is because under the crazy laws now in force, if you administer first aid and make any sort of a mistake you can be held liable, whereas if you stand by and do nothing except call for assistance you are quite safe.
|
Wouldnt it be better to sell the car and give proceeds to bereeved family, charity or other good scheme?
Unless the car hs been pinched.........
Kev
P.S you're totally right about 'blame-claim' culture. Its very sad
|
|
I am a qualified first aider. If I helped someone (nothing more than a bad cut so far) and they started legal action against me, I'd be very tempted to put them back in the same position they were in before I helped them. After all they are alive, whereas they might not be had I not assisted.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps Pugugly as a practioner before the beaks can confirm this, but I have always understood that under The Powers of Criminal Courts Act, 1973, Section 43, Magistrates have the power to deprive an offender convicted of an offence of property (vehicle) and which was in his possession at the time of arrest or when summoned and order confiscation. This specifically covers drink/ drive offences and hit and run.
For some reason Magistrates fight shy of this power.
As to Mr Hart, it was his property involved and there was no gain to abscond. Had there been so, who knows?
DVD
|
|
|
"As to Mr Hart, it was his property involved and there was no gain to abscond.........."
Easy to say in reflective hindsight , but the guy had just crashed onto a railway line.
As I said:
"Some would argue that it would have been pointless him running away (so at least he was legal then), but the point is that his instinctive reaction was to stay and help, rather than cut and run in a blind, unthinking panic. How many do that when wide awake?"
And how many do cut and run when there is no gain to abscond?
And he could have tried claiming that the vehicles were stolen while he caught up on his sleep after an all night chat session.
And, yes, the chances of it working might have been slim, but I was drawing attention to his reactions, not the practicalities of following them through.
But I'm sure we've all heard of stories of people who claim that they can't remember who was driving whan accused of breaking the law.
|
An inordinate ammount of Police is spent trying to trace drivers of "Previous Keeper Only" details. Not just with abandoned vehicles but where registration number details are given in the case of "hit and run" accidents. More often than not the trail soon runs cold and your law abiding member of the public is left to foot the bill - as usual. Of course there are the postal fixed penalty issues. Who gets hammered but again your law abiding member of the public who registers their car. Then there are driver identification issues - could in theory even run to identification parades but probably not.
Many new cars are leased ocompany cars registered to some company miles away. At 4 in the morning there is no chance of getting a quick ID on the driver and taking immediate positive action.
It seem the older the car the worse it is with cars regularly changing hands for tens of pounds.
Let me run this past you. The Police and civilian clerks spend many valuable hours dealing with document production and then there are the follow ups.
What are contributors opinions to:-
1. Compulsory carrying of documentation.
Then this would allow
2. Second hand car sales being overseen by the Police. ie. if you bought a second hand car privately buyer and seller would have to attend at a Polce station to get the transaction validated and names and addresses checked. Any unvalidated car subsequently checked could then be seized by the Police.
I know it sounds big brotherish but if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to loose and you could gain some satisfaction from knowing that those who stick their fingers up at the rest of us are being reigned in. remeber it is our pockets the money comes out of.
Should stir up some debate this one. Crazed Idiot have your fix and give it to us!!!!!!!
Andrew
|
Andrew
Sounds a bit like the system in France although I think there is a separate bit of bureaucracy that witnesses the transaction, not the police. I fancy something more direct is the answer. Borrowing from the Germans, if you only get a valid number plate each year when insurance is paid (scrap excise duty and put it somewhere else where those who use the roads most, contribute the most) it could make it easier to spot either those cars without the plate or a plate of the wrong colour or lacking the correct identifying mark.
I'm sure there are other ways of doing this, and isn't the Government already exploring automatic roadside detection by electronic means, but I fear the emphasis is always likely to remain primarily on tax collection. I can foresee a superb computerised system running that bit, but law enforcement on a different IT contract meaning the two systems don't communicate properly. Or am I just too cynical?
David
|
|
|
|
We Have this in most of the US now with the need to go to the DMV to prove who you are (photo ID Driving Lyc.) and see that a good title is passed as well.... and the Reg(stamped with the Insurance Co. details showing the State Minimun coverage was on the car at the time of transfer...)
If you miss a payment on your insurance you will ge a letter from the DMV telling you the Reg is suspended untill the insurance is reinstated... the reg must be in the car at all times aand the driver must have his Lyxc. in his posetion if he is driving as well.
this whole system is behind the "no Fault" sytem for minor fender benders where no on is hurt that many states have adopted...
Wherther it works or not I do not know You would have to aska senior State Police Trouper I would guess to get a good answer...
I have heard it said the 90% of all auto theft today in the this part of the US is of the following forms
1> Chop shop stolen to order... broken up in to part in less than a few hours of the theft
2> Stolen to order and in a shipping contaner for transport to points south within a few min of the theft
3> staged theft (Fraud to get out from under insurance payments... Car is normaly torched afte a few bits are removed
Joy riders (under age of responsibility) make up most od the rest... almost no stolen cars today end up being sold on as is withing the US except perhaps for a bit of 'export' to one of the few states that still do not require a good title to reg...
~Randolph
Nantucket Island USA (where we did not allow autos untill 1926)
|
|
|
£15,697was £15,897Details
£23,750was £23,950Details
£18,390was £18,991Details
£21,100was £21,210Details
