Bounty Hunter

[loulou]

Yes but it is it lovely or not to see a man of 80+ driving it?

What are everyones views on old people driving?

[oldspice]

Well, given the choice between a careful, but slightly slow, old chap who peers rather short-sightedly over the dashboard and the ignorant, arrogant, stupid boy racers who drive at 60MPH in a 30MPH region - I'd opt for the old guy.

We have a real problem with uninsured young drivers in this city. I live in a residential area with lots of schools and narrow streets full of children. These buggers don't care. They race around doing all sorts of wheel spins and dangerous tricks with no thought for anyone. Just before Christmas a 16 year old lost control of the car at 65MPH and crashed into a lamp post. He was killed - and I AM NOT SORRY. Sorry if that offends - but he could just have easily killed a young family.

[loulou]

I agree there oldspice. I cannot feel sorry for these stupid kids who kill themselves in cars. Drink drivers are my biggest hate. They do not get a big enough punishment when caught. Driving while under the influence of drink is the same as running round with a loaded shotgun.

Back to the age thing though. Is it not true that when you reach the age of 80 you have to resit a test? I think that's a good idea.

I also think it a good idea that when you first pass your test, you should sit it again 6 months later. I know so many young drivers who I am sure have had a lucky day when sitting their test. Also some young drivers are too overconfident and the minute they pass they seem to forget everything they were taught.

[oldspice]

I think it's when you reach 70 you have to take another test - i think it's mainly eyesight and health etc. I agree that when they get older, people should have more tests to ensure they are not going to conk out at the wheel.

In my book driving offences are not punished hard enough. Two years ago, a local driver caused a terrible accident. He was speeding on the wrong side of the road and hit an oncoming car, killing the two occupants. He was drunk - 3 times over the legal drink drive limit and was already banned for previous drink driving offences. In fact it was his FOURTH serious drink driving offence. He was jailed for five years but appealed and got his sentence reduced. He killed two people!

I think they should have chopped his legs off. That would stop him getting back into a car.

Unfortunately we still have a judicial system that is based on intent rather than outcome.  If you intend to kill two children you will quite rightly receive a very long prison sentence.  But if you kill two children because you are stupid or reckless it dishes out sentences that are too soft.  If you drive fast or while drunk that is tantamount to an intent to kill.  But the law is an ass.

[loulou]

I agree bounty. I would like to see thieves get their hands cut off or maybe a tattoo saying thief on their forehead. What is your opinion on this?

[goldencup]

As far as I'm aware when you reach 70 you simply have to get a doctor to sign a form that you are fit to drive - nobody actually has to see you drive a car.  I think this is ridiculous and everyone should take a re-test every five years or so up to 70, then every year.  Just my opinion.  I've passed advanced tests for both cars and motorcycles but that was quite a long time ago and I'm sure I've picked up loads of bad habits.

[loulou]

My dad was a really good driver, then when he got to 69 and had his first heart attack the family were scared to get in the car with him because his reactions were not as quick as before and he had us all nervous wrecks. My mam did not want him to drive anymore but there was no telling him and she took him to the doctor but the doc just said he was medically fit to drive. I expect this happens a lot.

I would like to see utilitarianism introduced in UK.  That's like zero tolerance with knobs on.  For example if you kill someone because you drive while drunk you are banned for life from driving.  No need for prison.  Rapists and paedophiles would be castrated or otherwise made sexually disfunctional.  Prison becomes irrelevant in a utilitarian country because you take away the source of the crime.  

Some people would need some sort of incarceration if they are unremmitingly dangerous and/or residivistic but this could be dealt with by using them instead of animals to perform chemical experiments on.

[oldspice]

But his guy did kill someone - AFTER he'd been banned! he just ignored the ban.

Utilitarianism holds that rules should have the greatest outcome for great greatest good - ie they should benefit the greatest number of people. I don't know what their take on punishment is - but some famous utilitarians inlcuded John Stuart Mill and, and, and, ...... oh bugger I can't remember.

Ah if he was banned and still drove and killed someone then he must have his hands removed surgically.  

[oldspice]

Part of me does not want to agree - but I'm sick of being a tolerant, bleeding-heart liberal so ... 

And while they're there they can cut his legs off too.

[loulou]

Put all criminals on an island away from everything and look at the money that would be saved with no prisons.

The judicial system should think a bit more about the victims and not criminals' rights.  

[smurfboy]

Yeah, why don't we just cover criminals in petrol and set them alight in the street? Or cover them in lard and let a pack of starving dogs loose on 'em? We could charge public admission. Who cares about miscarriages of justice or that governments do much worse than most people in prisons, and use our taxes to pay for it?