SteA

The whole area is a dubious mix of morals, legalities and unknown facts

The law seems oddly inconsistent at so many times....

My cousin was killed 2 years ago by someone who came round a corner on the wrong side of the road, hit him head on, killing him instantly and severely injuring his young kids... the guy admitted speeding but didnt know why he was on the wrong side of the road, no jail sentence.

It seems to be a common occurrence where people stab or beat someone to death and get less than 5 years... even with clear cctv footage and adequate witnesses.

There have been drivers in similar situations, driving performance cars who have been jailed for similar lengths of time for "racing" someone in an unroadworthy 1 litre car who then crashed and died, the other drivers did stop.

I think there is a fine line between the whole concept that no injury can be done to a willing person and significant jail sentences for those racing. But looking around, it seems its relatively less serious to be a violent and consistent criminal than to "race".

At the end of the day people are condemning speeding "because its against the law", but we all decide where our moral boundaries lie, and what are the relative risks of our actions.... we could argue about this forever, but speeding where you dont endanger other peoples lives, I think to give that a blanket condemnation is wrong. A law isnt always right and fair. Especially when we consider the bad driving, not speeding, that causes accidents and deaths every day. Most drivers are in a coma, cosseted by their crash tested euroboxes and electronic safety systems with not a clue about having enough space to stop and maneuver. Its this dangerous behaviour you see every minute of every day on our roads, we need a bit of perspective in my humble opinion.

Why do we let people drink alcohol? That causes more deaths and criminal acts than "speeders" would manage in a mad max type world, never mind ours. And it costs society and the NHS vast sums of money that could be put towards saving lives. An odd example but its that distinction again between personal risk and endangering other people, and there are many more.

A drunk driver crashed into my wife about 9 months ago, pissed out of his face in the middle of the day, wearing slippers and pyjamas... I thought that kind of person might be a bit of a risk on the roads. Apparently not, the police dont really have time to investigate those kind of cases. And it cost me a couple of grand. Happy days.

I know lots wont agree but hey, its a funny old world.

Subsi

This car was my old P1 that i sold i spent thousands on it and it was mint i sold it to buy a WR1 I wish i kepted hold of it .was shown on p1woc last year hate to think where it is now.

mightyyid

A silly thing, but given there is always stuff we do not know, could it not be that the MG was actually being chased, rather than raced? If you had that lovely looking man driving up your **** threatening you, what would most of us do. A few would no doubt stop and want to get Minty's autograph - the others would realise it's a nutter and leg it. The MG driver maybe was doing this, and lost control. In this case, the Subaru driver was definately to blame (regardless of the impact on his kids in the car) and thus deserved all he got. We'll never know what really happened....

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I know you shouldn't use one injustice to argue against settling another, but this kind of thing makes me really angry. The punishment for drink drivers in the uk, particularly the repeat offenders who basically stick two fingers up at the law and everyone else on the roads, is a joke.

-I would like to see a minimum 5 year ban for anyone caught drink driving.
-If they drive whilst banned, it's an automatic custodial sentence and longer ban.
-Repeat offenders should get a life ban.
-If they kill someone it should be either tried as manslaughter, or a seperate offence of causing death by driving intoxicated created. The latter should carry a range of sentencing options similar to that of manslaughter so that drink drivers don't get off lightly owing to the sentencing constraints of existing offences.

NS04

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

You're right: there is stuff that we don't know about the case. Similarly we don't know that it was the Subaru driver who is to blame. If you feel you are being followed, there are better ways to deal with it than doing 140 on B roads!

To me, this still appears to be a case of: two people driving like prats, regrettably one died in the process. The Subaru driver is rightly not getting much sympathy cause of his conduct after the accident and his stupidity in driving like that with his kids in the car.

BUT did he cause the accident? That's a different matter entirely and one for which -to date- evidence available to the public is sorely lacking.

NS04