2 ms·

Or in other words bad driving is socially acceptable. Drink driving used to be OK also. Why not just ban bad drivers from driving. You would get less congest

by 7952 12y ago

Or in other words bad driving is socially acceptable. Drink driving used to be OK also. Why not just ban bad drivers from driving. You would get less congestion, safer roads, and free up driving jobs for more appropriate people.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
The issue isn't bad drivers. The issue is people. What percentage of people do you think will have an at fault accident at least once in their lifetime? How many drivers would be left if every single one of those people had their license revoked?
- mwnz 12y ago
  An at fault minor accident, sure. An at fault accident that causes the death of another person - a very small percentage of the population. Penalty is at least acknowledgement to the victim's family that a fault of another caused their death, and action has been taken in an effort to prevent this from occurring again. I really couldn't give a damn if those drivers who have killed another human being due to their driving were not allowed behind the wheel again. The severity of the penalty is another matter. But your words advocate no penalty, and this idea that "hey, we all screw up sometimes, don't sweat it". You talk of percentages. Look at the percentage of cyclists killed by vehicles in the US. If all we cared about was percentages, there would never be a drive for cycle lanes, there would never be a movement towards cycle oriented cities. You are telling a small percentage of pioneering citizens to suck it up, because "you knew the risks". Some scream of entitlement. I think cyclists are entitled to their lives. Don't you?
- 7952 12y ago
  But there are some quite good markers for identifying potentially dangerous drivers beyond actual collisions. For example people who repeatedly use mobile phones at the wheel or are caught speeding. An honhest mistake is more forgivable than willfully putting people in danger. Pewrsonally I think collisions should result in a large income based fine that is given to the victim and not paid for by insurance. We need something in between "insurance sorts it out" and manslaughter.

by 7952 12y ago

forrestthewoods 12y ago

The issue isn't bad drivers. The issue is people. What percentage of people do you think will have an at fault accident at least once in their lifetime? How many drivers would be left if every single one of those people had their license revoked?

mwnz 12y ago
An at fault minor accident, sure. An at fault accident that causes the death of another person - a very small percentage of the population. Penalty is at least acknowledgement to the victim's family that a fault of another caused their death, and action has been taken in an effort to prevent this from occurring again. I really couldn't give a damn if those drivers who have killed another human being due to their driving were not allowed behind the wheel again. The severity of the penalty is another matter. But your words advocate no penalty, and this idea that "hey, we all screw up sometimes, don't sweat it". You talk of percentages. Look at the percentage of cyclists killed by vehicles in the US. If all we cared about was percentages, there would never be a drive for cycle lanes, there would never be a movement towards cycle oriented cities. You are telling a small percentage of pioneering citizens to suck it up, because "you knew the risks". Some scream of entitlement. I think cyclists are entitled to their lives. Don't you?
7952 12y ago
But there are some quite good markers for identifying potentially dangerous drivers beyond actual collisions. For example people who repeatedly use mobile phones at the wheel or are caught speeding. An honhest mistake is more forgivable than willfully putting people in danger. Pewrsonally I think collisions should result in a large income based fine that is given to the victim and not paid for by insurance. We need something in between "insurance sorts it out" and manslaughter.