Educate or prosecute?

[sabian92]

Prosecution is usually a fine and they are back on the road again?

Not always. Could be a ban or if it's bad enough depending on the offence, jail.

 

[Crankarm]

I voted for educate, but I wonder whether both educate and prosecute might not be the right solution?

Can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Prosecute and take his licence away.

 

[BentMikey]

That's so not true. It's a little bit harder for old dogs to learn, but far from impossible. My gran learnt to text at the age of 95-odd and was doing great up until she died at 103.

 

[HLaB]

In a ideal world I'd say re educate but its not an ideal world, so prosecute!

 

[Boris Bajic]

Educate.

As a serial speeder for decades, I went on a ''Speed Awareness" course as an alternative to prosecution.

It taught me little I didn't know, but those things I learned were of value. Also, it contextualised the bigger picture and has caused me to moderate my speed significantly.

Society can keep throwing the book at people. Will it make them better drivers or riders?

I imagine it might just make some people jolly cross and resentful.

Many members of this forum are (rightly) passionate about education being the key area where poor road use might be addressed.

If this is so, why not start with those perceived as the key malefactors?

 

[Pauluk]

I am still of the opinion that 'the elderly' should have to re-sit their test or complete a compuslory driving course at a certain age OR after driving for a certain amount of time. The majority are a nuisance on the road IMHO.

Not only ageist but a lot of motorist say cyclist shouldn't be on the roads as they are a nuisance. Both these opinions are prejudice in my opinion.

 

[doug]

Educate - ideally I'd like the equivalent of a suspended sentence where the fines and points are kept on hold for a period (say a year?) and if the driver has any further incident then they are added back on, otherwise they lapse.

 

[akb]

The majority are a nuisance on the road IMHO

Not only ageist but a lot of motorist say cyclist shouldn't be on the roads as they are a nuisance. Both these opinions are prejudice in my opinion.

The key word here being majority.

 

[gambatte]

Not always. Could be a ban or if it's bad enough depending on the offence, jail.

I don't think we're discussing infractions of a level where jail time is likely to be a possible consequence. I guess I don't have to point out there's plenty of history of people getting killed where jail time hasn't been dished out.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I'd say prosecute. I know maybe slightly different, but I attended a driver awareness course in May after being caught speeding. Whilst I took a lot out of it, there were plenty of other people who couldnt give a toss about what was being said and were there to avoid points.
Prosecution should hopefully be a wake up call.



I am still of the opinion that 'the elderly' should have to re-sit their test or complete a compuslory driving course at a certain age OR after driving for a certain amount of time. The majority are a nuisance on the road IMHO.

I too think it would not be a bad thing to re-test all drivers at 70 and then at fixed intervals thereafter; all at the driver's expense. Where I disagree is with your opinion that the majority of elderly drivers are a nuisance on the road.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'nuisance' but it is clearly not positive. Most of the 'elderly' drivers I know and have known are much safer to cycle near than a lot of the 21-41 drivers I know.

I'm interested, too, by your assessment of the other participants on your awareness course: You say they were there 'to avoid the points'. That rather suggests that you were not. I have yet to meet someone who went on such a course for any reason other than avoiding the points. That's why I went on mine. Not giving a toss is another matter. Some people give off that vibe for any one of a number of reasons. You seem to be saying that the couse worked for you but that others are too selfish, cynical or adrenalin-driven to take any of it in.

If it worked for you, it will work for others. My experience of the course was that whilst the participants doidn't fall at the feet of a statue of Jesus and beg forgiveness, they pretty much all seemed to take the message on board and get the wider point.

Just my thoughts; I may have mis-read your intended meaning.

 

[gambatte]

Let's not forget that quite a few elderly people will have never had to sit a driving test either, which is a little bit frightening.

compulsory tests introduced 1935, 77 years ago. Assuming 16 years old to take it. I reckon at 93 years minimum the number of drivers who've legally never sat a test is a small and rapidly reducing number.

 

[sabian92]

I too think it would not be a bad thing to re-test all drivers at 70 and then at fixed intervals thereafter; all at the driver's expense. Where I disagree is with your opinion that the majority of elderly drivers are a nuisance on the road.

You have to renew your licence at 70 anyway so a driving test should be included surely?

I agree - a lot of them are. 80% of the people who've nearly driven into me have been at least 65.

 

[ohnovino]

IME the worst group for blocking cycle lanes and ASLs are older drivers, presumably because these facilities didn't exist when they took their test and they've never been forced to refresh/update their skills.

Back to the OP, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that driving into someone through your own stupidity can go unpunished. It's like saying that every driver has permission to hit one cyclist; it's only when you go on to claim your next one that you get into in trouble.

 

[Ian Cooper]

Prosecute. He already had education when he took his driving test. If it didn't work the first time, why would anyone think it would work a second time?

 

[BentMikey]

Lots of us on here learn from our peers, and from our cameras too. Why couldn't the driver learn?