This is what we need over here.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

JoshM

Guest
I'm not convinced that long sentences prevent offending. It certainly doesn't seem to have worked in America. The problem is that people don't commit crimes based on an assessment of whether the gains outweigh the potential legal consequences, they commit crimes believing they will get away with it. You don't steal a bottle of vodka from Tesco thinking it's worth risking 3 months in prison for this bottle'

That said I do believe that the severity of the crime should be reflected in the sentence, and that driving at over 100mph in a city centre shows a level of disregard toward the safety of others that should be reflected in the sentence. They might not have intended to hit someone but they must have known that if they did hit someone they would kill them and they did it anyway. It's very different to driving at 30mph in a 30 zone and being involved in an accident which results in the death of someone else, and the sentence should reflect that.
 

Globalti

Legendary Member
I really hate the tuning industry, which sells products for amateur drivers to hot up their cars. This means the over-turbod engines that blow off waste pressure loudly on the overrun, the ignition and fuelling mods that cause pops and crackles, loud exhausts, body kits, chipping, lowered springs and all the other stupid stuff. Cars driven on the road ought to be absolutely standard as the manufacturer intended and the hotted up cars confined to race circuits where the drivers can kill only themselves. I thought that MOT testing was supposed to discourage all the carp but now with MOTs after four years it's going to get worse.
 
D

Deleted member 26715

Guest
I really hate the tuning industry, which sells products for amateur drivers to hot up their cars. This means the over-turbod engines that blow off waste pressure loudly on the overrun, the ignition and fuelling mods that cause pops and crackles, loud exhausts, body kits, chipping, lowered springs and all the other stupid stuff. Cars driven on the road ought to be absolutely standard as the manufacturer intended and the hotted up cars confined to race circuits where the drivers can kill only themselves. I thought that MOT testing was supposed to discourage all the carp but now with MOTs after four years it's going to get worse.
There is a lot of brolacs written on this forum but this has got to be one of the biggest, just because it isn't your thing it should be banned, what about horse riding, dogs, archery, c'mon ban everything you don't agree with.
 

Joey Shabadoo

My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
Limit the noise all cars and motorbikes can make. Noise pollution can make life a misery for many people. The EU brought in legislation doing just this but it only applies to new cars at the point of production. Even the dealerships can add on noisemakers quite legally.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
Seriously? This is Drago we're talking about here. 24 hours and he'll have it sorted - you just wait & see.

I'm on the case. War, poverty, religious persecution... all soon to be a thing of the past.
 
D

Deleted member 26715

Guest
[QUOTE 4712414, member: 9609"]what have you got in mind [/QUOTE]Nothing it's not me who wants to ban things, although I do agree that there ought to be an upper limit on exhaust note, but that has nothing to do with performance, often fitting loud exhaust is detrimental to power output. I currently have 2 cars which are road going track cars, or rather I did one was sold last week, which was a 350BHP Nissan Skyline which was capable of passing a 95Db limit at 75% throttle which required for most trackdays. Police traffic officers should carry DB meters & be able to pull over cars that they believe exceed the limit, it should also be part of the MOT.

But I also think it should be illegal to play music so loud in one car that somebody else in another car can't hear their own radio, but again this has nothing to do with banning tuning items or making all cars standard that is a very slippy slope into 1984.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 1258

Guest
We treat death and injury caused by vehicles far to leniently, in this case the sentence is harsh, but we do need to treat this far more seriously.
 
D

Deleted member 26715

Guest
We treat death and injury caused by vehicles far to leniently, in this case the sentence is harsh, but we do need to treat this far more seriously.
I'm not sure that it is too harsh, had they walked through the middle of the city with a loaded rifle & then randomly shot somebody would you have the same feelings? I'm not attacking your POV I'm just trying to explore as I have mixed feelings, although harsh I can see it's justification.
 
D

Deleted member 1258

Guest
I'm not sure that it is too harsh, had they walked through the middle of the city with a loaded rifle & then randomly shot somebody would you have the same feelings? I'm not attacking your POV I'm just trying to explore as I have mixed feelings, although harsh I can see it's justification.

This was not premeditated murder, they did not intend to kill, rather it is a death due to recklessness, it's a death due to them not understanding the possible consequences of their actions. I'm all in favour of tougher punishment when someone's driving has caused death or injury but I think we need to consider intent. There's a difference between someone being reckless and someone deliberately using a vehicle as a weapon.
 
Top Bottom