Not just people on their phones - bit busier on the road today and no end of people driving chatting away to their passenger with little attention to the road, the guy behind me was spending more attention fiddling with their vape, which was starting to annoy me, and nearly went into the back of me twice when the traffic stopped and still continued to pay little attention to the road.
using your phone while driving ( shocking content )
- Thread starter teenwolf
- Start date
The law doesn't yet make any provision for these assistance systems though. If anything, at present if you were to be involved in an incident while they were active it'd potentially be used as evidence against you.
Automation in itself is such a dangerous thing - how many planes have crashed due to the computers lulling the pilots into a situation they shouldn’t have been in? - quite a few - and what you say about not needing to be 100% alert all of the time is in itself worrying, whilst these systems are good, they aren’t infallible by any means and I wonder and indeed worry what will happen when the attitude that the system(s) will protect me so I don’t need to be alert becomes the perceived norm.
As computer users, we of all people know the potential for bugs and glitches, unfortunately though we’re increasingly going to be relying on those very same systems to keep us safe.
Once every vehicle is autonomous, then perhaps, but whilst the mix is a small percentage of tech loaded semi self driven EV’s mixing it with cars driven by drivers of the human rather than software variety then the potential for mishaps is I’d say on the increase .
Not that automation was the issue in this dreadful crash, although I do wonder if the truck involved had automatic braking and if the driver had turned it off as many do due to its many false activations….
How long would you like to see him in jail for and what do you think a longer sentence would achieve?
For killing and injuring that many through a deliberate action? Until he dies.
1, it acts as a stronger deterrent to others that may do the same.
2, it means the public are never at risk from such a dangerous individual.
3, for the deprivation of the lives of others, he loses his without the state being culpable in his death and therefore there being the option of release in the event of a miscarriage of justice.
Yep - there are far from perfect, but still better (safer) than the majority of humans driving around in most circumstances.
I’m not sure a life sentence, but I think individuals like this should never have the chance to get a license again. Think they said he was banned for 14 years, needs to be for life - any attempt to circumvent that then back to the cells.
Definitely don’t agree there.
1. Nobody is going to think “I was going to text and drive because I thought I’d only get 9 years in prison if I killed someone but now that it’s life I won’t do it”.
2. I think it’s pretty clear from the video that he wouldn’t do anything like that ever again, especially if he was given a lifetime ban (which he should have been IMO).
3. That sounds fine in theory but if you gave a life sentence to every person who killed or injured anyone through a deliberate action you’d be stuck in a constant cycle of building prisons, with the associated costs. I’d personally have absolutely no desire to pay for that through my taxes.
1, he wasn't given a 9 year sentence for killing someone. He was given about 2 years per death. 2.
2, what, because people never reoffend? It's proven shorter sentences do not reduce recidivism.
3, you wouldn't keep building prisons if the message sunk in that crime will result in a significant sentence, it acts as an actual deterrent.
What’s that got to do with an EV ? Any equivalent modern cars have that technology
The post I quoted mentioned a Tesla M3
Yeah a dangerous car with that silly touchscreen. Car.
1. Personally have absolutely no problem with that, don't see how keeping him in for longer would make any difference.
2. Do you really think there's any chance of recidivism in this case or indeed any case when a previously functional member of society does something stupid behind the wheel resulting in death?
3. You would, because even in countries with the strictest laws, people still make huge errors of judgement or just don't think they'll get caught. You want to give a life sentence to "every person who kills or injures anyone through a deliberate action" which includes speeding, running red lights, etc which happens to a greater or lesser degree literally everywhere. You'd also have to vastly increase the penalty for mistakes such as failing to look properly when pulling out of a junction and killing someone to bring them in line with your proposal, further increasing inmate numbers.
Look at states in the US with the death penalty or indeed idiot Europeans who try to smuggle drugs into / out of countries where death is preferable to entering the prison system. Despite the consequences being much more severe than in the UK, people still get do it.
They still do it because of risk vs reward, drug smuggling is very lucrative, especially for people who otherwise wouldn't stand a chance of a decent life. The States is a slightly different one, unfortunately there's a lot of people in that country who are on long prison terms or death row that we would class as being mentally retarded or ill in the UK. Again though a lot of them end up there because of gang-life which generally goes back to the drugs route. It's a risk for them to have a decent chance at life because they'd have nothing otherwise.
The risk vs reward in this case is very different.
A prime example are those ***Lets use proper terminology please*** who take over London every year and do whatever they want when it comes to driving because they know the fines will be paltry to them. Paying a £100 parking fine is literally nothing to them. They know speeding tickets will never make it to them and half of them have diplomatic immunity so will never be in front of a judge. Other people commit low level crimes in this country because they simply don't think they'll get caught. They don't care about the consequences or so entitled they think they're beyond them. Just look on here as an example of how many people run illegal plates on their cars. They do it because they know the risk vs (perceived) reward is minimal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Insane and complete disregard for life as soon as he started using his phone.
My phone sits in its holder while driving and is just for directions and music while driving, both of which are loaded before I start. No matter who is calling I don't pick up even if I can talk on speakerphone and that's me in a Jazz. Imagine using the internet in a fully laden HGV.
My phone sits in its holder while driving and is just for directions and music while driving, both of which are loaded before I start. No matter who is calling I don't pick up even if I can talk on speakerphone and that's me in a Jazz. Imagine using the internet in a fully laden HGV.
I really want to tear this comment to shreds but it is unfortunately human nature to let attention drift when there is less requirement to be in control.
I remember reading Ford's Raj Nair's comments on skipping level 3 autonomy for that very reason citing that even their test engineers, who were specifically tasked with being aware of the vehicles actions, attention levels dropping off despite all the warning buzzers and vibrations etc. they fitted to their test cars. They've obviously back tracked on that decision to keep in line with the rest of the market but it is a huge worry.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 May 2008
- Posts
- 4,048
- Location
- North Wales
I think harsher and harsher sentences as a deterrent has been pretty thoroughly debunked over the years, look at America they have really harsh sentences and some of the highest prison populations per capita in the world, it clearly isn't being a deterrent over there.
The problem with law and punishment is it's often counter intuitive what's actually the best for society at large and the individuals, most stuff shows rehabilitation, phycological work to breed empathy for the victims etc and softer sentences work way better for most crimes. But it's seen as being 'soft' politically and goes against our gut reaction to something bad happening but that doesn't make our gut reaction right.
Extra systems to improve safety can only be a good thing. People make mistakes, or do stupid things when driving and that can never be changed. Having a backup safety system to prevent bad stuff from happening should be encouraged.
Likely these 3 people, and many others would still be alive if that truck & more vehicles had these accident prevention systems.
Last edited:
Conversely the opposite has also been proven. Short sentences do not work. They do not reduce reoffending.
The advantage with a long sentence is that person cannot cause harm whilst they're locked away.