Category: Law

law

Categories
Law Life On the Road Politics

Speed camera removal 'significant factor' in road death?

Photo: t0msk (Flickr)

Yes yes, I know this looks like a news post. But it isn’t.

Turns out a coroner has stated that the turning off of a speed camera played a major role in the death of a 19-year-old in Somerset. From the BBC News article:

A Somerset coroner has said the turning off of a speed camera was a significant factor in a fatal car crash.

In a letter to the county council, West Somerset coroner Michael Rose said the death of 19-year-old Billy Davis “in part may have been prevented”.

Mr Davis died on the A370 at East Brent in September 2010 near a camera which had been disabled weeks earlier.

Now, any regulars to this blog will know that I am not all that keen on speed cameras. Maybe some of you are thinking that I may be about to rescind my previous comments and agree that yes, speed cameras can save lives.

But take a look at the paragraph that follows that quote above.

An inquest found Mr Davis had been one-and-a-half times over the drink-drive limit when he died and had been driving at speeds between 60mph to 70mph in a 40mph area.

Right. So what we appear to be claiming now is that speed cameras can detect drunk drivers or that an intoxicated driver will be able to slow down and react safely when he unexpectedly comes across a speed camera.

It is far more likely that a speed camera would have expedited the death of the chap in question. A drunk driver slamming on the breaks would lose control and is more likely crash into the camera than be saved by it.

It’s an increasing problem that no-one in this country seems to want to take responsibility for their own actions. It is really rather worrying however when a coroner of all people seems to think that the blame for an accident lies with the as much with the lack of a speed camera as with a drunk driver going at almost twice the speed limit.

Categories
Law

Discrimination

dis·crim·i·nate

[v. dih-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. dih-skrim-uh-nit] verb, -nat·ed, -nat·ing, adjective

–verb (used without object)
1. 

to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favour of his relatives.

2.

to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

 

So, it appears that insurance companies are no longer allowed to discriminate against people based on their gender.

Interesting idea.

It won’t work, of course. The problem is insurance is an area where you’re allowed to discriminate. That’s the point. You’re working with odds, charging an insurance premium based on the likelihood that you’ll have to pay out. It’s what keeps insurance costs so low for low-risk groups. This is basically going to hurt people less likely to crash whilst helping those more likely to.

This worries me a little. Not because of changing insurance premiums, I haven’t owned a car since last summer. But I’m reminded of a favourite book of mine by Rob Grant called Incompetence, a detective story set in a United States of Europe in which nobody can be “prejudiced from employment for reason of age, race, creed or incompitence”. It’s a story – one of the funniest books I’ve ever read – which I often think of when Europe starts stopping us from discriminating against the people we should be discriminating against.

Discrimination is good, people. Not all discrimination obviously, but most is fine. We’re all different. People claim they want to be treated equally but they don’t really mean it; either that or they haven’t thought it through properly.

Single sex toilets are discriminatory. Disabled parking spots are discriminatory. Film ratings are discriminatory. Ten items or less checkouts at the supermarket are discriminatory (if you try to tell me it’s ‘ten items or fewer’ I’ll stick a spanner up your nose).

You see where I’m going with this.

We have to discriminate, because we’re all different.

The only good that might come out of this is it could spell the end of those horrible Sheila’s Wheels ads.

Categories
Law

Running the Risk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpD06P7kiI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekpD06P7kiIOnce again the police have decided they want to clamp down on lawbreakers without analysing the reason why so many people are taking such risks.

I’m talking of course about the new police monitoring vans which are being set up to catch motorists and pedestrians who are running red lights at level crossings.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I approve of such monitoring – of motorists at least – and I’m not arguing the legality of running reds anywhere, especially at level crossings. Unlike speeding, this law actually makes sense.

The problem is that the police have decided they are going to clamp down on such behaviour without asking one very simple and incredibly important question.

Why?

Why would people risk their lives to get across a level crossing, knowing full well the dangers?

For the first twenty years of my life I lived very close to a level station. I crossed it every day on the way to school. When the lights started flashing, I would make a run for it, along with many other people.

The simple problem is the timing at many level crossings are badly set up. When you get caught waiting for a train at the lights, it can often be five minutes or more before the train goes past. There’s no reason I can see for that; these days the technology exists to know exactly where a train is and where it’s going, and I don’t know why it hasn’t been incorporated into level crossings.

And it’s five minutes if you’re lucky. Often two trains will go past, adding ten or sometimes even fifteen minutes to your journey. And that is if the gates don’t get stuck down.

The best way to stop motorists risking their lives at level crossings is not to ‘inform them of the dangers’ – because that isn’t working. Maybe monitoring the crossings like this will, but I’m sure it’ll only work when the van is there and visible. No, the best way to stop motorists running the risk is to improve the operation at level crossings so they are less of a nuisance for people on the roads.