dilligaf Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 If young people drive foolishly and little or no thought given to the consequences of their actions, could I put forward a suggestion that may have an affect on people in the future? I'd like to put forward for discussion; that before people apply for their provisional licences, that they have to undertake a safety awareness course that demonstrates the dangers as like the Fire Brigade used to do. Consideration of their age might be a factor, but it's just the basic idea I'm initially suggesting and to see whether people think this is reasonable or not? Thank you > ...that they have to undertake a safety awareness course that demonstrates the dangers as like the Fire Brigade used to do. The Fire Brigade may not be best placed to lecture on safety... 758.png 5222309764_37b1bd688a_o.jpg Tragic circumstances regarding the loss of life; but I don't think there's anything to be gained by increasing the custodial sentence. It may be a smart move to advocate a life term if he repeats the same behaviour once released. TBT. I've said it before and I'll say it again.......... you are a dickhead. What a stupid, stupid thing to post ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 If young people drive foolishly and little or no thought given to the consequences of their actions, could I put forward a suggestion that may have an affect on people in the future? I'd like to put forward for discussion; that before people apply for their provisional licences, that they have to undertake a safety awareness course that demonstrates the dangers as like the Fire Brigade used to do. Consideration of their age might be a factor, but it's just the basic idea I'm initially suggesting and to see whether people think this is reasonable or not? Thank you > ...that they have to undertake a safety awareness course that demonstrates the dangers as like the Fire Brigade used to do. The Fire Brigade may not be best placed to lecture on safety... 758.png 5222309764_37b1bd688a_o.jpg Tragic circumstances regarding the loss of life; but I don't think there's anything to be gained by increasing the custodial sentence. It may be a smart move to advocate a life term if he repeats the same behaviour once released. TBT. I've said it before and I'll say it again.......... you are a dickhead. What a stupid, stupid thing to post ! Diligaf! Are you referring to my post? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) Wankleaks - I mentioned the fire brigade as I knew they used to do it and have zero contacts, friends or family that I know of within that department. So if it pleases you, then forget them, but I do not know of anyone else who talks about this prior to gaining their provisional licence, DO YOU and if you did know, why didn't you say so? As you seem against it - I gather that you do not want people to learn about the dangers of driving, of the risks, of the fatalities? Maybe I misconstrued what you're saying and therefore ask if you feel that this is something that should or should not be done. I feel it's important that some type of safety message is put out there. Anyone disagree? Edited November 27, 2014 by manxy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ta laue y jouyl ayn Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I've not seen anything that confirms that the so called celebrity photo of the young driver was taken 1 hour before he was sentenced, which I strongly doubt, other than the girls mother saying it was. I can understand the angry she and her family feels but I very much doubt that she has any real idea what the driver is thinking about or how he feels. Unfortunately young drivers think they are invincible, the same as we did when we were young the difference being cars now days are much quicker and can lead to trouble very easily. Those that believe Jurby is some sort of holiday camp, trust me it's not. I was there earlier on this year in the line of business and I and the people I was with couldn't wait to leave as the atmosphere was very depressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 If young people drive foolishly and little or no thought given to the consequences of their actions, could I put forward a suggestion that may have an affect on people in the future? I'd like to put forward for discussion; that before people apply for their provisional licences, that they have to undertake a safety awareness course that demonstrates the dangers as like the Fire Brigade used to do. Consideration of their age might be a factor, but it's just the basic idea I'm initially suggesting and to see whether people think this is reasonable or not? Thank you > ...that they have to undertake a safety awareness course that demonstrates the dangers as like the Fire Brigade used to do. The Fire Brigade may not be best placed to lecture on safety... 758.png 5222309764_37b1bd688a_o.jpg Tragic circumstances regarding the loss of life; but I don't think there's anything to be gained by increasing the custodial sentence. It may be a smart move to advocate a life term if he repeats the same behaviour once released. TBT. I've said it before and I'll say it again.......... you are a dickhead. What a stupid, stupid thing to post ! Diligaf! Are you referring to my post? No. Not at all. It was aimed at TBT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 i suspect if he had his time over again after the accident he would put his hands up in a very humble and remorseful manner. There was over eight months between causing her death and the court sentencing to show some humility and remorse He didn't. as the saying goes, you can't unring a bell. once he'd played his cards that was it. any attempt to change his attitude would have been seen as a deceipt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So showing remorse for causing a death would have been deceitful of him? He must be some character. At least his sister seems to have recognised the enormity of his actions and one of the ones in that photo apologised to the dead girls mother about it. If the photo had no relevance to the court case then why would they apologise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wankleaks Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I've not seen anything that confirms that the so called celebrity photo of the young driver was taken 1 hour before he was sentenced, which I strongly doubt, other than the girls mother saying it was. I can understand the angry she and her family feels but I very much doubt that she has any real idea what the driver is thinking about or how he feels. Unfortunately young drivers think they are invincible, the same as we did when we were young the difference being cars now days are much quicker and can lead to trouble very easily. Those that believe Jurby is some sort of holiday camp, trust me it's not. I was there earlier on this year in the line of business and I and the people I was with couldn't wait to leave as the atmosphere was very depressing. Unfortunately even as young drivers few of us took the wheel uninsured, without a valid license, and completely unsupervised so we are sure many don't actually relate to the sense of invincibility you claim comes with that. Neither would many of us, faced with such enormous proceedings against us, post inappropriate pictures on Facebook that might be interpreted (intentional or otherwise) as us taking the situation we were in lightly. The issue of dignity has been mentioned by the mother on Facebook, and by other posters here. Maybe this current generation has no idea how to conduct themselves with dignity, or decorum, or exhibit any degree of anything that might project to others the signs of remorse. We are in a 'me' culture where everything is focused on 'me' and my stupid worthless life as projected my 'me' and read by everyone else on social media. In that case a long sentence may just focus some people on what really is important in life. It won't be a picnic, but so what? Three years is not an eternity, which was the other sentence passed out on that day. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 no insurance didn't contribute to the crash, no licence didn't contribute directly if he actually knew how to drive a vehicle. all a licence proves is you passed a test to drive around in a legal manner, having a licence doesn't stop you driving like a knob and showing off. you can pass your test, get banned for drink driving ten years later and have your licence taken away but you still have the knowledge of how to drive. even if he actually had a suitable licence and insurance it wouldn't magically prevent the vehicle from crashing in the manner/circumstances it was being driven in! the real issues are speed, over loaded/too much weight in the vehicle, and driving beyond his skills and road layout / conditions. then you have the agravating factor of the attitude after the accident and the run round the police were given, possibly not all his idea as the car owner would have been having a few kittens himself. the kid fucked up with his input into a tragic accident but sadly continued to fuck up afterwards with his attitude when he ought to have been apologising, seeking forgiveness and throwing himself at the mercy of all those affected instead of being a bolshy toss pot !!. i suspect if he had his time over again after the accident he would put his hands up in a very humble and remorseful manner. Driving without a license or insurance shows contempt for the law, and for yourself, your passengers, and potential bystanders caught up in your criminal recklessness. This was not an accident. It is only an accident in the strictly technical sense that he only intended to break the law without hurting anyone, rather than killing someone. It was an accident only in the sense that it wasn't murder. Nevertheless he intended, and did, break the law in a very serious way. As a result of his lawbreaking, which was there to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving because, by definition, they have not demonstrated competence, someone died. To call that an accident is a mangling of the word beyond all recognition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 So showing remorse for causing a death would have been deceitful of him? He must be some character. At least his sister seems to have recognised the enormity of his actions and one of the ones in that photo apologised to the dead girls mother about it. If the photo had no relevance to the court case then why would they apologise? I have to disagree on that point TOG and I know you'll do the same to my post. I have little factual knowledge to go on about his character and the only people who can truly say as to what he's like is his close friends, personal contacts from other people and his family. Anyone else (that includes the dead girls mother) can only rely on hearsay or brief snippets of information or from any personal experience talking to him. Has she met him before? Would it seem right for him to approach the dead girls mother and say sorry? I don't know personally although it might have helped her deal with her grief but then again, it might also have done the exact opposite? I'm not qualified to answer that one and for all I know, he might have been warned off by his advocate? (Does anyone know if his advocate warned him off? I don't know and ask because its relevant to this post as I feel its unfair to guess) I don't mind people talking facts, but as MF has become more and more like a kangaroo court with this subject. people should at least see/hear or write what is actually factual and bear in mind that everything is raw, emotional and some comments on here might not be truthful or even misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 no insurance didn't contribute to the crash, no licence didn't contribute directly if he actually knew how to drive a vehicle. all a licence proves is you passed a test to drive around in a legal manner, having a licence doesn't stop you driving like a knob and showing off. you can pass your test, get banned for drink driving ten years later and have your licence taken away but you still have the knowledge of how to drive. even if he actually had a suitable licence and insurance it wouldn't magically prevent the vehicle from crashing in the manner/circumstances it was being driven in! the real issues are speed, over loaded/too much weight in the vehicle, and driving beyond his skills and road layout / conditions. then you have the agravating factor of the attitude after the accident and the run round the police were given, possibly not all his idea as the car owner would have been having a few kittens himself. the kid fucked up with his input into a tragic accident but sadly continued to fuck up afterwards with his attitude when he ought to have been apologising, seeking forgiveness and throwing himself at the mercy of all those affected instead of being a bolshy toss pot !!. i suspect if he had his time over again after the accident he would put his hands up in a very humble and remorseful manner. Driving without a license or insurance shows contempt for the law, and for yourself, your passengers, and potential bystanders caught up in your criminal recklessness. This was not an accident. It is only an accident in the strictly technical sense that he only intended to break the law without hurting anyone, rather than killing someone. It was an accident only in the sense that it wasn't murder. Nevertheless he intended, and did, break the law in a very serious way. As a result of his lawbreaking, which was there to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving because, by definition, they have not demonstrated competence, someone died. To call that an accident is a mangling of the word beyond all recognition. well i'm quite confident he didn't intend to deliberately crash, and didn't intend to kill anyone so its an accident. i agree he shouldn't have been there, and if he wasn't then he wouldn't have crashed the car. but even the proper driver with a car overloaded and chasing motorway speed limits has a fair chance of fucking up along the switchback. my point is that the paperwork i.e.insurance and licence had zero physical effect on the crash. if he hadn't crashed we'd never have heard about it and wouldn't be having this conversation. if he actually had a licence and insurance the crash was still a good ( not good as in good but real odds of ) possibillty. as a point. joey dunlop didn't hold a licence to drive a motorbike on the public highway, would you have said before he was killed he couldn't ride a motorbike???? i realise he eventually crashed and killed himself after many years of racing on the edge, but no licence doesn't mean you can't ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) Driving without a license or insurance shows contempt for the law, and for yourself, your passengers, and potential bystanders caught up in your criminal recklessness. This was not an accident. It is only an accident in the strictly technical sense that he only intended to break the law without hurting anyone, rather than killing someone. It was an accident only in the sense that it wasn't murder. Nevertheless he intended, and did, break the law in a very serious way. As a result of his lawbreaking, which was there to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving because, by definition, they have not demonstrated competence, someone died. To call that an accident is a mangling of the word beyond all recognition. well i'm quite confident he didn't intend to deliberately crash, and didn't intend to kill anyone so its an accident. i agree he shouldn't have been there, and if he wasn't then he wouldn't have crashed the car. but even the proper driver with a car overloaded and chasing motorway speed limits has a fair chance of fucking up along the switchback. my point is that the paperwork i.e.insurance and licence had zero physical effect on the crash. if he hadn't crashed we'd never have heard about it and wouldn't be having this conversation. if he actually had a licence and insurance the crash was still a good ( not good as in good but real odds of ) possibillty. as a point. joey dunlop didn't hold a licence to drive a motorbike on the public highway, would you have said before he was killed he couldn't ride a motorbike???? i realise he eventually crashed and killed himself after many years of racing on the edge, but no licence doesn't mean you can't ride. Of course being licensed to drive and being a good driver arent the same thing. But it's not like there is no correlation between the two - if there wasn't, it wouldn't be a legal requirement, obviously. But my point wasn't about that - my point was that he deliberately broke the law. Your example of Joey Dunlop doesn't work here, because he was never breaking the law - he was legal to race even if he wasn't legal to ride on a public highway. To say someone deliberately broke the law, and what happened next was only an accident is to me a gross misrepresentation of what went on. He was criminally reckless. That is not an accident. An accident is reversing in to a bollard. Edited November 28, 2014 by Ceaseless Change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) no insurance didn't contribute to the crash, no licence didn't contribute directly if he actually knew how to drive a vehicle. all a licence proves is you passed a test to drive around in a legal manner, having a licence doesn't stop you driving like a knob and showing off. you can pass your test, get banned for drink driving ten years later and have your licence taken away but you still have the knowledge of how to drive. even if he actually had a suitable licence and insurance it wouldn't magically prevent the vehicle from crashing in the manner/circumstances it was being driven in! the real issues are speed, over loaded/too much weight in the vehicle, and driving beyond his skills and road layout / conditions. then you have the agravating factor of the attitude after the accident and the run round the police were given, possibly not all his idea as the car owner would have been having a few kittens himself. the kid fucked up with his input into a tragic accident but sadly continued to fuck up afterwards with his attitude when he ought to have been apologising, seeking forgiveness and throwing himself at the mercy of all those affected instead of being a bolshy toss pot !!. i suspect if he had his time over again after the accident he would put his hands up in a very humble and remorseful manner. Driving without a license or insurance shows contempt for the law, and for yourself, your passengers, and potential bystanders caught up in your criminal recklessness. This was not an accident. It is only an accident in the strictly technical sense that he only intended to break the law without hurting anyone, rather than killing someone. It was an accident only in the sense that it wasn't murder. Nevertheless he intended, and did, break the law in a very serious way. As a result of his lawbreaking, which was there to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving because, by definition, they have not demonstrated competence, someone died. To call that an accident is a mangling of the word beyond all recognition. well i'm quite confident he didn't intend to deliberately crash, and didn't intend to kill anyone so its an accident. i agree he shouldn't have been there, and if he wasn't then he wouldn't have crashed the car. but even the proper driver with a car overloaded and chasing motorway speed limits has a fair chance of fucking up along the switchback. my point is that the paperwork i.e.insurance and licence had zero physical effect on the crash. if he hadn't crashed we'd never have heard about it and wouldn't be having this conversation. if he actually had a licence and insurance the crash was still a good ( not good as in good but real odds of ) possibillty. as a point. joey dunlop didn't hold a licence to drive a motorbike on the public highway, would you have said before he was killed he couldn't ride a motorbike???? i realise he eventually crashed and killed himself after many years of racing on the edge, but no licence doesn't mean you can't ride. Not actually being qualified, or indeed not being skilled or proficient enough to have passed a basic driving test is something completely separate to not having a current license or insurance. What an idiotic statement. I don't hold a bike license, neither have i ever passed my bike test. I would imagine my pillion passenger would be a bit fucked if I fancied a quick blast round the TT course. Edited November 28, 2014 by oldmanxfella Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wann Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 as a point. joey dunlop didn't hold a licence to drive a motorbike on the public highway, would you have said before he was killed he couldn't ride a motorbike???? i realise he eventually crashed and killed himself after many years of racing on the edge, but no licence doesn't mean you can't ride. That's a total irrelevance wtf and you know it. Jeez, trying to compare one of the greatest and most experienced motorcycle road racers with a showoff (and lots of other words) teenage kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 My point is that paper doesn't affect how people actually drive. The same lad could have driven at 30 and not crashed with no licence and insurance, and he could have had a full licence and insurance and drove at 60+ and crashed. Someone explain how 2 bits of paper actually physically stops you driving like a knob and crashing?? I don't think it does. And many people have proved it for me. I agree again he shouldn't have been driving . As a result of his choice to drive sadly a young person died, but the same choice could also have had zero consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.