Where is George getting his information from?

What I see is that driving has become cheaper over the past three decades, while other forms of transport have become more expensive.

Oil at near $100 a barrel, the fuel duty escalator alone has added 25p to a litre of petrol, car tax has risen at the higher emissions end of the spectrum….where is this \”driving has got cheaper\” then?

There is precious little enforcement of either the speed limit

Missed all those speed cameras have we?

When someone is killed or injured as a result of careless driving, the penalties are tiny, if there is any punishment at all.

Err, yes, because careless driving causing injury or death is an accident, albeit an accident with some contribution from the actions of the driver. You know, this mens rea thing, what is intended? If you mean to kill someone with a car then you\’ve murdered them. If you kill someone while changing radio station then yes, you should have been paying more attention but you didn\’t actually mean to kill them: thus the much lower punishment, if any.

Blimey.

11 thoughts on “Where is George getting his information from?”

  1. In recent years a new offence of “Causing death by careless driving” has been introduced, with a maximum two-year gaol sentence. This has the potential to lead to people being banged up purely for making a mistake. But, of course, in Monbiot-world, mistakes are deliberate, aren’t they?

  2. Lack of care can still be grounds for a criminal charge, even of murder. All it takes is circumstances…

    But don’t argue the law with him, ask him his evidence, you know, the maiming and killing bastards driving away from the courthouse after receiving their tiny penalties, blood barely dry on their bumpers, free to kill and maim again. He’s making it up.

    Now if they have too many bedrooms, different story.

  3. Somewhere in all this warring and blaming over deaths and injuries is the simple truth that every single road-user, without exception and regardless of the manner in which they use the road, implicitly accepts that the activity is not risk-free.

    In fact it’s very much lower-risk in the UK than in almost any other country. And kills 14 fewer people daily than hospital-acquired infections.

  4. For Moonbat, cars are nasty, polluting, resource-intensive killing machines for individualists, and they have no place in his green, collectivist social model…

  5. But it is cheaper to drive. I live in Derbyshire but work in Swindon during the week. If I am to be in the office before 09h00 on Monday morning I would have to leave the evening before and change trains 4 times before reaching my destination some 11 hours later. The return journey leaving at just after 2pm gets me home around 7pm. The cost would be £80 standard return.

    By car – 2 1/2 hours there, 3 hours back and cost of a full tank of petrol at £65 – sans sharing a railway carriage with a bunch of proles, freezing my bollocks off and suffering the inevitable delays.

  6. Does he live in London? Londoners are spoilt bloody rotten when it comes to public transport and seem to be unable to comprehend that tubes and high frequency buses just don’t work viably elsewhere.

    A rich Londoner complaining that people in other parts of the country depend on the car could not be more Marie Antoinette-ish if their head was under a guillotine while being ridden sinfully by some marquis.

  7. It’s not all Londoners. It’s the sub group of Central London fixated Londoners & suburbanites. Public transport is bearable radially. From problematic to hell working across the grain

  8. Tim,

    You wrote,

    “Err, yes, because careless driving causing injury or death is an accident, albeit an accident with some contribution from the actions of the driver. You know, this mens rea thing, what is intended? If you mean to kill someone with a car then you’ve murdered them. If you kill someone while changing radio station then yes, you should have been paying more attention but you didn’t actually mean to kill them: thus the much lower punishment, if any.”

    All of the driving offences created by the Road Traffic Acts and their predecessors are covered by the legal term ‘strict liability’. It is unnecessary for mens rea to be deemed to be present in order for guilt to be established. The relevant offence is established by assessment both of the driving and of its consequences in light of all the relevant circumstances.

    There are some situations in which the driver’s use of a vehicle can be deemed subject to the need for mens rea, the example you cite in which a car is deliberately driven at a pedestrian and is accordingly being used as a weapon being the prime one, and in consequence of which the driver has been charged with a crime at common law such as assault or attempted murder.

  9. “And kills 14 fewer people daily than hospital-acquired infections.”

    .. and most of those are preventable and that they happen is largely due to negligence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *