On BBC1 TV last night there was a Panorama programme on "Drivers who kill". As usual, not a very well produced programme, but a few points did arise which were interesting.
When a spokesman for the SMMT was quizzed about the distractions of (for example) car entertainment systems, and why manufacturers fit them in the first place, his lame excuse was because drivers wanted them. He said that, if drivers wished to use these systems they should stop somewhere, park up, and switch off the engine. What planet does he live on? - can't see that responsible behaviour being commonplace. To me, it seemed that the programme did indicate that a car was generally regarded as a playtime toy, with the serious matter of driving responsibly and in a considerate and safe manner consigned to a level of minimal importance. And this attitude seems to extend from manufacturer to end user (the driver).
Quite rightly, the courts came under fire for idiotic leniency - such as drivers killing someone receiving punishment that was woefully lower than street litter or a dog-fouling offence.
It is clear that some drivers (if they could be called such) should be taken off the roads permanently. If the courts will not address that problem, why don't the insurance industry organise themselves to generate a black-list of people who should be permanently refused vehicle insurance?
I'm no saint, but I do like to think that I always drive in a manner that is courteous, safe, and within the boundaries of the law. All I ask is that I am able to share the roads with similarly-minded drivers - and, if necessary, this environment brought about by Draconian measures.
When a spokesman for the SMMT was quizzed about the distractions of (for example) car entertainment systems, and why manufacturers fit them in the first place, his lame excuse was because drivers wanted them. He said that, if drivers wished to use these systems they should stop somewhere, park up, and switch off the engine. What planet does he live on? - can't see that responsible behaviour being commonplace. To me, it seemed that the programme did indicate that a car was generally regarded as a playtime toy, with the serious matter of driving responsibly and in a considerate and safe manner consigned to a level of minimal importance. And this attitude seems to extend from manufacturer to end user (the driver).
Quite rightly, the courts came under fire for idiotic leniency - such as drivers killing someone receiving punishment that was woefully lower than street litter or a dog-fouling offence.
It is clear that some drivers (if they could be called such) should be taken off the roads permanently. If the courts will not address that problem, why don't the insurance industry organise themselves to generate a black-list of people who should be permanently refused vehicle insurance?
I'm no saint, but I do like to think that I always drive in a manner that is courteous, safe, and within the boundaries of the law. All I ask is that I am able to share the roads with similarly-minded drivers - and, if necessary, this environment brought about by Draconian measures.