mikeG Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 why was he very very lucky? He was lucky that the extinguisher didn't land on someone's head. If it had, he'd be in clink for a darn sight longer. This sentence should act as a deterrent to others but I doubt if it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Maybe he'll chuck himself off a balcony next time. Well spotted! Just my thoughts exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Maybe some of the student leaders who were condoning the violence would like to comment on the fact that the only result of it is the criminalising of some young people and the change to fees going ahead. If you remember though, it wasn't students, it was all the anarchists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 it does, hence the term 'deterrent'. in this case i think they concentrated too much on that aspect and not on, not that it means much, 'justice'. deterrent does not mean going over the top with punishment because that is against every human rights law going. The sentence has to be proportionate to the crime so no the law does not work to make examples of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 Dated 2006, 2002, and 2006 (same research source), so there should be at least 8 years of statistics to prove the research correct. Have mobile phone drivers killed or injured more people that drunk drivers consecutively for the last 8 years? Quite possibly, it is much easier to conceal the fact you were chatting on a mobile than conceal the fact that you were drunk. Plus you missed the fact that in the comparison the drunk drivers were just over the limit: One statistical analysis of the new and previous Utah studies showed cell phone users were 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers. Other studies have shown the risk is about the same as for drivers with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level. "Fortunately, the percentage of drunk drivers at any time is much lower," Drews says. "So it means the risk of talking on a cell phone and driving is probably much higher than driving intoxicated because more people are talking on cell phones while driving than are driving drunk." The main reason there are not more accidents is that "92 percent of drivers are not on a cell phone and are compensating for drivers on cell phones," he adds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 i don't know what he was studying but let's hope whatever it is he wants to do won't judge him by his criminal record. He will be judged by his criminal record when applying for jobs or even a visa to enter America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 He was lucky that the extinguisher didn't land on someone's head. If it had, he'd be in clink for a darn sight longer. This sentence should act as a deterrent to others but I doubt if it will. yes, the sentence should be a deterrent, but in this case it just looks like victimization. too much for too little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 Drivers do not routinely take absurd, reckless and homicidal risks. . Every day I see drivers on mobiles, running red lights, driving on the pavement or speeding. 80% of drivers admit speeding, a fifth of drivers admit using a mobile whilst driving. Lawlessness on the roads is rife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 He will be judged by his criminal record when applying for jobs or even a visa to enter America. he might have never want to go to the states. but you're right, which is why i think they went a little too far. that said, what exactly did they charge him with? what did they convict him with in the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Quite possibly, it is much easier to conceal the fact you were chatting on a mobile than conceal the fact that you were drunk. Plus you missed the fact that in the comparison the drunk drivers were just over the limit: One statistical analysis of the new and previous Utah studies showed cell phone users were 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers. Other studies have shown the risk is about the same as for drivers with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level. "Fortunately, the percentage of drunk drivers at any time is much lower," Drews says. "So it means the risk of talking on a cell phone and driving is probably much higher than driving intoxicated because more people are talking on cell phones while driving than are driving drunk." The main reason there are not more accidents is that "92 percent of drivers are not on a cell phone and are compensating for drivers on cell phones," he adds. If an accident were to occur, the police would check if you were using your mobile phone in the moments prior to the accident (or even much longer before, remember what happened to Lord Ahmed), and if you were marginally over the drink drive limit, that's still a drink drive accident. So where are the statistics to support the claim and indeed the research that mobile phone use whilst driving is more dangerous than drink driving? If it is true, the statistics will show more casualties and deaths caused by drivers using mobile phones than drink drivers. Bare in mind some of this reasearch is 8 years old, there should be 8 years worth of data to support it by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.