Vegas1 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I have not said lock them up, I said ban them from driving, as a death has been caused, and by continuing to let a person drive who has killed someone doesn't seem right. I feel that this makes more sense, than risking another person's life. A month's ban whilst facts are established hardly seems much when a person has lost their life. So you want to stop innocent people from driving and continuing to get on with their lives? If anything was that serious they would be remanded in custody. Some people may not want to drive anyway due to being racked with guilt or whatever for something they were not at fault for, it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So you want to stop innocent people from driving and continuing to get on with their lives? If anything was that serious they would be remanded in custody. Some people may not want to drive anyway due to being racked with guilt or whatever for something they were not at fault for, it happens. How do we know who is innocent and guilty, do you want guilty people driving their cars? What can be more serious than a person losing their life? I'm just saying once guilt has been established, a life ban should be imposed. A temporary ban until innocent or guilt has been proved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas1 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 How do we know who is innocent and guilty, do you want guilty people driving their cars? Do you want innocent people being stopped from carrying on with their lives? See, it works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff1johnny Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Do you want innocent people being stopped from carrying on with their lives? See, it works both ways. For a month would make little difference, and yes it works both ways. There's never any easy answers to anything is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas1 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) There isn't, and thankfully you have nothing to do with the judiciary so thankfully people in this country will continue to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. How do you know it would make little difference for a month? Lets say the innocent person banned from driving for a month is a salesman who needs a car for work and to make a living. What happens to him, hmm? The most worrying thing about your idea is with the emphasis on the driver. I think that if the pedestrian lives, they should be locked up until proven innocent, or at the very least put on a tag and not allowed out the house and to cross a road. Seems fair? Edited March 10, 2015 by Vegas1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I agree, but when a fatality occurs until driver is proved innocent the ban should stand. There is times when pedestrians are at fault I have to agree. It is strange though even when drivers have been proved guilty of death by dangerous driving they still only get a 5 year ban. Guilty until proved otherwise.. my job depends on me being able to drive..if someone chucked themselves under my car then why should I potentially lose my income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 What you have said seems like a sensible suggestion. However the problem is two fold. I also think it's worth adding, unless you can see a blue rinse or them hobbling along with a walking stick - is it that easy to spot an old person from a distance?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas1 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Anyway, a point that hasnt been mentioned. It was noted that the driver had "lost his job" over this. At what point did he lose his job? Surely his employer would have stood by him until the court case? Or do First have a policy of "you have been involved in a fatal, collect your P45 on the way out"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Probably put on administrative leave since the crash, then finally sacked on the verdict. If they sacked him sooner, it would leave them open to a court case had he been found innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 How do we know who is innocent and guilty, do you want guilty people driving their cars? What can be more serious than a person losing their life? I'm just saying once guilt has been established, a life ban should be imposed. A temporary ban until innocent or guilt has been proved. I agree. I say penalise everyone involved in any negative situation until they prove themselves innocent. Someone accuses you of robbery?? Prison until innocence is proved. After all you wouldn't want a guilty person walking the streets would you? For too long the plebs have got away with this "innocent until proven guilty mumbo jumbo", bloody King John has a lot to answer for after his actions at Runnymede. Punishment first, trial can wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now