Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!


"Brimstone" wrote in message
In news:gcqq221hqpcle2gcagblt4t7f7vhh1975i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Mark Goodge said:

But, if we accept that the majority of offences committed by cyclists
are, though illegal, mostly trivial in nature, then by inference we
are accepting a distinction between serious and trivial offences. And,
once that distinction has been made, there's no reason not to apply it
back to motorists and accept that they, too, can commit offences which
are, though illegal, mostly trivial in nature. So the 13.5 million
motoring offences in the title of this thread is misleading, because
it includes a vast number of offences in which the offender poses
absolutely no danger at all to anyone else.

Should people be prosecuted for commiting offences where others are merely
inconvenienced rather than hurt physically?


Might as well do away with box junctions and bus lanes as nobody is
endangered if a motor vehicle breaks the law by misusing them, just
inconvenienced. Which would reduce the number of motoring offences
significantly.

Whereas cycling on the pavement is only a trivial offence if the cyclist
doesn't actually hit anyone according to your argument. By that argument,
every offence is trivial if no-one is actually killed or injured by it,
including speeding.

In 2004, 281,000 people were injured on the roads if we include all
severities. That works out at 48 motoring offences per casualty. In terms of
the casualty rate per 100 million kilometres the figure is 442 for cycles
and 72 for cars. Which makes cycles around 6 times as dangerous as cars. So
why concentrate all police efforts on combating offences committed by
motorists and ignore those committed by cyclists?

Ian


.

Quantcast