Safe Speed Forums

Rigpig why is it you only wish punishment for negligence when it comes to drivers only. What exactly is you sole argument for this. Is it simply because cars are more of a dangerous object?

My grandmother was knocked down hard in a shop about three weeks ago by a negligent shop assistant. She is over 70 years of age and obviously through old age she was quite susceptible to being hurt. She had bruising and a hurt shoulder, which she is slowly recovering from. Now if things had gone differently my grandmother could have come off worse.
Surly this proves that the shop assistant was herself a dangerous object, so therefore should she be facing a similar sentence to that of someone knocking her down by say a vehicle? If so would the shop assistant being punished have learnt to co-ordinated herself better throughout the shop in her remaining time there, I doubt it.

I can only speak for myself but I encounter negligence in my everyday walk of life, not just solely whilst Im driving. I encounter many so called piss-takers and any negligence can be just as deadly as any moving vehicle within reason.

How many people have you or anyone else you’ve seen stumbled into whilst innocently walking around? Granted it’s not as dangerous as a moving vehicle but you could still have caused serious damage to said person.
Should you be punished for your negligence, which is common for any human being in any walk of life?

You know, sometimes I really wonder whether it is worthwhile trying to hold sensible discussions when stuff like this appears.
How do you know I only wish punishment for negligent drivers? Because I didn't include other forms of negligence for discussion? Now, why wouldn't I have done that????...hmmm...
Oh I know <slaps forehead> this is a Road Safety forum.
The point under discussion was the proposal to change the law regarding careless driving, not careless shopkeeping or anything of that ilk.
Sorry, but I would expect any intelligent individual reading this forum to make that connection.

However, I would have thought that under Health and Safety law your gran might have a case to bring against the shop and/or its assistant. Both have responsibilities and could be construed to be at fault, a point I made in another post.

I would have thought Claims'R'Us or whoever would be itching for her business

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Ridiculous, how many different forms of negligence are there?
How can you possibly even attempt to treat it individually based on the one circumstance it is in i.e. the roads.

It seems rather like putting both your hands either side of your face and only viewing one chosen part of the problem.

Merely stating because its a road saftey forum hardly backs up your argument. It obviously has wider ramifications which Id have thought any intelligent person couldn't possibly try and seperate or ignore.

What the bloody hell are you gibbering on about?
OK, next time I want to start a topic, I'll PM you with the gist of it just to make sure I don't exclude anything you happen to think is important. At least that way you can't accuse me of ignoring your personal take on things becuase I'm not psychic.
In fact, I'd better PM the whole forum membership, you never know what direction someone might wish to take a discussion in, and I might be accused of being blinkered because I didn't have the foresight to include it in the first place
Or better still, why not take a leaf out of your own book and use a bit of that stuff you've chosen for you forum name

BTW, if you wish to introduce another 'take' on a subject there are polite ways of doing it e.g.,
Rigpig, how about the similarities between road negligence and other negligence,
Is surely better than...
<Equivalent to poke in chest> Why are you blinkered towards motorists?

Whats with the attitude big man?
Can you not simply not backup what you yourself actually wrote.

Here Ill make it simple for you and limit it to one question.

How many different forms of negligence are there?

If you care to take your time in reading this thread other people have quite clearly pointed out negligence in other circumstances, so I assume it could be you whom may be blabbing. [I would insert a smiley to prove how superior I am but it seems rather childlike.]

Rigpig and Common Sense, take it easy - we're on the same side here.

I can also help to bridge the gap.

Rigpig is dealing with the matter in an intensely practical way. He's not THAT bothered about underlying principles. He's bothered about the effect in the real world.

Common sense, on the other hand thinks that we should design our laws based on sound and consistent matters of princlple.

Seconds out.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Sorry Paul. I just can't understand why I am suddenly accused of being blinkered and singling out motorists for negligence charges simply because I had elected to keep the gist of my argument centred around the proposed amendment to the road traffic act.
I fully accept that there are plenty of other spheres of activity in which people can be culpably negligent, CS is quite right. But I haven't, as he appears to be suggesting, ignored them at all, it just never occured to me to mention them within the context of my discussion.

Which is exactly where I come in.

No offence intended but it just seemed rather silly that you couldn’t/didn’t want to mention them within the context of your discussion. As if the Government amended the road traffic act tomorrow which somehow suddenly made drivers 50% less negligent when they jump into their car as compared to when they go to work in a nuclear power plant (extreme example I know) or quite simply walk about their daily business.

No problem. See how you want to concentrate on the EFFECT on motorists? In your practical way, it's about motoring law.

Common Sense wants to concentrate on general principles that apply to all cases of negligence.

There's nothing wrong with either position - they are just different views.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Different yes, but not in antipathy - at least I dont see they are.

But don't you see, I never purposefully chose to exclude other forms of negligence within my discussion so this wasn't intentional in any way. Sure, others had brushed over the point, but up to the post where you more or less of accused me of ignoring this aspect of the issue, nobody else had directed the suggestion at me personally. It was like having a football discusson about Liverpool and the someone comes charging up asking why we're ignoring Arsenal and Man Utd.

So, in a sensible tone, how would you like to see the subject of negligence addressed across the board. Could we have one overarching law that included all form of negligence and dealt with them accordingly.

.

Well number one, I felt the question needed asking and number two, that quite simply is not even remotely a good example and I do hope you realise that.

Anyway I cannot carry on this discussion, Ive got to get ready for work and I really don't see why you neeed to react in such a way as you did.

I believe it is covered already isn't it, uner "Professional negligence" and "duty of care" when you employ someone. The problem occurs at present when you are injured/aggrieved accidentally by a negligent third party who is neither in business or in charge of a car. If that third party is in business - or in charge of a motor car - s/he is insured and the recourse is from the insurers. It may go to court, but the coverage is ample if the claim upheld.

What about a member of the public who, eg, drops a pot of paint while up a ladder on the gable of his house and it kills the person on whom it falls and splashes into the eyes of six other people, two of whom are sufficiently disoriented to go into the road and precipitate a multiple pile up?

Paul - apologies; we're off topic here. Shall I cut it at the appropriate place and bung the bottom bit into "Driving and the law"?

I think that a lot of the general carelnessness and thoughtlessness which one observes on the roads is symptomatic of a wider malaise in society nowdays.
Have you observed how people behave in supermarkets, for example?
They leave their fully-laden trolleys standing in the middle of the aisle, diagonally to boot, while they go off hunting. Or they will leave it standing alongside another trolley, or anywhere else where it causes maximum inconvenience to everyone else.
Or when entering a public building, such as a shop, theatre, railway station etc - particularly when it's cold and wet outside and everyone's rushing for the entrance - you will always get those who get just through the entrance and stop dead, effectively blocking the entrance for everyone else.
Do we really expect these people to suddenly change and become thoughtful and caring the moment they get behind the steering wheel?

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

<End>

Personally I'd rather it stayed. It seems to me to help underpin the debate, and I don't think we should prevent topic drift, mainly because it often wanders off somewhere interesting.

But you're entitled and empowered to make moderation decisions as you see fit and do not need to refer to me. If you think it needs to be split, then feel free to split it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

If I felt more than 60% sure I would have done so

Democracy rules. It stays.