Raising the age of criminal responsibility?

[JBP|]

Ok we seem to be going a little off topic here but what the hell, as far as road saftey/ traffic laws go again it's very simple but will never occur.

1.First and most importantly teach children how to cross a road correctly.

2.Reassess speed limits (Some should go up and some should go down also).

3.Build more cycle routes (should be mandatory on any road with a speed limit of 40 m.p.h and above.

4.Raise the speed limit on motorways to 100 m.p.h and at the same time ban caravans from using motorways (maybe introduce a motorway test).

 

[JBP|]

+ I love the fact that you differentiate speeding, which causes more fatalities than guns... Speeding should be punishable by death first offence IMO

I should probably have answered this in my other post, but never mind.

Whilst you will find a high percentage of people will get caught doing 5 - 10 m.p.h over the speed limit i don't think you will find quite that many ready to just nip out and blow someones brains out (allthough sadly such people do exist).

So yes i do differentiate between speeding and illegal gun use.

 

[Tom]

lol Yaruar, thats some poor googling there.

Lets take your first link.

* Approximately 1 in 3 deaths is speed related.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/lie.html

* 7 out of 10 drivers regularly break the speed limit - usually by about 5mph.

Which would suggest that such behaviour is perfectly safe where appropriate

* An average family car travelling at 35mph will need an extra 21 feet (6.4 metres) to stop than one travelling at 30mph.

So what? If the car is travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions, the driver will take into account the increased stopping distance and modify his behaviour to suit.

* If you hit a cyclist or pedestrian at 35mph the force of the impact increases by more than a third than at 30mph.

This is a generalisation that cannot be applied since not all vehicles have the same physical characteristics. I would also point out that impact speeds are generally significantly lower than 35mph.

* Reducing your speed by an average of 1mph will cut accident frequency by 5 per cent.

This is a completely discredited and wholly untrue statement, derived from statistics and nothing more.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/lie.html

* On urban roads 76 per cent of cars will exceed the speed limit if the road is clear.

Which is perfectly normal behaviour and quite appropriate.

* It is not safer to drive faster at night. Casualty rates are double that during daylight hours due to the higher speeds because of less traffic, higher alcohol consumption, tiredness and darkness.

So its more dangerous to drive at night because of the higher speeds, and not because of drunken drivers, tiredness, or poor visibility? Despite those 3 factors, they choose to blame accidents on speed? Thats like suggesting the cause of somebody eating a cyanide pill and dying is because they have hands.


I'm not going to bother with the second or third links as they're not applicable to this country, and I do not know of the studies on which their conclusions are based.

 

[yaruar]

lol Yaruar, thats some poor googling there.

Lets take your first link.

Direct quote form the same page you quote
"Excessive speed 993 11.4%"

And that's just one county in the uk. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all, but most drivers claim "the right speed for the conditions" but in my expeirience most drivers have an over inflated sense of their own ability to drive (i've yet to meet someone who claims to be an average or bad driver) which means i wouldn't trust their judgment.

 

[rynnor]

now i have to ask, why do you care for the welfare of someone who knows full well that what they did is wrong? because i really dont understand it.

Its too late by the time the kids are starting on a potential lifetime of crime - the emphasis should be on tackling the parents - you could sterilise anyone who gets pulled up for a string of offenses - or sterilise parents whose kids get into trouble with the law - better late than never.

Any children born to people under 18 go straight into care - any family that has kids into petty crime - the whole lot into care.

Sounds harsh but the current system just supports generations of failed families to produce more failed families.

 

[yaruar]

Any children born to people under 18 go straight into care - any family that has kids into petty crime - the whole lot into care.

Sounds harsh but the current system just supports generations of failed families to produce more failed families.

Putting people into care is about the worst thing you can do for them.
Less than 1 percent make it to university.
In 2001, only 8 per cent of children in care achieved five or more A*–C grades at GCSE, compared to half of all young people.
Between a quarter and a third of rough sleepers were in care;
oung people who have been in care are two and a half times more likely to be teenage parents;
Around a quarter of adults in prison spent some time in care as children.

I can't remember the exact figures but it costs over £40,000 per year per child in care as well.

 

[JBP|]

Putting people into care is about the worst thing you can do for them.
Less than 1 percent make it to university.
In 2001, only 8 per cent of children in care achieved five or more A*–C grades at GCSE, compared to half of all young people.
Between a quarter and a third of rough sleepers were in care;
oung people who have been in care are two and a half times more likely to be teenage parents;
Around a quarter of adults in prison spent some time in care as children.

I can't remember the exact figures but it costs over £40,000 per year per child in care as well.

Which just goes to show that my system would not only work but would be less of a tax burden too.

Everyone wins.

 

[Overdriven]

Higher it? :S

Anything, lower it by 4 years.

 

[rynnor]

Putting people into care is about the worst thing you can do for them.

Aye - we would have to massively reform care homes - at the moment they just churn out more social problems - still cash can solve these problems and if these changes worked it would cut the spending needed by areas such as the courts/police/social security etc.

The current system seems geared to supporting the continuation of social problems rather than addressing them.

 

[tris-]

Less than 1 percent make it to university.

that doesnt really mean shit. does that 'fact' take into concern that -

a)not everyone wants to goto uni
b)uni is not required to live a full and rich life.

 

[yaruar]

that doesnt really mean shit. does that 'fact' take into concern that -

a)not everyone wants to goto uni
b)uni is not required to live a full and rich life.

It does "mean shit" because it's part of a general trand for ongoing social and educational disadvantage felt by those who have been through the care system. In fact more so than any other section of society people have been through care are the most disenfranchised throughout their subsequent lives.

 

[Tom]

Although yaruar is completely and utterly wrong on matters concerning road safety, he is correct on his views on children in care.

Rather than break families apart we should be looking at measures to keep them together, at almost any cost (save where staying together involves abuse, violence etc). This government's record on supporting families and marriage is woeful.

Personally I think the government should be offering rather large subsidies and tax benefits to any adults willing to take on the responsibility of an orphan child.

Oh and stop sticking 2 fingers up at me yaruar I keep catching it from the corner of my eye, its most disconcerting!

 

[Chilly]

Only taken you about a year to notice his avatar there Tom.

 

[Scouse]

I'm 100% with Tom on the speed thing, totally with Yaruar on the fact that care systems create criminals and don't help solve the problems.

I'm also sorely tempted to go along with the whole draconian "sterilise" them thing. But for the fact it's fucking stupid.

If a court ordered me sterilised I'd kill the first person who tried to put their hands on my jewels. The chavs definately would.

And I think you'd see riots looooong before then - do you really think that the chav world would bend over and take national service up the ass? - The law-abiding amongst us would probably tell the government to go fuck themselves in big enough numbers to make it unenforceable.

The fact is nobody wants to face up to the difficult and complex task of attempting to remove the causes of the problems. Mainly because we hardly understand them.

What we really need is a genetically engineered IQ-related virus that kills thick people. Oh, and people who wear burberry

 

[JBP|]

do you really think that the chav world would bend over and take national service up the ass? - The law-abiding amongst us would probably tell the government to go fuck themselves in big enough numbers to make it unenforceable.

You make it sound like people would have a choice.

In times gone by people who didnt do national service/deserted/dissobeyed orders sometimes met with a bullet that was moving quickly in the opposite direction. That should be enough of an incentive for most people don't you think?

 

[Scouse]

You make it sound like people would have a choice.

In times gone by people who didnt do national service/deserted/dissobeyed orders sometimes met with a bullet that was moving quickly in the opposite direction. That should be enough of an incentive for most people don't you think?

Marvellous. Lets move forward to some sort of Nazi state.

The British people would never wear it and the government would never attempt it. It's totally unrealistic. You'd have rioting in the streets and even if you turn the police into jack-booted enforcers of other people's will you'd find that it'd need the buy-in of nearly all the public to make it work. And you'd never get it.

 

[throdgrain]

that doesnt really mean shit. does that 'fact' take into concern that -

a)not everyone wants to goto uni
b)uni is not required to live a full and rich life.

Precisely. Half the time "uni" as its so quaintly called is just an excuse for kids to avoid doing any work. In my opinion theres far too many people going to university to learn about stuff they will never need, and will never get get them jobs either,certainly not jobs anybody actually needs doing.
It just gives half the people who post on here a great big ladder so they can climb right to the top of the bullshit moral highground and convince themselves they've never been wrong

 

[JBP|]

Edited.

 

[MYstIC G]

What we really need is a genetically engineered IQ-related virus that kills thick people. Oh, and people who wear burberry

I actually prefer 'thick' people, at least most of the time you know where you stand with someone who's too stupid to to be able to lie to you.

 

[Tom]

Think of the average person on the street.

Then remember that 50% of the population are thicker than that person.....

 

[tris-]

Precisely. Half the time "uni" as its so quaintly called is just an excuse for kids to avoid doing any work. In my opinion theres far too many people going to university to learn about stuff they will never need, and will never get get them jobs either,certainly not jobs anybody actually needs doing.
It just gives half the people who post on here a great big ladder so they can climb right to the top of the bullshit moral highground and convince themselves they've never been wrong

he speaketh the truth. most courses these days seem a bag of shite tbh. unless its something along the lines of disaster management, forensics, law, medical etc i cant really see the need to go. granted, getting say a bachelors in english makes it easier to become a manager. but you could of done that in the same time as doing the job anyway in most cases.

 

[Scouse]

he speaketh the truth. most courses these days seem a bag of shite tbh. unless its something along the lines of disaster management, forensics, law, medical etc i cant really see the need to go. granted, getting say a bachelors in english makes it easier to become a manager. but you could of done that in the same time as doing the job anyway in most cases.

Agreed. Degrees are useless nowadays. Labour's target is for FIFTY PERCENT of people to have degrees under their belt - whereas it used to be only the top 5.

The whole point of a degree was that it was too hard for most people to do.

I went back to my old uni (Bradford, believe it or not) this weekend (left the Uni 10 years ago, left the city 3/4 years ago) and in the space of a few short years what was a reasonable technical university has turned into Yorkshire's equivalent of Blackpool. Full of feckless chavs drinking alcopops who aren't capable of holding an intelligent conversation, never mind reading a book.

 

[tris-]

i wouldnt say useless. there is jobs where you NEED a degree or you arnt competent enough to do it.

but journalism? gimme a fucking break

 

[throdgrain]

Yes, my point is it actually reduces the worth of your proper degree.

 

[Tom]

Yes, my point is it actually reduces the worth of your proper degree.

This is true. The newspapers are always announcing record levels of students passing exams at top levels. That may be a sign that exams are easier than the exams their peers sat through; on the other hand it may be a sign that students are being educated to a higher standard.

Whatever the cause, if too many students are scoring highly in exams, its a sure sign that the exams are now too easy. An A grade is meaningless when so many people are getting it.

Anyhow, what good is a degree when people have such poor language skills and can't even add numbers without a calculator?

 

[tris-]

Anyhow, what good is a degree when people have such poor language skills and can't even add numbers without a calculator?

but the fact calculators exist means we dont need to add numbers in our head . i did a level/foundation degree maths just last year. we constantly got told something along the lines of "you dont need to understand why it is, just that its true". but to be fair, she did first teach us how to do complex calculations in our brain and only then to use a calculator when you have an answer.

i told my friend that 5/1.25 = 4 and he doubted me.
true story

and about language skills. it seems you maybe comparing the english language to how it used to be, back when everyone used capital letters and put commas in their correct places. but its a language, it evolves. if we can get away with making short cuts but still have the other person understand, we most likely will do it.

 

[Scouse]

...i did a level/foundation degree maths just last year. we constantly got told something along the lines of "you dont need to understand why it is, just that its true"...

...if we can get away with making short cuts but still have the other person understand, we most likely will do it...

"Standing on the shoulders of giants" or something?




Oh. BTW - I read in New Scientist the other month that someone's found that the (very long-standing) model for plant respiration was flawed and plants produce more CO2 than was previously thought.

So much for not needing to understand the basics eh? Just because you're taught it at school or university definitely doesn't mean that you should just accept it...

 

[TdC]

So much for not needing to understand the basics eh? Just because you're taught it at school or university definitely doesn't mean that you should just accept it...

indeed, but until someone comes up with a better idea you have to accept it.

 

[Trem]

I'm as thick as pig shit me.

I have never been in a childrens home or drove a car over a group of people either.

Go figure.

 

[yaruar]

indeed, but until someone comes up with a better idea you have to accept it.

Ahh, the paradigmatic model for the advancement of contested knowledge within the scientific community. Facinating stuff, and about the only interesting thing i can still remember from university (well i remember other stuff, but it tends to bore people as it's mainly about health and welfare economics)