Should Drivers Be Jailed?

The tragic death of Garry Mason and the arrest of the driver raises serious questions:

Should drivers be jailed for doing what the Government, Society and the community allow them to do for the economy and their expediency?

Perhaps we need to look at this question again but from the perspective of the majority, instead of the shrill anti driver minority, usually from a green agenda, on whose behalf imprisonment is now regularly being meted out to beleaguered drivers.

Perhaps we should have spotted the way things were headed when the word 'accident' was removed from official vocabulary. Is this coincidence? After all, it is a bit harsh to bang someone up who simply made a mistake and had an accident isn't it? Then of course there is the mantra, a la Brunstrom, that road accidents must be treated as a murder scene with all its attendant forensic examination to boot!

But let's look at it this way. What does the Government expect when it allows humans to mingle with large pieces of moving machinery in a way that would offend any elf'n safety rules and be banned if it were a private concern? So it is expedient that, with meagre qualification, any Tom Dick & Harry is let loose with large pieces of metal kit with flesh and blood intermingled.

Now having done that, it allows inexpert but profitable agencies to have a major say on what should and should not happen and thus are accident scenarios set up for us too. For example the DfT and its Partnerships, in ignoring the self evident such as, 'Remove the need to overtake, reduces the attempts to overtake and thus reduces the head on crashes', or 'The more drivers can see the safer they are' actually sets up the accidents and the resulting casualties does it not? A classic example can be found here: ( Our fault if we crash so that's ok then! ) where I argue the self evident that by restricting dual carriageways to 50 MPH means that one can only legally pass an HGV on a two way road with opposing traffic, where the DfT is setting up crashes, but see their  response? 'It's all your fault if you crash'. And on that basis judges are imprisoning people?

Let's start off on the premise that, excluding drunk driving, no-one sets out to crash and kill anyone so we are imprisoning people for an accident where most of the ingredients for it were supplied and endorsed by the authorities in the first place. But how on earth can we send people to prison for an action where on one occasion there is only bent metal and no police interest at all and another, from exactly the same action, but for the tragic coincidence that human flesh got in the way as it is bound to do from time to time?

Any judges out there like to explain this one to us?
Subpages (1): Jail? We write to MPS