“In my judgement, there is no true remorse here and no real insight. You are, and remain, a danger to cyclists.”
Vorpal wrote:I like that he received a ban and extended retest. It seems that drivers who kill cyclists often aren't given a requirement for extended retest.
thirdcrank wrote:Vorpal wrote:I like that he received a ban and extended retest. It seems that drivers who kill cyclists often aren't given a requirement for extended retest.
I don't know what's involved in that sort of test, but the problem here isn't one about technical competence but aptitude. Somebody who has been driving all their life may slip into bad habits and probably passed - as I did - under a much less stringent system than applies today, but most people could disguise a short fuse to get their licence back. It would be better if driving licence applicants were tested for psychological suitability. In the meantime, successful completion of some form of anger management course might be a good idea for people like the defendant in this case.
Vorpal wrote:thirdcrank wrote:Vorpal wrote: ...
Yes, that true. But my point was merely that many people who receive bans, even after killing a vulnerable road user, are X required to undergo an extended test.
Is there a "not" missing somewhere there? eg where I've put the red XIs it even possible, within current sentencing guidelines to either ban someone for life following an accident like this, or require psychological assessment before retraining or retesting?]
thirdcrank wrote:PS Only use the word "accident" with circumspection.
ANTONISH wrote:I have no sympathy for this character - and there are too many like him.
However in these circumstances I think it's best to "single up".
As this incident shows, making a motorist angry ( and there are many on a short fuse) can have dire consequences for other cyclists he may encounter.
In France you are only allowed to cycle two abreast if you are not hindering other road users.
Users browsing this forum: The fat commuter and 5 guests