Category - Bad Drivers

Scumbag Jailed For 130mph Death Crash

This is an old story from 2013. It has had a few hits lately, which makes me wonder if Li is out and checking his reputation.

A reader sent me this link. Martin Li, 22, from Hexham was put away for 8 years for various offences associated with the crash.

Lucy Duggan, 18, was a passenger in the car being driven by Li. He reached speeds of 130mph on bends in a 60mph zone and “floored” the accelerator. She was killed as he lost control on a bend and smashed into another car. Two other passengers in Li’s car, and a mother and daughter in the other car were seriously injured.

He could have been put away for much longer. And he should have been. British Law is a complete ass sometimes.

As an aside – and as I mentioned to the reader who sent me the link – in situations like this you have to wonder at the passengers involved to a certain extent. The reader assures me that Miss Duggan was pleading with Li to slow down. However, in all too many cases everyone in the car is having a whale of a time when prats like Li are busy showing off. It is yet another example in support of restricting the engine sizes these dickheads are allowed to drive, and banning them from carrying passengers.

Google Glass – And So It Begins

This one is appearing in just about every newsfeed imaginable. A woman in California was stopped by police for speeding… Hang on. Let me emphasise Google Glassthat: she was speeding. Breaking the Law by driving too fast.

Anyway, it also appears that she was also driving while wearing a pair of the Google Glass spectacles.

I’ve written about these before. They’re already set to be banned when driving in the UK, although in America the tech media is simply assuming that people will wear them when they’re driving a car and doesn’t seem to have any concerns over this obviously stupid possibility.

As I’ve mentioned before, America is that place where they can’t even agree that texting while you’re driving should be illegal – and that’s in spite of the mounting death toll among young drivers whose genes and upbringing means that they tried it, and lost. Similarly, initial American attempts to ban Google Glass have so far failed – and if they can’t see right at the outset that using them when driving is dangerous, such a law has almost no chance of making it through in future.

The woman involved here, Cecilia Abadie, is clearly a lawbreaker if she was speeding. But this fact seems to have escaped her, and all her supporters on her Google+ page, where she describes herself thus:

Geek, Google Glass Pioneer, Self-Quantifier, Transhumanist, Blogger, Speaker, currently playing with fun new ways to a better self… Passionate about Technology’s Evolution.

In her world, technology is clearly more important than other human beings. Therefore, speeding and watching a computer screen while driving is perfectly acceptable behaviour. But even more frighteningly, she is not alone. One of her supporters says:

I bet that cop was just curious about googleglass  and the ticket was just an excuse to check it out. And these legislators banning the device – have they even tried it? I have used the navigation feature while driving (with no incoming calls or texts of course) and found it much safer than GPS and my smartphone

What an idiot! Another “self-quantifier” who hasn’t got a clue.

Arseing about with anything while you are driving is dangerous. That includes a GPS stuck right in the middle of your field of vision, or one stuck on your face. But her and her supporters appear to be far enough down the evolutionary ladder not to be able to realise this. One jackass is even offering to set up a charity fund to finance her taking it through court (she was stopped primarily for speeding, remember, and I can’t see how Google Glass is going to help her get away with that one).

The real problem is that this is America. And California. And Google is involved. It’s frightening to think that she’ll probably get some judge to agree with her and get a legal precedent set.

Idiot Courts And Mixed Messages To New Drivers

William Houghton, 18, only passed his test 6 months ago, and had only had his Citroen Saxo for two weeks, when he lost control of his car driving at “about 50mph” (his own words) and injured two of his passengers. Both were hospitalised.

Houghton, who admitted driving without due care and attention on June 7, had passed his test six months earlier and had only had the Citroen for two weeks.

Houghton told the court he was very sorry for what he had done, thought he had been driving at about 50mph and put the accident down to inexperience.

Magistrates were suckered right in, and “applied discretion” in awarding him only 5 points, instead of 6, so that he wouldn’t be automatically banned and forced to take his test again. He was fined a total of over £300.

I’m sorry, but it’s a complete joke. There are new drivers out there who really do deserve a break, and yet don’t get one. But for luck, Houghton could have been apologising for killing two passengers. He had played out the new driver accident script to the letter.

Idiot Driver Caught Eating Cereal Behind Wheel

Police in Edinburgh have launched an enquiry after a motorist was caught on camera eating a bowl of cereal while driving through the city centre. He was overtaking cyclists while he was doing it.

The car he’s driving looks like a Corsa, so I guess that puts it down to some sort of genetic problem.

The idiot deserves everything that is coming to him (assuming he gets caught). But it’s also worth pointing out that the video has been plastered all over the internet by the cyclist – called “Raging Bike” – who took it, along with various comments about the speed he was doing. I hope they had a calibrated speed gun in order to make the accusation about him exceeding 30mph (35mph is mooted).

Let’s also hope that the rightful prosecution of one blinkered idiot hasn’t been prejudiced by others.

If you Google “Raging Bike”, you’ll find that the person who crops up is not exactly pro-motorist. In fact, on one site where he is interviewed you get the impression that he is the character portrayed by Sylvester Stallone in the Rambo movies (particularly Rambo I and II) – except on a bike instead of an army truck or assault helicopter.

How To End A Career

This is a very old article.

The Suffolk Free Press reports that a driving instructor, Philip Devereux, was on a lesson with a pupil and the car was involved in a collision with another vehicle. When breathalysed, he was found to be almost twice the legal limit! The incident occurred on 5 October 2013.

He was banned for 12 months, and fined a total of just over £300.

The story doesn’t mention whether or not his ADI badge will be revoked or not (nor does it mention if anyone was injured). But going by the book, it probably will be. What a way to end your career.

Lesson: Don’t Argue With The Police

You’d think that being over the drink drive limit, having no licence, and no insurance would mean that you’d give the police a wide berth if you were driving past them.

Mind you, to get like that in the first place you’d probably have had a certain kind of upbringing – and therefore if you saw your father, for example, as you drove by, and noticed that he had been stopped by the police for some reason, then you might decide to go and poke your nose in and see if you could “help” (even though there is no recorded case of some caveman ever managing to successfully “help” another caveman when he has interfere with police business like this).

And this is what happened to Leon Fitzpatrick from Sunderland. He’d been on the booze the night before and as he was driving to work he saw that his father had been pulled over. Up to this point the police weren’t even aware of his existence. But then he decided to go and poke his nose in, and that was when the officers noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath. Naturally, routine checks then identified the breaches of licence conditions.

His defence lawyer was Anna Haq – a name which I recognise from a story not long ago, but which I haven’t bothered to look up. Her pathetic mitigating comments were:

He would never have been arrested if he had not got out of that vehicle, there was no evidence of bad driving.

Ah, well that’s OK then. He could have then just gone and driven through a school crossing and everything would have been fine.

He was banned for 14 months and fined a total of £215.

Increasing The Minimum Driving Age… Continued

I told you we hadn’t heard the last of this one. It’s going to run, and run… and then run some more. Especially with driving instructors like this opening their mouths.

In spite of almost every organisation welcoming the changes at least in part (though the AA’s spokesman and president is so far removed from reality his views are highly misleading), this driving instructor from Wigan is against it.

But Pat Caulwell, of Gidlow Motoring School, said the recommendations would be punishing the majority of young drivers because of the irresponsible actions of the few.

As I’ve pointed out many times, driving instructors are not usually the sweetest grapes on the bunch, and consequently Mr Caulwell appears incapable of Bunch of grapesunderstanding the concept of risk. Every single driver is a risk. Every single new driver is a bigger risk, and every single young new driver is a huge risk. The accident statistics prove it, and it’s why insurance premiums are higher for young new drivers.

Risk is a probability, not a certainty. If you look at something like a coin toss, where the probability (or risk) of a head or tail is 50:50, then this would equate to a young driver having the same risk of an accident as an experienced one. However, although they only make up 12% of the driving population, they account for 25% of all road deaths and serious accidents – just imagine how many they’d account for if they made up 50% of the driving population! If you compare that to a coin toss, you’re going to be coming up with tails a lot more than heads..

People like Caulwell need to get a grip and face up to the reality that young drivers are a huge risk. Even if the majority manage not to have accidents, they still could. A significant minority do – and since we’re talking about fatalities here, there is much more at stake than a paltry 5 minutes of fame in an obscure rag for someone who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.

One in five young drivers have an accident of some sort within the first six months of passing their test. Carrying three passengers triples the underlying accident risk. With these fact staring you in the face, airtime should not given to people like Caulwell, who clearly haven’t got a clue. And to hell with namby-pamby nonsense like “working shifts” and “looking for a job”. No one should be allowed to endanger someone else’s life just so they can “work shifts”. When I was younger, I went through several periods of not being able to run a car, but I still got to work whenever I needed to.

A licence is a privilege, not a right. A car is a luxury, not a necessity.

Increasing The Minimum Driving Age: Update

The Daily Express is going all Daily Mail with this misinformed scaremongering session. It says:

A mandatory requirement for 120 hours of lessons could leave learner drivers footing a bill for £3,360 of lessons before even taking a test.

Some amateur hack with a calculator must have worked that one out. Shame they didn’t have a clue in the first place.

To start with, the number the hack came up with is based on an hourly lesson rate of £28 – and that’s in spite of someone in the article being quoted as saying average hourly rates are £18 (which would add up to £2,160). If instructors are charging £28 an hour in some areas, that’s what the market will stand, and it has no bearing on the rate charged in depressed areas because people there will not be paying £28.

Secondly, the proposals do not say that the entire 120 hours has to be with a driving instructor. Most learners have access to a car for private practice – many who never actually do any private practice still have access to a car if their parents would insure them. If the system changes, then so will the parents have to.

And finally, it will cost more in order to stop people killing themselves – no matter how that is achieved. Is that really as much of a bad thing as the Express and those it is quoting are making out? These lowlife hacks spend their lives whingeing about road deaths, and then oppose any plan to try and change it with rubbish stories like this one.

Idiotic “Research” Involving Alzheimer’s And Driving

It’s an unfortunate fact that there are many idiots in this world. This story appears to identify another group of them, located in Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, if this story is anything to go by.

These jokers have concluded that people with “mild forms” of Alzheimer’s can still drive safely. That’s in spite of the statement:

Although road test studies have shown a clear decline in average driving ability with increasing severity of dementia.

It’s like saying that jumping off a cliff is safe, because it’s only the bit where you hit the ground that’s dangerous! But they go even further by only making the comparison against other older drivers without Alzheimer’s – and I can’t think of an analogy convoluted enough to describe that.

Alzheimer’s is progressive. And it affects every one who gets it differently. But even in the early stages the possible symptoms are:

  • forget about recent conversations or events
  • repeat themselves
  • become slower at grasping new ideas
  • lose the thread of what is being said
  • sometimes become confused
  • show poor judgement, or find it harder to make decisions
  • lose interest in other people or activities
  • develop a readiness to blame others for taking mislaid items
  • become unwilling to try out new things or adapt to change.

That’s from the Alzheimer’s Society. And it should be pretty clear that someone who is likely to be slow on the uptake, to become confused or show poor judgement, to make bad decisions, and to become crotchety is not really a prime example of good driver material. Alzheimer’s typically goes from these early stages to the last stages over a period of about 10 years, but it can be much quicker for some people. People in the last stages end up requiring total nursing care.

Older drivers whose health or eyesight is already deteriorating for whatever reason are notoriously unreliable at recognising or admitting to the fact. Those with Alzheimer’s will be at least as unreliable – if not more so – at deciding to admit they should give up driving. So it is quite unbelievable that these “researchers” should come out with something like this – something which cannot possibly make the overall situation on the roads any better, since we’re talking about a negative progression. Alzheimer’s never progresses in a positive direction.

Altruism has no place in deciding whether people with such illnesses should retain their driving licences.

As many recent stories have shown, older drivers are totally safe – right up until one of them gets on to the wrong carriageway of a motorway or other major road (how on earth does someone manage that?) And I for one don’t like the idea of playing Russian Roulette every time I go out.

The “research” is irresponsible and misleading.

People with Alzheimer’s deserve care and respect – but not a driving licence.