> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
> news:17ea22e1-80a2-4bf0-8be6-381a88d6afcc@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Sep, 07:31, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:

>> JNugent noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like
>> they were saying:
>>

>>>> Frightful! Why can't something be done about all these potential
>>>> killers?

>>> SMS-texting is the work of the devil in any case. So why not just
>>> ban it altogether and force phone service providers to withdraw it?

>>
>> Well, quite.
>>
>> It's been confirmed this morning that this was indeed due to the
>> train driver sending a text message whilst he tonked through a red
>> signal.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7618503.stm
>>
>> Duhg? Your thoughts? Is it all the fault of the passengers for being
>> so frivolously hypermobile?

>
> Now if I had have posted that source I would be accused of it not
> being related to UK but of course the privileged motorists who
> dominate this transport newsgroup can do as they please.
>
> Of course, ANY driver who uses a mobile while supposedly in control of
> a motorised vehicle, while putting other people at serious risk,
> should be banned from driving for life.
>
> -----
>
> Aha! And there we have it, at last. Doug and the real world miss by a
> mile again. Let's add the word "proportionality" to the list of words
> Doug doesn't understand. There is such a thing as graded punishments
> for different offences. Murderers get more than litter-droppers, for
> good reasons. If we start the penalites at a life ban for texting,
> that kind of skews the system somewhat. Remember, as I have said,
> sending a text wile driving, although dumb and dangerous, is not the
> same as mowing someone down. If someone does have an accident while
> texting, the penalties get higher, obviously.