> Graculus wrote:

>> "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.

>
> In DougWorld there is only one punishment, reagardless of the offence.
> Death.
>
>