Hmm. Public versus private blogging...

Well now, isn't this interesting; being so busy tends to interfere with your reading habits from time to time. Here's a case in point...

It's been a couple of months since I looked at a couple of blogs that I marked to be followed on Blogger, and one of them appears to have become private to invited readers only in that space of time. Needless to say, I wasn't invited.

Fair enough, you might say, it's his blog, and he can do with it whatever he wishes. You're absolutely correct, and since I don't actually know the guy personally, not receiving an invitation to read it is not the end of the world. It's irritating, but that's all. It's nothing to get het up over, or scream about from the rooftops (better not do that, they're well slippery this time of year, and the fall's got a real nasty sudden stop at the bottom).

However, this all said, there's a problem. Since it's become a private blog, and I'm not on his white list to read it, I can't reset the administrative feed instruction within my Blogger 'control panel' to unfollow the damn thing. It's a design flaw within Blogger, of course.

So it's sitting there, irritatingly taking up a slot on my 'followed' list, and I can't read whatever he may be writing. It's a shame, really. I'll miss his use of the language, as it was absolutely magnificent: He had a way of being able to capture a moment in time practically poetically, and in such a way as to cause you to empathise with his world view. There aren't many people who can do that, so it's all the more unfortunate that he's restricted access to his blog.

However, think I have a fairly good idea as to why he made his blog private, and it relates to the last entry I was able to read, before he made it private. I won't comment in any detail at all about the subject matter, but I will say that it was unfortunately open to excessive misinterpretation, which for someone with such a good command of the English language was a shame. The upshot though, is that in these Politically Correct (or is that Politically Charged? I think the latter, in this case) times, it only takes one misstep, misspeak, or a poorly-worded publicly-spoken opinion, and the world and it's pet of choice comes along to crush you down to microscopic dust. And I think that's what may have happened here.

So, he's taken what is most likely the most prudent course, that of keeping what he has to say to a rather exclusive audience from that point on. Fair enough, it's his right, and who am I to challenge it, given that it's a right to privacy?

But it does, however, leave that irritating entry on the 'Followed' list that I cannot remove.

And that IS worth running around in ever-decreasing circles and shouting - or in this case writing - about.

Every so often, a nice day comes along!

This will sound like a sponsored advert, but it's not - I'm genuinely enthusiastic about the place I'm about to tell you about!

With that caveat out of the way, onto the meat of today's entry!

Being a late shift bus driver tends to mean that most of my free time is to be had when most sensible people are either at work, or asleep in bed. This kind of puts the kybosh on having a vibrant and active social life, but we have to find a way to pay the bills somehow, after all.

However, once in a blue moon, I actually like to be able to get off my backside and do things, like braving central London to buy certain stuff (in today's case, a new backpack for the Living History hobby I enjoy), or hit a pub with friends, or whatever. Generally, this'll happen when I get a pair of rest days back to back, and get to reset my body clock to daylight hours. I'll then have time to do things while there's a smattering of daylight to be had on the second day.

Such a day was today, and for once, everything seemed to gel together nicely. The buses arrived just after I got to the stops, so no waiting in the cold was suffered; I didn't miss the trains (again, no waiting in the cold was suffered), and the shops had what I wanted - and I also got to do something I've been meaning to do for some time, which was visit a certain style of fast food shop...

Probably the best fast food shop in London!

"Herman Ze German" is a newish fast food business. It's the German equivalent of a fish and chip shop, but instead of fish, it serves up German Sausages and Chips; I was lucky enough to sample this form of Schnelleimbiss (literally, "Fast Snack"), as I was told it's called in Germany, back in 1993, when I was over there for a shooting competition on the Territorial Army's time and expense; I acquired, at a shop in Hamburg, in one marvellous mouthful, a taste for Brockwurst (yes, that's the spelling I used - apparently there are arguments over whether it's spelled "Brockwurst" or "Bockwurst". Go figure!), which is smoked and slightly spiced pork sausage. The closest we come to over here is Cumberland sausage, and really, that isn't even in the same class as a proper Brockwurst.

So, when I learned a couple of years ago, that a Schellimbiss shop had opened up in London, I made a note to visit it the next time I was nearby. Well, it took a while, but it was worth the wait!

There are two Herman Ze German branches at the time of writing this; the first is on Villiers Stret, opposite the eastern stairs exit to Charing Cross railway station, the other, more recent addition to the firm, is their branch on Old Compton Street in Soho.

I visited the Villiers Street shop shop just after the lunch time rush was over, at around 2pm or so; the shop was still doing a regular trade, with people popping in and out while I was there. The staff, two pleasant young ladies, were friendly, professional, and seemed to be genuinely happy in their work - that's a rare and pleasant thing to see in a fast food shop these days!

I'm sorry to say that I didn't take photos of the food, as I was too busy scoffing it down my throat (it almost failed to hit the sides!), but wow, it tasted good; the sausage was the right temperature, consistency and taste. The fries, or "Pommes Frites", were incredibly crisp, and hadn't got a trace of the sliminess that so often curses our own chips that we get from fish 'n' chip shops, and with mustard on the sausage, and mayo on the chips (Europeans tend to put mayo on chips, not salt and vinegar, that's a British perversion!) things could only get better - which they did!

To add to the excellence, the coffee, a 'Plain Flat' (British style white coffee) was absolutely bang on - right colour, temperature and flavour, and with just a hint of the bitterness that all good coffees should have (if you aren't having a snack, at least go for the coffee - it's that good!)

It all combined to bring back some very good memories from days when I was much younger, lighter, and fitter! Needless to say, I'll be calling in there again, the next time I'm near Charing Cross!

Herman Ze German has a web presence at http://www.herman-ze-german.co.uk/, so you can find out more about the menu and the firm; personally, I'd highly recommend a visit - your stomach will thank you!

Burp!

(OK, sorry, but I couldn't resist!)

Justice must be seen to be done, or society as a whole suffers.

Amanda Knox has been hitting the headlines of late for the murder of Meredith Kercher, since her conviction for murder was reinstated in an Italian court, after a retrial in which the evidence was closely reviewed.

Just like the most courts in the western world, this was a transparent, fair, and unbiased retrial, following a fair, balanced, unbiased and transparent trial and its resulting appeal.

The guilty verdict therefore, is fair and just.

The US, like most countries, refuses to extradite its citizens to other countries if there is a possibility that a death penalty might be imposed. That's quite reasonable, and very understandable.

In this case however, there is no chance of a death penalty being imposed whatsoever. Unlike the US court system, in EU countries, of which Italy is a member, there is no recourse to a death penalty - right or wrong, and there are many opinions on the topic, life imprisonment is the maximum penalty permissible in the EU.

Therefore, there is no reason that Knox should not be locked up in Italy. Yet, she's publicly refused to go back to that country. The only recourse to this cowardly behaviour is for a warrant for her extradition to be issued by the Italian courts.

If the US then fails to honour, or permit, that extradition, then punitive action should be taken throughout the EU: For instance, the UK-US extradition treaty, which many have said is unbalanced in favour of the US to the cost of British subjects, should be torn up, and the members of the EU should follow suit by tearing up their own extradition treaties with the US.

Yes, this will cause one hell of a diplomatic ruckus, but the point MUST be emphasised with a hell of a lot more than politely worded letters of complaint, which invariably have little or no effect. Instead, as the US tends to understand grand gestures, since it tends to make them a lot, a set of EU-wide grand gestures with some actual meaning and effect and teeth, which tearing up these treaties would have, should be ready in the wings, should Knox fail to be extradited to face her sentence.

In the final analysis, it must never be forgotten that an innocent British subject, Meredith Kercher, was murdered, and that the Italian courts have found Knox guilty of that horrendous crime. Justice MUST be seen to be done, or society as a whole suffers. Knox has had her trial, her appeal, and her retrial (this last in absentia). As a now convicted murderess, she must now face the consequences of her actions - her sentence.

There can be no alternative.

Footnote: This will be hardly a surprise to anyone, but according to reports in the media, apparently she's planning to appeal this fresh affirmation of her conviction. It remains to be seen if this will succeed or fail.

The Usual Muppets...

I've observed a lot of driving over Christmas, and in the run-up to the New Year; Most of this has been after the sun has gone down, while I'm at work, driving a bus, of course.

There are a few of things I've noticed; note that this is just the tip of the iceberg... brief mentions for these Darwin Award contenders include:

• The growing number of people who seem to think that they have the ability to drive with their lights off, during the hours of darkness... What, are they wearing night-vision goggles or something?
  People, WAKE UP! The reason you can see everyone else, is because they DO have their lights on - the rule of thumb here is that if the street lights are on, then your lights should be on, too!
• Next up is the number of people who appear to have graduated from the school of telepathic signalling.
  For the rest of us mere mortals, these are folks who fail to visually indicate what bone-headed manoeuvre they're about to pull, while at the same time stamping on the anchors, forcing you to either swerve to avoid colliding with them, stamp on your brakes for the same reason (thus causing a ripple effect for motorists behind you), or being unlucky enough to actually collide with the would-be space cadet in front of you - if not all three in the same instant.
• The increasing number of cyberpeople using their hand-held mobile phones while driving... folks, it's illegal for a damned good reason. How far do you travel in one second at thirty miles per hour? Any idea?
  Hint: It's in the Highway Code.
  And while you're jabbering away, your phone is hiding what's happening to one side of you, and CRUNCH, you just wiped out an elderly lady pushing her trolley across the junction as you turned in without either looking, indicating, or, well, you get the idea. bad move. Don't do it, please get off that phone NOW!
• The crash test dummies who fail to leave a suitable gap between their car and the one in front, and CRUNCH.
  Yep, they didn't see the traffic building up ahead of the car in front of them, and couldn't react in time to stop safely... There's your insurance premium going up again, folks.

I'm sure you've seen even more bone-headed, irrational, insane, and frankly muppet-like driving over the Silly Season; here's hoping you don't suffer the effects of it - drive safe in 2014, and Happy New Year!

Sometimes, you get the bear. More often than not around here, the bear gets you...

*sigh*

Well, that was a colossal waste of my time, just now. I went into Bromley to hit the Maplin store there, for some nut and bolt sets (I'm putting some fittings into my Series 3 ex-military Land Rover, so need a fair few nuts and bolts, and washers of many descriptions). No joy. Apparently, their Bromley store is not a large enough store to stock those things, and I wanted to work on the wagon today, rather than order online and wait. So much for the Maplin catalogue, then.

Since I'd left the Rover at home, (Bromley's multi-story car parks being very unfriendly for taller wagons) and as Halfords in Bromley is more like Halfords in Bromley Common, it would have been another two bus rides there and back, and over an hour, given that it was now the start of the evening rush hour, with road works all over the place, that was a definite non-starter. So, last job of the day, check in with the Three shop, regarding changing mobile telecomms provider later this month. Aaaand you guessed it, no joy. The three store was closed for renovations, and due open next month (October)

So, needn't have bothered getting out of bed so early on a day off.

Instead, I aim to get the washing done, hit the Halfords in Shirley (in my Rover), and get an early night, writing today off as a Bad Deal (tm)


I really should have checked the Numerology forecast (always good for a giggle) before I left home, I guess (highlighted in red)...

Thursday, October 10, 2013: Distractions at home or work will capture your attention. It's important to have patience today, a day when contemplation and meditation are important for your psychological well-being. Avoid confrontations with others

Sometimes, you get the bear. More often than not around here, the bear gets you *mutter mutter wibble*...

Aside from that, at least it ain't snowing (always a silver lining, lol) ;-)

Well... not yet anyhow (said he, glancing up at the full coverage of rather dark clouds in the sky)...

On mobile comms service, contracts, and landlines...

Over the last few years, the mobile internet, that is, 2G, 2.5G, 3G, and now, 4G, coupled with the changes in capabilities of mobile phones - almost invariably people are using a a smartphone these days - have tended to outstrip the service providers ability to provide a decent service in both the areas that they operate: Telephone comms and data comms. Before the mobile internet, it was a fairly easy thing to decide which provider you'd want to use, based on coverage: You had Cellnet (now o2), Vodafone (yep, still they're still here), and then one2one (then it was sold to become T-Mobile, and is now part of EverythingEverywhere), and then along came Orange (now part of EverythingEverywhere, or EE).

Those were the days, close to two decades ago, when life was a lot simpler and easier to understand. Of course, life has sped up by many orders of magnitude since then, as has the capabilities of information technology.

Now, there's a veritable smorgasbord of providers, many reselling the major players' services, with a re-branding and a few tweaks of what you get if you sign up to their services. Now, for a while, I've been considering which provider I wish to migrate to for a few reasons (noted below), and all of a horrifying sudden, it became massively personal to me when Dad died earlier this year, as I couldn't get a signal on Vodafone from outside the hospital.

This was the last straw for Vodafone and me, as far as I was concerned. One of the main reasons for possessing a mobile phone, is to have mobile telephony when you need it. In this, they failed massively. There was no point, at all, in complaining to them about this: It was far, far, far too late for that. Dad was gone. I'd had to use a hospital landline to call my immediate relatives. Vodafone's own coverage maps, however, showed that they had coverage at the hospital. You might infer from this that I'm still, some six months later, still very bitter about it. You'd be damned bloody right on the money.

This isn't the only time that a providers coverage maps have been - to be charitable here - misleading or erroneous; I've suffered this problem with most of the major providers over the last couple of decades (not Cellnet/O2... well, not yet, anyhow). And now, I'm also using the mobile internet. And I'm using that a hell of a lot more than I'd ever expected to, to the point where it's eventually going to be consuming vast amounts of data.

Add to this, and coupled with and related to the above, my reception at home with Vodafone is - at best - 2 bars, and is normally none, means that Vodafone is getting the push come October.

So, who to replace them with?

I had hitherto been considering the 3 network; they offer "All You Can Eat" ("AYCE") data plans, which includes 'tethering' (where you can hook up your mobile phone to your computer, thus removing the need for a landline broadband connection). However, having spoken to relatives and friends who use or have used their services, I have found that their telephony suffers as a result. I've researched this online, and it appears to be something to do with the way they manage their data-prioritised network: This network was built from the ground up to primarily support data communications, with voice communications being something they then tacked on, to make sure it was recognised as a telecomms (combined voice and data), rather than datacomms, network.

I was also told that the 3 customer services - again to be charitable here - sucked massively. I can't say the same, personally, although I've only ever had one - and only one - problem with 3, which was with my 3G computer dongle, which petulantly would not recharge it's Pay As You Go data over the air. On visiting a 3 shop that afternoon (not half an hour before they were due to close on a Saturday, even), I was informed by a reasonably pleasant  twenty-something lad, that this was a corrupted SIM card problem (he'd seen this before, apparently); given that it was out of warranty, and the cost of replacing the SIM card was exactly the same as recharging one with a gig of data, I replaced it - and have had no further problems with 3 services since then. Very much a "Job done", with no problems or hassle; my experience of Customer Services may have been unique, or not; I only know that my experience was neither positive or negative, and that I'm still a fairly happy 3 Customer for their PAYG data, which for a three-year customer is fairly good going.

I was recommended by the same relatives to try Virgin, but unfortunately, they no longer offer tethering, which I now consider to be a deal breaker, so it was back to 3 again; then, a brainwave. Get a contract with three for the AYCE data. And get a bog standard mobile phone, a cheap one, for telephony, on a different network/provider. This would be a pay as you go phone, for those times when I want to make a telephone call, and 3 isn't able to put the call through, for whatever reason.

Now, you could say that I could do that anyhow, and stay with Vodafone. Yeah, I could, but I'd be stuck with no decent mobile broadband plan, and crap coverage at home. So it's going to be 3 for the data, and someone else for the telephone; I'll also then be able to bin my landline at home, and kill close to 40 quid of combined telephony and (unlimited) broadband bills a month, there and then, as well as becoming truly comms-portable (in other words, not having to reply on a fixed landline to remain in touch). I don't have cable telly at home, instead, when I do watch the telly, I use Freeview (slightly less channels than cable, and still nothing on them!), so no worries or cost there.

Really and truly, at the end of the day, it's all about the money, I guess.

But, every so often, you can also get some small satisfaction at removing your custom from a provider who really doesn't measure up, and who hasn't got the gumption - or common decency - to admit that fact.

So, come October, it's going to be "Goodbye, Vodafone. Hello, 3"!

Frankly, it couldn't come fast enough.

Justice must sent the correct message, or there is no deterrence value.

Over the last day or so, I've been chatting with friends over a recent court case, which followed a horrendous road traffic collision between a motorist and a pedal cyclist in Berkshire last year, in which the cyclist was killed.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3823515.ece

In the final analysis, all vehicle drivers on the roads - private and professional alike - are required to meet certain standards during both theoretical and practical driving tests, before they may be issued a licence to drive a road-going vehicle on their own: This is called competency. It exists whether you drive to earn a living, or drive merely to get to work, or to the shops.

Such competency must continue to exist, and be exercised when behind the wheel of a road-going vehicle, from that point onwards, for the rest of the time you retain your driving licence.

Over the years, the government, police, motoring organisations, and even the popular media, have made a point to emphasise that you should not be messing with anything, be it a map, drink, cigarette, cheeseburger, or electronic device (hand held or otherwise), that takes your attention away from the road when you are behind the wheel. I think it's fair to say that this message has been acknowledged by most sensible people, and is therefore one of the foundation stones of driving competency, and thus a cornerstone of careful driving. As professional drivers, I and my colleagues on the buses and coaches, and those in the haulage and goods vehicle industry, as well as Taxi and Private Hire businesses, are more aware of this than most amateur road users, because we see the results of all manner of driving on the roads, both competent and not so competent.

My friends - and a few others over the internet - have made comments as to whether or not Mrs McClure, who was found guilty of the collision at trial, should be jailed at all; comments to the effect "but she's a woman", "The jails are so full", and "It's only a motoring offence, fine her", were amongst some of what I feel are somewhat misguided comments.

Let us not forget that a human being lost their life in an entirely preventable road traffic collision, which was the direct fault of another persons entirely reckless act. There is no reason for taking your eyes off the road whilst your vehicle is in motion, for more than is needed to scan your dials (speed, fuel, engine temperature), or glance at the mirrors. A vehicle is akin to a guided bullet: It's heavy, it's moving at speed, it's steered by a human, and when it hits another human, there's no contest: Flesh and bone will lose, every time. Thus, when you get behind the wheel, the lives of others around you are, quite literally, in your hands. Any road-going vehicle must therefore be actively controlled with competence by its driver at all times.

Now, the law regarding the offence of Careless Driving is quite clear, and the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this are equally clear; to quote:

The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendants driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed.

Reference:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a30

Most serious of course, is Causing Death By Dangerous Driving:

The offence of causing death by dangerous driving is committed under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) when the suspects driving is a cause or factor in the death of another person and the driving was dangerous. By "dangerous" we mean within the meaning of section 2A of the RTA 1988 i.e. the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
The examples given in relation to dangerous driving also apply to this offence. See examples listed under the Dangerous Driving section.

It is an offence triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and/or an unlimited fine.

The court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least 2 years, unless special reasons are found for not disqualifying (in which case it must endorse the drivers licence with 3-11 penalty points, again, unless there are special reasons not to do so). An extended retest is also mandatory.


Reference:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a23

In both offences, note the phrase describing competency of the driver: "it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."

A specific example of dangerous driving in the examples they make reference to, includes this entry:

• driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation equipment

These two items are the key items that must be proven in both offences; it follows that if a death occurs from such appalling driving, a charge under s1 RTA'88 should be levelled. This was done, and the case has now been heard at a jury trial in front of a very experienced judge, with the jury unanimously deciding that she was guilty of causing the death of a person, as a direct result of her dangerous driving.

It's up to Circuit Court Judge, His Honour Nicolas Wood, to decide her fate now. There will be pleas of mitigation, especially if she has kids of school age; there will be the victim impact statement to be made by Mr Hilson's widow and family, court reports on Mrs. McClure, to amongst other things, determine her physical and mental state, and so on, but at the end of the day, the entire process, and sentence, has to stand for something and have meaning - and deterrence value - to others.

But it's a statement by a cycling organisation, the Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC) that's got me amazed. You would think that they'd be baying for blood over the death of a cyclist at the hands of a motorist, but not so in this case. Here's their sound-bite on the case:

"McClure will now almost certainly face a custodial sentence.  However, we think it much more important that she faces a long driving ban. Only then can we be confident that drivers like her won’t kill again.”
- Rhia Weston, Road safety campaigner, CTC.

Their full report on the case and it's verdict, is on their website, here:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/driver-who-killed-anthony-hilson-convicted-of-causing-his-death-dangerous-driving

I very much doubt that Mr Hilson's family would agree with that remarkably lenient sentiment at this trying time.

While Mrs. McClure has yet to be formally sentenced by the Judge, and has been handed an interim driving ban until that time, I'm rather concerned about the opinion expressed by CTC on sentencing in cases like this.

Over the last few years, it's become overwhelmingly apparent that long-term driving bans are being overturned, on appeal, with disappointing regularity - you just need to look over the news to see another example, practically every month, somewhere across the country. Granted, most of those do not involve collisions causing injuries or deaths, but the reason and principle of a long-term driving ban is being weakened all the time.

And thus we come to the sentence of jail; jail time has a couple of main intentions:

Firstly, it provides punishment (of a form) by placing severe restrictions on the freedom and liberty of the guilty, and allows society the chance to assist the guilty in reforming the way they behave (if, of course, such retraining and/or counselling is actually available inside prisons; can you say "funding cuts in a recession"?).

Secondly, it provides a limited form of closure (the "they got what was coming to them" effect) for the relatives of those killed by the actions of the guilty.

So, by all means, Your Honour, give Mrs. McClure a lengthy driving ban, and require her to have to retake an extended retest driving examination, before her licence can be restored to her. But please, back it up with some jail time, if for only one simple reason: A Human Life was taken. By failing to jail those who cause the reckless death of another human we, as a society, send a mixed message, along the lines of "what you did was bang out of order, but it really only warrants a slap on the wrist".

And that's just plain wrong, any way you shake it.

Update, 1st September, 2013.

I don't know if His Honour Nicolas Wood, the Circuit Court Judge in this case, read this blog or not (probably not, on a split seconds' thought into the matter), but I think he got it right. You can read the BBC report here.

In sentencing Victoria McClure, he awarded her a two-and-a-half year driving ban, which requires that she sit an extended test to re-acquire a licence after the ban is completed, and jailed her for eighteen months. She'll be out in nine months or so, which is normal for sentences with a duration of under 36 months (three years).

The longer term consequences of her conviction will be there for her, for the next ten years, care of the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act 1974. Amongst the conditions imposed on her, at her release from prison, will be:

• First and foremost, she'll be assigned a Probation Officer, who she will be required to meet with at set appointments for a specific period, to oversee her release and reintegration to life on the outside of prison, and to assist her in preventing her from offending again - frankly, I suspect that this shouldn't be a problem for a few years yet.
• She'll have to disclose this conviction to any prospective employer for those ten years.
• Although not required by the Act, many countries restrict who may visit their countries: The USA has strict rules regarding former convicted persons; other countries have similar rules that they impose on visitors, and she'll be required to disclose it to many of those countries that are outside the EU, if she wishes to visit those countries on holiday, once her complete 18-month sentence has been served.
• She'll be flagged up on any jobs requiring a Criminal Record Background check, via the Disclosure and Barring Service (which replaced the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) in 2012).
• Further, her car insurance, when she's legally able to drive again, will be hiked up massively due to her conviction, which may even render it prohibitively expensive for her to drive again.

There is another reason for this sentence: For justice to work, it has to be publicly seen to work. And thus, in this case, it has. I just hope that other motorists get wind of this, and stop the potentially lethal habit of mucking about with their electronic devices when behind the wheel.

I suppose there's about as much chance of this happening rapidly as there are chances of my winning the Euro Lottery in the next ten minutes, but one lives in hope.