13yr old killed in F50
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
"Trying to do a good thing" means nothing whatsoever in my book if you cause a death doing so. I'm no Driving Miss Daisy, but there are risks you simply do not take. If your judgement takes you over that line to the extent that someone dies, 10mths is not enough. Examples need to be made of people to try and deter others from doing the same, and I'd also suggest to keep those whose judgement is poor away from the rest of us.
If the judgement takes you over that line then it's dangerous driving, not careless.Deterring others from doing what this driver did relies on them knowing what this driver did. If (very big if) it was simply a mistake, a lapse of concentration, then acknowledge that and other drivers will realise that such a lapse can have fatal consequences. Treat it as if he was deliberately setting out to kill someone and everyone else is likely to think 'I would never do that so it won't happen to me'.
Dr Jekyll said:
If the judgement takes you over that line then it's dangerous driving, not careless.
Deterring others from doing what this driver did relies on them knowing what this driver did. If (very big if) it was simply a mistake, a lapse of concentration, then acknowledge that and other drivers will realise that such a lapse can have fatal consequences. Treat it as if he was deliberately setting out to kill someone and everyone else is likely to think 'I would never do that so it won't happen to me'.
Alt. make people aware that even a "simple mistake" will be heavily punished, so be more careful no matter how good you think you are.Deterring others from doing what this driver did relies on them knowing what this driver did. If (very big if) it was simply a mistake, a lapse of concentration, then acknowledge that and other drivers will realise that such a lapse can have fatal consequences. Treat it as if he was deliberately setting out to kill someone and everyone else is likely to think 'I would never do that so it won't happen to me'.
Maybe it just needs to be called "Causing Death While Driving".
Murph7355 said:
Alt. make people aware that even a "simple mistake" will be heavily punished, so be more careful no matter how good you think you are.
Maybe it just needs to be called "Causing Death While Driving".
No, I think we should keep the distinction between careless and dangerous. They are very different. Careless I would define as a momentary but tragic lapse in an otherwise well intentioned drive. For example, sneezing and crashing into an oncoming car. Maybe it just needs to be called "Causing Death While Driving".
Dangerous I would define as the sort of people who race on public roads, or who you see driving in a deliberately desperate fashion to escape the police, etc.
I accept that there is some grey area overlap between the 2, such as a mild hoon gone wrong (ie 10PS)
Edited by ChemicalChaos on Friday 30th June 23:39
Murph7355 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
If the judgement takes you over that line then it's dangerous driving, not careless.
Deterring others from doing what this driver did relies on them knowing what this driver did. If (very big if) it was simply a mistake, a lapse of concentration, then acknowledge that and other drivers will realise that such a lapse can have fatal consequences. Treat it as if he was deliberately setting out to kill someone and everyone else is likely to think 'I would never do that so it won't happen to me'.
Alt. make people aware that even a "simple mistake" will be heavily punished, so be more careful no matter how good you think you are.Deterring others from doing what this driver did relies on them knowing what this driver did. If (very big if) it was simply a mistake, a lapse of concentration, then acknowledge that and other drivers will realise that such a lapse can have fatal consequences. Treat it as if he was deliberately setting out to kill someone and everyone else is likely to think 'I would never do that so it won't happen to me'.
Maybe it just needs to be called "Causing Death While Driving".
Dr Jekyll said:
You mean that if it isn't heavily punished people will think 'it doesn't matter if I'm not careful because though I might end up killing someone and putting myself in hospital I won't go to jail'?
Not at all. But a death through your driving is as serious as it gets. Save for mentalists nobody deliberately tries to kill people while driving. And if you're being "careless" in a car it's "dangerous".
Where other people are not involved in your driving errors, I can see some mileage in degrees. Where they are, less so.
Murph7355 said:
Not at all. But a death through your driving is as serious as it gets.
Save for mentalists nobody deliberately tries to kill people while driving. And if you're being "careless" in a car it's "dangerous".
Where other people are not involved in your driving errors, I can see some mileage in degrees. Where they are, less so.
Legally 'careless' driving (without due care and attention) doesn't mean 'being careless' in the normal use of the word, if it did it would indeed be indistinguishable from dangerous driving. It just means below the standard of a competent driver, IE making a mistake, so being involved in any single vehicle accident almost certainly counts as 'careless driving'. Save for mentalists nobody deliberately tries to kill people while driving. And if you're being "careless" in a car it's "dangerous".
Where other people are not involved in your driving errors, I can see some mileage in degrees. Where they are, less so.
In aviation accident investigation 'pilot error' is a very common conclusion, criminal negligence charges almost unheard of. Careless in the sense of 'driving without due care' is 'pilot error' not negligence. Conflating making a mistake with 'negligence doesn't happen in any legal field so far as I know.
Scenario 1). Mr Bloggs is driving Auntie Beryl to the shops, skids on a patch of oil he should really have spotted, crashes into an oncoming bus and Auntie Beryl dies. Death by careless driving. Arguably not an accident at all because he should have been more alert but an accident by the normal definition.
Scenario 2). As scenario 1 but the bus isn't there, Mr Bloggs catches the slide and all is well. Careless driving, but do you say that since the fatality was avoided by pure luck it's just as serious as scenario 1?
Scenario 3) Mr Bloggs carelessly leaves his lawnmower blogging the path, Auntie Beryl trips over it and breaks her neck, fatally. Accident? Negligence? If Mr B|oggs goes to jail for scenario 1 why not for this? After all more people die in domestic accidents than road accidents.
Scenario 4) As scenario 3 but Aunty Beryl avoids tripping by pure luck. Different from scenario 2? Why?
This is another of those cases where the driver probably wishes he'd died in the crash instead as well.
He's quite likely to end up in prison for killing a child. I can't imagine that's going to be fun. The law will throw the book at him. He would be better off topping himself while he still has the chance I'm afraid.
He's quite likely to end up in prison for killing a child. I can't imagine that's going to be fun. The law will throw the book at him. He would be better off topping himself while he still has the chance I'm afraid.
limpsfield said:
Christ! I am sure this will haunt and dog him for the rest of his life. But, without defending the result, it's not like it was pre-meditated.
It doesn't matter whether it was premeditated or not as far as my point is concerned.It's bad enough that he has to live with having killed a child, but then he has to face up to serving a lengthy prison sentence for such a crime. Rumour has it they aren't too keen on child killers in prison. Not a prospect I would be able to face, I'd have to take the coward's way out I'm afraid.
zarjaz1991 said:
It doesn't matter whether it was premeditated or not as far as my point is concerned.
It's bad enough that he has to live with having killed a child, but then he has to face up to serving a lengthy prison sentence for such a crime. Rumour has it they aren't too keen on child killers in prison. Not a prospect I would be able to face, I'd have to take the coward's way out I'm afraid.
He killed a child but I wouldn't see him labelled as a "child killer" by the other lags, to delve deeper into this Strangeways fantasy. I think you are overdoing the hyperbole a bit.It's bad enough that he has to live with having killed a child, but then he has to face up to serving a lengthy prison sentence for such a crime. Rumour has it they aren't too keen on child killers in prison. Not a prospect I would be able to face, I'd have to take the coward's way out I'm afraid.
limpsfield said:
He killed a child but I wouldn't see him labelled as a "child killer" by the other lags, to delve deeper into this Strangeways fantasy. I think you are overdoing the hyperbole a bit.
Perhaps. However, I wouldn't want to live with it even without the prison sentence. My time would be well and truly up.I've often wondered how people who cause the deaths of others unintentionally like this actually manage to carry on. I simply couldn't.
zarjaz1991 said:
...but then he has to face up to serving a lengthy prison sentence for such a crime.
Absolute maximum for Death by Careless is five years.If he pleads guilty, knock a third off that. 40mo.
Take all the mitigating factors into account, and I wouldn't even put money on him going down.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item...
zarjaz1991 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Absolute maximum for Death by Careless is five years.
If he pleads guilty, knock a third off that. 40mo.
/
He would serve half that inside. Almost two years in prison and it will be known he's killed a child. Hardly going to be pleasant and it is certainly "lengthy".If he pleads guilty, knock a third off that. 40mo.
/
zarjaz1991 said:
This is another of those cases where the driver probably wishes he'd died in the crash instead as well.
He's quite likely to end up in prison for killing a child. I can't imagine that's going to be fun. The law will throw the book at him. He would be better off topping himself while he still has the chance I'm afraid.
He has a wife and young child - no matter what he feels about the accident I bet he's glad to still be alive. As for topping himself, he's already played a part in destroying the lives of that boy and his family so why cause even more destruction by killing yourself and hurting your loved ones?He's quite likely to end up in prison for killing a child. I can't imagine that's going to be fun. The law will throw the book at him. He would be better off topping himself while he still has the chance I'm afraid.
Edited by BlackLabel on Saturday 1st July 12:39
BlackLabel said:
He has a wife and young child - no matter what he feels about the accident I bet he's glad to still be alive. As for topping himself, he's already played a part in destroying the lives of that boy and his family so why cause even more destruction by killing yourself and hurting your loved ones?
Well he's going to be no use to them in prison is he.Edited by BlackLabel on Saturday 1st July 12:39
zarjaz1991 said:
BlackLabel said:
He has a wife and young child - no matter what he feels about the accident I bet he's glad to still be alive. As for topping himself, he's already played a part in destroying the lives of that boy and his family so why cause even more destruction by killing yourself and hurting your loved ones?
Well he's going to be no use to them in prison is he.Edited by BlackLabel on Saturday 1st July 12:39
Ructions said:
zarjaz1991 said:
BlackLabel said:
He has a wife and young child - no matter what he feels about the accident I bet he's glad to still be alive. As for topping himself, he's already played a part in destroying the lives of that boy and his family so why cause even more destruction by killing yourself and hurting your loved ones?
Well he's going to be no use to them in prison is he.Edited by BlackLabel on Saturday 1st July 12:39
It will be interesting to know what the parents of the young boy, think and their views towards him.
Ructions said:
He may well end up with a non custodial sentence. I assume he would have no previous.
Whilst that is a possibility, note that a District Judge declined jurisdiction of the case and sent it to the crown court - where sentencing powers are not limited to 6 months immediate custody. I'd anticipate that most offenders convicted of CDDD are of previous good character, save and except for minor motoring convictions.
agtlaw said:
...note that a District Judge declined jurisdiction of the case and sent it to the crown court...
This is true, but the judge in question is also quoted as saying he did not believe he personally could try the case fairly, because his own brother had died in a car crash.http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15374375.Man_appea...
Daily Echo said:
District Judge Philip Gillibrand told him: "I have declined jurisdiction. I am sending this case to Winchester Crown Court where you must attend on July 26 on unconditional bail."
Speaking to Alexander's family, he said: "Can I express my sympathy to you? I lost my brother in a road traffic accident.
"I am afraid I could not face the hearing. I think you are very courageous, I offer my sympathies and also for your future."
Speaking to Alexander's family, he said: "Can I express my sympathy to you? I lost my brother in a road traffic accident.
"I am afraid I could not face the hearing. I think you are very courageous, I offer my sympathies and also for your future."
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Saturday 1st July 13:51
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff