Petition - Sentencing for criminal drivers that kill

[Funkycoldribena]

Smollet said:

Yes. Regular mandatory refresher courses would be a start.

No thanks.More money and won't stop incidents like today.

[Smollet]

Funkycoldribena said:

Smollet said:

Yes. Regular mandatory refresher courses would be a start.

No thanks.More money and won't stop incidents like today.

Maybe not but it would improve driving standards. Having a licence is a privelege that must be earned. It's not a right to have one.

[Funkycoldribena]

Smollet said:

Maybe not but it would improve driving standards. Having a licence is a privelege that must be earned. It's not a right to have one.

Maybe my part of the world but I don't see bad driving standards or maybe minor indiscretions don't bother me that much.

[anonymous-user]

carinaman said:

Couldn't more be done to raise the standards of driving on our roads?

Not while the 'road safety' pressure groups and other parasites focus on nothing more than adherence to ever decreasing arbitrary speed limits, no.

[Countdown]

Funkycoldribena said:

Smollet said:

Maybe not but it would improve driving standards. Having a licence is a privelege that must be earned. It's not a right to have one.

Maybe my part of the world but I don't see bad driving standards or maybe minor indiscretions don't bother me that much.

If your own standards are quite low then most people's driving will seem fine, in comparison.

[tr7v8]

rxe said:

i have always wondered who funds Brake. So I bothered to look up the corporate sponsors:

http://www.brake.org.uk/fundraise/companies/partne...

Well, that's Deliveroo and Travis Perkins crossed off my list of companies to do business with.

As it is a Brake petition I will avoid as well. Looked at current Brake sponsors and some I can't avoid Arval for one. But will avoid those that I can.

[anonymous-user]

Smollet said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Smollet said:

Yes. Regular mandatory refresher courses would be a start.

No thanks.More money and won't stop incidents like today.

Maybe not but it would improve driving standards. Having a licence is a privelege that must be earned. It's not a right to have one.

Would it improve? I agree there are woefully poor drivers on the roads but they all passed a test once. How long after a retest would it take to go back to 'normal'?

[4x4Tyke]

Sylvaforever said:

Cant really be bothered disecting this one...

OP.. all I would advise is the saying there for the Grace......

Good, then I won't have to waste my time demolishing irrational emotional nonsense. The fact is the current system is rational, nuanced and fair and that proposal is neither. It is about revenge not justice. That is self evident nonsense.

Edited by 4x4Tyke on Thursday 1st September 08:49

[Smollet]

REALIST123 said:

Smollet said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Smollet said:

Yes. Regular mandatory refresher courses would be a start.

No thanks.More money and won't stop incidents like today.

Maybe not but it would improve driving standards. Having a licence is a privelege that must be earned. It's not a right to have one.

Would it improve? I agree there are woefully poor drivers on the roads but they all passed a test once. How long after a retest would it take to go back to 'normal'?

I didn't mention retesting. I'm in favour of regular mandatory refresher courses as I feel this would be less intimidating that taking a full blown test say every 3-5 years. Failure to attend would result in suspension of the licence. It's not a great hardship to endure to maintain driving skills that do become lax after a period of time.

[Guybrush]

This is emotional knee jerk primitive thinking. So if a driver say hits a lamppost and no one is hurt except the driver, that's ok - maybe a 'driving without due care' charge. But if, instead of a lamppost, it's a person and they are killed, then the driver should get something more severe than 'driving without due care'?

[Trax]

davepoth said:

Trax said:

I may be wrong, but I liken the two crimes. I believe the sentence for the scumbag who killed the two today, should be the same as someone who went out and decided to kill two random people.

You are wrong. If there is enough evidence to prosecute for murder or manslaughter using a vehicle, the CPS will do so. There is precedent for doing that, if you recall PC Dave Phillips.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pc-dave-phill...

CPS charged for murder but the jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the alternative.

I am not saying they should be charged with Murder, but that the punishment should be comparable to one for murder, not a year or so. Yes there are degrees of cuplability, so not all cases should be the same, but for the one that killed the Policeman by driving at him, and yesterdays deaths, whilst maybe not murder, the punishement should be the same as murder.

[Vocal Minority]

Trax said:

davepoth said:

Trax said:

If you kill someone by dangerous driving, then in my mind that is akin to murder, not some watered down manslaughter crime. Take for example the deaths today by the driver being chased by police. The suspect, should now be charged with the murder of two people, not a few years for death by dangerous driving.

You'd be wrong in that case. Causing death by dangerous driving requires no criminal intent, whereas murder requires it. You can't compare the two.

I may be wrong, but I liken the two crimes. I believe the sentence for the scumbag who killed the two today, should be the same as someone who went out and decided to kill two random people.

Death through dangerous driving etc should have very harsh penalties, especially for the guy in the police chase.

But you cannot liken death by accident/negligence to someone who sets out expressly, specifically and with total intent to injure/kill. The former is horrid, the latter is really very nasty and insidious indeed.

I agree the effect is the same, and any distinction for the victims family will feel irrelevant. But you can't just decide to call it murder. Because it isn't.

On the other hand - what is the sentence for attempted murder? Is it the same or softer than for murder? Because if its softer its just giving time off for botched execution....

[Digga]

TBH the sentences for most crimes are pretty straightforward and sensible. What is lacking is application because:

1. We simply do not have sufficient space in jail to accommodate the numbers of criminals we have.
2. Because of the above, there is now a expectation that sentence served = 50% of sentence handed down by Court.
3. Rules regarding recidivism are not properly adhered to, moreover, liberal judges often seem to have rather too much misplaced sympathy for that small minority who manage to blight so many innocent lives whilst they are at liberty to do so.

[Funkycoldribena]

Countdown said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Smollet said:

Maybe not but it would improve driving standards. Having a licence is a privelege that must be earned. It's not a right to have one.

Maybe my part of the world but I don't see bad driving standards or maybe minor indiscretions don't bother me that much.

If your own standards are quite low then most people's driving will seem fine, in comparison.

That was quite predictable from you,I can tell your posts nowadays without even looking at the name.
Anyway, the problem with refresher courses is,as usual they won't know when to stop,it'll start off once every five years at 50 quid then it'll end up every year at 100 quid and so on,same as speed limits, 10 zones will be coming next.

[Brads67]

Just looks like anti car driver bks to me, so I`ll pass.

[Countdown]

Funkycoldribena said:

Countdown said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Smollet said:

Maybe not but it would improve driving standards. Having a licence is a privelege that must be earned. It's not a right to have one.

Maybe my part of the world but I don't see bad driving standards or maybe minor indiscretions don't bother me that much.

If your own standards are quite low then most people's driving will seem fine, in comparison.

That was quite predictable from you,I can tell your posts nowadays without even looking at the name.
Anyway, the problem with refresher courses is,as usual they won't know when to stop,it'll start off once every five years at 50 quid then it'll end up every year at 100 quid and so on,same as speed limits, 10 zones will be coming next.

If you don't see bad driving then you either need glasses or you don't realise what bad driving is.

[Funkycoldribena]

Countdown said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Countdown said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Smollet said:

Maybe not but it would improve driving standards. Having a licence is a privelege that must be earned. It's not a right to have one.

Maybe my part of the world but I don't see bad driving standards or maybe minor indiscretions don't bother me that much.

If your own standards are quite low then most people's driving will seem fine, in comparison.

That was quite predictable from you,I can tell your posts nowadays without even looking at the name.
Anyway, the problem with refresher courses is,as usual they won't know when to stop,it'll start off once every five years at 50 quid then it'll end up every year at 100 quid and so on,same as speed limits, 10 zones will be coming next.

If you don't see bad driving then you either need glasses or you don't realise what bad driving is.

OK,if you say so.

[catso]

Brads67 said:

Just looks like anti car driver bks to me, so I`ll pass.

Indeed, the sentiment behind this seems to be one of further demonising motoring. It may well be the case that many serious offences are dealt with too leniently and that is wrong but at the same time many minor transgressions are dealt with far too harshly.

Until the balance is right and the emphasis taken off the easy/profitable/cowardly/mass prosecution of compliance offences and instead concentrated on that which matters, I'll not be signing anything.

[anonymous-user]

catso said:

Indeed, the sentiment behind this seems to be one of further demonising motoring. It may well be the case that many serious offences are dealt with too leniently and that is wrong but at the same time many minor transgressions are dealt with far too harshly.

Until the balance is right and the emphasis taken off the easy/profitable/cowardly/mass prosecution of compliance offences and instead concentrated on that which matters, I'll not be signing anything.

+1