RE: 7 Years Jail For Texting Drivers Who Kill
Discussion
With the latest craze of knife crime etc, haven't they got anything better to do!
I can text without looking at the keypad and change gear, 1 hand on the wheel one on the gearstick which is how i drive anyway, so doesnt make me drive any different to if i wasnt texting.
Maybe if someone changes track on their cd player they should go to prison as they hvae to look at the cd player to see what track it is on
I can text without looking at the keypad and change gear, 1 hand on the wheel one on the gearstick which is how i drive anyway, so doesnt make me drive any different to if i wasnt texting.
Maybe if someone changes track on their cd player they should go to prison as they hvae to look at the cd player to see what track it is on
Ry_B said:
With the latest craze of knife crime etc, haven't they got anything better to do!
I can text without looking at the keypad and change gear, 1 hand on the wheel one on the gearstick which is how i drive anyway, so doesnt make me drive any different to if i wasnt texting.
Maybe if someone changes track on their cd player they should go to prison as they hvae to look at the cd player to see what track it is on
well omg arent you the best driver in the world I can text without looking at the keypad and change gear, 1 hand on the wheel one on the gearstick which is how i drive anyway, so doesnt make me drive any different to if i wasnt texting.
Maybe if someone changes track on their cd player they should go to prison as they hvae to look at the cd player to see what track it is on
Cold Fusion said:
It should be 6 months in prison for talking on the phone while driving.
Great idea! Also has the added benefit of throwing a life line to our ailing construction industry who would have to work night and day for a decade just to build enough prisons to house them all... They discussed this in PM questions today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7509311.stm
Gordon (who was described as 'useless' during the session) seemed to embrace the idea with gusto. Mainly for the purposes of providing grieving families with 'justice'
In the cases of genuine mistakes and accidents there will be no justice. I guess gordon and his type don't have to worry because they never drive a car. It puts the rest of us in a very vulnerable position.
An unlit road, drunk cyclist picking his nose having forgotten to turn on his lights... you hit him at 36 mph in a 30 zone and Bang goes the cell door for you and your life is ruined. These long sentences wont be reserved only for the pikey drivers of uninsured tatty cars. We can expect to see plenty of victims of circumstance going to jail.... As the national lottery says.... It could be you!
What do labour care though, they hate cars so much they are probably happy to see people banged up just for having the nerve to drive a car let alone crash one.
Gordon (who was described as 'useless' during the session) seemed to embrace the idea with gusto. Mainly for the purposes of providing grieving families with 'justice'
In the cases of genuine mistakes and accidents there will be no justice. I guess gordon and his type don't have to worry because they never drive a car. It puts the rest of us in a very vulnerable position.
An unlit road, drunk cyclist picking his nose having forgotten to turn on his lights... you hit him at 36 mph in a 30 zone and Bang goes the cell door for you and your life is ruined. These long sentences wont be reserved only for the pikey drivers of uninsured tatty cars. We can expect to see plenty of victims of circumstance going to jail.... As the national lottery says.... It could be you!
What do labour care though, they hate cars so much they are probably happy to see people banged up just for having the nerve to drive a car let alone crash one.
From the SGC's guidelines
"Using a handheld mobile phone when driving is, in itself, an unlawful act; the fact that an offender was avoidably distracted by using a handheld mobile phone when a causing a death by driving offence was committed will always make an offence more serious. Reading or composing text messages over a period of time will be a gross avoidable distraction and is likely to result in an offence of causing death by dangerous driving being in a higher level of seriousness."
There are now 3 levels of seriousness within the offence of CDDD. The starting point of 7 years is for the rare occasions of extremely bad driving or being very drunk.
The mid-level will probably attract sentences of at least 4.5 years and upto 7. The example above is likely to be categorised as such for being a gross avoidable distraction. This level is defined as creating a substantial risk
The lowest level is for significant risks. For example, ordinary avoidable distractions. I would suggest any use of a mobile phone that resulted in a guilty verdict for CDDD would be at the lower level because it is an offence in itself. The same with moderately excessive speed.
The SGC gives examples of ordinary distractions:-
"Driving whilst the driver's attention is avoidably distracted, for example by reading or adjusting the controls of electronic equipment such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation equipment
The previous starting point of 12 months to 2 years will be reserved for bad cases of the new offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving. Having said that because the definition of this offence is very wide the least culpable offenders will not normally be imprisoned for the offence.
"Using a handheld mobile phone when driving is, in itself, an unlawful act; the fact that an offender was avoidably distracted by using a handheld mobile phone when a causing a death by driving offence was committed will always make an offence more serious. Reading or composing text messages over a period of time will be a gross avoidable distraction and is likely to result in an offence of causing death by dangerous driving being in a higher level of seriousness."
There are now 3 levels of seriousness within the offence of CDDD. The starting point of 7 years is for the rare occasions of extremely bad driving or being very drunk.
The mid-level will probably attract sentences of at least 4.5 years and upto 7. The example above is likely to be categorised as such for being a gross avoidable distraction. This level is defined as creating a substantial risk
The lowest level is for significant risks. For example, ordinary avoidable distractions. I would suggest any use of a mobile phone that resulted in a guilty verdict for CDDD would be at the lower level because it is an offence in itself. The same with moderately excessive speed.
The SGC gives examples of ordinary distractions:-
"Driving whilst the driver's attention is avoidably distracted, for example by reading or adjusting the controls of electronic equipment such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation equipment
The previous starting point of 12 months to 2 years will be reserved for bad cases of the new offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving. Having said that because the definition of this offence is very wide the least culpable offenders will not normally be imprisoned for the offence.
Edited by Zeeky on Thursday 17th July 01:31
I know they shouldn't do it, but I don't see the absolute fascination with accidents & unlicensed/uninsured drivers. On one of these 'Traffic Cop' TV programmes an officer said:
"How would you feel if your child was knocked down by an unlicensed driver?" Well, I'd imagine about the same as someone with a licence.
I see shocking driving from those with a licence, and I know that those uninsured/unlicensed drivers are statistically more likely to crash, but I would imagine that is more to do with the type of person is unlicensed/uninsured than the act of being unlicensed/uninsured itself.
Those that drive without licence or insurance are hardly likely to no longer do it because they face a few more years in jail in case they crash.
"How would you feel if your child was knocked down by an unlicensed driver?" Well, I'd imagine about the same as someone with a licence.
I see shocking driving from those with a licence, and I know that those uninsured/unlicensed drivers are statistically more likely to crash, but I would imagine that is more to do with the type of person is unlicensed/uninsured than the act of being unlicensed/uninsured itself.
Those that drive without licence or insurance are hardly likely to no longer do it because they face a few more years in jail in case they crash.
Mattt said:
I know they shouldn't do it, but I don't see the absolute fascination with accidents & unlicensed/uninsured drivers. On one of these 'Traffic Cop' TV programmes an officer said:
"How would you feel if your child was knocked down by an unlicensed driver?" Well, I'd imagine about the same as someone with a licence.
I see shocking driving from those with a licence, and I know that those uninsured/unlicensed drivers are statistically more likely to crash, but I would imagine that is more to do with the type of person is unlicensed/uninsured than the act of being unlicensed/uninsured itself.
Those that drive without licence or insurance are hardly likely to no longer do it because they face a few more years in jail in case they crash.
Hit, nail, head - Streaky"How would you feel if your child was knocked down by an unlicensed driver?" Well, I'd imagine about the same as someone with a licence.
I see shocking driving from those with a licence, and I know that those uninsured/unlicensed drivers are statistically more likely to crash, but I would imagine that is more to do with the type of person is unlicensed/uninsured than the act of being unlicensed/uninsured itself.
Those that drive without licence or insurance are hardly likely to no longer do it because they face a few more years in jail in case they crash.
Ry_B said:
With the latest craze of knife crime etc, haven't they got anything better to do!
I can text without looking at the keypad and change gear, 1 hand on the wheel one on the gearstick which is how i drive anyway, so doesnt make me drive any different to if i wasnt texting.
Maybe if someone changes track on their cd player they should go to prison as they hvae to look at the cd player to see what track it is on
I am dubious of those who "Claim" to be able to make up a text and send it without LOOKING, not even a peek, not even a teeny weeny one.I can text without looking at the keypad and change gear, 1 hand on the wheel one on the gearstick which is how i drive anyway, so doesnt make me drive any different to if i wasnt texting.
Maybe if someone changes track on their cd player they should go to prison as they hvae to look at the cd player to see what track it is on
And bottom line, is that text really important? is it life threatning, will it stop the world if you don't sent it.
Another question, are you sending a text in response to one which came in, in which you must have read it, tut tut tut, or is it a sudden urge to send a text of magnitude important which cannot wait?
If sir, you can do as you can say, then you are cleverer than me, but then again, most are.......
Oh yes, and they should be taking more steps to get grips to knife crime, not that we should ignore other acts and omissions which may lead to fatalities.
I thought the point of prison was to remove those who are a danger to society from society & to make those who plan criminal activity to think twice before knowingly carrying out acts of violence & distruction..... in order that we can all sleep safely in our beds at night.
Crashing a car whilst texting whilst totally unacceptable would be accidental as the point of texting was not planned to result in death. I'm sure that if your average Joe killed someone as a result of texting, that their life would be racked with guilt and remourse for years to come & may even culminate in suicide in exterme cases. Whilst a rapist or knife attacker......would be to the greater part remoursles & merely upset at being aprehended. They would most probably be considering how to perfect their art in priosn. These are the type of individuals that we need protecting from.
Accidents, no matter how devistating, are brought about by lack of thought (stupidity) & should be addressed by education not vengance.
If two brothers were driving together & crashed because the brother driving was texting, what punishment would the parents want exacting against the surviver who caused the fatal crash? It's easier to hate a stranger!
If hanging were reintroduced, then would the death penalty cover causing death by texting?
Don't get me wrong I'm not deffending these people but something doesn't appear equitable about the law on this.
Surely time behind bars should be relative to the calculating intent to do harm, whether to an individual or to property & the likelyhood of re offending & not just the outcome.
If you truly believe in an eye for an eye then you'd better make sure you don't make a thoughtless mistake when driving, playing contact sport, extreme sports, or even during the course of your job!!!!
Crashing a car whilst texting whilst totally unacceptable would be accidental as the point of texting was not planned to result in death. I'm sure that if your average Joe killed someone as a result of texting, that their life would be racked with guilt and remourse for years to come & may even culminate in suicide in exterme cases. Whilst a rapist or knife attacker......would be to the greater part remoursles & merely upset at being aprehended. They would most probably be considering how to perfect their art in priosn. These are the type of individuals that we need protecting from.
Accidents, no matter how devistating, are brought about by lack of thought (stupidity) & should be addressed by education not vengance.
If two brothers were driving together & crashed because the brother driving was texting, what punishment would the parents want exacting against the surviver who caused the fatal crash? It's easier to hate a stranger!
If hanging were reintroduced, then would the death penalty cover causing death by texting?
Don't get me wrong I'm not deffending these people but something doesn't appear equitable about the law on this.
Surely time behind bars should be relative to the calculating intent to do harm, whether to an individual or to property & the likelyhood of re offending & not just the outcome.
If you truly believe in an eye for an eye then you'd better make sure you don't make a thoughtless mistake when driving, playing contact sport, extreme sports, or even during the course of your job!!!!
committed said:
If you truly believe in an eye for an eye then you'd better make sure you don't make a thoughtless mistake when driving, playing contact sport, extreme sports, or even during the course of your job!!!!
Whilst I follow you thoughts on this one, and good ones I might add. I do think there is a difference in a mistake resulting in a fatality, as apposed to a definate "I was looking down texting, or tieing my shoelace, and didnt see the other vehicle/ped"No worries, this thread will keep all us PH's pounding the keys.........
Vipers said:
committed said:
If you truly believe in an eye for an eye then you'd better make sure you don't make a thoughtless mistake when driving, playing contact sport, extreme sports, or even during the course of your job!!!!
Whilst I follow you thoughts on this one, and good ones I might add. I do think there is a difference in a mistake resulting in a fatality, as apposed to a definate "I was looking down texting, or tieing my shoelace, and didnt see the other vehicle/ped"No worries, this thread will keep all us PH's pounding the keys.........
Do you remember that announcement last year that, if a pedestrian was hit by a car, the car driver was to be presumed guilty? also if your car is cloned and commits an offence, you are guilty and have to go to extremes to prove otherwise.
committed said:
I thought the point of prison was to remove those who are a danger to society from society & to make those who plan criminal activity to think twice before knowingly carrying out acts of violence & distruction..... in order that we can all sleep safely in our beds at night.
Crashing a car whilst texting whilst totally unacceptable would be accidental as the point of texting was not planned to result in death. I'm sure that if your average Joe killed someone as a result of texting, that their life would be racked with guilt and remourse for years to come & may even culminate in suicide in exterme cases. Whilst a rapist or knife attacker......would be to the greater part remoursles & merely upset at being aprehended. They would most probably be considering how to perfect their art in priosn. These are the type of individuals that we need protecting from.
Accidents, no matter how devistating, are brought about by lack of thought (stupidity) & should be addressed by education not vengance.
If two brothers were driving together & crashed because the brother driving was texting, what punishment would the parents want exacting against the surviver who caused the fatal crash? It's easier to hate a stranger!
If hanging were reintroduced, then would the death penalty cover causing death by texting?
Don't get me wrong I'm not deffending these people but something doesn't appear equitable about the law on this.
Surely time behind bars should be relative to the calculating intent to do harm, whether to an individual or to property & the likelyhood of re offending & not just the outcome.
If you truly believe in an eye for an eye then you'd better make sure you don't make a thoughtless mistake when driving, playing contact sport, extreme sports, or even during the course of your job!!!!
The sooner this fCrashing a car whilst texting whilst totally unacceptable would be accidental as the point of texting was not planned to result in death. I'm sure that if your average Joe killed someone as a result of texting, that their life would be racked with guilt and remourse for years to come & may even culminate in suicide in exterme cases. Whilst a rapist or knife attacker......would be to the greater part remoursles & merely upset at being aprehended. They would most probably be considering how to perfect their art in priosn. These are the type of individuals that we need protecting from.
Accidents, no matter how devistating, are brought about by lack of thought (stupidity) & should be addressed by education not vengance.
If two brothers were driving together & crashed because the brother driving was texting, what punishment would the parents want exacting against the surviver who caused the fatal crash? It's easier to hate a stranger!
If hanging were reintroduced, then would the death penalty cover causing death by texting?
Don't get me wrong I'm not deffending these people but something doesn't appear equitable about the law on this.
Surely time behind bars should be relative to the calculating intent to do harm, whether to an individual or to property & the likelyhood of re offending & not just the outcome.
If you truly believe in an eye for an eye then you'd better make sure you don't make a thoughtless mistake when driving, playing contact sport, extreme sports, or even during the course of your job!!!!
king government and it's minsters are thrown out, the better for everyone. Hello there.
I think you will find that now the seriousness of the crime has increased then so has the fine!
Now i am not saying that driving while texting is allright,But that once again its the motorist that is top of the bill in such a badly run country.
I think you will find that now the seriousness of the crime has increased then so has the fine!
Now i am not saying that driving while texting is allright,But that once again its the motorist that is top of the bill in such a badly run country.
Edited by robseagul on Thursday 17th July 12:36
committed said:
Accidents, no matter how devistating, are brought about by lack of thought (stupidity) & should be addressed by education not vengance.
Is there a level of stupidity which you would regard as criminally culpable or would you reserve prison solely for those who intend harm to their victims?My view is that dangerous driving should have a custodial sentence available to the courts however the sentences received appear to be similar if not harsher to those received for manslaughter where the defendent intended some harm although not death. These cases are where the defendant is of previously good character and not the career criminals 'committed' refers to.
What should be of more concern for drivers is the creation of the new offence of causing death by careless driving.
A doctor who is careless at work and causes a death might lose his job and will almost certainly be sued but he cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. However when he gets in his car and drives home if his carelessness causes a death he is open to prosecution. The situation is made worse because the level of training he receives to practice medicine is considerable compared with the level of training he receives to drive a car.
Indeed this goes for the rest of use. Why should we be punished for carelessnes causing death in our cars but not in other aspects of our lives?
The Government appear to admit that it is to make the grieving families feel better but why would these families seek punishment of the doctor when he is driving but not when he is working?
Edited by Zeeky on Thursday 17th July 12:52
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff