Interesting read
Discussion
Manslaughter has always been on option in road traffic deaths - I've even been involved in a case where the defendant was found guilty of it (R. v. Humble if anyone feels the need to look it up). It is rarely used because it basically requires intent to be proven - something that doesn't often occur in road accidents. If you want to get really esoteric, there's still 'furious and wanton driving' on the statute books which is a particular giggle and used to be used a lot before the current RTA became law.
As for the theory of changing the law, the current RTA only has two offences: dangerous driving and driving without due care/reasonable consideration. Dangerous driving has different penalties depending on whether there is death involved (even if the driving is only partially responsible for the death - e.g. the Selby rail crash and Gary Hart's involvement in it), but there is no such distinction for careless driving.
Clearly someone feels that it is right that in cases of careless driving (where the definition is more or less driving that falls below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver) that if as a result of your carelessness somebody is killed, then you should be penalised more than if your carelessness results in a repair bill. Unfortunately in my book, that falls squarely in line with the 'Speed Kills' mantra that pervades all road safety.
How's this for a case in point:
Say you have a few beers in the evening and mistakenly believe that you should drive home from the pub. On the way, you miss a 30 mph road sign and are still doing 58 mph when a group of lads come out of a corner too quickly, cross over onto your side of the road and hit you head-on.
They are doing a similar speed to you but their car is significantly older than yours and time has not been too kind to it. It is drastically shortened and all of them die, while you are more or less unscathed. Sadly you are so unscathed that you can't refuse the breath test which shows that you are significantly over the limit.
Now, other than excess speed, there is nothing that you could have done to prevent the accident. It could be argued that you were driving carelessly because your speed was so high and it falls below the standard expected of a careful and considerate driver.
Were you sober, you could expect a fine and a slap on the wrist. Unfortunately you are drunk and you could be looking at ten years in jail.
While I can understand the grief of a family who has lost someone to a collision (you're not supposed to call them accidents, as accidents implies that no one is to blame), is it really justice to jail somebody who has suffered a momentary loss of attention which results in a death?
As for the theory of changing the law, the current RTA only has two offences: dangerous driving and driving without due care/reasonable consideration. Dangerous driving has different penalties depending on whether there is death involved (even if the driving is only partially responsible for the death - e.g. the Selby rail crash and Gary Hart's involvement in it), but there is no such distinction for careless driving.
Clearly someone feels that it is right that in cases of careless driving (where the definition is more or less driving that falls below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver) that if as a result of your carelessness somebody is killed, then you should be penalised more than if your carelessness results in a repair bill. Unfortunately in my book, that falls squarely in line with the 'Speed Kills' mantra that pervades all road safety.
How's this for a case in point:
Say you have a few beers in the evening and mistakenly believe that you should drive home from the pub. On the way, you miss a 30 mph road sign and are still doing 58 mph when a group of lads come out of a corner too quickly, cross over onto your side of the road and hit you head-on.
They are doing a similar speed to you but their car is significantly older than yours and time has not been too kind to it. It is drastically shortened and all of them die, while you are more or less unscathed. Sadly you are so unscathed that you can't refuse the breath test which shows that you are significantly over the limit.
Now, other than excess speed, there is nothing that you could have done to prevent the accident. It could be argued that you were driving carelessly because your speed was so high and it falls below the standard expected of a careful and considerate driver.
Were you sober, you could expect a fine and a slap on the wrist. Unfortunately you are drunk and you could be looking at ten years in jail.
While I can understand the grief of a family who has lost someone to a collision (you're not supposed to call them accidents, as accidents implies that no one is to blame), is it really justice to jail somebody who has suffered a momentary loss of attention which results in a death?
The example quoted above by cuneus was one of the cases cited by a BBC prog on Monday. Series called Britain's Secret shame, and the first programme was about "Killer Drivers"
For those who didn't see it t'was mainly focussed on cases designed to cause sympathy. Eg lad killed when crossing road hit by driver overtaking other cars. Turns out the driver never passed a test, uninsured, untaxed, banned several times, appeared in front of the beak 6 times between the collision and when he finally appeared re the fatacc. Guilty. Fined £200. Previous history not taken into account when sentencing due to "the rules."
Showed a brief interlude when an Avon & Somerset traffic unit were out gunning for a banned driver when they were tasked to attend a serious m/bike incident. Very faint inference that manning levels of traffic and reduction thereof is part of the problem.(BTW Did we get a quick glimpse of Silverback Mike at the scene?)
The m/bike wheely was another example.
Regardless of how much we all hate these idiots in "community" / "throw away" cars who drive like nutters and get the rest of us a bad name one thing I found dificult to swallow.
Hidden right at the end was the definite assertion that for motoring offences that resulted in death / serious injury a significant part of the problem was that the driver was solely judged on the standard of his / her driving at the time of the incident and that this should be changed.
Comments?
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 2nd November 20:17
For those who didn't see it t'was mainly focussed on cases designed to cause sympathy. Eg lad killed when crossing road hit by driver overtaking other cars. Turns out the driver never passed a test, uninsured, untaxed, banned several times, appeared in front of the beak 6 times between the collision and when he finally appeared re the fatacc. Guilty. Fined £200. Previous history not taken into account when sentencing due to "the rules."
Showed a brief interlude when an Avon & Somerset traffic unit were out gunning for a banned driver when they were tasked to attend a serious m/bike incident. Very faint inference that manning levels of traffic and reduction thereof is part of the problem.(BTW Did we get a quick glimpse of Silverback Mike at the scene?)
The m/bike wheely was another example.
Regardless of how much we all hate these idiots in "community" / "throw away" cars who drive like nutters and get the rest of us a bad name one thing I found dificult to swallow.
Hidden right at the end was the definite assertion that for motoring offences that resulted in death / serious injury a significant part of the problem was that the driver was solely judged on the standard of his / her driving at the time of the incident and that this should be changed.
Comments?
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 2nd November 20:17
StressedDave said:
How's this for a case in point:
Say you have a few beers in the evening and mistakenly believe that you should drive home from the pub. On the way, you miss a 30 mph road sign and are still doing 58 mph................... ..........While I can understand the grief of a family who has lost someone to a collision (you're not supposed to call them accidents, as accidents implies that no one is to blame), is it really justice to jail somebody who has suffered a momentary loss of attention which results in a death?
What you have posted makes some sense, but if I may reply...
I dont believe anyone "mistakenly" drink drives. If you are going to drive, then
DONT DRINK!. It`s that simple. agreed there is the odd case of spiked drinks
Your surrounding should make you aware that you are no longer driving on an NSL road. A 30mph limit is pretty obvious.
again agreed that there are more and more ridiculous lower limits being imposed
So unfortunately, I dont see either of the above as a "momentary loss of attention".
Steve
These clowns in the Commons Transport Select Committee don't have a clue about anything. Led by gullible Gwynneth....
They soak up everything that Brunstrom, Carsten, et al, drone on about.
After their monumental speed review, one of its members, Helen Jackson, a Sheffield MP, got gatso'd, on her way from Westminster, near Sheffield!
See "evidence" submitted to the Committee here
They soak up everything that Brunstrom, Carsten, et al, drone on about.
After their monumental speed review, one of its members, Helen Jackson, a Sheffield MP, got gatso'd, on her way from Westminster, near Sheffield!
See "evidence" submitted to the Committee here
towman said:
I dont believe anyone "mistakenly" drink drives. If you are going to drive, then
agreed there is the odd case of spiked drinks
Your surrounding should make you aware that you are no longer driving on an NSL road. A 30mph limit is pretty obvious.
again agreed that there are more and more ridiculous lower limits being imposed
So unfortunately, I dont see either of the above as a "momentary loss of attention".
Steve
I meant mistaken in the belief that you were safe to drive home drunk, not mistaken that you were drunk. I've been to enough scenes where the driver was anaesthetised before the accident to thoroughly agree with your comments on mixing alcohol and driving, but I was throwing up a case where despite being drunk, and doing double the speed limit, the driver was not to blame for the other car crossing the centre line and hitting his car head-on.
As for not spotting the 30 mph limit, ask yourself how many people say that they didn't spot the limit change when stopped by the BiB for speeding. In the case I quoted, the accident happened just after the speed limit change, so you could just as easily argued that he had seen the sign late and was starting to take appropriate action when the accident happened.
Let's take the emotive drink drive / speeding out of it and use another hypothetical situation.
You are the driver of a vehicle which suffers rapid front tyre deflation, resultant partial loss of control means a visit to the scenery. At and up to the time of the deflation you are driving the vehicle completely legally and normally for the roads in question.
Reason for tyre failure is impact damage, kerb? pothole? Opinion of tyre company expert is that the compression damage would normally be detected prior to the sudden deflation by a close visual inspection.
(Note having suffered tyres on rally cars which have experienced this type of damage, it can be spotted, but you have to know what you are looking for.)
Situation 1 no damage other than to vehicle and a wall.
Situation 2, a pedestrian on the pavement is struck by your vehicle before hitting the wall, Fatal injuries result.
We can take for granted that situation 2 will be investigated far more thoroughly than 1.
The suggestion is that in situation 2 it could be argued that the driver had been negligent in maintenance by not making sufficiently rigorous checks of the vehicle.
How would YOU defend yourself?
Discuss.
You are the driver of a vehicle which suffers rapid front tyre deflation, resultant partial loss of control means a visit to the scenery. At and up to the time of the deflation you are driving the vehicle completely legally and normally for the roads in question.
Reason for tyre failure is impact damage, kerb? pothole? Opinion of tyre company expert is that the compression damage would normally be detected prior to the sudden deflation by a close visual inspection.
(Note having suffered tyres on rally cars which have experienced this type of damage, it can be spotted, but you have to know what you are looking for.)
Situation 1 no damage other than to vehicle and a wall.
Situation 2, a pedestrian on the pavement is struck by your vehicle before hitting the wall, Fatal injuries result.
We can take for granted that situation 2 will be investigated far more thoroughly than 1.
The suggestion is that in situation 2 it could be argued that the driver had been negligent in maintenance by not making sufficiently rigorous checks of the vehicle.
How would YOU defend yourself?
Discuss.
I too saw the program on the beeb, and the driver in the case of the child being runover was a total scally, no insurance, no licence etc hardly evidence of the typical motorist. Apparently the most you can be fined for no licence is 60 quid and only 200 fine for no insurance, ridiculous! no wonder he was still on the roads after 7 such offences. If persistent offenders were erm, 'taken out of the equation earlier' instead of left to continue driving like "|@#$% then surely their would be less cases like this. A very emotive production that I felt painted all drivers as irresponsible potential killers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff