Reform for death by driving laws
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4231535.stm
Reform for death by driving laws
The Home Office has reviewed road safety laws
The government is planning to create tougher punishments for people who cause death by driving.
As part of its plans it is examining the introduction of a new offence of causing death when disqualified, which would attract longer sentences.
The maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving was raised from 10 to 14 years but victims' families complain offenders are still treated leniently.
The new proposals follow a review of the current laws.
Leniency complaints
BBC correspondent Neil Bennett said the government's own advisers admitted that causing death by dangerous driving was a crime which created particular difficulties.
It involved someone's death yet the offender did not deliberately set out to kill.
Victims' families complained especially about the leniency given to offenders who had driven while banned or without a licence at all, he added.
The Home Office is considering making this a new offence attracting one of the longer sentences.
It will also encourage prosecutors to make more use of manslaughter charge in the most serious cases.
'Easier convictions'
The review follows pressure from campaigners who complain that the government is failing to take deaths on Britain's roads seriously.
In October, a Transport Select Committee report said there was public anger that a death was apparently regarded as less serious if it was caused by a driver.
Drivers are often charged with careless driving, over dangerous driving, as it is easier to convict them on, it said.
The report called for an urgent overhaul of the motoring offences system, with tougher sentences and higher fines.
Reform for death by driving laws
The Home Office has reviewed road safety laws
The government is planning to create tougher punishments for people who cause death by driving.
As part of its plans it is examining the introduction of a new offence of causing death when disqualified, which would attract longer sentences.
The maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving was raised from 10 to 14 years but victims' families complain offenders are still treated leniently.
The new proposals follow a review of the current laws.
Leniency complaints
BBC correspondent Neil Bennett said the government's own advisers admitted that causing death by dangerous driving was a crime which created particular difficulties.
It involved someone's death yet the offender did not deliberately set out to kill.
Victims' families complained especially about the leniency given to offenders who had driven while banned or without a licence at all, he added.
The Home Office is considering making this a new offence attracting one of the longer sentences.
It will also encourage prosecutors to make more use of manslaughter charge in the most serious cases.
'Easier convictions'
The review follows pressure from campaigners who complain that the government is failing to take deaths on Britain's roads seriously.
In October, a Transport Select Committee report said there was public anger that a death was apparently regarded as less serious if it was caused by a driver.
Drivers are often charged with careless driving, over dangerous driving, as it is easier to convict them on, it said.
The report called for an urgent overhaul of the motoring offences system, with tougher sentences and higher fines.
While genuine public concern must be addressed I'm wondering if we are moving towards a situation where a death caused by driver misbehaviour might end up being treated more seriously than a death caused without the involvement of a motor vehicle, i.e. a murder in the normal sense.
If so, I think this would create an imbalance in the punishment system.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
If so, I think this would create an imbalance in the punishment system.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I don't really agree with this. Accidents happen, for various reasons and yes some will be down to human error. But someone who makes a mistake an kills someone aren't genrally uncaring humans and will live with the effects all their lives.
The reason this is muted is because the courts and the CPS fail us. If there is evidence of a death casued by dangerous driving then charge and use the punishment already there, you do not need new laws. The problem is the CPS usually take carless driving becasue they have insufficent proof for a DD conviction.
Whilst having every sympathy with the dead persons family, will jailing a genrally good person for years bring back a loved one, no. Will it destroy the driver and his family, probably.
The car theives (Joyriders) who kill yes jail them for life, no problem there at all.
It is strange that there are some who would punish accidents this way, yet Lord Brockett, Lord Archer are feted by the media and a convicted killer is a soap star.
This is another election issue.
The reason this is muted is because the courts and the CPS fail us. If there is evidence of a death casued by dangerous driving then charge and use the punishment already there, you do not need new laws. The problem is the CPS usually take carless driving becasue they have insufficent proof for a DD conviction.
Whilst having every sympathy with the dead persons family, will jailing a genrally good person for years bring back a loved one, no. Will it destroy the driver and his family, probably.
The car theives (Joyriders) who kill yes jail them for life, no problem there at all.
It is strange that there are some who would punish accidents this way, yet Lord Brockett, Lord Archer are feted by the media and a convicted killer is a soap star.
This is another election issue.
spaximus said:
I don't really agree with this. Accidents happen, for various reasons and yes some will be down to human error. But someone who makes a mistake an kills someone aren't genrally uncaring humans and will live with the effects all their lives.
The reason this is muted is because the courts and the CPS fail us. If there is evidence of a death casued by dangerous driving then charge and use the punishment already there, you do not need new laws. The problem is the CPS usually take carless driving becasue they have insufficent proof for a DD conviction.
Whilst having every sympathy with the dead persons family, will jailing a genrally good person for years bring back a loved one, no. Will it destroy the driver and his family, probably.
The car theives (Joyriders) who kill yes jail them for life, no problem there at all.
It is strange that there are some who would punish accidents this way, yet Lord Brockett, Lord Archer are feted by the media and a convicted killer is a soap star.
This is another election issue.
The real issue is that a lot of drunks / hooligans / tossers/joyriders / reckless drivers kill people and get off with very short jail sentences (and b*gger all financial compensation for the victims family )despite driving in a way which totally disregards the safety of others around them .... I personally support harsher sentences for killing others wihile driving - unless it was not the drivers fault.
I read a book recently called "Fatal Error" by Thomas Munch Peterson (http://tinyurl.com/3n7tn) - I'd strongly recommend reading it if you get the chance.
It's the true story of a completely ordinary bloke (a university lecturer) who was driving on the motorway, reached over to get a packet of mints from his jacket pocket, and lost control of his car.
The accident resulted in several severe injuries and three fatalities.
As it happened, the car following him was equipped with a video recorder (traffic surveying I think), and the whole incident was caught on tape. The video showed that his eyes were off the road for 1.9 seconds.
The book describes in detail the court case, sentencing, and the resulting three months he spent in jail on a death by dangerous driving charge.
It's a very sobering read, and all the time you're reading it, you're thinking how easily it could have been you.
Three months in jail for taking your eyes off the road for less two seconds. Makes £60 and 3 points for 35mph in a 30 seem like chickenfeed.
It's the true story of a completely ordinary bloke (a university lecturer) who was driving on the motorway, reached over to get a packet of mints from his jacket pocket, and lost control of his car.
The accident resulted in several severe injuries and three fatalities.
As it happened, the car following him was equipped with a video recorder (traffic surveying I think), and the whole incident was caught on tape. The video showed that his eyes were off the road for 1.9 seconds.
The book describes in detail the court case, sentencing, and the resulting three months he spent in jail on a death by dangerous driving charge.
It's a very sobering read, and all the time you're reading it, you're thinking how easily it could have been you.
Three months in jail for taking your eyes off the road for less two seconds. Makes £60 and 3 points for 35mph in a 30 seem like chickenfeed.
Streetcop said:
Accidents do happen...and jail terms wont be for 'accidents' as such....they will be for causing death by DANGEROUS driving...which can be clearly proved...
Err...not according to the good ol' Beeb.
Quite clearly stated as max 5 years jail for causing death by CARELESS driving.
One moment of inattention....one silly mistake.....maybe one sneeze at the wrong moment.....
Kiss goodbye to five years of your life.
Justice? Bollox it is.........
Some government bint heard on radio today it's a dangerous thing (driving), so you've got to do it safely.........
Yes.....right, then..........
mybrainhurts said:
Accidents do happen...and jail terms wont be for 'accidents' as such....they will be for causing death by DANGEROUS driving...which can be clearly proved...
Err...not according to the good ol' Beeb.
Quite clearly stated as max 5 years jail for causing death by CARELESS driving.
One moment of inattention....one silly mistake.....maybe one sneeze at the wrong moment.....
Kiss goodbye to five years of your life.
Justice? Bollox it is.........
Some government bint heard on radio today it's a dangerous thing (driving), so you've got to do it safely.........
Yes.....right, then..........
Agree,
Not just 5 years your career could be down the tubes as well.
But it's also society loss of a contributing individual who would likely never offend again and does not represent a real future risk to society
all for an ACCIDENT.
Streetcop said:
Accidents do happen...and jail terms wont be for 'accidents' as such....they will be for causing death by DANGEROUS driving...which can be clearly proved...
I think the current definitions are OK, and the Home office agrees that these should stay. Although they do intend to abolish the old "wanton and furious driving" which is used about 20 times a year and carries up to a 2 year sentence.
We might have common ground on what WE would consider dangerous, but proving it beyond all reasonable doubt is often much more difficult, at least acc CPS. Therefore there is definitely a big gap between driving which is "below the standard" and "far below the standard."
When you read the consultation it is clear where the Home Office intentions are aimed, to deal with the real piss takers and persistent offenders as opposed to Miss Apple Muncher who slips up seriously just the once. However once things are written in sometime the law of unintended consequences apply.
Now one source lists the following examples:- Based on these examples, personally I am unsure whether the proposed new laws will clarify matters until a fair bit of case law is in place. For example CD1 vs DD1, or CD4 vs DD4. ?? !! ??
These examples below ARE NOT mine btw.
Causing death by careless driving
CD1 Trying to overtake on hill, killing oncoming motorist. Probable sentence: five years’ jail
CD2 Pulling out of junction in front of motorcycle or other vehicle, killing rider or driver
CD3 Falling asleep at wheel and crashing, killing people in another vehicle
CD4 Speeding motorist losing control of vehicle and crashing into another car, killing occupants
CD5 Driver talking on a mobile phone, fatally injuring a pedestrian
Causing death by dangerous driving
DD1 Man drives on wrong side of road, hits a car and kills occupants
DD2 Youth races another driver along city street, hits pedestrian who dies
DD3 Angry motorist objects to criticism, makes a high-risk three-point turn and hits a buggy, leading to child’s death
DD4 Motorist drives at 50mph in a 30mph area, loses control, hits another car, killing child
DD5 Disqualified driver steals car, jumps red light, hits another car killing a child
Flat in Fifth said:
Now one source lists the following examples:- Based on these examples, personally I am unsure whether the proposed new laws will clarify matters until a fair bit of case law is in place. For example CD1 vs DD1, or CD4 vs DD4. ?? !! ??
These examples below ARE NOT mine btw.
Causing death by careless driving
CD1 Trying to overtake on hill, killing oncoming motorist. Probable sentence: five years’ jail
CD2 Pulling out of junction in front of motorcycle or other vehicle, killing rider or driver
CD3 Falling asleep at wheel and crashing, killing people in another vehicle
CD4 Speeding motorist losing control of vehicle and crashing into another car, killing occupants
CD5 Driver talking on a mobile phone, fatally injuring a pedestrian
Causing death by dangerous driving
DD1 Man drives on wrong side of road, hits a car and kills occupants
DD2 Youth races another driver along city street, hits pedestrian who dies
DD3 Angry motorist objects to criticism, makes a high-risk three-point turn and hits a buggy, leading to child’s death
DD4 Motorist drives at 50mph in a 30mph area, loses control, hits another car, killing child
DD5 Disqualified driver steals car, jumps red light, hits another car killing a child
FWIW, with the exception of CD2, I think I've had convictions for all of those for Death by Dangerous Driving. I've seen a couple get home on 'CD2' but it's very dependent on circumstances.
StressedDave said:
FWIW, with the exception of CD2, I think I've had convictions for all of those for Death by Dangerous Driving. I've seen a couple get home on 'CD2' but it's very dependent on circumstances.
Exactly! It really is a difficult one and I'm sort of tending towards an opinion somewhat similar to the resident vs burglar situation.
Namely that a new law would only serve to confuse matters for a time and what is needed is better understanding and application of the existing law.
gone said:
Streetcop said:
Your actions with a shotgun leaving someone dead and you'll serve life.
Not if it was an accident, shirly?
Possibly if you were negligent!
Seriously worrying then
1 You deliberately go out of your way to acquire a weapon which has only one purpose by design and that is to kill. You use that weapon indiscriminately and you go to prison for life which if you apologise means you will get out in 8 years or less.
2 You buy a car which is designed for transport and you jump through all the hoops the authorities set out before you climb aboard and use it for transport purposes. You have an accident because you are a crap driver and you kill someone. You are deemed to be negligent and then sentenced to prison. The negligent authorities who set the bar too low get off scot free.
3 You Join the police force and eventually cos you look like Hitler you are made chief constable of North Wales. You invent the arrive deprived scheme which when the figures for 2004 come out is seen to have been responsible for the deaths of at least 15 people. You get off scot free and continue in the job until you collect your pension
Great Britian thank you Tony you are a great prime minister
At present 'Causing Death by Careless Driving' is dependant on whether the driver has consumed alcohol and is over the limit at the time of the RTC.
It is not an offence that can be charged if someone dies as a result of a genuine mistake. This at the moment is purely a charge of careless driving with an unfortunate death which the magistrates/judges are unable to base a penalty on. They must deal purely with the facts of the lack of attention which caused the collision and not the result of it.
I believe the idea of the new legislation is to make this Death by Careless)an offence in its own right.
I believe that killing someone whilst being over the DD limit will be moved into the new offence of Casuing Death by illegal driving.
It is not an offence that can be charged if someone dies as a result of a genuine mistake. This at the moment is purely a charge of careless driving with an unfortunate death which the magistrates/judges are unable to base a penalty on. They must deal purely with the facts of the lack of attention which caused the collision and not the result of it.
I believe the idea of the new legislation is to make this Death by Careless)an offence in its own right.
I believe that killing someone whilst being over the DD limit will be moved into the new offence of Casuing Death by illegal driving.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff