New driving offences proposed
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
[quote=bbc]Death driving offences announced
New offences to deal with motorists who kill in England, Wales and Scotland have been announced by the government.
Under amendments to the Road Safety Bill, drivers could be charged with "causing death by careless driving", incurring up to five years in prison.
There would also be a new offence of "causing death when driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured", carrying a sentence of up to two years.
Road charity Brake said the proposals were a "step in the right direction".
Brake spokesperson Aimee Bowen said: "Changes to the system of charges and penalties for driving offences are long overdue.
"All too often we see killer drivers, who devastate families and communities through reckless and selfish behaviour behind the wheel, getting away with little more than a fine."
But, while welcoming the proposals, she said: "They fail to address the ongoing lack of justice for many drivers who cause serious injury on the roads."
Criminal Justice Minister Fiona Mactaggart said: "We're responding to the concerns of families, victims, road safety groups and the police who responded to our consultation by calling for measures to deal with careless driving that reflect the impact it can have.
"That's why we're creating a tougher legal framework to deal with bad driving."[/quote]
[small]Unfortunately I find myself in complete agreement with Brake on this issue, and as such find myself in an untenable position, I hereby hand in my resignation from PH ;)
[quote=bbc]Death driving offences announced
New offences to deal with motorists who kill in England, Wales and Scotland have been announced by the government.
Under amendments to the Road Safety Bill, drivers could be charged with "causing death by careless driving", incurring up to five years in prison.
There would also be a new offence of "causing death when driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured", carrying a sentence of up to two years.
Road charity Brake said the proposals were a "step in the right direction".
Brake spokesperson Aimee Bowen said: "Changes to the system of charges and penalties for driving offences are long overdue.
"All too often we see killer drivers, who devastate families and communities through reckless and selfish behaviour behind the wheel, getting away with little more than a fine."
But, while welcoming the proposals, she said: "They fail to address the ongoing lack of justice for many drivers who cause serious injury on the roads."
Criminal Justice Minister Fiona Mactaggart said: "We're responding to the concerns of families, victims, road safety groups and the police who responded to our consultation by calling for measures to deal with careless driving that reflect the impact it can have.
"That's why we're creating a tougher legal framework to deal with bad driving."[/quote]
[small]Unfortunately I find myself in complete agreement with Brake on this issue, and as such find myself in an untenable position, I hereby hand in my resignation from PH ;)
Hmmmmmm...
Surely if someone was driving badly and cause death, then it's death by dangerous driving and that works fine.
If the driver wasn't driving dangerously then how does it becomes such a serious offence that it has a 5 year penalty?
I hope that makes sense. If you kill someone on the road and it's not accidental, then you must be driving dangerously?
If it was a total accident, then does the driver require banging up for 5 years just because an accident happened?
May as well just drive like a loon then, as the result of driving carefully and having an accident, or driving badly and having an accident both leave you in prison for a long time!
Is this just another law that does the same thing? Much like all the new incitement to racial hatred stuff that is already covered by breach of the peace and stuff?
Dave
Surely if someone was driving badly and cause death, then it's death by dangerous driving and that works fine.
If the driver wasn't driving dangerously then how does it becomes such a serious offence that it has a 5 year penalty?
I hope that makes sense. If you kill someone on the road and it's not accidental, then you must be driving dangerously?
If it was a total accident, then does the driver require banging up for 5 years just because an accident happened?
May as well just drive like a loon then, as the result of driving carefully and having an accident, or driving badly and having an accident both leave you in prison for a long time!
Is this just another law that does the same thing? Much like all the new incitement to racial hatred stuff that is already covered by breach of the peace and stuff?
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Hmmmmmm...
Surely if someone was driving badly and cause death, then it's death by dangerous driving and that works fine.
If the driver wasn't driving dangerously then how does it becomes such a serious offence that it has a 5 year penalty?
I hope that makes sense. If you kill someone on the road and it's not accidental, then you must be driving dangerously?
If it was a total accident, then does the driver require banging up for 5 years just because an accident happened?
May as well just drive like a loon then, as the result of driving carefully and having an accident, or driving badly and having an accident both leave you in prison for a long time!
Is this just another law that does the same thing? Much like all the new incitement to racial hatred stuff that is already covered by breach of the peace and stuff?
Dave
I completely agree. I was under the impression that if a driver caused death through careless or dangerous driving they would be jailed anyway?
The only problem with increasing this legislation like this seems to be that the police and CPS have less discretion. Accidents do hapen to the safest drivers. My nightmare is the day when driving in an urban area, perfectly safely, and at less than 30mph, a child runs out in front of my car from a screened area, with no chance to brake. Similarly, if a cyclist did such a manouvre such as pull out in front of me on a roundabout that I could not avoid them.
The emotions involved with the families with such a tragedy would be understandable, and in the horror of what has happened also understandable they should look for someone to blame, and look for the police to follow through with such legislation, and investiagate and try the driver.
The danger is that the government seem to have differing ideas of what 'driving safely' means than the rest of the normal driving public.
ie - would you get in serious trouble if you hit another vehicle while driving slightly in excess of the speed limit, and someone died as a result?
ie - would you get in serious trouble if you hit another vehicle while driving slightly in excess of the speed limit, and someone died as a result?
justinp1 said:
My nightmare is the day when driving in an urban area, perfectly safely, and at less than 30mph, a child runs out in front of my car from a screened area, with no chance to brake.
Well, I can help you out here...worry not!
Any child hit by a car doing less than 30mph will just bounce off and be fine.
Just don't do 31mph, they will be dropping dead as you drive passed.
I understood this to mean that the two offenses were independent of each other, not mutually exclusive (meaning you can get charged and convicted of BOTH for one incident).
If someone was to cause death by dangerous driving then they could get 5 years. If they were dsqualified, uninsured, whilst driving at the time of the "death" then they would be subject to ANOTHER 2 years ontop of the 5 for the previous offense.
If someone was to cause death by dangerous driving then they could get 5 years. If they were dsqualified, uninsured, whilst driving at the time of the "death" then they would be subject to ANOTHER 2 years ontop of the 5 for the previous offense.
One rarely see,s Dangerous driving convictions reported anymore.Its WDCAA or careless driving that involves Death, that get convictions.
Lorry driver ran into back car 1.am on motorway killed 4 people.It was believed he fell asleep.Found Guilty of careless driving = 6 month ban and few hundred ££ fine.presume Dangerous could Not have been proved.
Another example of perverting the course of Justice by CPS and Courts.
Lorry driver ran into back car 1.am on motorway killed 4 people.It was believed he fell asleep.Found Guilty of careless driving = 6 month ban and few hundred ££ fine.presume Dangerous could Not have been proved.
Another example of perverting the course of Justice by CPS and Courts.
Parrot of doom said:
The danger is that the government seem to have differing ideas of what 'driving safely' means than the rest of the normal driving public.
ie - would you get in serious trouble if you hit another vehicle while driving slightly in excess of the speed limit, and someone died as a result?
I think you would.
It seems to me that the two old offences of careless driving and dangerous driving are being split into three [ careless, careless causing death and dangerous].
Some of the more severe careless go to the new "careless causing death" and some of the less severe dangerous goto "careless causing death". I don't understand how that helps.
They have also added a new fourth offence, not having the paperwork right.
Given what the UK Gov are like, I can see 71 mph on a clear empty motorway at 3 am being an automatic dangerous offence.
On an entirely unrelated subject, did you know 3,500 folks die on UK roads per year, but 10,000 men die of prostate cancer ?
Is the UK Gov putting in three times more effort into that type of cancer than road deaths ?
More nannying government control then, to pamper to whinging people, because the existing laws are not enforced effectively.
Perhaps if they put more police on the roads, the real dangerous drivers (ie, those who drift lanes, don't indicate, jump red lights etc etc) might actually get caught and there would be no need for pointless laws like this one.
Kneejerk Labour crap!
Someone remind me why democracy is so good again? Just seems to allow the biggest tw4ts to run the country!
Dave
Perhaps if they put more police on the roads, the real dangerous drivers (ie, those who drift lanes, don't indicate, jump red lights etc etc) might actually get caught and there would be no need for pointless laws like this one.
Kneejerk Labour crap!
Someone remind me why democracy is so good again? Just seems to allow the biggest tw4ts to run the country!
Dave
Peter Ward said:
I also couldn't quite understand why causing death by careless driving results in 5 years but causing death while unlicenced/disqualified/uninsured is only 2 years. Anyone help me with this please? I must be missing something.
Simple - if you're driving unlicensed and kill someone who walks out into your path giving no chance whatsoever to avoid the impact, then you'll be going down for two years. You don't have to prove carelessness, merely that someone was driving a car without a licence and bang them up. Now imagine you're in immigrant who hasn't yet exchanged your original licence for whatever reason but are a completely safe, careful and considerate driver - the new law will still apply to you.
As for the other offences, they're defined in law as:
Careless falls below the standard of a careful and considerate driver. The standard is defined in the Highway Code, so exceeding the speed limit by a significant amount has been held to be careless driving.
Dangerous is where the standard falls far below that of a careful and considerate driver and it would be obvious to a careful and considerate driver that the standard of driving was far below that set in the Highway Code.
To me the new offence sounds rather like punishing for the effect of the driving rather than the mentality behind the accident. I've spent enough time in Court with these things and while the grieving relatives have my sympathy putting someone in jail for what could be a momentary lapse of judgement is hardly proportionate punishment.
sandman said:Unlikely. Most commonly, sentences in the UK run concurrently, not consecutively. Anyway, it seems probable that any convicted will be released early (before parole eligibility) because of overcrowding. D'uh! - Streaky
I understood this to mean that the two offenses were independent of each other, not mutually exclusive (meaning you can get charged and convicted of BOTH for one incident).
If someone was to cause death by dangerous driving then they could get 5 years. If they were dsqualified, uninsured, whilst driving at the time of the "death" then they would be subject to ANOTHER 2 years ontop of the 5 for the previous offense.
Seems to me that the punishments are the wrong way round. Death by careless driving should be 2 years, and for driving uninsured, no licence etce should be 5.
I suppose on accident stats we should be asking how many of the KSIs involve uninsured licenced etc drivers. Could be that they are the cause of many speed cameras etc which doesn't quite seem right
I suppose on accident stats we should be asking how many of the KSIs involve uninsured licenced etc drivers. Could be that they are the cause of many speed cameras etc which doesn't quite seem right
bobski said:
I've heard of people getting only convicted of driving without due car for doing 80 in a 40!! What about dangerous do judges/magistrates not understand?!!!
Your simplistic argument is exactly the way in which speed cameras work, and also why they are failing to acheive any improvement in road safety. Speed is not inherrently dangerous and speed does not kill. Inappropriate speed for the conditions is dangerous and causes accidents and deaths.
You are assuming that 80mph in a 40mph limit is dangerous without knowing the facts behind it. It might have been dangerous, but equaly plenty of 40mph roads are dual carriageways that could quite safely be driven at 80mph under the right conditions.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff