Proposals to jail you for looking at your passenger
Discussion
Daily Telegraph said:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/14/nmob14.xml
Drivers on mobile phone could soon face prison
Last Updated: 4:04am GMT 14/12/2006
Motorists who use their mobile phones while driving could soon face jail, under reforms announced yesterday.
A wide range of offences including tailgating, tuning a car radio or applying make-up while driving may also be reclassified as serious offences following proposals unveiled by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Under the changes in the law expected by next September, motorists who cause death on the roads could face prosecution for manslaughter and ultimately life imprisonment.
Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: "We have strong feelings that public views have moved along at a pace in recent years and we want to make sure our policies reflect public views." Motorists who kill at present face prosecution for dangerous driving, which carries a two-year maximum prison sentence.
Careless driving can be dealt with only by a community order or a fine.
The range of offences classed as serious enough to warrant imprisonment include overtaking on the inside, jumping a red light, reading a map or a newspaper, lighting a cigarette or turning to look at a passenger.
Plans to jail killer motorists for life were welcomed by campaigners. "It's high time," said Brigitte Chaudhry, the founder of RoadPeace, the charity for road crash victims.
One wonders which recidivists, rapists and murderers John Reid will let free "on licence" so as to house the real criminals who tune their radios, eat apples, etc. while stationary at the traffic signals.
And as for being jailed for turning to look at a passenger ... that's going to mean major changes to all in-car shots in films and TV! Not to mention several thousand new prisons to house these scourges of society
This bunch of incompetents that call themselves a government haven't got a clue, have they? And the CPS are no better. But, maybe, just maybe, it's simply a case of lawyers trying to create more work for themselves.
Streaky
streaky said:
This bunch of incompetents that call themselves a government haven't got a clue, have they? And the CPS are no better. But, maybe, just maybe, it's simply a case of lawyers trying to create more work for themselves.
Streaky
Streaky
NOT lawyers trying to create work, just Greedy Gordon and his ilk finding another milch cow.......
mind you I wouldn't mind the few trafpol that there are pulling over the two yakking wimnmin I saw in a Citrone Bigarso yesterday blythly chatting facing each other!!! while attempting to guide their shitbox down a 3-lane Autobahn using all three lanes aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!
JMGS4 said:
streaky said:
This bunch of incompetents that call themselves a government haven't got a clue, have they? And the CPS are no better. But, maybe, just maybe, it's simply a case of lawyers trying to create more work for themselves.
Streaky
Streaky
NOT lawyers trying to create work, just Greedy Gordon and his ilk finding another milch cow.
) when they are released because of a successful appear under the Human Rights Act - StreakyAlso posted by Wildy - at 02:04 (why were you up so late my darling? - as "Handy in Hand .. Handycuffs to Jail.." (www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=335819&f=10&h=0) - Streaky
GKP said:
Daily Telegraph said:
The range of offences classed as serious enough to warrant imprisonment include overtaking on the inside
But no penalty for sitting in the outside lane at 65mph for miles on end, while a queue of frustrated drivers builds up behind them.
streaky said:
JMGS4 said:
streaky said:
This bunch of incompetents that call themselves a government haven't got a clue, have they? And the CPS are no better. But, maybe, just maybe, it's simply a case of lawyers trying to create more work for themselves.
Streaky
Streaky
NOT lawyers trying to create work, just Greedy Gordon and his ilk finding another milch cow.
) when they are released because of a successful appear under the Human Rights Act - StreakyI consider myself corrected!...but hell, you knew what I meant!
JMGS4 said:
streaky said:
JMGS4 said:
streaky said:
This bunch of incompetents that call themselves a government haven't got a clue, have they? And the CPS are no better. But, maybe, just maybe, it's simply a case of lawyers trying to create more work for themselves.
Streaky
Streaky
NOT lawyers trying to create work, just Greedy Gordon and his ilk finding another milch cow.
) when they are released because of a successful appear under the Human Rights Act - StreakyI consider myself corrected!...but hell, you knew what I meant!
streaky said:
Of course I did! I'm just an ornery cuss. However, it enabled me to make the point about the cost of imprisonment and reduction in tax income to fund the over-blown cost of the new Parliament building in Gordon Brown's Scotland - Streaky
Me too! Agreed on overpriced buildings for the useless twunts, how about that circus tent that cost a couple of sqiillion (dome?) They should put the monkeys from the HP in it, preferably without heating......
I draw your attention to the basis of these proposals....
Now this is a double-edged sword:
1. Making/enforcing laws should be dependent on whether enough people think they're right? Is this real justice?
2. Not making/not enforcing laws should be dependent on whether enough people are fed up with them? So let's get rid of cameras and fix the speed limits!
Fundamentally, these enlightened, relativist lawmakers and pressure groups can't have it both ways. If policy is to be dependent on whether the general population agrees with it then there's an awful lot of laws that should be eliminated.
CPS said:
Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: "We have strong feelings that public views have moved along at a pace in recent years and we want to make sure our policies reflect public views." Motorists who kill at present face prosecution for dangerous driving, which carries a two-year maximum prison sentence.
Now this is a double-edged sword:
1. Making/enforcing laws should be dependent on whether enough people think they're right? Is this real justice?
2. Not making/not enforcing laws should be dependent on whether enough people are fed up with them? So let's get rid of cameras and fix the speed limits!
Fundamentally, these enlightened, relativist lawmakers and pressure groups can't have it both ways. If policy is to be dependent on whether the general population agrees with it then there's an awful lot of laws that should be eliminated.
Peter Ward said:
Now this is a double-edged sword:
1. Making/enforcing laws should be dependent on whether enough people think they're right? Is this real justice?
That is a good point. I would question 'public opinion' though, and say that it should really be press opinion, which unfortunately seems to drive the sheep like members of the public instead of them making up their own minds.
What really terrifies me is "but for the grace of God there goes I". If we are really not going to accept any culpability, we're *all* (and I don't just mean us PH hoons, I mean ALL) going to jail should we be unlucky enough to have a fatal accident.
I don't think there's a driver on the roads who has never changed the channel or something on the radio while driving, who has never glanced down from the road ... etc etc
This is the future - unless we draw the line and say that some risk is inherent in society.
dave
I don't think there's a driver on the roads who has never changed the channel or something on the radio while driving, who has never glanced down from the road ... etc etc
This is the future - unless we draw the line and say that some risk is inherent in society.
dave
rsvmilly said:
GKP said:
Daily Telegraph said:
The range of offences classed as serious enough to warrant imprisonment include overtaking on the inside
But no penalty for sitting in the outside lane at 65mph for miles on end, while a queue of frustrated drivers builds up behind them.
And overtaking on the inside.
What a bunch of f**k**g idiots the CPS are. Spend time on finding the murders and rapist in this country. Honestly, jail for turning on your radio, complete anal flicking by the cps...
I agree with the sentences for Dangerous Driving.
However, this probably includes me, as the only way to make progress is to undertake these days (and I have had a lot more near misses overtaking than undertaking, purely on the principle that outside lane hogs anly pull over to leave the carriageway....
However, this probably includes me, as the only way to make progress is to undertake these days (and I have had a lot more near misses overtaking than undertaking, purely on the principle that outside lane hogs anly pull over to leave the carriageway....
apache said:
Unfortunately, from listening to the radio this morning, it seems that a large proportion of the nation feel this to be a good thing
I bet they weren't asked whether it was a good thing not to talk to your passenger or change channels on the radio. You can always get the answer you want by asking the right question of the right audience - Streakyashes said:
Its very windy - nice day for kite-flying?
They will end up with something a lot less drastic and we will all be relieved.
Don't you just love propoganda
They will end up with something a lot less drastic and we will all be relieved.
Don't you just love propoganda
I tend to agree – this is probably a case of “sending the flag up the pole to see who salutes”
Firstly, no one has mentioned the practicalities of enforcement. We don’t have many trafpol left, and I suspect its going to be a very “PC Bored” who tries to nick somebody for changing a radio channel – how is he/she going to know, FFS??
Ditto lighting fags/ speaking to passengers etc. People will just leave off the nicotine or the passenger until the BiB is a speck in the distance.
I was once driving behind a couple of people who were clearly having a spot of “domestic strife” – they were, in turn, leaning towards each other and pointing, and the expressions and body language clearly showed that one hell of a row was going on. According to this nonsense, having a bust up with the spouse will be “dangerous driving” in future
And what, precisely, is “tail gating?” We all have our own views on what it is, but how could it be enforced, bearing in mind that the biggest contributor to road safety is a rear-view mirror – with the image of a police car in it, and it is human nature to back off/ drive more carefully/ panic when one appears.
It also strikes me that any offence of “tail gating” would have to be dependent on the speed of the vehicles in question. Are we to be committing an offence if we are 10 feet behind the car in front in a traffic jam doing 5 mph? Probably no. Are we committing an offence at the same distance at 70mph? Probably yes. Where, therefore, is the line to be drawn? And drawn at different points over the full speed range.
Whoever is behind these suggestions needs a visa to get in to the real world
We are already in a pickle with road traffic legislation in this country because we are trying to legislate against safe and responsible behaviour. Examples include:
Many people exceed speed limits, not because they are sped freaks heading for an early grave, but because many speed limits are too fu
ing low or inappropriate. Many people use mobile phones when driving because they don’t perceive it to be dangerous
Rant over
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff