New offence of causing death by driving proposed?
Discussion
Teletext today mentions an offence of "causing death by driving" and says government has already closed a "loophole" where causing death by careless driving carries more than just a fine.
So what does causing death by driving mean? If we are in an accident where someone dies are we to be accused of causing the death simply because we were driving?
A teen in our local village was hit by a car, (fortunately he did not die) and locals were screaming for a reduced limit, blaming the driver. On checking, I learned that this moron had zoomed across the main road from a footpath right in front of the car......on a skateboard.
Had he died, under this new proposal could that driver be accused of causing the death simply because he wwa driving? Sounds mad but under the present neo-communist regime, I believe that is what could happen.
Rise up, oh drivers, rise up.
So what does causing death by driving mean? If we are in an accident where someone dies are we to be accused of causing the death simply because we were driving?
A teen in our local village was hit by a car, (fortunately he did not die) and locals were screaming for a reduced limit, blaming the driver. On checking, I learned that this moron had zoomed across the main road from a footpath right in front of the car......on a skateboard.
Had he died, under this new proposal could that driver be accused of causing the death simply because he wwa driving? Sounds mad but under the present neo-communist regime, I believe that is what could happen.
Rise up, oh drivers, rise up.
Tafia,
It's part of that odious piece of legislation the Road Safety Bill.
Another example of lousy logic by Labour.
Somebody slides off at a bend and hits a bus shelter and takes out the bus queue. He/She was driving quite reasonably, but made a error and misjudged the road surface, say a patch of diesel which could have been spotted. They are potentially in the frame for a custodial sentence. Wrong place wrong time.
Likewise if they made no actual driving mistake but there is an administrative error on their vehicle documentation, ie insurance invalid say.
However along come chummy driving like an utter prat, no mitigating circumstances, again slides off, but this time there is no bus queue, as on that day the bus was on time and had already picked up the passengers. He is not facing a custodial yet his driving was far far worse.
The offence should be in relation to the behaviour not the chance consequences.
HMG have not got a clue! They listen to the car hating yoghurt knitters too much.
It's part of that odious piece of legislation the Road Safety Bill.
Another example of lousy logic by Labour.
Somebody slides off at a bend and hits a bus shelter and takes out the bus queue. He/She was driving quite reasonably, but made a error and misjudged the road surface, say a patch of diesel which could have been spotted. They are potentially in the frame for a custodial sentence. Wrong place wrong time.
Likewise if they made no actual driving mistake but there is an administrative error on their vehicle documentation, ie insurance invalid say.
However along come chummy driving like an utter prat, no mitigating circumstances, again slides off, but this time there is no bus queue, as on that day the bus was on time and had already picked up the passengers. He is not facing a custodial yet his driving was far far worse.
The offence should be in relation to the behaviour not the chance consequences.
HMG have not got a clue! They listen to the car hating yoghurt knitters too much.
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 25th January 10:28
Flat in Fifth said:
Tafia,
It's part of that odious piece of legislation the Road Safety Bill.
Another example of lousy logic by Labour.
Somebody slides off at a bend and hits a bus shelter and takes out the bus queue. He/She was driving quite reasonably, but made a error and misjudged the road surface, say a patch of diesel which could have been spotted. They are potentially in the frame for a custodial sentence. Wrong place wrong time.
Likewise if they made no actual driving mistake but there is an administrative error on their vehicle documentation, ie insurance invalid say.
However along come chummy driving like an utter prat, no mitigating circumstances, again slides off, but this time there is no bus queue, as on that day the bus was on time and had already picked up the passengers. He is not facing a custodial yet his driving was far far worse.
The offence should be in relation to the behaviour not the chance consequences.
HMG have not got a clue! They listen to the car hating yoghurt knitters too much.
It's part of that odious piece of legislation the Road Safety Bill.
Another example of lousy logic by Labour.
Somebody slides off at a bend and hits a bus shelter and takes out the bus queue. He/She was driving quite reasonably, but made a error and misjudged the road surface, say a patch of diesel which could have been spotted. They are potentially in the frame for a custodial sentence. Wrong place wrong time.
Likewise if they made no actual driving mistake but there is an administrative error on their vehicle documentation, ie insurance invalid say.
However along come chummy driving like an utter prat, no mitigating circumstances, again slides off, but this time there is no bus queue, as on that day the bus was on time and had already picked up the passengers. He is not facing a custodial yet his driving was far far worse.
The offence should be in relation to the behaviour not the chance consequences.
HMG have not got a clue! They listen to the car hating yoghurt knitters too much.
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 25th January 10:28
So my suspicions were correct. Utter madness. It used to be the case in Turkey for example that if we as tourists were involved in an accident then it was our fault for being there. Their logic? Had we stayed home, the accident would not have happened.
Now the same madness is coming here.
Edited by Tafia on Thursday 25th January 10:45
personally i think its a good idea.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
eccles said:
personally i think its a good idea.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
Quite so, but we have the other side of the coin too.
Last winter there was that tragedy in North Wales in which a driver understeered off a bend into the path of a number of cyclists, killing four of them.
Another car had recently gone off the road in the same spot and been recovered not long before, and the LA had instructed a gritter to re-grit the road but it had not arrived yet. The LA had not set up a warning sign in the interim.
However treacherous it might have been for a car, it inevitably would have been many time more so for a bicycle, which on an icy surface will go down instantly. Therefore if it was "obvious" - as some people later claimed - that the driver should have been taking more care because of the conditions, what were these experienced cyclists doing out on a pleasure ride?
Despite the above, British cycling organisations were baying for the driver's blood, and outraged when he was not charged with a serious offence.
As soon as something becomes politicised, fairness becomes hostage to fortune.
eccles said:
personally i think its a good idea.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
Sounds very like you want revenge rather than justice...
eccles said:
personally i think its a good idea.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
Either every lorry driver on the phone or not looking where they are going should be banged up, or none should be. The consequences of their actions should have nothing to do with it - only the likely consequences. I cannot see how any other system is equitable.
It's insane. There should just be two offences: dangerous driving and careless driving. The threshold for dangerous driving should be appropriately high. That the driving results in death, while bad news for the deceased and relatives, is immaterial to the standard of the driving. Of course, causing death by deliberatly drving into somebody with the intention of killing or maiming will be prosecuted as murder.
Shoddy thinking by a shoddy government.
Shoddy thinking by a shoddy government.
Edited by Zod on Thursday 25th January 12:49
www.racfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=319&Itemid=32
This is a very brief quick summary which may be interesting to some, as it identifies various concerns that are worthy of consideration.
There is much more info out there, this is just a 1 pager.
BFF
This is a very brief quick summary which may be interesting to some, as it identifies various concerns that are worthy of consideration.
There is much more info out there, this is just a 1 pager.
BFF
Edited by Big Fat F'er on Thursday 25th January 12:56
Rob_the_Sparky said:
eccles said:
personally i think its a good idea.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
Sounds very like you want revenge rather than justice...
no, not revenge at all. if you were messing about with a plank of wood, and hit someone and killed them you'd be done for manslaughter and probably get a few years inside. do something equally stupid in a car, and you'd be unlucky to get 18 months.
i've never understood why killing someone with a car has carried such a relatively lenient sentence.
eccles said:
personally i think its a good idea.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
This appears far more draconian. You are talking about a deliberate act of stupidity. This law appears to aim to jail any driver involved in a fatal accident whatever the cause.
Tafia said:
eccles said:
personally i think its a good idea.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
i think its madness that at the moment a lorry driver (or anyone else for that matter) can be on the phone or not looking where they are going, then end up stuck in the back of a que of traffic, killing people, and end up with a small driving ban, a small fine and a couple of months inside!
there have been many cases over the years where someone has been driving like a complete pratt and kileed someone else, but has ended up with less than a year inside, hopefully this new law will change that.
This appears far more draconian. You are talking about a deliberate act of stupidity. This law appears to aim to jail any driver involved in a fatal accident whatever the cause.
Hell, even if it's a deliberate act of stupidity that couldn't reasonbly be expected to kill someone then it's entirely unfair to be done for manslaughter.
7db said:
How do you knit yoghurt?
well you have 244 attempts, then on the 245th attempt you say, well we assume that it will work, and that anything we say we have done and found is true, there you are pattern number A1F1 knitted yoghurt. Tada!
then someone, could be one of thousands of respected practicioners in the craft of knitting, comes along and says, you've dropped a stitch, no two no three, oh hell your whole yoghurt knitting pattern is falling apart and everything is in tatters.
Yoghurt knitters have fingers in ears, "lalalalalal we're not lstening we're not listening, we're right we're right we're right"
"but...."
"lalalalalalala .... "
Old slack jaw comes along and thinks, "Now how can I tax people who don't knit yoghurt?"
Big Fat F'er said:
www.racfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=319&Itemid=32
This is a very brief quick summary which may be interesting to some, as it identifies various concerns that are worthy of consideration.
There is much more info out there, this is just a 1 pager.
BFF
This is a very brief quick summary which may be interesting to some, as it identifies various concerns that are worthy of consideration.
There is much more info out there, this is just a 1 pager.
BFF
Very brief it is, a summary it is not.
To me a summary is something which "A presentation of the substance of a body of material in a condensed form or by reducing it to its main points; an abstract."
That page from RAC foundation is propaganda pure and simple, and in no way is a balanced view of the legislation nor any legislatory / judicial impact assessment.
There might be some merit in the argument for a new offence, in practice though it is leading into a minefield and opening up the potential for injustices perpetrated by chance. Of course it all depends upon how it is actually applied in reality.
I think you have to look at the duty of care owed by vehicle drivers - a car or motorbike can be lethal in the same way that many objects can be, and I have seen enough drivers use them as "weapons" in the past...
I think the new sentences would only be used where a certain degree of recklessness can be proved.
It wouldn't be the only crime where you can have different charges for different results - a stab wound can be anything from GBH up to Murder depending on the circumstances.
I think the new sentences would only be used where a certain degree of recklessness can be proved.
It wouldn't be the only crime where you can have different charges for different results - a stab wound can be anything from GBH up to Murder depending on the circumstances.
Bing o said:
...I think the new sentences would only be used where a certain degree of recklessness can be proved....
I guess we'll just have to see. I think our concerns are that it's increasingly unusual to see intelligence applied to such things. Much more likely is, if the law says "careless" and we can prove it was then we're done. Another scalp for CPS and another "crime" cleared up by police.
Flat in Fifth said:
Big Fat F'er said:
www.racfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=319&Itemid=32
This is a very brief quick summary which may be interesting to some, as it identifies various concerns that are worthy of consideration.
There is much more info out there, this is just a 1 pager.
BFF
This is a very brief quick summary which may be interesting to some, as it identifies various concerns that are worthy of consideration.
There is much more info out there, this is just a 1 pager.
BFF
Very brief it is, a summary it is not.
To me a summary is something which "A presentation of the substance of a body of material in a condensed form or by reducing it to its main points; an abstract."
That page from RAC foundation is propaganda pure and simple, and in no way is a balanced view of the legislation nor any legislatory / judicial impact assessment.
There might be some merit in the argument for a new offence, in practice though it is leading into a minefield and opening up the potential for injustices perpetrated by chance. Of course it all depends upon how it is actually applied in reality.
Point taken about the summary. I just thought some other comments would be useful from outside PH, before everyone made up their minds.
Whether it's propoganda, and whether it is balanced, is a viewpoint, not a fact.
Obviously there is more info out there, but it will be more fun to deal with it on here without the facts.
BFF
Edited by Big Fat f'er on Thursday 25th January 14:32
Edited by Big Fat f'er on Thursday 25th January 14:33
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff