4 1/2 years in Jail for dangerous driving

[otherman]

I was initially surprised when I saw this in a BBC article today, but then I read the details: racing at over 100 mph on the M62, crashing, killing his young son and giving his wiife 'life changing injuries', while uninsured, and leaving the scene of the accident. The cause of the crash was a blow out, so I'm guessing bald tyres likely as well. Now I'm surprised its only 4.5 years.

Link to the article

[ChocolateFrog]

The tyre was 16 years old.

Bet the guy who he was racing is a bit miffed the other guy crashed during their race.

[Esceptico]

Part of the problem is that there seems to be no attempt to deal with uninsured drivers. I suspect there are lots of people in the U.K. driving cars that have no MOT (and potentially dangerous) with no insurance. I was watching one of those traffic cop shows once and they stopped an Asian guy for not having on a seat belt. Soon transpired he had no licence (banned), not insured and car had no MOT. From memory he was given a further ban, the car was impounded and he got a small fine. What a joke. It wouldn’t surprise me if he had driven to the trial (if he needed to appear) in another MOT failure (which I suspect can be picked up for peanuts).

[leef44]

How did the guy get to the age of 41 with that little sense of consideration: driving with his whole family, and a three year old boy, car with 16 year old tyre and racing over 100 mph on a public road.

To make that many bad judgement calls in one incident, I am surprised he's got that far in life.

[poo at Paul's]

Have to say i was surprised at the severity of the sentence for the chap that didn't crash! May well have been egging him on, but unless he caused th crash in some way. driving at 100 + on a motorway, albeit with another guy who did crash, seems somehow far less stupid an act that the lad doing 108mph on the wrogn side of the traffic islands in the town centre case, and he got 2 years suspended.
Yes, someone dies, but the consequences should only be part of it, as the potential is always pushed as the reason to crack down on speed.
I think 100mph on the motorway, other car gets blow out and crashes, is less "dangerous" per se as 108mph wrong side of crossing islands in town centre.

The muppet in the stty car, with no insurance etc who killed his kid and maimed his family, thrown away the key!

[The Wookie]

leef44 said:

How did the guy get to the age of 41 with that little sense of consideration: driving with his whole family, and a three year old boy, car with 16 year old tyre and racing over 100 mph on a public road.

To make that many bad judgement calls in one incident, I am surprised he's got that far in life.

Ignorance. Any one of the damning aspects would have been a bit dodgy but, carried out individually, completely without consequence 99.9999% of the time. He will have built up his sense of imperviousness around that.

In many respects being a safe driver is increasing how unlucky you have to be to have an accident. Most people are oblivious to that.

[Rivenink]

poo at Paul's said:

Have to say i was surprised at the severity of the sentence for the chap that didn't crash! May well have been egging him on, but unless he caused th crash in some way. driving at 100 + on a motorway, albeit with another guy who did crash, seems somehow far less stupid an act that the lad doing 108mph on the wrogn side of the traffic islands in the town centre case, and he got 2 years suspended.
Yes, someone dies, but the consequences should only be part of it, as the potential is always pushed as the reason to crack down on speed.
I think 100mph on the motorway, other car gets blow out and crashes, is less "dangerous" per se as 108mph wrong side of crossing islands in town centre.

The muppet in the stty car, with no insurance etc who killed his kid and maimed his family, thrown away the key!

Speed is a major factor in the severity of accidents. Since morons like these two clearly have no respect for the rules of the road and other drivers and their passengers, the only way to reduce risk for everyone is to reduce the average speed for everyone, so those morons have less opportunity to go at 108 mph.

I've got no problem with them being punished for being dangerous at high speeds. There is a massive difference between cruising at 100 in the fast lane, and weaving in and out of traffic at 80-110 mph.

[Darth Paul]

Esceptico said:

Part of the problem is that there seems to be no attempt to deal with uninsured drivers. I suspect there are lots of people in the U.K. driving cars that have no MOT (and potentially dangerous) with no insurance. I was watching one of those traffic cop shows once and they stopped an Asian guy for not having on a seat belt. Soon transpired he had no licence (banned), not insured and car had no MOT. From memory he was given a further ban, the car was impounded and he got a small fine. What a joke. It wouldn’t surprise me if he had driven to the trial (if he needed to appear) in another MOT failure (which I suspect can be picked up for peanuts).

There’s a family who over the last year have started leaving their cars down the end of my parents road as there’s an alleyway they can walk down to their house. This isn’t some ‘shameless’ style estate, it’s always been considered one of the more desirable places to live round here. None of them are ever taxed or have a MOT. Every other week some new £200 rot box appears and is left parked on the road. The local fb groups are having more reports of untaxed cars being dumped all over the place. The pool car phenomenon appears to a growing at an alarming rate.

[Red 4]

He wasn't jailed for Dangerous Driving.

He was jailed for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. They're two distinctly different offences.

[leef44]

poo at Paul's said:

Have to say i was surprised at the severity of the sentence for the chap that didn't crash! May well have been egging him on, but unless he caused th crash in some way. driving at 100 + on a motorway, albeit with another guy who did crash, seems somehow far less stupid an act that the lad doing 108mph on the wrogn side of the traffic islands in the town centre case, and he got 2 years suspended.
Yes, someone dies, but the consequences should only be part of it, as the potential is always pushed as the reason to crack down on speed.
I think 100mph on the motorway, other car gets blow out and crashes, is less "dangerous" per se as 108mph wrong side of crossing islands in town centre.

The muppet in the stty car, with no insurance etc who killed his kid and maimed his family, thrown away the key!

The severity of the sentence probably had something to do with being part of the cause and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was later tracked down by police. The law looks harshly on people evading the law.

[poo at Paul's]

Rivenink said:

Speed is a major factor in the severity of accidents. Since morons like these two clearly have no respect for the rules of the road and other drivers and their passengers, the only way to reduce risk for everyone is to reduce the average speed for everyone, so those morons have less opportunity to go at 108 mph.

I've got no problem with them being punished for being dangerous at high speeds. There is a massive difference between cruising at 100 in the fast lane, and weaving in and out of traffic at 80-110 mph.

Agree, but go watch the video of the lad in the merc doing 108mph in a 30mph town, who got a suspended sentence and then wonder if this makes sense!!

[AJL308]

I'm a bit lost here. How did the guy in other other car manage to be convicted of causing death by dangerous driving? He didn't cause anyone's death as far as I can see.

[Digga]

poo at Paul's said:

Agree, but go watch the video of the lad in the merc doing 108mph in a 30mph town, who got a suspended sentence and then wonder if this makes sense!!

I tend to agree with you that penalties for excessive speed in built up areas need a radical overhaul.

AJL308 said:

I'm a bit lost here. How did the guy in other other car manage to be convicted of causing death by dangerous driving? He didn't cause anyone's death as far as I can see.

They were racing. I think I am correct in the assumption that in those circumstances, if anything goes wrong, 'everyone' is in the frame. Same as passengers being convicted on occasion too.

[AJL308]

Digga said:

They were racing. I think I am correct in the assumption that in those circumstances, if anything goes wrong, 'everyone' is in the frame. Same as passengers being convicted on occasion too.

I could see it if it were something like Manslaughter but death by dangerous? Not so sure. You cannot plan to commit that offence, it's just a consequence of an offence of dangerous driving that goes wrong. What input to the death did the driver of the other car have which had a direct impact upon the death? I suppose that if they had pre-planned their "race" then there may be something to it but even then I can't really see how unless he somehow forced the crash driver into racing him.

[anonymous-user]

Esceptico said:

Part of the problem is that there seems to be no attempt to deal with uninsured drivers. I suspect there are lots of people in the U.K. driving cars that have no MOT (and potentially dangerous) with no insurance. I was watching one of those traffic cop shows once and they stopped an Asian guy for not having on a seat belt. Soon transpired he had no licence (banned), not insured and car had no MOT. From memory he was given a further ban, the car was impounded and he got a small fine. What a joke. It wouldn’t surprise me if he had driven to the trial (if he needed to appear) in another MOT failure (which I suspect can be picked up for peanuts).

I don't think there is any room/funds to send people to jail for anything but serious crimes. Hence why these people can get away with it while the rest of us mugs are throwing away our hard earned cash on ridiculous insurance costs.

[leef44]

AJL308 said:

Digga said:

They were racing. I think I am correct in the assumption that in those circumstances, if anything goes wrong, 'everyone' is in the frame. Same as passengers being convicted on occasion too.

I could see it if it were something like Manslaughter but death by dangerous? Not so sure. You cannot plan to commit that offence, it's just a consequence of an offence of dangerous driving that goes wrong. What input to the death did the driver of the other car have which had a direct impact upon the death? I suppose that if they had pre-planned their "race" then there may be something to it but even then I can't really see how unless he somehow forced the crash driver into racing him.

Perhaps manslaughter was on the cards but settled for death by dangerous because it is a lesser sentence (guess)?

[AJL308]

leef44 said:

AJL308 said:

Digga said:

They were racing. I think I am correct in the assumption that in those circumstances, if anything goes wrong, 'everyone' is in the frame. Same as passengers being convicted on occasion too.

I could see it if it were something like Manslaughter but death by dangerous? Not so sure. You cannot plan to commit that offence, it's just a consequence of an offence of dangerous driving that goes wrong. What input to the death did the driver of the other car have which had a direct impact upon the death? I suppose that if they had pre-planned their "race" then there may be something to it but even then I can't really see how unless he somehow forced the crash driver into racing him.

Perhaps manslaughter was on the cards but settled for death by dangerous because it is a lesser sentence (guess)?

But the prosecution still has to show that he caused the person's death. Unless his driving caused or significantly contributed to it then he did not cause the death.

[Digga]

AJL308 said:

leef44 said:

AJL308 said:

Digga said:

They were racing. I think I am correct in the assumption that in those circumstances, if anything goes wrong, 'everyone' is in the frame. Same as passengers being convicted on occasion too.

I could see it if it were something like Manslaughter but death by dangerous? Not so sure. You cannot plan to commit that offence, it's just a consequence of an offence of dangerous driving that goes wrong. What input to the death did the driver of the other car have which had a direct impact upon the death? I suppose that if they had pre-planned their "race" then there may be something to it but even then I can't really see how unless he somehow forced the crash driver into racing him.

Perhaps manslaughter was on the cards but settled for death by dangerous because it is a lesser sentence (guess)?

But the prosecution still has to show that he caused the person's death. Unless his driving caused or significantly contributed to it then he did not cause the death.

Joint enterprise - takes two (or more) to 'race'.

[stitched]

AJL308 said:

leef44 said:

AJL308 said:

Digga said:

They were racing. I think I am correct in the assumption that in those circumstances, if anything goes wrong, 'everyone' is in the frame. Same as passengers being convicted on occasion too.

I could see it if it were something like Manslaughter but death by dangerous? Not so sure. You cannot plan to commit that offence, it's just a consequence of an offence of dangerous driving that goes wrong. What input to the death did the driver of the other car have which had a direct impact upon the death? I suppose that if they had pre-planned their "race" then there may be something to it but even then I can't really see how unless he somehow forced the crash driver into racing him.

Perhaps manslaughter was on the cards but settled for death by dangerous because it is a lesser sentence (guess)?

But the prosecution still has to show that he caused the person's death. Unless his driving caused or significantly contributed to it then he did not cause the death.

Driving a 100mph speeds can be done safely, racing against another car can not.
The only way to win a race (in comparable vehicles) is to be able to cope with the reduction in safety through skill.
By racing on the public roads they were both guilty of dangerous driving, a life was lost due to their behaviour.
Makes sense to me.

[untakenname]

Thought the dashcam footage of the leadup before the crash from another motorist made it seem quite sedate then realised the MLM was doing 90mph

https://metro.co.uk/video/shocking-moment-two-cars...