Monday 24th October 2005

New driving offence bill looms

New offence: Causing death by careless driving

---

Can new law stop dangerous driving?

New powers for the courts to tackle careless drivers who cause death behind the wheel could become law – if the Government backs a new Bill being discussed in Parliament, the RAC Foundation said today.

Sally Keeble, Labour MP for Northampton North, has introduced a Bill that would create a new offence of ‘causing death by careless driving.’

The RAC Foundation has consistently argued the need for the creation of a new offence of ‘causing death by careless driving’. The need for a specific offence arises as a result of the disparity between the offences of careless and dangerous driving, both in term of the burden of proof and the sentencing option available to courts following conviction.

Kevin Delaney, Traffic and Road Safety Manager of the RAC Foundation, said: "The offence of causing death by dangerous driving is extremely difficult to prove and prosecutions tend to be brought only in the most extreme cases of grossly bad or wicked driving.

"Prosecutors tend to charge with the lesser offence of ‘careless driving’, or accept a plea of guilty to ‘careless driving.’ This often leaves relatives feeling that justice has not been done following the death of a loved one.

"The RAC Foundation believes that having an offence of causing death by careless driving on the statute books would help bridge the gap by allowing prosecutors to bring a charge appropriate to the level of bad driving; which recognises the death of a third party - and which carries a range of penalties appropriate to the gravity of the offence."

[_VTEC_]

What constitutes careless driving though? Applying make-up whilst simultaneously talking on the phone and eating a slice of toast. OK I'm for that then. Good call.

[apache]

Remind me again, we need an offence for using a mobile phone for what exactly?

[Peter Ward]

This is a difficult one. It sounds from the press release that this is a way to prosecute drivers more harshly in order to make relatives feel better.

If I used a hammer carelessly and it killed someone what would be the charge? Or if I rode a cycle carelessly and it killed someone? Should it make a difference that I'm driving instead?

[jazzyjeff]

This will help fill the gap between careless and dangerous driving which was left when prosecution for 'reckless' driving was taken away.

Personally though I think this should be split into two charges - one for the driving and one for manslaughter; the former can then be loaded according to a level of carelessness...

How would you rate the following example (which happened to me yesterday - thankfully no accident resulted):

In a lane merge situation a moron who was behind me (their bumper level with my back door) tried to undertake and push me out into the oncoming traffic. Said moron having failed to do this (I had to cut him off or else be faced with a head on collision) then flashes his lights at me then tailgates until our journeys part. If a copper had seen this, would he have seen this as careless or dangerous driving on their part (or just ignored it as no collision occurred)?

[wab172uk]

Someone makes a genuine mistake while driving and causes a death. The punishment is prison ????

Again the government thinks that crime starts & ends with drivers.

It's just the same when some idiot steps out in front a a car and gets knocked down & killed. Who do the police blame whole heartedly? The driver!

[bunglist]

How can reckless & dangerous driving be proved in a court.

What happens if you are doing say 42 mph in a 40 zone good dry conditions in daylight hours and someone or a child runs out in front of you and you knock them down and kill them.
Do you go to court and get done for reckless or dangerous driving even though the pedestrian has caused the accident (as the courts normally seem to go on the pedestrians side anyway)

This legislation seems to be a bit strong.

How can reckless or dangerous driving be determined, just because you are over a speed limit does not mean that you are driving recklessly or dangerously,
Or can the courts just shaft you on the word of some nazi copper!!!!!

what about a numpty driving down the motorway hogging the middle lane would that be classed as dangerous or reckless.

What is this country coming too. The laws are just going to far, what ever happened to common sense.

New drivers need to be trained in the art of driving and not just taught how to pass a driving test.

[GlynMo]

I agree with Peter W's opening comment. If a driver is guilty of careless or dangerous driving, the driving is made no more careless or dangerous because there was a fatality.

The "powers" that be should get off the drivers' back and use a bit of common sense. The same goes for the "speed kills" argument - far more dangerous are the dozy, inattentive or plain incapable drivers on our roads, of which there are unfortunately far too many, but whose cr@p driving will never be spotted by cameras.

[dogwatch]

I know we are all drowning in a sea of motoring law but i would support this one if intelligently applied (if!). I am thinking of looneys whose stupid driving puts them on the pavement wiping out a pedestrian but not enough evidence for a Dangerous charge. Complaints from relatives that the death wasn't even mentioned in court. Where's the justice in that?

[Pesmo]

If its applied sensibly then no problem

[vetteheadracer]

Does this cover lorry drivers falling asleep? Then I am all for it.

[havoc]

I would be very wary of this...it "sounds" good...but then the government has got very good at spin.

What this means is that anyone involved in an RTA with a fatality is at risk - if there is ANY doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident (what if there aren't any witnesses, or a relative of the deceased is the only witness???), the driver / surviving driver will be investigated thoroughly and probably prosecuted. Even if they are subsequently found innocent, the whole experience and stigma attached will linger a LONG time...

[bunglist]

dogwatch said:

I know we are all drowning in a sea of motoring law but i would support this one if intelligently applied (if!). I am thinking of looneys whose stupid driving puts them on the pavement wiping out a pedestrian but not enough evidence for a Dangerous charge. Complaints from relatives that the death wasn't even mentioned in court. Where's the justice in that?

If they do bring it in they won't use it properly, just look at the terrorism bill and what happened to that 80 year old at the Labour Conference!!!!!!

[mojocvh]

Pesmo said:

If its applied sensibly then no problem

Thats just the problem though, it won't be, just another way to make motoring even more unpleasant in this shitty little 3rd rate country

MoJo.

[Vipers]

dogwatch said:

I know we are all drowning in a sea of motoring law but i would support this one if intelligently applied (if!). I am thinking of looneys whose stupid driving puts them on the pavement wiping out a pedestrian but not enough evidence for a Dangerous charge. Complaints from relatives that the death wasn't even mentioned in court. Where's the justice in that?

Agree with your comments 100%, often we see a death caused by dangerous driving, call it what you will, and the driver either gets a very minor fine/detention, or hires an expensive brief who gets him off on a technicality.

If you choose to take out a hunk of metal on wheels, with total disregard to other road users and cuase a fatailty, then you should be punished accordingly.

However, you wont please all the people all the time, and I see this thread going on for a long time.

[Vipers]

bunglist said:

what about a numpty driving down the motorway hogging the middle lane would that be classed as dangerous or reckless. New drivers need to be trained in the art of driving and not just taught how to pass a driving test.

Headline did say "Causing death by careless driving", not middle lane drivers classed as dangerous or reckless, CAUSING DEATH, is the key word here.

And yes drivers, new and old on occasions, should be taught the art of driving, a skill sadly lacking in todays motorists.

What I have always thought is a good idea, and I think Ireland still does it (cant recall if its north or south), for the 12 months after passing your test, you exchange the "L" plate for an "R" plate, to let other road users know you are a new driver.

[Vipers]

bunglist said:

dogwatch said: I know we are all drowning in a sea of motoring law but i would support this one if intelligently applied (if!). I am thinking of looneys whose stupid driving puts them on the pavement wiping out a pedestrian but not enough evidence for a Dangerous charge. Complaints from relatives that the death wasn't even mentioned in court. Where's the justice in that? If they do bring it in they won't use it properly, just look at the terrorism bill and what happened to that 80 year old at the Labour Conference!!!!!!

Nothing to to with the terrorism bill, just two bungling buffoons evicting an old man.

[dilbert]

I'm not at all sure about this legislation. I have a feeling that this is just another of those excuses to tweak the sentencing regime on the basis of a new buzzword attached to an existing law.

More flexablility means that the judge can come down hard when the media gets interested. That's the size of it.

I was nearly killed (by about an inch, and 2 to 3 seconds) by a drunk driver (different charge) in a stolen car (so he had no insurance), and he got off with a two hundred pound fine.

My insured vehicle was a total loss.

I think my concern here is that it seems that this is another law, vauge in nature, with the full range of legislative power.

I do, however, think that people should not get away with this stuff. The trouble is that the full force of law only gets used in the media spotlight. Then you have injustice becuase equivalent crimes, have different penalties.

Let's just have some decent law for a change, eh.

How do we get that? It's something to do with those people that we vote for........


>> Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 25th October 02:43

[kevinday]

Peter Ward has it spot on. To summarise in a short sentence:

This is not 'justice' this is 'revenge'.

Revenge for the relatives of the victim. If careless driving causes a death it is very unfortunate, however, for a harsher sentence to be applied IMHO there should be a need to prove dangerous driving resulted in the fatality.

[wedgepilot]

Hmm, this old chestnut again, it's a tricky one alright.

I'm all for enjoying driving, but with that comes the responsibility that we are actually in control of something that can kill if we aren't careful, and a bit of concentration is required. Would you fire up a chainsaw and start swinging it around without looking?

If it takes a new law to focus the minds of numpties or inexperienced drivers, then so be it.

There was a case just recently here in NZ, where a women was fiddling with her stereo, not looking where she was going, and wiped out a 14 year lad on a bike. What if that was your child/sibling? How would you feel? She tried to claim it was 'just an accident', but at the end of the day, her inattention caused a death, and she was convicted.

[Vipers]

wedgepilot said:

Hmm, this old chestnut again, it's a tricky one alright. I'm all for enjoying driving, but with that comes the responsibility that we are actually in control of something that can kill if we aren't careful, and a bit of concentration is required. Would you fire up a chainsaw and start swinging it around without looking? If it takes a new law to focus the minds of numpties or inexperienced drivers, then so be it. There was a case just recently here in NZ, where a women was fiddling with her stereo, not looking where she was going, and wiped out a 14 year lad on a bike. What if that was your child/sibling? How would you feel? She tried to claim it was 'just an accident', but at the end of the day, her inattention caused a death, and she was convicted.

Spot on, agree totally. There is a stark difference in the NZ case you mentioned, and perhaps someone who hits black ice, and unfortunately hits a pedestrian, but at the end of the day, if you choose to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, then you must accept responsibility for your actions, or lack of as the case may be.

If you choose to get blinding drunk, drive home and kill someone, thats absolutely no excuse whatsoever is it, punishment should fit the crime. sorry I seem to be going a bit here........