RE: Penalties up for Dangerous Driving
Friday 27th February 2004
Penalties up for Dangerous Driving
Maximum sentance for death by dangerous driving increased to 14 years. But does it really provide any sort of deterrant?
David Blunkett has been meddling with the laws on Dangerous Driving resulting in an increase in the maximum sentance being increased from ten years to fourteen years imprisonment.
The increase will target drivers who kill, be it through driving dangerously, driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs or joyriding.
Blunkett said: "Dangerous drivers who kill should be properly punished. The devastation they can cause is immeasurable, not only for victims' families, but for whole communities."
Blunkett continued to claim that the change "sends out a very strong signal about how seriously the Government regards the crime. "
A review of offences for bad driving is also currently underway, which will look at making proposals for changes to the law on serious driving offences, particularly where death or injury results.
An electronic version of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 can be found on the Stationery Office website at www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/act10-12.htm . Further information about the Criminal Justice Act 2003 can be found on www.cjsonline.gov.uk
Drivers whose bad driving causes a death on the road can also be charged with the offence of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Discussion
Um - how will they catch these dangerous twazaks?
Sorry - forgot
By means of safety camera, of course! After all, only PC Gatso and his mate in a talivan can do this!
After all - this over-reliance on a speed camera's ability to police the roads on the safer stretches is the real reason for the decline in driving standards - is it not?
Sorry - forgot
By means of safety camera, of course! After all, only PC Gatso and his mate in a talivan can do this!
After all - this over-reliance on a speed camera's ability to police the roads on the safer stretches is the real reason for the decline in driving standards - is it not?
This is absolutely no deterrent- just another example of the government meddling with aspects of the law to keep them in favour and 'on the pulse'.
I for one will never think of 'I could get 14 years of I overtake this tractor'. I try to be considerate on the road and this law will make no difference to me (I hope).
I for one will never think of 'I could get 14 years of I overtake this tractor'. I try to be considerate on the road and this law will make no difference to me (I hope).
britten_mark said:
So how come all these recent stories about hit and run drivers walking away with a couple of months' stir?????
Its called Lets sofen up mr Joe Dumb
with some news storys in the media, he he say shit something must be done about this by the goverment. so mr joe dumb
, dont kick up a big fuss when we slid in a new law. so he bends over and takes it like a good littel brainwashed Joe Dumb
and pop gos some more of Mr Joe Dumb
s freedom. and he`s, too much of a Joe Dumb
to relise he helped them shaft him up the arss. >> Edited by Roadrage on Saturday 28th February 07:21
So death by dangerous driving now carries a max of 14 years. But so what, if I could also be charged with manslaughter?
What's the difference between causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by bad driving?
Seems to me that one of these charges is superfluous, and therefore that fiddling with the one having the lesser penalty is irrelevant if the other is going to be used anyway. But when "do something, anything" is the order of the day, should we be surprised?
What's the difference between causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by bad driving?
Seems to me that one of these charges is superfluous, and therefore that fiddling with the one having the lesser penalty is irrelevant if the other is going to be used anyway. But when "do something, anything" is the order of the day, should we be surprised?
This is actually worthwhile. There are distinct differences between proceeding with a charge of manslaughter, compared to death by dangerous driving. As things stood, someone could drive like at 100 mph in a residential area, crash and kill an innocent party. By pleading guilty, the most a judge would be able to sentence them to is 6.5 years. The prisoner would serve around 4 years. Not much is it?
With a maximum sentence of 14 years, a judge could sentence to 9.5 years, with an offender serving about 6.5 years. Marginally better, I think we'd all agree.
With a maximum sentence of 14 years, a judge could sentence to 9.5 years, with an offender serving about 6.5 years. Marginally better, I think we'd all agree.
if driving at 100 had anything to do with the acident and it want just another case of a jay walker and
the poor motorist get it stuck on him.
when i reality he still couldent stop if they dive in frount of hime wether hes doing 100mph or 30 mph
as far as im concerned what ever the speed if you run in frount of a car with out looking it your fault.
the poor motorist get it stuck on him.
when i reality he still couldent stop if they dive in frount of hime wether hes doing 100mph or 30 mph
as far as im concerned what ever the speed if you run in frount of a car with out looking it your fault.
xxplod said:
By pleading guilty, the most a judge would be able to sentence them to is 6.5 years. The prisoner would serve around 4 years. Not much is it?
With a maximum sentence of 14 years, a judge could sentence to 9.5 years, with an offender serving about 6.5 years. Marginally better, I think we'd all agree.
If the maximum sentence is 14 years then why could a judge only specify 9.5 years? Sorry for being thick!
Peter
Because if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, this must be taken in to account when sentencing. Otherwise, why plead? Everyone would fight it, at huge expense to the taxpayer, spending longer "on remand" - an advantage to HMP residents as they have more privileges, as they are not convicted prisoners. A defendant would have nothing to lose. Therefore, a guilty plea usually attracts a one third reduction in the sentence which would have been passed had they have pleaded not guilty and gone through a full trial.
Because if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, this must be taken in to account when sentencing. Otherwise, why plead? Everyone would fight it, at huge expense to the taxpayer, spending longer "on remand" - an advantage to HMP residents as they have more privileges, as they are not convicted prisoners. A defendant would have nothing to lose. Therefore, a guilty plea usually attracts a one third reduction in the sentence which would have been passed had they have pleaded not guilty and gone through a full trial.
xxplod said:
Peter
Because if a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, this must be taken in to account when sentencing. Otherwise, why plead? Everyone would fight it, at huge expense to the taxpayer, spending longer "on remand" - an advantage to HMP residents as they have more privileges, as they are not convicted prisoners. A defendant would have nothing to lose. Therefore, a guilty plea usually attracts a one third reduction in the sentence which would have been passed had they have pleaded not guilty and gone through a full trial.
you dont really have
all to lose anyway anyone that dont fight all the way and pleads guilty is a fool.
I am deeply concerned about the way this Govt is treating motorists. We are being treated almost as criminals for actually daring to drive our vehicles on a road, despite the fact that the motorist provides £1 in £8 in Govt revenue and gets sub-standard roads. Roads are the arteries of the business community - not an anti-social pest.
The furore about speed cameras is long overdue - btw, have you noticed they are now referred to as 'safety' cameras? pah. They produce revenue and that is their purpose. If they were for safety then they would be watching over pedestrian crossings on busy high streets, or on every road outside schools - instead of where they actually are - many on motorway class roads originally built for high speed traffic!
This Govt has done nothing but tinker. Raising the penalty for death by Dang is meaningless, because by the time he has killed it is too late. The bad driver has to be caught driving badly and then sentenced to additional training and limited to a car under 1000cc until he passes - but you need mobile police patrols for that and effective magistrates as well, not cameras.
I despair of it all. The situation now seems to be that if any child runs out into the road and you run them down and kill them then you're at risk of imprisonment! Where is the justice in that? Noone today seems to be asking the obvious question - what was the child doing on the road? The driver was on the road where vehicles belong, not mowing the child down on the pavement! What has happened to the pedestrian training or child traffic awareness at school? The Green Cross Code or whatever it was?
If there are accident blackspots which need cameras, why aren't the local authority examining the road/junction layout and engineering out the cause of the accident in the first place, like they used to?
UK roads are now the safest in Europe, with road deaths halved over the past 30 years - but after a steady decline road deaths are now rising again - which immediately proves that 'safety cameras' are anything but.
Speed does not kill - that is a lie.
Speed is not the cause of the majority of accidents, as it is often reported - this is a lie.
One more point - you pull out over a Give Way line without seeing an approaching car. Bang - you T-bone. The other driver is a teenager and you've just totalled his Astra and he's livid - but you exchange names and addresses and go on your way.
Tomorrow, you do exactly the same thing, but this time it's an 92 year old dear in a Micra and she dies of shock. Now, after exactly the same circumstances as yesterday, you're gripping the rail at Crown Court waiting for sentencing!! They call this justice?
I used to be happy with justice in this country. It was never perfect and there were loopholes and silliness, but at least for the most part the motorist was treated decently. Today the motorist is being persecuted by disproportionate prosecution, inadequate and incompetent local authorities, third-world class roads and an ever increasing burden of taxation.
The furore about speed cameras is long overdue - btw, have you noticed they are now referred to as 'safety' cameras? pah. They produce revenue and that is their purpose. If they were for safety then they would be watching over pedestrian crossings on busy high streets, or on every road outside schools - instead of where they actually are - many on motorway class roads originally built for high speed traffic!
This Govt has done nothing but tinker. Raising the penalty for death by Dang is meaningless, because by the time he has killed it is too late. The bad driver has to be caught driving badly and then sentenced to additional training and limited to a car under 1000cc until he passes - but you need mobile police patrols for that and effective magistrates as well, not cameras.
I despair of it all. The situation now seems to be that if any child runs out into the road and you run them down and kill them then you're at risk of imprisonment! Where is the justice in that? Noone today seems to be asking the obvious question - what was the child doing on the road? The driver was on the road where vehicles belong, not mowing the child down on the pavement! What has happened to the pedestrian training or child traffic awareness at school? The Green Cross Code or whatever it was?
If there are accident blackspots which need cameras, why aren't the local authority examining the road/junction layout and engineering out the cause of the accident in the first place, like they used to?
UK roads are now the safest in Europe, with road deaths halved over the past 30 years - but after a steady decline road deaths are now rising again - which immediately proves that 'safety cameras' are anything but.
Speed does not kill - that is a lie.
Speed is not the cause of the majority of accidents, as it is often reported - this is a lie.
One more point - you pull out over a Give Way line without seeing an approaching car. Bang - you T-bone. The other driver is a teenager and you've just totalled his Astra and he's livid - but you exchange names and addresses and go on your way.
Tomorrow, you do exactly the same thing, but this time it's an 92 year old dear in a Micra and she dies of shock. Now, after exactly the same circumstances as yesterday, you're gripping the rail at Crown Court waiting for sentencing!! They call this justice?
I used to be happy with justice in this country. It was never perfect and there were loopholes and silliness, but at least for the most part the motorist was treated decently. Today the motorist is being persecuted by disproportionate prosecution, inadequate and incompetent local authorities, third-world class roads and an ever increasing burden of taxation.
xxplod said:
With a maximum sentence of 14 years, a judge could sentence to 9.5 years, with an offender serving about 6.5 years. Marginally better, I think we'd all agree.
Thats what needs sorting, the fact people get out so quickly, if you get sentenced to 9.5 years in prison then thats what you should get. They should add years on for bad behaviour not take them off for good.
Paul
DTWD said:
xxplod said:
With a maximum sentence of 14 years, a judge could sentence to 9.5 years, with an offender serving about 6.5 years. Marginally better, I think we'd all agree.
Thats what needs sorting, the fact people get out so quickly, if you get sentenced to 9.5 years in prison then thats what you should get. They should add years on for bad behaviour not take them off for good.
Paul
They can not do that.
Theres a reson why they get out early.
Think about, what would happen if that option want there.
>> Edited by Roadrage on Monday 1st March 02:19
Roadrage,
I guess you mean it encourages the inmates to behave more properly (quiet, compliant, etc). I think in other situations it would be considered to be blackmail or bribery.
I can see that you can't add time on for bad behaviour but you could make life more unpleasant, eg. solitary confinement, fewer privileges. Would that work?
On top of it all is the fact that we put more people in prison than any other European country, and we don't have enough space for them all. Therefore time off for good behaviour means we don't have to build quite so many prisons,
I guess you mean it encourages the inmates to behave more properly (quiet, compliant, etc). I think in other situations it would be considered to be blackmail or bribery.
I can see that you can't add time on for bad behaviour but you could make life more unpleasant, eg. solitary confinement, fewer privileges. Would that work?
On top of it all is the fact that we put more people in prison than any other European country, and we don't have enough space for them all. Therefore time off for good behaviour means we don't have to build quite so many prisons,
Thought I would stick my 2p worth in
A good friend of mine was recently charged with Dangerous Driving - fell asleep at the wheel hit a grass bank and went through a hedge in to a field.
She had been up for 24hrs working and was driving home.
Penalty - driver education training and 3 points.
I think most of you will have realised the similarity the key difference being that it was a field and not a train full of people.
I do believe that punishment should fit the crime or ‘intent’ of the driver and not the result.
If this new penalty is to be used it will be used on the result of accidents not the cause.
Where are your sympathies – I’m sorry for my friend but her actions could have killed people and the reason she is not in prison is pure chance not law?
What is the difference between ‘causing death by dangerous driving’ and ‘dangerous driving’ both should receive the same penalty.
A good friend of mine was recently charged with Dangerous Driving - fell asleep at the wheel hit a grass bank and went through a hedge in to a field.
She had been up for 24hrs working and was driving home.
Penalty - driver education training and 3 points.
I think most of you will have realised the similarity the key difference being that it was a field and not a train full of people.
I do believe that punishment should fit the crime or ‘intent’ of the driver and not the result.
If this new penalty is to be used it will be used on the result of accidents not the cause.
Where are your sympathies – I’m sorry for my friend but her actions could have killed people and the reason she is not in prison is pure chance not law?
What is the difference between ‘causing death by dangerous driving’ and ‘dangerous driving’ both should receive the same penalty.
Gfun said:
I think most of you will have realised the similarity the key difference being that it was a field and not a train full of people.
I do believe that punishment should fit the crime or ‘intent’ of the driver and not the result.
Couldn't agree more, I have always said that Gary Hart bloke was convicted because details of his personal life revealed him to be a bit of a jerk. Hardly anyone I conversed with had grasped that it could so easily be them staring down the barrel of a prison sentence.
There but for the grace of God go us all.........
>> Edited by britten_mark on Tuesday 6th April 20:49
FFS!!! 
What on earth is the point in increasing these type of penalties when there are not enough TrafPol on the roads to enforce them?
Witness the huge drop in TrafPol numbers since speed cameras came in and the subsequent huge fall in prosecutions for non-speeding traffic infringements.
What on earth is the point in increasing these type of penalties when there are not enough TrafPol on the roads to enforce them?
Witness the huge drop in TrafPol numbers since speed cameras came in and the subsequent huge fall in prosecutions for non-speeding traffic infringements.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff