Hit & Run Offences

[deptfordmarmoset]

1. Re my client - yes, I do know. I represented him and discussed matter at length and he did hand himself in when the drugs were out of his system

2. The driver only has more to lose by leaving the scene. imagine this, a minor bump - possibly carelss driving at worst - non imprisonable offence with a fine and 4 points on his licence if he remains at the scene or 14 years imprisonment if he leaves the scene?

You think that will increase the likelihood of a driver fleeing the scene?

Little change for a minor bump, though I'd guess they'd be less likely to run. It's the more serious collisions or DUI-type offences where I'm not at all sure. Mostly because the stakes are higher for the offender. And I also wonder whether your client would have handed himself in under the new regime.

As an aside, a couple of years ago a local lad was killed on a bike while crossing a pelican crossing by a driver who pulled into a bus lane, in operation at the time, and drove through the red light. He continued up to the roundabout, did a U-turn, stopped opposite the scene but then drove off the wrong way up a small local one-way street. 4 years. What do you have to do to get 14 years?

 

[spen666]

Little change for a minor bump, though I'd guess they'd be less likely to run. It's the more serious collisions or DUI-type offences where I'm not at all sure. Mostly because the stakes are higher for the offender. And I also wonder whether your client would have handed himself in under the new regime.

As an aside, a couple of years ago a local lad was killed on a bike while crossing a pelican crossing by a driver who pulled into a bus lane, in operation at the time, and drove through the red light. He continued up to the roundabout, did a U-turn, stopped opposite the scene but then drove off the wrong way up a small local one-way street. 4 years. What do you have to do to get 14 years?

you really do not understand the law do you?

The penalty now for leaving the scene is 6 months (maximum) irrespective of what the standard of driving is. You seem to think this is more of a deterrent to drivers leaving the scene than the 14 year penalty for failing to stop that I suggest.?


Leaving the scene is a seperate offence to the offence of careless / dangerous driving etc. Drivers are likely to be charged with an offence relating to their driving standard (eg careless / dangerous driving) AND the seperate offence of failing to stop at the scene

The penalty for leaving the scene is not affected by the standard of the driving leading to the accident. You can be convicted of failing to stop even if your driving does not cause the accident.
EG You are in your car stationary at traffic lights & I drive into the back of your car because I am not paying attention to the red light. The accident is my fault. You however are in a hurry to get to your destination so drive away when the lights change to green.

You are guilty of the offence of failing to stop.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

you really do not understand the law do you?

The penalty now for leaving the scene is 6 months (maximum) irrespective of what the standard of driving is. You seem to think this is more of a deterrent to drivers leaving the scene than the 14 year penalty for failing to stop that I suggest.?


Leaving the scene is a seperate offence to the offence of careless / dangerous driving etc. Drivers are likely to be charged with an offence relating to their driving standard (eg careless / dangerous driving) AND the seperate offence of failing to stop at the scene

The penalty for leaving the scene is not affected by the standard of the driving leading to the accident. You can be convicted of failing to stop even if your driving does not cause the accident.
EG You are in your car stationary at traffic lights & I drive into the back of your car because I am not paying attention to the red light. The accident is my fault. You however are in a hurry to get to your destination so drive away when the lights change to green.

You are guilty of the offence of failing to stop.

No, but I understand people, excepting lawyers. I'm out. All support, albeit qualified, withdrawn.

 

[spen666]

No, but I understand people, excepting lawyers. I'm out. All support, albeit qualified, withdrawn.

So you are not going to explain how increasing the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident will encourage people to leave the scene?


If as you claim you understand people please explain how removing the incentive for leaving the scene of an accident will as you suggest encourage people to leave the scene


Running away.....

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

So you are not going to explain how increasing the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident will encourage people to leave the scene?


If as you claim you understand people please explain how removing the incentive for leaving the scene of an accident will as you suggest encourage people to leave the scene


Running away.....

I'll enter into civilised debate, I'll admit I'm wrong when I know I am, I'll modify my point of view. But when you choose to open your replies with comments like ''I'm not sure you have understood the post'' and ''you really do not understand the law do you?'' then your priggish, rude arrogance outweighs any attempt to communicate. You'll get the support you deserve.

 

[Peter Armstrong]

To me 'fight or flight' is a subconscious thing you have no control over - it's instantaneous. Running into someone, then driving off requires the assessment of the situation and deliberate action in the vehicle (gear changing, accelerating, steering, route planning) to get away.

Hardly a spontaneous act IMO - more akin to a total lack of care for the victim, and a selfish need to save their own arse.

I dont think its subconscious because some people like me would have a fight or flight situation, like some dudes just about to start a fight with you, do you run or fight? Im just saying I can imagine if someone gets scared enough it overrights other feelings such as care for the victim . Not saying its right

 

[spen666]

I'll enter into civilised debate, I'll admit I'm wrong when I know I am, I'll modify my point of view. But when you choose to open your replies with comments like ''I'm not sure you have understood the post'' and ''you really do not understand the law do you?'' then your priggish, rude arrogance outweighs any attempt to communicate. You'll get the support you deserve.

I was being polite in saying I'm not sure you have understood the post - I could have said you are wrong but chose not to.

You are now diverting and avoiding the issue

you have said that incresiong the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident will/ may encourage motorists to leave the scene

you however, refuse to explain that despite repeated requests.

I have provided you with nuimerous examples of how the law operates and you still
a) fail to explain why increasing the penalty for failing to stop will encourage people not to stop
b) provide examples where you appear to suggest a motorist got 4 years for failing to stop. A penalty which cannot in law exist at present

It is for the latter reason that I saw wirth some considerable justification that you do not understand the law.




Lets get the issue back on topic.

I have suggested we increase the maximum penalty for failing to stop to the same maximum penalty as one can already get for death by dangerous driving. (ie 14 years). This removes one of the incentives for someone to leave the scene (- ie they cannot get a lesser sentence by failing to remain at the scene than they would for even the worst driving offence). You say this will encourage people to leave the scene

Please explain the logic behind this. I fail to see how increasing the punishment for leaving the scene will encourage people to leave the scene.

If your logic is extrapolated across all criminal offences, then reducing penalties will reduce crime, so if we don't punish people for speeding, then no one will speed. No punishment for stealing so no one will steal etc.

It sounds perverse so I am asking for an explanation

 

[CopperCyclist]

I suspect most people who leave the scene don't do so after thinking "I would get. THIS penalty if I remained and THIS if I leave" I suspect they think "if I leave now I won't get caught", this I don't believe increasing the sentences will prevent hit and runs. It may increase the punishment on those caught, keeping them out of a car for longer (potentially), but then in some cases (which is what I thought @deptfordmarmoset meant) it could cause people (like your client) who later decided to own up to his actions to never do this as the consequences were too high.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I suspect most people who leave the scene don't do so after thinking "I would get. THIS penalty if I remained and THIS if I leave" I suspect they think "if I leave now I won't get caught", this I don't believe increasing the sentences will prevent hit and runs. It may increase the punishment on those caught, keeping them out of a car for longer (potentially), but then in some cases (which is what I thought @deptfordmarmoset meant) it could cause people (like your client) who later decided to own up to his actions to never do this as the consequences were too high.

That was a major consideration, yes. And I suspect, like you, that the immediate flight response is not a logically thought out one - that may come afterwards, of course.

 

[PK99]

What can be done to change this?
I would suggest we could do worse than to look at the legislation and practice surrounding drink driving. There, a person who refuses or fails to provide a specimen is treated for punishment purposes in the same way as a drink driver.

I would therefore suggest that we treat motorists who fail to stop at the scene of an accident in the same was as the most serious motoring offences

ie if the maximum penalty is the same as for causing death by dangerous driving - ie a maximum penalty of 14 years


This would provide that there was no incentive for anyone to leave the scene of an accident and indeed would be a disadvantage to the motorist if they were to be sentenced as if they had committed an offence that carries a maximum of 14 years. If they had remained at the scene, they may only be guilty of careless driving and perhaps no insurance - both non imprisonable offences.

I really don't follow your logic here:

In the drink drive case, the legal presumption is (I presume) that the refusal to give a sample is because the sample would be positive. That seem reasonable to me as refusing to give a sample when drunk is attempting to hide the offence. There is a clear logical link between the action and the presumed offence.

To treat leaving the scene (of a minor fender bender, say) the same as death by dangerous driving has no logical link and imposes a penalty disproportionate to the actual offence.

 

[jdtate101]

I would suspect the increase in HnR incidents is due mostly to people's lack of insurance. According to this article (from 2012) there are roughly 1.2M uninsured cars on the road:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/aug/21/millionth-uninsured-vehicle-seized

If true that's quite scary, but the true figure is likely to be even higher. Premiums were getting ridiculous lately, at least until the euro ruling on gender stereotyping which forced premiums down a tad, but sure as eggs is eggs they will be back up again soon. Stupid thing is people can quite happily survive without a car, yet most believe they can't.