Kill, lie... and get suspended sentence and a fine...

[hatler]

There ought to be a distinction between driving which is dangerous, albeit unwittingly (due to the ridiculous levels of acceptability which the motoring lobby have engendered), and driving in a manner which is also dangerous, but wittingly, ie when you're pissed, on the phone, driving like a lunatic etc etc.

The problem for those on the receiving end of tragedies like this is the use of the language. Death by careless driving as a phrase is both a real ambiguity and a huge insult.

However, there is a multi-stage battle here; first the language needs to be changed, which should help the attitude shift, then the charging needs to be applied more robustly, and then ultimately sentencing needs to reflect what's felt to be fair (and sentencing is so far away from what those who have been impacted by poor driving feel to be fair), and most of all that sentencing should include more frequent use of much longer bans. And even much more frequent use of shorter bans for lower levels of driving misdemeanour.

That's a long road, and the only way it can get started is by a shift in public attitude to poor driving, and all the probably hopeless petitions to lengthen sentences help us along that road, even if individually they don't achieve their immediate and specific goals.

And just to make my thinking clear here, if someone has killed or seriously injured anyone whilst driving then that should break the 'dangerous' threshold, by definition.

 

[oldstrath]

The law recognises different levels of culpability.

Thus the drunk, speeding, driver on his mobile phone who kills a cyclist is treated more harshly than the sober driver who pulls out of a side turning and hits a cyclist with the same result.

The result is, of course, the same, the cyclist is dead.

But it seems reasonable to me for the drunk speeding driver to face a more serious charge and to be given a harsher penalty if convicted.

Yes. In a reasonable law the drunk would be s murderer and the careless idiot guilty of manslaughter. Neither would ever be permitted to drive again.

Instead lawyers play on the reasonable distinction you make to turn drunken killing into a small thing, and incompetent stupidity into essentially nothing, less serious than forgetting to buy a TV licence.

 

[hatler]

^ ^ ^ So much more succinctly put than I managed. ^ ^ ^

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The law recognises different levels of culpability.

Thus the drunk, speeding, driver on his mobile phone who kills a cyclist is treated more harshly than the sober driver who pulls out of a side turning and hits a cyclist with the same result.

The result is, of course, the same, the cyclist is dead.

But it seems reasonable to me for the drunk speeding driver to face a more serious charge and to be given a harsher penalty if convicted.

I disagree. It seems entire reasonable for the charge to be the same "causing death whilst driving" and the penalty to reflect the circumstances.

 

[Karlt]

How is a minor piece of carelessness less bad than dangerous driving if they both result in an innocent death? In each instance they drive otherwise than in accordance with the standards required of a road user and someone dies as a consequence.

Put it another way - how is it any less bad if the other party survives than if they die, if the action of the driver was the same in both cases?

 

[Pale Rider]

Or put it another way, if I drive out of a side turning and cause minor damage to a cheap car, should I be punished more heavily if I perform the same action and cause a pile-up and damage costing tens of thousands?

The criminality - my driving - is identical in both cases.

 

[jefmcg]

Put it another way - how is it any less bad if the other party survives than if they die, if the action of the driver was the same in both cases?

Well, we can't know if the actions of the driver were the same in both cases. If (for example) a driver passes close to a cyclist but no contact is made, it's hard to prove it was close. If there is a collision, then we know the car got very close.

We seem to be far down a slippery slope. Driving very close to a cyclist is not regarded as dangerous which is proven as know one was hurt. If someone was hurt, well the driver was just driving like everyone else, so that's not "dangerous" as it almost never kills anything.

I'm also finding the law odd. For me "careless" becomes "dangerous" when someone dies. It's what the word means. "Don't do that, it's very dangerous" means you think someone could be at least maimed. I was being careless with a knife when I took off a little of my nail and nail bed when cutting. When my friend walked towards my boyfriend to show us the interesting oversharpened carving knife, and stumbled**, I would have called that dangerous.

**He survived. She either managed to stop herself from stumbling into him, or I grabbed her hand and stopped her. When motion ceased, the knife was half a metre from his chest, and my hand was around hers.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Well, we can't know if the actions of the driver were the same in both cases. If (for example) a driver passes close to a cyclist but no contact is made, it's hard to prove it was close. If there is a collision, then we know the car got very close.

We seem to be far down a slippery slope. Driving very close to a cyclist is not regarded as dangerous which is proven as know one was hurt. If someone was hurt, well the driver was just driving like everyone else, so that's not "dangerous" as it almost never kills anything.

I'm also finding the law odd. For me "careless" becomes "dangerous" when someone dies. It's what the word means. "Don't do that, it's very dangerous" means you think someone could be at least maimed. I was being careless with a knife when I took off a little of my nail and nail bed when cutting. When my friend walked towards my boyfriend to show us the interesting oversharpened carving knife, and stumbled**, I would have called that dangerous.

**He survived. She either managed to stop herself from stumbling into him, or I grabbed her hand and stopped her. When motion ceased, the knife was half a metre from his chest, and my hand was around hers.

Driving carelessly = driving like you don't give a toss, like you could not care less, about vulnerable road users, and, ime on UK roads peak hours, is the default setting for most UK drivers around people on bikes

Driving dangerously = driving like you intend to hurt /scare, and present a real danger to, vulnerable road users, ime on UK roads peak hours, is the default setting for a very small minority of UK drivers around people on bikes

Driving properly = driving carefully around vulnerable road users and imo, means the driver or their significant other rides a bike a lot.

 

[oldstrath]

Or put it another way, if I drive out of a side turning and cause minor damage to a cheap car, should I be punished more heavily if I perform the same action and cause a pile-up and damage costing tens of thousands?

The criminality - my driving - is identical in both cases.

I'll be completely consistent (easier for someone who doesn't drive). In both cases you have demonstrated unfitness to control your dangerous device properly, and at the very least should be retrained and retested.

 

[jefmcg]

Driving carelessly = driving like you don't give a toss, like you could not care less, about vulnerable road users, and, ime on UK roads peak hours, is the default setting for most UK drivers around people on bikes

Driving dangerously = driving like you intend to hurt /scare, and present a real danger to, vulnerable road users, ime on UK roads peak hours, is the default setting for a very small minority of UK drivers around people on bikes

Driving properly = driving carefully around vulnerable road users and imo, means the driver or their significant other rides a bike a lot.

Yup, I know the difference. I guess in english (ie not in law) driving carelessly around vulnerable road users is dangerous, it's just not dangerous driving.

 

[DaveReading]

I have seen hundreds of defendants give evidence and most tell lies, but even I have to accept some will be telling the truth.

The statistics tell us that only about a quarter of Crown Court trials result in a guilty verdict. So unless the ones you have seen are completely unrepresentative, you appear to be saying that the majority of those acquitted have lied in court.

No pun intended, but what's your evidence for that assertion?

None? I thought not.