Persistent offender killed cyclist while driving & texting

[benb]

Either that, or that graphic is not only simple but completely wrong?

To quote HL Mencken: There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We need a charge of "causing death whilst operating a motor vehicle" which can be judged on the objective facts:

a) were you driving
b) did somebody die

without all the subjective bollox of determining dangerous or careless.

 

[Scoosh]

Radio 4 Today did a fairly long discussion of this case this morning with Lee Martin's brother along with the father of a boy racer death. It started at about 8:10 and covered why there's a separate group of driving offences and not simple criminal cases, such as manslaughter or murder.

Actually, it's continuing now (from about 8:35)

EDIT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07syyrf 02:10:00 and returned to around 20 minutes later

Yes, I caught this too. It was an interesting discussion, without any hysteria and the legal side being well explained.

 

[Drago]

We need a charge of "causing death whilst operating a motor vehicle" which can be judged on the objective facts:

a) were you driving
b) did somebody die

without all the subjective bollox of determining dangerous or careless.

, or a simple offence of 'causing death while committing a moving traffic offence'. If you choose to break the law, and someone dies as a consequence of you breaking that law, you should be dropped on from a great height without recourse to a relatively subjective view of what might be careless or dangerous. That simplifies the points to prove to be were they driving, committing an offence at the time, and did someone die?

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

I really like the idea of a ban for using a mobile phone while in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

 

[EnPassant]

AIUI the difference between careless and dangerous (and perhaps reckless) as far as the law is concerned is to do with intent.

As an example of what I believe it to mean: If you lost control on a patch of water, skidded and killed somebody on the pavement, depending on the exact circumstance this would be careless. If however you mounted the pavement whilst massively exceeding the speed limit and swerving around the inside of somebody turning right and then lost control hitting the same pedestrian this would be dangerous (reckless?).
Would you be happy that exactly the same penalty were applied in both cases? I'm not sure I would.

Those may be badly worded examples of course and I'm no police officer (or ex officer @Drago) or lawyer but I think that's what its about. No system is perfect but I'd not be happy with everyone getting the same penalty because it caused a death.
Mowing people down a la deathrace 2000 shouldn't in my view attract the same penalty as skidding on black ice whilst not speeding. And only partly because the second case calls to mind the phrase "There but for the grace of god, go I".
YMMV.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

, or a simple offence of 'causing death while committing a moving traffic offence'. If you choose to break the law, and someone dies as a consequence of you breaking that law, you should be dropped on from a great height without recourse to a relatively subjective view of what might be careless or dangerous. That simplifies the points to prove to be were they driving, committing an offence at the time, and did someone die?

but what if you arent committing any other offence?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

AIUI the difference between careless and dangerous (and perhaps reckless) as far as the law is concerned is to do with intent.

As an example of what I believe it to mean: If you lost control on a patch of water, skidded and killed somebody on the pavement, depending on the exact circumstance this would be careless. If however you mounted the pavement whilst massively exceeding the speed limit and swerving around the inside of somebody turning right and then lost control hitting the same pedestrian this would be dangerous (reckless?).
Would you be happy that exactly the same penalty were applied in both cases? I'm not sure I would.

Those may be badly worded examples of course and I'm no police officer (or ex officer @Drago) or lawyer but I think that's what its about. No system is perfect but I'd not be happy with everyone getting the same penalty because it caused a death.
Mowing people down a la deathrace 2000 shouldn't in my view attract the same penalty as skidding on black ice whilst not speeding. And only partly because the second case calls to mind the phrase "There but for the grace of god, go I".
YMMV.

If you skid on black ice whilst not speeding you are driving too fast for the conditions surely?

It is a speed limit not a target, after all.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

AIUI the difference between careless and dangerous (and perhaps reckless) as far as the law is concerned is to do with intent.

As an example of what I believe it to mean: If you lost control on a patch of water, skidded and killed somebody on the pavement, depending on the exact circumstance this would be careless. If however you mounted the pavement whilst massively exceeding the speed limit and swerving around the inside of somebody turning right and then lost control hitting the same pedestrian this would be dangerous (reckless?).
Would you be happy that exactly the same penalty were applied in both cases? I'm not sure I would.

Those may be badly worded examples of course and I'm no police officer (or ex officer @Drago) or lawyer but I think that's what its about. No system is perfect but I'd not be happy with everyone getting the same penalty because it caused a death.
Mowing people down a la deathrace 2000 shouldn't in my view attract the same penalty as skidding on black ice whilst not speeding. And only partly because the second case calls to mind the phrase "There but for the grace of god, go I".
YMMV.

Take a read at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/ which should prove useful. There are guidelines regarding dangerous and careless driving.

GC

 

[EnPassant]

If you skid on black ice whilst not speeding you are driving too fast for the conditions surely?

It is a speed limit not a target, after all.

This may well be the case, but without stretching a point, it's not impossible to skid at 10mph and conceivably kill somebody as a consequence.
There is if I remember correctly quite a lot of the use of the word 'reasonable' in legal cases. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to drive at 5mph when the weather is below 0 degrees Celcius?
I did say my examples may not be that well worded or the best you could imagine. I'm sure you or someone else could do a better job probably.

The thing is, the 'intent' is different, simply blanketing everyone who has an accident that kills somebody else, then locking them up forever, is too broad for me, and it seems the current laws. I don't like deaths, nobody does, but short of banning motorised transport altogether you are not going to stop them, and not in every case is the answer finding somebody to blame and lock up indefinitely. Again, ymmv.

 

[Drago]

Then the Drago Act 2016 would not apply.

 

[dellzeqq]

, or a simple offence of 'causing death while committing a moving traffic offence'. If you choose to break the law, and someone dies as a consequence of you breaking that law, you should be dropped on from a great height without recourse to a relatively subjective view of what might be careless or dangerous. That simplifies the points to prove to be were they driving, committing an offence at the time, and did someone die?

this is a very good point. The argument against is that, in some warped sense, the driver who offends and kills somebody is, somehow, unlucky. That stems from the law's obsession with intent and an inbuilt bias in favour of those who can conjure up an eloquent defence (or pay somebody to conjure up an eloquent defence) along the lines of 'people do this all the time, this was just a sad mischance'.

'Drago's Way' (if I understand it correctly) is the better way - if you speed, or use your phone, or drive when drunk or tired and you kill somebody, then, yes you are 'unlucky'. And, yes, you should pay for your bad luck.

I'm reminded of the Abergavenny case. A driver skidded on black ice and killed four cyclists. He was fined £180, that is to say £45 per cyclist. His defence was that he couldn't see the ice - well, that's the point about ice, and, if there is heavy frost around it's sensible to drive slowly (or, even better, ask yourself whether the journey is necessary) - but my view is that he was driving badly, four people died, and he should have gone to jail for a long time. He was, in one sense, 'unlucky' but, hey, that's what happens.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Causing?

Not enough words for me to comprehend the meaning of the question.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This may well be the case, but without stretching a point, it's not impossible to skid at 10mph and conceivably kill somebody as a consequence.
There is if I remember correctly quite a lot of the use of the word 'reasonable' in legal cases. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to drive at 5mph when the weather is below 0 degrees Celcius?
I did say my examples may not be that well worded or the best you could imagine. I'm sure you or someone else could do a better job probably.

The thing is, the 'intent' is different, simply blanketing everyone who has an accident that kills somebody else, then locking them up forever, is too broad for me, and it seems the current laws. I don't like deaths, nobody does, but short of banning motorised transport altogether you are not going to stop them, and not in every case is the answer finding somebody to blame and lock up indefinitely. Again, ymmv.

My mileage does vary.

If the road conditions are such that driving at 5mph is the only safe option, drive at 5mph, or, better still, don't drive at all.

I cycled to work a few winters back on a morning when the police were saying "essential journeys only". Awful lot of folk don't know what essential means, including the driver of the German 4WD running road tyres who slid past me backwards on a 20+% hill.

She missed me by inches. What offence did she commit other than that of being a lousy judge of the conditions, and her and her vehicle's abilities?

I am not suggesting all who kill with a motor vehicle should get life sentences, regardless of circumstances. I am suggesting that killing someone with a motor vehicle is an easily established objective fact and should be a criminal offence in its own right. The judge, on conviction of the accused can decide the sentence.

 

[EnPassant]

My mileage does vary.

If the road conditions are such that driving at 5mph is the only safe option, drive at 5mph, or, better still, don't drive at all.

Agree. And I'd choose the latter. But I don't like driving anyway, so any excuse not to is good enough.

I cycled to work a few winters back on a morning when the police were saying "essential journeys only". Awful lot of folk don't know what essential means, including the driver of the German 4WD running road tyres who slid past me backwards on a 20+% hill.

She missed me by inches. What offence did she commit other than that of being a lousy judge of the conditions, and her and her vehicle's abilities?

Agree. And yes, there's a lot of daft idiots about.

I am not suggesting all who kill with a motor vehicle should get life sentences, regardless of circumstances. I am suggesting that killing someone with a motor vehicle is an easily established objective fact and should be a criminal offence in its own right. The judge, on conviction of the accused can decide the sentence.

My mileage varies here . Disagree. I cannot see the rationale behind making the consequence of an accident an offence in and of itself.