Woman admits A32 Wickham cyclist death

[Starchivore]

Case 1 - driver has a 45 year driving record with no incidents. Or do we believe it is impossible for a normally excellent and safe driver to drop the ball, with potentially disastrous results? I know it is, because I've seen it, fortunately with no-one injured. This is one reason I look forward to more automation and driverless cars, because I do not believe that anyone is such a good driver that this couldn't happen to them. Humans are fallible.

It's a fair point.

For me, both should get the full driving ban (for life). But only the second (drunk, doubling speed limit) should get criminal charges.

 

[Profpointy]

If the outcome is to be ignored then why do we have offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving with substantially different maximum penalties?

GC

Not quite sure which point you're making here, but "death by dangerous" is considered much more seriously than "death by careless" for the reasons Karlt mentions.

Fair enough, "death by" versus "dangerous but nothing happened", but even so "dangerous" is rightly treated more seriously than "careless".

That said, I can't help believing that the "low sun" excuse is now a standard get-out-of-jail excuse that's simply bollocks. Solicitors doubtless trundle it out, regardless of whether they client actually claimed any such thing.

 

[Karlt]

It's a fair point.

For me, both should get the full driving ban (for life). But only the second (drunk, doubling speed limit) should get criminal charges.

Right. OK. That's me, my father and my wife all with life bans (it wasn't motorcycles, but it could have been). How many people do you think would actually have licences under your regime?

And how do you revoke a licence without criminal charges?

 

[Karlt]

If the outcome is to be ignored then why do we have offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving with substantially different maximum penalties?

GC

Because people get very upset when consequences aren't taken into account and that has to be taken into account when setting policy. Me, I'm not convinced it should be so big a factor. Two drivers can do exactly the same thing, by the Grace of God only one causes a death, and the penalty for exactly the same action can be wildly different.

The point I'm getting at here is that "looked but failed to see" happens hundreds of times per day. In 90% of cases, probably, evading action avoides a collision. In another 9.9% there is a property damage only collision. In a tiny proportion there is an injury, and in a tiny proportion of that tiny proportion a death. And the outcome has very little to do with the degree of failure of the driver. If we are to say that every bit of careless driving should result in a life ban, there'll be no-one on the roads. If we focus almost entirely on outcome, then it's a lottery whether you get a life ban or no penalty at all beyond an increase in premiums. Steering a line between these is a difficult task.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Right. OK. That's me, my father and my wife all with life bans (it wasn't motorcycles, but it could have been). How many people do you think would actually have licences under your regime?

And how do you revoke a licence without criminal charges?

So what acceptable reason is there for driving in front of anybody? What is the thing that links yours, your fathers, and your wife's driving attitudes, as I don't believe it's just chance.

 

[Karlt]

So what acceptable reason is there for driving in front of anybody? What is the thing that links yours, your fathers, and your wife's driving attitudes, as I don't believe it's just chance.

Human fallibility. "acceptable reason" isn't the phrase I'd use. "Explanation" is. My father especially is an extremely careful, patient and cautious driver. But he's not infallible. No-one is. What links us is being human. But feel free to assume we must all be nutters. I'm out of here if it's going to get personal like that.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Human fallibility. My father especially is an extremely careful, patient and cautious driver. But he's not infallible. No-one is. What links us is being human.

So why do you have some many accidents caused by driving in front of other traffic in your immediate family. Yet nobody in my immediate family is?

If it was all random distribution of "being human", then I'd expect a more even spread. Yet what you actually see, is the same people involved in multiple incidents, and close family also involved in incidents. There's more to it imo.

 

[Profpointy]

So what acceptable reason is there for driving in front of anybody? What is the thing that links yours, your fathers, and your wife's driving attitudes, as I don't believe it's just chance.

Are you claiming you have never made a mistake driving, or not seen something despite looking?

The question may only apply if you do drive and have driven a reasonable distance - let's say a few 100,000 miles.

Of course, this isn't an excuse for not seeing hazzards, but to pretend to perfection, isn't normally a good recipe for improvement. My observation skill improved a lot after doing motorcycle training, where a very systematic approach was pushed. But even so I can still make mistakes - usually caught as I'm more systematic, but still, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm perfect

 

[Starchivore]

Right. OK. That's me, my father and my wife all with life bans (it wasn't motorcycles, but it could have been). How many people do you think would actually have licences under your regime?

And how do you revoke a licence without criminal charges?

No, I meant people who actually properly hit someone after pulling out and did serious damage to them. That can't be that significant a % of drivers.

Ok, I meant more "further" punishment, I'm not very up on legal speak. As in sentences and whatnot.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Not quite sure which point you're making here, but "death by dangerous" is considered much more seriously than "death by careless" for the reasons Karlt mentions.

Fair enough, "death by" versus "dangerous but nothing happened", but even so "dangerous" is rightly treated more seriously than "careless".

That said, I can't help believing that the "low sun" excuse is now a standard get-out-of-jail excuse that's simply bollocks. Solicitors doubtless trundle it out, regardless of whether they client actually claimed any such thing.

I wasn't comparing death by careless with death by dangerous.
I'm suggesting that where we have, say, careless driving (and for simplicity let's take Karlt's example 1), there can be two outcomes: death or no death. The level of carelessness is the same but the outcome is different and determines a different range of punishment. I see no reason why this should be restricted to deaths and not non-fatal injuries caused.

GC

 

[Karlt]

So why do you have some many accidents caused by driving in front of other traffic in your immediate family. Yet nobody in my immediate family is?

If it was all random distribution of "being human", then I'd expect a more even spread. Yet what you actually see, is the same people involved in multiple incidents, and close family also involved in incidents. There's more to it imo.

Except that each of us has only had the one such incident, in years of driving. There is no "multiple accidents" in our case. I do know what you're getting at, and I know people whose attitude to driving causes me concern, and yes, it can run in families. I'm asking you to accept at least provisionally that this is most certainly not true in our case.

 

[Karlt]

No, I meant people who actually properly hit someone after pulling out and did serious damage to them. That can't be that significant a % of drivers.

Why are those who cause an injury so much more blameworthy than those who make exactly the same mistake but by chance do not do so?

 

[Profpointy]

I wasn't comparing death by careless with death by dangerous.
I'm suggesting that where we have, say, careless driving (and for simplicity let's take Karlt's example 1), there can be two outcomes: death or no death. The level of carelessness is the same but the outcome is different and determines a different range of punishment. I see no reason why this should be restricted to deaths and not non-fatal injuries caused.

GC

Ok makes sense, and there's some sense in the argument, yet I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel unease if the "death by" scenario is treated very leniently, and similarly it would seem harsh if a "minor" (a loaded word maybe) mistake without harm done led to a 2 year prison sentence say.

I do think dangerous driving, in the legal sense, should be treated much more seriously, especially where it's willfull stupidity

 

[Starchivore]

Why are those who cause an injury so much more blameworthy than those who make exactly the same mistake but by chance do not do so?

They aren't but the consequences do have to be taken into account. And how else would it even come to light that someone had made the error, unless there was an accident that got reported?

There is some bad luck involved, I agree. Some people make the error/do the bad thing but get away with it and no one gets hurt. Such is life.

 

[Karlt]

Ok makes sense, and there's some sense in the argument, yet I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel unease if the "death by" scenario is treated very leniently, and similarly it would seem harsh if a "minor" (a loaded word maybe) mistake without harm done led to a 2 year prison sentence say.

Aye. This is quite the legal conundrum. I think the issue is that driving, perhaps more than any other activity that people regularly indulge in, can so easily turn a minor error into a very serious outcome, and yet at the same time appalling incompetence can sometimes - most times indeed - have little consequence. It's the disconnect between degree of incompetence, or deliberate action, and the outcome, that makes this so terribly difficult.

I do think dangerous driving, in the legal sense, should be treated much more seriously, especially where it's willfull stupidity