Death by careless driving, sentencing guidelines
- Thread starter gambatte
- Start date
piedwagtail91
Guest
if they take someones life they should pay the price , not be let off because they're driving a car.
this country is way too soft on motorists who kill others.
theres no such thing as a momentary lapse where a lot of motorists are concerned, the only momentary lapse they occaisionally have is when they actually look and think about what theyr're doing.
this country is way too soft on motorists who kill others.
theres no such thing as a momentary lapse where a lot of motorists are concerned, the only momentary lapse they occaisionally have is when they actually look and think about what theyr're doing.
Cycling Naturalist
Legendary Member
- Location
- Llangollen
Yes, but some of them will have appalling records, not just for motoring offences, but others as well and it will be perfectly clear that they are reckless antisocial people with no regard for the law. It is easy to distinguish them from law abiding people with good driving records who have a momentary lapse.Cab said:
In principle I can't disagree with that. In practice... I dunno, I've just seen so many instances of people going over 12 points on thier license, endangering or harming others, and getting away with very light sentences, that I'm worried by advice to the courts to be more lenient in some situations. Its almost like they're looking for ways of not punishing dangerous driving, and in such a climate I'm concerned by this.Patrick Stevens said:
Am I being paranoid here?
tdr1nka
Taking the biscuit
- Location
- SE London, Bandit Country
I think we all are, and with damn good reason!Cab said:
It is hardly Draconion to suggest that a driver who is speeding in a 20 limit, hitting a child that runs out from nowhere and killing them is a death that could have been avoided and deserves to be classed as a murder.
As cyclists we have to be vigilant in order to use the road, cardrivers it seems need only to be aware when it suits them.
Worse things happen at sea!
T x
True enough, but a momentary lapse of concentration can happen under the speed limit and still be calamatous. And I'm sure if we're honest, we'll admit that even when cycling we can have accidents (or come close to having accidents) through inattentiveness, or having our attention drawn the wrong way. And it would seem reasonable that such things if they're rare and if they happen to someone who does have an exemplary record on the road are genuinely accidents deserving of minor punishment at most.tdr1nka said:
BUT... I just don't know whether I trust our legal system to handle this well.
MartinC
Über Member
- Location
- Cheltenham
This is totally undemocratic. Parliament changed the law because people weren't being sentenced appropriately for killing people whilst driving. The law was specificall intended to provide custodial sentences driving offences where people were killed. The body that creates sentencing guidelines has decided to set aside what parliament intended to match their car centric, white, male, middle aged, middle class bias.
There's no such thing as an accident (well, hardy ever).
There IS, however, negligence.
If you take control of a 1.5 tonne killing machine, you take the responsiblity for it, too.
You might well be driving at less than the mandatory maximum: it doesn't mean it's a safe speed for the situation.
You might glance momentarily at your SatNav screen: but is it a safe moment to do so - a straight, empty road with no junctions or side turnings, not another car or soul in sight, or a busy residential road, with plenty of potential hazards. If the latter, and your mommentary inattention leads to the death of a child, it is your negligence that caused that death. You made the witting descision to take your eyes off the raod at that moment, fully aware that it was a residential street full of potential hazards.
You must carry the consequences of your negligence.
I am so depressed at the way governments of all colours in this country pander to the whim of the motorist, to the detriment of others. I wish someone would have the guts to stand up to them, and say "enough is enough".
Around 10 people a day a killed, many more seriously injured on Britain's roads. But that's "collateral damage", so it's ok.
There IS, however, negligence.
If you take control of a 1.5 tonne killing machine, you take the responsiblity for it, too.
You might well be driving at less than the mandatory maximum: it doesn't mean it's a safe speed for the situation.
You might glance momentarily at your SatNav screen: but is it a safe moment to do so - a straight, empty road with no junctions or side turnings, not another car or soul in sight, or a busy residential road, with plenty of potential hazards. If the latter, and your mommentary inattention leads to the death of a child, it is your negligence that caused that death. You made the witting descision to take your eyes off the raod at that moment, fully aware that it was a residential street full of potential hazards.
You must carry the consequences of your negligence.
I am so depressed at the way governments of all colours in this country pander to the whim of the motorist, to the detriment of others. I wish someone would have the guts to stand up to them, and say "enough is enough".
Around 10 people a day a killed, many more seriously injured on Britain's roads. But that's "collateral damage", so it's ok.
I agree, and if the application of this proposal is that those who have been genuinely negligent still get punished appropriately then thats fine by me. If the application of this is that there are guidelines with which judges can look in to what happened and hand out less severe penalties if that is clearly appropriate, I'm also in favour. Its all about what those guidelines will be, what constitutes a momentary lack of concentration, etc.JamesAC said:
wafflycat
New Member
- Location
- middle of Norfolk
biking_fox
Veteran
- Location
- Manchester
This seams one of those occasions when it is worth writing to your MP, so that they know that people in their consituency are concerned. It's very easy to do: http://www.writetothem.com
Paranoid? yes. Paranoid enough? maybe.
Although any of us can be taken out by someone's momentary lapse, knowing that the perpetrator is subsequently behind bars doesn't really help. Scaring the motorist so badly in the first place that they don't make the momentary lapse would be good. But current legislation, or even really draconian legislation does not do this, so I don't think the proposed changes will make any difference to driver behavior.
The only real target would be repeat offenders, and this hopefully won't make any difference to their treatment.
Paranoid? yes. Paranoid enough? maybe.
Although any of us can be taken out by someone's momentary lapse, knowing that the perpetrator is subsequently behind bars doesn't really help. Scaring the motorist so badly in the first place that they don't make the momentary lapse would be good. But current legislation, or even really draconian legislation does not do this, so I don't think the proposed changes will make any difference to driver behavior.
The only real target would be repeat offenders, and this hopefully won't make any difference to their treatment.
Similar threads
