Andy_R
Hard of hearing..I said Herd of Herring..oh FFS..
- Location
- County Durham
True, but he'd probably continue driving, just without a license
Ever wonder What's the point in Prosecuting Motorists?
- Thread starter spen666
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
9 months for intimidating a sleb on his bike
eff all for driving over someone you've knocked off their bike.
Broken Britain.
eff all for driving over someone you've knocked off their bike.
Broken Britain.
Detective Sergeant Cheryl Frost of the Met's roads and transport policing command said Olafusi's "reckless" driving was a "stark reminder of the dangers and consequences of using a mobile phone whilst behind the wheel".
Yeah a stark firking reminder but it wont stop drivers continually doing this so long as the sentences take the p155.
Yebbut aren't we glad this sentence was handed down AFTER mobile phone use wasclamped down on and stiffer sentences are being issued
I thought that was down to poor reporting
She had a number of outstanding offfence st the time, and it is these that earned her the time inside
Not sure that would make a blind bit of difference.
That was my point- it didn't
Sorry mate,tired.Was up very early (been to work) so not thinking straight..
Likewise. There's no point - unless it's a VERY near miss.
KnackeredBike
I do my own stunts
Problem is with police/CPS for not prosecuting for the right offence.
Careless driving = falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver.
Dangerous driving = falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver.
Dangerous driving unlocks more severe penalties.
If running over a cyclist because you think she is a speed hump isn't far below the standard of a careful and competent driver then we have some s*** careful and competent drivers on the road.
Careless driving = falling below the standard of a careful and competent driver.
Dangerous driving = falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver.
Dangerous driving unlocks more severe penalties.
If running over a cyclist because you think she is a speed hump isn't far below the standard of a careful and competent driver then we have some s*** careful and competent drivers on the road.
DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
Based on the number of times we hear about instances like this, I suspect that judges are currently under pressure to award "suitable" non-custodial sentences.
The legislation is terrible. What does "below" vs "far below" the standard of a "careful and competent driver" mean?
They should scrap the distinction, and just have "Caused death whilst in control of a motor vehicle" and "Caused serious injury whilst in control of a motor vehicle" and have another offence of something like "Driving likely to cause death or serious injury"
Then the only job for the court would be to decide whether the death or serious injury was caused by the driver, what their level of culpability was, and sentence accordingly.
They should scrap the distinction, and just have "Caused death whilst in control of a motor vehicle" and "Caused serious injury whilst in control of a motor vehicle" and have another offence of something like "Driving likely to cause death or serious injury"
Then the only job for the court would be to decide whether the death or serious injury was caused by the driver, what their level of culpability was, and sentence accordingly.
OP
OP
spen666
Legendary Member
I have argued this for years.
Similarly we should scrap ABH and GBH and Common assault and just have one offence of assault.
The maximum sentence for driving would be the same and also for assault.
The courts would decide the relevant seriousness when sentencing
The Law commission refused to look at this idea several years ago when put forward by my the part of civil service as a topic to consider ( At time the Law commission had contacted us and others asking for suggestions of topics to consider). They said it was too big a topic to look at!!!!!
How about this as a suggestion. Do what some states in the USA do and have mandatory punishments for some crimes. So for say, drink driving; regardless of how little / much the offender is over; first offence - a five year ban and a fine of 30% of their gross annual income. Second offence - a life ban and a fine of 50% of their gross annual income. And being mandatory, no smart arse lawyer can talk them off it. If folk are acutely aware that that is what they'll get stuck with, it MAY focus the mind a bit. Similar for using cell phones etc. whilst driving.
KnackeredBike
I do my own stunts
This is already the case, there are sentencing guidelines which say what the minimum sentences are unless the court has special reasons not to enact them, and then guidelines to increase them depending on the severity of the offence. The guidelines also include mitigating and aggravating factors for the offence, e.g. "spiked drinks" vs "driving near a school".
For instance, dangerous driving has a minimum one year ban and extended retest.
You can argue the sentences should be stronger, but the system (fairly strict guidelines which can be varied in exceptional circumstances by a trained judge or bench of magistrates) is a pretty good system that should, in theory, deliver consistent sentences but with "special" cases receiving higher or lower sentences.
OP
OP
spen666
Legendary Member
Mandatory sentences make for injustice.
They do not allow court to take account of all the circumstances leading to an offence
As for no difference to punishment despite how far over the limit a drink driver is- I have never heard anything so stupid.
Might as well drink to oblivion and drive as no difference in sentence.
Its as stupid as giving same sentence to someone who pushes into a queue common assault) and someone who stabs someone 125 times in a pre planned revenge attack
