New sentencing for driving offences

[lazybloke]

Those who kill when driving seem to get away with murder, but from next week there are tougher maximum sentences for driving offences, and a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving.
Hopefully all backed up with stricter sentencing guidelines., but no detail of those.


BBC News - Drivers who kill could receive life sentences under law reform
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61940351

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Here's a link that works

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61940351

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm not sure about this. Yes the pathetic sentences are shocking, but will this make any difference other than as a kind of revenge?

It's unlikely to have a deterrent effect as the perpetrators see their behaviour beforehand as normal.

The only reason that the top of the deadly driving behaviour pyramid is so high is because its base of habitual speeding, RLJ ing, lane-cutting, close passing and so on is so massive. Stiffer penalties for more common but less deadly offences might well have an effect. But no government would have the balls to do this for fear of being accused of "war on motorists".

It's like gun control in the US. Citizens can't accept the connection between their owning weapons for "home defence" or shooting at a range and widespread gun crime.

It's just a headline-grabber. Not necessarily an unwelcome one, but unlikely to do anything other than make a few bereaved families feel slightly less bad.

 

[Andy_R]

It's quite simple - if you own a firearm and are found to be using/keeping it in an unsafe manner then your license is revoked. Permanently. Same should go for driving.

 

[lazybloke]

Yes the pathetic sentences are shocking, but will this make any difference other than as a kind of revenge?

On it's own it won't make much difference, but I hope the drip-drip effect of such publicity, and future prosecutions, and recent highway code changes, and other similar news (such as TFL to fine incursions into mandatory cycle lanes) are creating an environment for change.

It is a case of I'll believe it when I se it, aka It's all happening too slowly - but the now common claims of a "war against motorists" shows that message is beginning to get across.


Revenge? aka Justice? Yes - vital to help drive this much-needed and overdue change.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I'm not sure about this. Yes the pathetic sentences are shocking, but will this make any difference other than as a kind of revenge?

It's unlikely to have a deterrent effect as the perpetrators see their behaviour beforehand as normal.

The only reason that the top of the deadly driving behaviour pyramid is so high is because its base of habitual speeding, RLJ ing, lane-cutting, close passing and so on is so massive. Stiffer penalties for more common but less deadly offences might well have an effect. But no government would have the balls to do this for fear of being accused of "war on motorists".

It's like gun control in the US. Citizens can't accept the connection between their owning weapons for "home defence" or shooting at a range and widespread gun crime.

It's just a headline-grabber. Not necessarily an unwelcome one, but unlikely to do anything other than make a few bereaved families feel slightly less bad.

This is entirely anecdotal, but I feel much safer riding here because I feel strict liability makes drivers more aware that if they hit a cyclist/pedestrian then they are held responsible, at least financially, until they can prove otherwise, a message I've heard being repeated during my driving lessons in Germany (I've never driven a car in the UK so I had to learn here), and in education; passing a cyclist was always to be taken with extreme caution and if the instructor thought you'd crossed a crossing without checking for waiting pedestrians you would be failed. The message, repeatedly given was "if a cyclist/pedestrian falls out of the sky and hits your car, you're liable until you can prove otherwise".

I'm not planning to die on that hill because I can't prove it, but my impression is that it makes drivers a bit more careful.

 

[cyberknight]

the likelihood of getting away with it will outweigh the penalty , bit like mobile phone use

 

[Ian H]

A pertinent response from a barrister.

View: https://twitter.com/TweetingYet/status/1541034374430326785

 

[Andy in Germany]

the likelihood of getting away with it will outweigh the penalty , bit like mobile phone use

This is an issue here because dashcams are technically illegal, so evidence from them can't be used in court as far as i know.

 

[All uphill]

I'm not sure about this. Yes the pathetic sentences are shocking, but will this make any difference other than as a kind of revenge?

It's unlikely to have a deterrent effect as the perpetrators see their behaviour beforehand as normal.

The only reason that the top of the deadly driving behaviour pyramid is so high is because its base of habitual speeding, RLJ ing, lane-cutting, close passing and so on is so massive. Stiffer penalties for more common but less deadly offences might well have an effect. But no government would have the balls to do this for fear of being accused of "war on motorists".

It's like gun control in the US. Citizens can't accept the connection between their owning weapons for "home defence" or shooting at a range and widespread gun crime.

It's just a headline-grabber. Not necessarily an unwelcome one, but unlikely to do anything other than make a few bereaved families feel slightly less bad.

I agree with this.

Tougher sentencing will grab some headlines and, over time, may persuade some drivers to take more care; I would like to see a high profile campaign that normalises careful driving and works to make speeding, carelessness, phone use etc. socially unacceptable .

It's always seemed a bit illogical to me that people who advocate low taxation also advocate longer prison sentences rather than discouraging offending in the first place.