STOP...using cars as a weapon.

[MarkF]

Wouldn't it be good if careless/dangerous driving / speeding/ hit and running were given the same social stigma as kiddy-fiddling...?

Yes, yes, yes, chop their hands off and poke their eyes out too.......

 

[ComedyPilot]

Yes, yes, yes, chop their hands off and poke their eyes out too.......

No.

Just create a negative stigma that makes driving like a complete cock wholly unappealing.

It seems strange to me that a society that abhors (rightly) the abuse of kids, will not turn the same vociferous anger on the greater danger to children - vehicles on urban roads.

 

[MontyVeda]

driving like a c*ck is socially unappealing.... problem is most bad drivers think they're really good drivers

 

[400bhp]

No.

Just create a negative stigma that makes driving like a complete cock wholly unappealing.

It seems strange to me that a society that abhors (rightly) the abuse of kids, will not turn the same vociferous anger on the greater danger to children - vehicles on urban roads.

What makes you think that is a greater danger to children\?

 

[400bhp]

Wouldn't it be good if careless/dangerous driving / speeding/ hit and running were given the same social stigma as kiddy-fiddling...?

No

 

[fabregas485]

What makes you think that is a greater danger to children\?

Electric cars on newly tarmacked roads = so silent, but so deadly

 

[400bhp]

eh?

 

[2Loose]

What makes you think that is a greater danger to children\?

Just a guess, but it would be interesting to compare the number of child fatalities due to drivers, compared to the numbers of abused kids per year. I'd expect the number of deaths to be higher.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Just a guess, but it would be interesting to compare the number of child fatalities due to drivers, compared to the numbers of abused kids per year. I'd expect the number of deaths to be higher.

And that is my point. Unless we as a motoring public wake the f*ck up and realise we're killing each other, then nothing will change.

My favourite phrase is so true...if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've already got.

 

[ComedyPilot]

[QUOTE 2669860, member: 30090"]Sorry but is this thread a wind up? Trying to 'discuss' or distinguish between knifing someone and killing someone in an RTC - the mind boggles.[/quote]
No - the other thread was the wrong place to discuss it.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Take the bus driver in the video where he rammed the cyclist....what was he charged with?

GBH and dangerous driving.....

Now I drive 10 tons of metal at someone and my 'supposed' intent is not to kill them?

What do people think will happen to a human being hit with a ton of metal, let alone10 tons?

We seem to be apologists for the abysmal driving we're now subject to?

 

[400bhp]

Just a guess, but it would be interesting to compare the number of child fatalities due to drivers, compared to the numbers of abused kids per year. I'd expect the number of deaths to be higher.

I wouldnt

 

[MattyKo]

There's another thread about a police officer being killed by a hit and run driver.

I don't think that thread should be used to discuss the circ's etc, so I have started this one.

People rightly are questioning why a person can kill with a car and it's careless/dangerous driving, but to kill with a knife/hammer it's murder....

Discuss.

I thought that some responses given here were relevant or discussed in a thread I posted earlier. At which time I have or at least I thought I was very much shouted down.

I do not think anyone requires a legal lesson, nevertheless we all know that evidence in criminal proceeding require the burden of proof to be "Beyond All Reasonable Doubt" (in contrast to Civil Litigation were the evidential proof burden is only "On The Balance of Probability"). The death of another is obviously a criminal matter. It was my contention, due to the increased number of people appearing before the judiciary following the death or serious injury of another on the roads, and in light of the jury in these cases no wishing to find a verdict of guilty. As they empathised with the defendant, as in all likelihood been drivers themselves. The Legislator / Parliament decided to enact the Road Traffic Act 1971. Section 1 of this Act covers the causing of death, and to my knowledge reduced the level of punishment the judiciary was able to hand down / out. Causing the death of another in circumstances covered by Homicide / Manslaughter legislation carries a mandatory life sentence., however, the Road Traffic Act 1971 reduced the sentencing powers of the judiciary for road deaths to a maximum tariff of 10 years imprisonment. (This ten years may not be entirely correct).

In addition to the burden of proof requirements all criminal cases in order to succeed must show that the defendant not only carried out the physical act, which in the case of murder - death must occur within one year and one day from the date in which the physical act was administered. The defendant must also have had the mental intent to cause death or serious injury or be negligent to the fact that his actions may cause serious injury or death. This mental intent is referred to as the "Mens Rea" .

It is unlikely that a reversion to previous times shall occur, were we see the Road Traffic Act 1971 repealed. Since this Act we have seen exponential growth in car / vehicle ownership and traffic congestion. So the situation shall not in my opinion get any better, and we shall see a continual exponential growth in deaths and serious injury on the roads to match the other variable in this equation - vehicle ownership / traffic congestion.

However it is very difficult and was probably the reason for the enactment of the RTA 1971 to prove that the driver had the necessary "MENS REA - Mental Intent / The Malice Aforethought" to cause the death. However a motorised vehicle is just that a vehicle in order to achieve your objectives faster, and we all know the negative consequences these vehicles have with drivers in them. So why not punish those that injure or kill with penal sentences that are commensurate with the damage they inflict.

Reference the driver been arrested for murder or another similar serious offence for causing the death of the police officer, is just that an arrest. The gathering of evidence to satisfy the judiciary is governed by the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), which also saw the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service. This body the CPS is responsible for the decision of whether to proceed with a prosecution either of the basis of sufficient evidence and also on the grounds of public interest, this body is also responsible for the prosecution itself. You often find that the police (especially in these circumstances - the death of one of their rank and file) arrest with a view to charge for a serious

It is more than tragic that people die on the road, it is even more tragic that the perpetrator decides not to stick around to offer something to those that are the victims - the friends and family of the deceased.

 

[MattyKo]

I thought that some responses given here were relevant or discussed in a thread I posted earlier. At which time I have or at least I thought I was very much shouted down.

I do not think anyone requires a legal lesson, nevertheless we all know that evidence in criminal proceeding require the burden of proof to be "Beyond All Reasonable Doubt" (in contrast to Civil Litigation were the evidential proof burden is only "On The Balance of Probability"). The death of another is obviously a criminal matter. It was my contention, due to the increased number of people appearing before the judiciary following the death or serious injury of another on the roads, and in light of the jury in these cases no wishing to find a verdict of guilty. As they empathised with the defendant, as in all likelihood been drivers themselves. The Legislator / Parliament decided to enact the Road Traffic Act 1971. Section 1 of this Act covers the causing of death, and to my knowledge reduced the level of punishment the judiciary was able to hand down / out. Causing the death of another in circumstances covered by Homicide / Manslaughter legislation carries a mandatory life sentence., however, the Road Traffic Act 1971 reduced the sentencing powers of the judiciary for road deaths to a maximum tariff of 10 years imprisonment. (This ten years may not be entirely correct).

In addition to the burden of proof requirements all criminal cases in order to succeed must show that the defendant not only carried out the physical act, which in the case of murder - death must occur within one year and one day from the date in which the physical act was administered. The defendant must also have had the mental intent to cause death or serious injury or be negligent to the fact that his actions may cause serious injury or death. This mental intent is referred to as the "Mens Rea" .

It is unlikely that a reversion to previous times shall occur, were we see the Road Traffic Act 1971 repealed. Since this Act we have seen exponential growth in car / vehicle ownership and traffic congestion. So the situation shall not in my opinion get any better, and we shall see a continual exponential growth in deaths and serious injury on the roads to match the other variable in this equation - vehicle ownership / traffic congestion.

However it is very difficult and was probably the reason for the enactment of the RTA 1971 to prove that the driver had the necessary "MENS REA - Mental Intent / The Malice Aforethought" to cause the death. However a motorised vehicle is just that a vehicle in order to achieve your objectives faster, and we all know the negative consequences these vehicles have with drivers in them. So why not punish those that injure or kill with penal sentences that are commensurate with the damage they inflict.

Reference the driver been arrested for murder or another similar serious offence for causing the death of the police officer, is just that an arrest. The gathering of evidence to satisfy the judiciary is governed by the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), which also saw the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service. This body the CPS is responsible for the decision of whether to proceed with a prosecution either of the basis of sufficient evidence and also on the grounds of public interest, this body is also responsible for the prosecution itself. You often find that the police (especially in these circumstances - the death of one of their rank and file) arrest with a view to charge for a serious

It is more than tragic that people die on the road, it is even more tragic that the perpetrator decides not to stick around to offer something to those that are the victims - the friends and family of the deceased.

Correction

Penultimate paragraph -

You often find that the police (especially in these circumstances - the death of one of their rank and file) arrest with a view to charge for a serious offence, however, the CPS reduce the level of severity / charge at the time of proceeding with the intention to prosecute.

 

[Alex H]

Just a guess, but it would be interesting to compare the number of child fatalities due to drivers, compared to the numbers of abused kids per year. I'd expect the number of deaths to be higher.

What?

Child Deaths from Traffic Accidents under 16 years of age 2011 - 60 http://makingthelink.net/child-deaths-road-traffic-accidents

Sexual Crimes against children under 16 recorded in England and Wales 2012/2013 - 18,915 http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html

Did you mean to say "murdered children"? because the average per year is 20 http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/statistics/child_homicide_statistics_wda48747.html