alas_alas

That's not really to do deal with my point though, is it? I fail to understand why death by dangerous driving is considered a lesser crime than any other homicide. In that regard, we are clearly stuck in the realm of intent. My point is that it should be clear that when you get into an inherently dangerous vehicle such as a car you take on responsibility for your and others' lives. If you kill someone through your actions of endangerment, you should face the responsibility for causing a homicide. Deterrent effects are apparent in both cases you raise, by the way. Society is deterred from drink driving because of harsh sentences and social opprobrium towards drink driving. Robbery is deterred because of extremely harsh sentences. Deterrence because of the results of illegal driving are very strong, but as I say, the sentence in this case is only marginally more than you might receive if you were to drive at double the speed limit while drunk. So it's a very small price to pay for taking someone's life. Name me one other sphere of life where you could expect to receive 2 years in prison for killing a man through your own negligence, irresponsibility, and illegality.

Sorry, I'm struggling to understand why I'm being ganged up upon here. Let me clarify: I think if you kill someone else on the road in your car through your own dangerous driving, you should receive a sentence in line with the severity of the homicide you've committed. I don't think that's nonsense, nor does Scotland Yard's Head of Road Deaths Investigation Unit, the Cycle Touring Club, and many others. ---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 20:41 ---------- Well it seems more people need educating about the massive and inherent dangers to life represented by driving a tonne-plus box of metal on wheels at high speeds. There needs to be a radical rethink if anyone considers driving while drunk, of unsound mind, or inappropriately to the conditions of the road or their car, as anything other than deadly.

Your attitude is extraordinarily arrogant in this matter - can you explain to me why you so vociferously reject my argument other than just calling it nonsense? Do you really think sentences for deaths caused by reckless and dangerous driving are and have been appropriate? In what other sphere of public life could you kill someone and expect to receive a 4 year sentence, serving only 2? What deters people from robbing banks, to take just one example where sentencing is extremely harsh? Is it the social opprobrium attached to bank robbery?

Yes, I'm in agreement on your points really, but I think what you're calling for is unrealistic. Look, if sentences were harsher, we would have far less of the cyclists versus motorists nonsense and far more cautious drivers. As for prevention, you're not going to get widespread change by recourse to the law. There would have to be wide ranging public consciousness raising similar to that towards drink driving. The message should be that if you take a life on the road through negligence it should be treated like murder (or in a strict legal sense, manslaughter). Level 1 death by dangerous driving sentencing is clearly an attempt to give that message, but how often is the full tariff meted out?

Yes, where an offence actually took place. E S seems to be suggesting people should be prosecuted and treated more harshly if the outcome of their actions could have been worse. In this instance, I don't really see how the consequences could have been worse, bar multiple deaths.

In those examples, nobody was actually hurt or seriously injured. You're talking about hypothetical situations - how can the law prosecute the possibility that a serious injury or death could have occurred, but didn't? This death, of Eric Codling, did happen. You can't legislate for all eventualities, but the legal system can pass appropriate sentences when actual incidents occur.

The police don't have the capacity to police the volume of careless driving on the roads at any one time. Which is one argument for making death by dangerous driving more heavily punished, if not actually include it in the law on homicides. Having been run over myself and been told I hadn't been seen and further that the police wouldn't prosecute even though it was a clear cut case, I'm a firm believer that something is seriously screwed up about national driving behaviour and the law that responds to it.

And Egan will serve 2 years and be back on the road in 7. I don't think that's just. ---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 14:04 ---------- I would agree with John Oldham in this case: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3317831.ece And there's a handy index of current tariffs at the bottom of the page. In too many instances, as in this case, sentences are derisory for the killing of cyclists and pedestrians.

OK, well let's go for manslaughter then! In terms of criminal culpability, would you seriously suggest to Eric Codling's family that his death was just 'the luck of the draw'?!

If you think sentences meted out for death by dangerous driving are commensurate, then you have a curious interpretation of justice.

Our difference of opinion stems from social responsibility: I believe, and believe it should be emphasised, that you bear the safety of others' lives when you get in a car, and if you then behave in a way that ends someone's life because of your complete and knowing abdication of that responsibility, then you murdered someone.

And drive at around 70mph in residential streets, with speed limits of 30 and 40mph. Furious and drunk. No intention to cause harm? I'm sure those who take knives to fights 'never intended to cause harm', yet it just so happens that you're more likely to die of a stab wound than a gun shot wound. I think society at large and the judiciary need to have a serious re-think about the dangers inherent in car driving. I thought you were interested in social justice, Halibut!

My argument suggests it would be impossible to get in and drive a car in that state without intending to cause harm. I'm not saying there's a category in law called being 'murderously reckless', but rather that the driving offence tariffs do not recognise the severity of Egan's crime.

I can't really understand why you're arguing for Egan's relative 'innocence' in this case. Do you think there is no thought of harm to others if you got in your car, drunk, then drove almost double (if not more) the speed limit in a residential area, crashing out of control, resulting in the instantaneous death of a cyclist? Your interpretation is there is no intent to cause harm, mine is that this is murderously reckless, similar to carrying a knife to a fight (then using it).

Precisely. Well argued. As I mentioned earlier, this is compounded by the fact Egan's sister died in similar circumstances. She knew very well the potential outcome of her actions by choosing to drive that morning.