Woman jailed for 4 years for hit and run death.

[Cyclone 10]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

 

Search this for "dangerously leaded" and then someone explain what it means to me please?

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

 

At present the police cannot police the roads in the way I am suggesting. To change things requires a change at a political level, and a decision to fund the police to tackle bad driving. It is a matter of political will.

 

Over the years, road deaths have steadily reduced, even though the number of vehicles has increased.. This has been mostly due, in my opinion, to improvements in vehicle crash worthiness and better design of roads (more motorway standard roads). However, we haven't seen a corresponding reduction in death and serious injury to the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists.

 

Governments appear to be going further down the route of severe punishment for drivers causing death. This might satisfy those calling for long prison sentences, but it does nothing to improve road safety going forward.

 

Each time that there is a high profile death and what looks like a derisory punishment, then the calls seem to concentrate on the punishment and not on trying to prevent more deaths.

 

There are exceptions (eg the move towards improved mirrors on HGVs), but these are not the norm.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2014 at 15:25 ----------

 

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.

 

We do already prosecute in these situations. People are charged with dangerous driving exactly because of the danger they might put other people in due to their reckless bahaviour. The man who threw the fire extinguisher was charged exactly because his reckless behaviour could have seriously injured other people.

 

We already prosecute based on hypothetical outcomes (note, not a hypothetical situation, the situation and the dangers are real). What I'm calling for is for the punishment to be based mostly on these actions, as the real crime, not so much on the outcome.

[milquetoast1 10]

Easter Sundae - I'm absolutely in agreement with your last two long posts #164 and #170.

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

 

I'm not sure why you think I'm saying that, but I'll try to clarify.

 

The reason that people are convicted of dangerous driving is because they potentially put other people in danger. I think that this is a very serious crime and we (as a society) should try harder to ensure those dangerous drivers change their behaviour, and stop putting these other people in danger.

 

For the most part, when someone drives dangerously, there is no bad outcome. But occasionally, there is, like in the case of this thread, or the lady who was killed on Halifax Road by racers. Once that happens, it is too late. The death has occurred. We should punish the driver who has caused the death. However, at the moment, we tend to excuse the other dangerous drivers by not even trying to stop them, whether by catching and convicting them or by persuading them to change their behaviour.

 

My opinion, which is all it is, is that some parts of society (whether it's people on forums, MPs, Government Departments, newspapers) seem to respond with a bit of a knee jerk reaction to events of death by dangerous driving, and concentrate on the level of punishment for this offence. In my opinion it forgets the bigger picture of trying to reduce future occurrences.

 

People talk of derisory sentences not being a deterrent, but in my opinion a threat of life imprisonment would not save one life as nobody who causes death by dangerous driving has ever expected to do so. If they don't expect to kill anyone, then how can any sentence for "causing death by..." be a deterrent.

[alas_alas 10]

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?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

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?

 

The point is, if you accept that psychologically the majority of people do not think that really bad things will happen to them. So they do not for one moment foresee that their actions will ever cause death by dangerous driving, irrespective of how reckless they drive. Then it doesn't matter what the punishment is, it will not be a deterrent.

 

The deterrent would be really stiff punishment for dangerous driving alone, along with a reasonable fear of getting caught.

[Eater Sundae 12]

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?

 

Where I differ is that the punishment for "causing death by..." is, in my opinion, pretty irrelevant. By then it is too late, other than to punish. It doesn't address the problem, which is bad driving. I'm more interested in ways to identify the bad drivers and educate or ban them before they become a "causing death by..." statistic in years to come.

 

I imagine that most people who have caused the death of someone will be distraught. We can imprison them, but to be honest I'm not convinced it would serve much purpose. I'd be happier with a life ban than, as in this case, 4 years prison and 6 years ban.

[Halibut 12]

Look, if sentences were harsher, we would have far less of the cyclists versus motorists nonsense and far more cautious drivers.

 

 

This is where your 'argument' reveals itself to be nonsense.

Harsher sentences alone will not change driver behaviour. To pretend that they would is foolishness.

[alas_alas 10]

This is where your 'argument' reveals itself to be nonsense.

Harsher sentences alone will not change driver behaviour. To pretend that they would is foolishness.

 

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?

[milquetoast1 10]

Halibat doesn't think your 'argument' is nonsense because he is arrogant, but because it is nonsense.

 

No driver gets in a car with the intention of killing somebody, no matter how drunk or unsafe they are, so punishing people retrospectively will have no effect on the amount of deaths on the road.

 

Every robber commits the crime with the knowledge that they might get caught, so punishing robbers can have an effect on the number of robberies.

Edited July 23, 2014 by milquetoast1

[alas_alas 10]

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.

Edited July 23, 2014 by alas_alas

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

 

If you kill someone by your dangerous driving, then you should be punished.

 

I happen to think that the degree of punishment is pretty irrelevant because by then it is too late. I understand that you think that the punishment should be severe. That's fair enough.

 

What I think is wrong in your analysis is the idea that the threat of harsh punishment will discourage people from dangerous driving.

 

A bank robber knows that if he is found guilty of robbing a bank, then he will be punished. If he robs a bank and is caught he will be punished. It he doesn't rob a bank he'll stay free.

 

A dangerous or drunk driver knows that if he is found guilty, then he'll be punished (but only if caught). If he doesn't drive dangerously he will stay free. Even if he does drive dangerously, he's very unlikely to be caught. He doesn't expect to be caught, so he's nothing to fear. The dangerous or drunk driver also knows that if he kills someone, the punishment will be more severe. However, as he doesn't intend to crash, and certainly doesn't intend or expect to kill anyone, again he has nothing to fear. So, our dangerous driver has no incentive to stop driving dangerously. That is the problem. The threat of punishment is of no concern if you don't expect to kill anyone.