You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Driver runs into cyclist, causing serious injury and destroying bike - gets suspended sentence.
" The Recorder of Sheffield, Judge Jeremy Richardson, asked Mr Heath whether Ahmed’s claim about his wing mirror being smashed was correct.
Mr Heath replied: “In fairness to the defendant, there is a photograph which shows damage to the wing mirror.”
And theres the justification. OK to try to kill someone with your car, not just a misjudgement of speed/distance, but chased him down and then drove into him then drive off in a hit and run bordering on attempted murder, cos he slapped his wing mirror. But given the actions of the driver, who is to say he didnt damage it himself. Cant be proven, but his actions in driving into the cyclist means he could well have.
I think we all know what would have been the sentence if a cyclist chased down a pedestrian, ran him over,seriously injuring them then cycled off - probably 6 months at least.
The judge here is a ****g imbecile.
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/road-rage-driver-deliberately-drove-car-into-cyclist-3574007
I’m interested in what the 10K replacement bike was.*
Bit pissed, May have read it wrong.
Disgusting remarks and outcome. Again, judges in our legal system and the system itself, faulty.
I've a good mind to pen an email to Boris, Chris Heaton-Harris, and the crown prosecution service and convey my horror at such light sentencing.
I'm reluctant to second guess court outcomes from limited press reports, but British Cycling and Cycling UK need to be highlighting poor outcomes like this snd making running someone down a proper "assault with weapon" offence. I'd argue it needs to be quite high up their priority list.
Likewise, slapping someone's car and damaging it is criminal damage, we can't have it both ways. (Yeah, easier with hindsight and cool head, I know)
Likewise, slapping someone’s car and damaging it is criminal damage, we can’t have it both ways. (Yeah, easier with hindsight and cool head, I know)
I think it's comments like this that lead to these outcomes. It suggests there should be some kind of equality, when in reality there's nothing even remotely equal about it. They are far extreme ends of a spectrum.
I think it’s comments like this that lead to these outcomes. It suggests there should be some kind of equality, when in reality there’s nothing even remotely equal about it. They are far extreme ends of a spectrum.
What happened to all being equal in the eyes of the law?
Not as weak sentencing as I expected (does 1st assault with a guilty plea usually get custodial?).
Should have been a ban tho.
What happened to all being equal in the eyes of the law?
That will be the people that are equal, not the offences.
Hit n run and ABH and still no jailtime or driving ban unbelievable.
I wonder how long a wait for that £10,000 and how much the pyscho's insurance goes up.
He sentenced him to 16 months in prison, suspended for two years; 250 hours of unpaid work; a three-month curfew; a 10-session rehabilitation activity requirement and ordered him to pay £1,000 in compensation, after hearing Ahmed earns around the same sum per month.
Ahmed was told that had he pleaded not guilty, and allowed the case to go a trial, he would have gone straight to prison.
That's not an insignificant sentence and similar to the one my assailant received in a hit and run (after she too pleaded guilty at the last opportunity). A suspended sentence IS a sentence. He won't be doing anything to break the law in the next two years, but should he do so, automatic prison awaits.
For anyone who can't be bothered reading the article and goes with the message conveyed in the OP - here was the actual sentence:
"He sentenced him to 16 months in prison, suspended for two years; 250 hours of unpaid work; a three-month curfew; a 10-session rehabilitation activity requirement and ordered him to pay £1,000 in compensation, after hearing Ahmed earns around the same sum per month.
Ahmed was told that had he pleaded not guilty, and allowed the case to go a trial, he would have gone straight to prison."
Now you may not like suspended sentences but they are used for all sorts in English courts - not just to let drivers "off". He wasn't prosecuted for attempted murder - presumably because it requires (proof of) intent to kill.
how much the pyscho’s insurance goes up
You really think he has any?
Poly, If we substituted car with hammer would the sentence still be suspended ?
That will be the people that are equal, not the offences.
I believe the point that was being made was that breaking wing mirrors and such should be dealt with as well.
If someone close passes you that does not give anyone the right, in the eyes of the law, to damage the offenders car, no matter what justification you come up with in your head. I should add that giving a quarter panel or roof a slap is a world away from punching off a mirror or flinging something through a window and not what I'm talking about here.
Poly, If we substituted car with hammer would the sentence still be suspended ?
Almost certainly.
We need to get over the whole "we are cyclists and the law hates us" thing. The whole judicial system has been ****ed over by years of austerity and decades of failure to invest in the social and economic causes of crime.
I believe the point that was being made was that breaking wing mirrors and such should be dealt with as well.
If someone close passes you that does not give anyone the right, in the eyes of the law, to damage the offenders car, no matter what justification you come up with in your head. I should add that giving a quarter panel or roof a slap is a world away from punching off a mirror or flinging something through a window and not what I’m talking about here.
Glad someone got my point.
You really think he has any?
Well there's no mention of driving without insurance on the charges. Its incredibly easy to prove so it would be unusual for the crown not to stick it on the list or agree to drop it. I wouldn't assume that most bad drivers don't have insurance. There's generally two types of people who don't have insurance - those whos previous driving record (or lack of license!) makes them near impossible to insure (or to insure at a price most people can afford) and those who's finances and life admin are chaotic enough that they forget renewals / miss payments etc. The article is reasonably detailed - I think if he'd a string of previous motoring offences it would have been mentioned; if he'd a string of previous violence offences the sentence would not have been suspended.
Poly, If we substituted car with hammer would the sentence still be suspended ?
All sentencing decisions depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case and the individual. e.g. consider these two examples:
1. A glazier is blocking a path whilst working. A pedestrian squeezes past, and the glazier takes umbridge at it, words are exchanged. The pedestrian kicks a small pane of glass breaking it. The glazier who was holding a hammer chases him down the street and into a side street. He catches the pedestrian and lashes out at him once causing injury and damaging a very expensive laptop the pedestrian was carrying. If he's a first offender and the pre-sentence reports are supportive of the appropriateness of rehabilitation works a sentence like that imposed in the case in the OP would not only seem possible, it would probably be pretty severe!
2. I find out my wife's having an affair, go get a hammer out my garage, go wait outside her gigolo's house and attack him as he leaves. I'd expect an immediate custodial sentence.
There's quite a bunch of factors that get considered in determining if immediate custody is the best option. e.g. is he a single parent which will result in a child going into care? is he the main breadwinner which will result in a family being unable to pay their rent/mortgage and becoming homeless? do we **** up the chances of the next generation by dad going to jail? if he's working - is he likely to come back from jail to work after 1/2 his sentence? otherwise you and I will be paying him benefits. Does he even recognise he did anything wrong? Does the social worker who interviewed him (usually for far longer than the judge has the chance to - and without a solicitor there to present the case favourably) believe that they can be rehabilitated in the community?
There's some pretty vitriolic language used about judges further up this thread when they are likely just following the law and published sentencing guidelines - if they don't the sentence can be appealed. Judges have no opportunity to publicly rebut the abuse levelled at them for doing their job. If you don't like the law or the guidelines talk to your MP - but think carefully what you are asking for. Sending people to jail when the majority of people in the current system don't believe short prison sentences achieve much of use is probably only good for retribution.
The only part of the sentence that surprised me is that there was no driving ban. I'm guessing that's because he was prosecuted for ABH rather than RTA offences. Although the law does actually allow a ban for other offences it would be unusual, and all the people who demand that assault and attempted murder should be the "go to" charge should bear in mind that this might actually leave them able to drive on the roads!
Excellent post @poly and also shows why it can be so difficult to discuss emotive topics here as posts have to be so carefully written. I was surprised that his insurance didn't have to cover the cost of the bike but if he attacker the person then it was no longer an accident and no reason for the insurance to cover it I guess
Glad someone got my point.
Was there a point, did anyone suggest that you should be able to can go around smashing off wing mirrors with no consequence (legally, not revenge attempted murder)?
There’s some pretty vitriolic language used about judges further up this thread when they are likely just following the law and published sentencing guidelines – if they don’t the sentence can be appealed. Judges have no opportunity to publicly rebut the abuse levelled at them for doing their job. If you don’t like the law or the guidelines talk to your MP – but think carefully what you are asking for. Sending people to jail when the majority of people in the current system don’t believe short prison sentences achieve much of use is probably only good for retribution.
Thats fair comment.
But consider it from the side of the injured party.
Guy cut you up and you slapped his wing mirror in frustration - Harm done= Zero
Then the driver starts chasing you, you are now in fear and that fear is recognized when he runs you over. Result= You are lying in the road seriously injured.
It gets to court. What type of sentence would you the injured party want ?. Given the fear you experienced culminating in the serious injuries you sustained. A bit of community work and a fine.
Does the penalty reflect on what has happened to you.
What are your psychological effects each time you get on your bike and ride out into traffic ?. We know psychological effects last far far longer than physical injuries, and are really quite debilitating in their own right and are detrimental to your health overall.
So cycling about is now tinged with fear. There has been no closure for you. You have seen the penalty to be quite mild compared to what you now experience daily. Had a custodial sentence been imposed, you could feel satisfied that the law has done its work, and a message sent out to everyone who would use their car as a weapon, and we al know a car is a weapon, because we have witnessed people killed by others deliberately using it as one.
The penalties the judge has at his disposal range from a fine to custodial. Its not a case of being deliberately chased down and run over to your serious injury being far down the sentencing spectrum, the judge has decided to impose a lesser lower end of the sentencing guidelines in this case. And I am not alone in feeling this is very very wrong.
Sending people to jail when the majority of people in the current system don’t believe short prison sentences achieve much of use is probably only good for retribution.
Maybe not but should this person be allowed to drive? I would say taking away driving license, for good, would be a good first step and show others drivers that there is an actual consequence in trying to kill someone with your car.
A bit click baity by the OP. As pointed out they pleaded guilty, still got a heavy prosecution if it hadn’t been for the guilty plea it would have been a lot worse. And yes the judge was right to point smashing a wing mirror isn’t the answer either.
Maybe not but should this person be allowed to drive? I would say taking away driving license, for good, would be a good first step and show others drivers that there is an actual consequence in trying to kill someone with your car.
The "entitlement" to a license needs to be thrown in a bin. If they were taken away more easily, even temporarily for more minor offences, then people might start to understand the idea of consequences.
If they were taken away more easily, even temporarily for more minor offences, then people might start to understand the idea of consequences.
Totally agree. I think every driving offence should result in a ban. Simple sliding scale eg 1 day for a 3 point first offence, 1 week for repeat offenders or bigger offences, 1 month next time. Enough to make you think but no unfair hardship. Using you car as a weapon should be a reasonably substantial ban
Got to be careful with telling people they're banned based on sliding scales. How will it be managed? The sheer incompetency around licenses and points means we'll have a scandal to dwalf the Horizon sh*#show currently all over the news.
They changed the rules in about '95 or so. 7 points within 2 years of passing your test and you lose your license. Gotta retake.
Young family guy with job outside the city, not on the public transport network. Loss of license means poverty. Government office gets dates wrong and says "you've lost your license" when the driver had actually passed their test before the date the law changed from.
No one in the government office apologises for getting anything wrong. I know for a fact that worker in the government office only needed a GCSE in Maths and English, at a C and above, to apply for their job. How many people will be victims of travesties like that before we realise anything more complicated than placing an order at MaccyDs is bound to go wrong on a regular basis.
Young family guy with job outside the city, not on the public transport network. Loss of license means poverty.
All this argument does is highlight how fundamentally flawed our transport network is. Nobody should be pushed into poverty because they're unable to drive. There are many, many people who can't drive to begin with for various reasons.
Was there a point, did anyone suggest that you should be able to can go around smashing off wing mirrors with no consequence (legally, not revenge attempted murder)?
Nobody did, however the response to MoreCash's original statement didn't seem to understand the point they were making.
Likewise, slapping someone’s car and damaging it is criminal damage, we can’t have it both ways. (Yeah, easier with hindsight and cool head, I know)
I think it’s comments like this that lead to these outcomes. It suggests there should be some kind of equality, when in reality there’s nothing even remotely equal about it. They are far extreme ends of a spectrum.
How many people on here are quite happy to tell the world they punish bad drivers by punching wing mirrors off, booting in door panels or flinging water bottles loaded with stones through windows? You only need to look at a close pass thread to see all this. We need to stop this shit because it's no better than the drivers, the outcomes may be vastly different but it's exactly the same mentality. And I say that as someone who's very capable of losing their temper in these situations, it doesn't fix anything or make you feel any better.
... flinging water bottles loaded with stones through windows...
I've never heard of anybody doing this. It's obviously premeditated behaviour and at the very extreme end of the spectrum, and not what anybody is talking about here.
...
the outcomes may be vastly different but it’s exactly the same mentality...
I disagree. Nobody is saying it's right, but one is a natural response to danger and poses no physical threat to anybody. The other is the intentional use of a potentially deadly weapon to cause extreme physical harm. You can argue that the behaviour is related and I wouldn't entirely disagree, but as people have mentioned, nobody unable to control that behaviour should be licenced to operate such dangerous machinary in a public space.
Totally agree. I think every driving offence should result in a ban. Simple sliding scale eg 1 day for a 3 point first offence, 1 week for repeat offenders or bigger offences, 1 month next time. Enough to make you think but no unfair hardship. Using you car as a weapon should be a reasonably substantial ban
A 1 day/week/month driving ban?... Yep That'll learn 'em.
For offenses like this where a car is deliberately used as a weapon even with (pretty weak) provocation, that driver's licence should be gone and in 24 months they can attempt the modern driving test including theory, before they earn that privilege though they should have completed an anger management course and been signed off as having actually engaged.
The problem of course isn't sentences, its the over-importance we place on cars and perceived rights of people that happen to be using them at any given time. Their out of control anger is a bit more justifiable it appears...
It still seems the 'best' time to suffer from uncontrollable rage or a good old "lapse in attention" is when you're in exclusive control of 2 tons of steel and plastic, because that simple fact will insulate you from the consequences, have a similar melt down with your bare hands and, rightly or wrongly, you'll be regarded as more of a danger to society...
Minor damage to a wing mirror might be the provocation, but the response was disproportionate, and that doesn't seem to have been addressed fully in the sentencing, judges can really only work within the guidelines, I don't know if they can mandate psychological treatment in the UK, but it feels like that's missing generally.
Angry people in cars get 'triggered' into doing some kind of life changing violence to a stranger, but so long as they use the bumber not their fists, we'll just quibble over the relative value of a wing mirror and a person's life...
I would strongly suggest nobody criticize their local tree surgeon 😉
Thats fair comment.
But consider it from the side of the injured party.
The victim impact statement was provided to the judge, and is a consideration in sentencing, but it shouldn't be the main factor - if it is it just becomes about vengeance. It would also mean that "victimless" crimes that present a huge risk to others would be disproportionately higher sentenced than crimes that have victims but less intent behind them.
It gets to court. What type of sentence would you the injured party want ?. Given the fear you experienced culminating in the serious injuries you sustained. A bit of community work and a fine.
Firstly, he didn't get "a bit of community work and a fine". He got:
250 hours of community work. That's a huge number of hours (by court standards - I think the maximum is 300?) especially given he pled guilty. If he works 9-5 he's going to be spending every Saturday for a year doing that. If he doesn't work it will take at least 3 months to get those hours done (probably more in the post covid backlog).
3 month curfew. So he's not able to leave his house 7pm - 7am. Usually monitored with an electronic tag. You can't nip to the shops. You can't pop 20 yrs down the street to get something you left in the back of your car. You can't go to see your kids in the school show.
10 sessions of rehab work. This is probably 10x 1hr of anger management classes. That's probably way more likely to stop him doing something like this again that 8 months in the jail mixing with other angry people, barely seeing his family, losing his job and becoming harder to employ etc.
£1000 in compensation - its not a fine - that's paid to the victim. It's a month of his take home wage. If he'd gone to jail there's no income to pay any compensation from so that would almost never be imposed - the victim gets nothing (unless badly enough hurt for criminal injuries compensation or a civil case follows).
The knowledge that if he doesn't cooperate doing those things, or he does something relatively minor (even a lot of road traffic stuff) he can expect to go to jail for several months.
So cycling about is now tinged with fear. There has been no closure for you. You have seen the penalty to be quite mild compared to what you now experience daily. Had a custodial sentence been imposed, you could feel satisfied that the law has done its work, and a message sent out to everyone who would use their car as a weapon,
I'd still have all the emotional damage, a broken bike etc. I'm not sure as the victim I'm better off with my assailant in jail unless I expect in those few months he's behind bars to bump into him again. This way I at least get a grand in my pocket.
The penalties the judge has at his disposal range from a fine to custodial. Its not a case of being deliberately chased down and run over to your serious injury being far down the sentencing spectrum, the judge has decided to impose a lesser lower end of the sentencing guidelines in this case.
Wrong. He can only impose a suspended sentence if he judges the case is above the custody threshold - its very much not the lower end of the spectrum, look at those community requirements. A low sentence would have been a fine. If they'd both been coming out a pub had a scuffle resulting in those injuries to the victim I'd be surprised if it even got a community order.
And I am not alone in feeling this is very very wrong.
Yes but what do you want to achieve from putting him in prison? Is there any evidence that prison actually does that?
I don’t know if they can mandate psychological treatment in the UK, but it feels like that’s missing generally.
See those 10 session of rehabilitation work he was sentenced to...
"young family guy with a job outside the city, not on the public transport network. Loss of licence means poverty". 😥 😀 if only there was another mode of transport 🚲.
Poetic justice for chasing down and ramming into a cyclist, it could have ended in a fatality so he got lucky, anyone guilty of similar actions I'd turn them into the thing he has no respect for and it maybe the best lesson and attitude adjustment. Give him a tub of chamois arse cream and say on yer bike son.
I've only been aware of this site for awhile. And have just signed up, loads of great threads with plenty of interesting stuff and some obviously knowledgeable posters. I was a bit suprised at the tone of this thread, but after Poly's last excellent post I thought that would be the end of it. I know emotions run high over incedent's involving cyclists and motorists. And nobody would condone this drivers actions. But some of the comments are just out of the Daily Mail comments section but from a cycling perspective.
Sorry I won't comment any more, just wanted to say this.
Totally agree. I think every driving offence should result in a ban. Simple sliding scale eg 1 day for a 3 point first offence, 1 week for repeat offenders or bigger offences, 1 month next time. Enough to make you think but no unfair hardship. Using you car as a weapon should be a reasonably substantial ban
Three problems with this:
1. More people are likely to try to "get off" so fight it in a court system that can't cope
2. There will always be cases where exceptions might be reasonable - e.g. someone driving too fast on a dual carriageway to get their wife who is in advanced labour to hospital. Someone jumping a red light to let an ambulance through. A doctor called into the hospital in the middle of the night (to do emergency surgery) whos car won't start and takes his girlfriend's which he's not insured on. A farmer who's had a few beers but helps the lad who's crashed outside the farm and is blocking the road in a dangerous position.
3. If I'm banned for a day or a week I'll comply it causes me little more than tiny inconvenience (I quite often go a week between driving, work from home etc). If my neighbour is banned for a week, she's a nurse and will comply but suffers some major issues getting to her night shift (so she is punished more than me for the same thing). If the guy round the corner is banned for a week he doesn't give a shit and will drive anyway, the odds of him getting caught in one day or a week are low - so the persistent criminal doesn't suffer at all.
Maybe not but should this person be allowed to drive? I would say taking away driving license,
I agree - it seems odd if there was no ban. I think it's quite likely because it wasn't a road traffic conviction - it may not even have crossed the judge's mind as an option.
for good, would be a good first step and show others drivers that there is an actual consequence in trying to kill someone with your car.
I think you should ask your MP to change the law then. They have the ability to ban until an extended test is passed, theoretically, the Judge can ban for life, but it would almost certainly be appealed - they likely won't have enough evidence before them to know if that person has the capacity to change in 20 yrs - do any of us have the same attitude to risk and response to agrivatio we had at the millennium?
Possible stupid question but who does the victim claim from for a new bike, someone above mentioned the drivers insurance doesn't pay out as it wasn't an accident. So is the victim 10k down as well as injured.
I’ve never heard of anybody doing this
I've seen it said on here in the past, possibly someone in a group rather than the poster, as you say though it's not quite the same.
You can argue that the behaviour is related and I wouldn’t entirely disagree
Then I'd say we're on broadly the same page. I don't disagree with what you're saying BTW but when it comes down to the law then it works both ways.
Anyway, Poly seems to have the floor.
Three problems with this:
All true but none are a show stopper, and there's probably way more than 3. Our current system clearly isn't working so we should do something.
1 is a problem with the legal system in general and if people trying to get off their driving misdemeanor overloads the system then that says a lot.
2 is probably true of many crimes in some way. A very small ban for a first offence covers this ok imo.
On point 3, as already mentioned, not being able to drive shouldn't be a punishment in itself. In places were public or self propelled transport works there are lots of people happily choosing not to drive. It is the removal of a privilege (that is currently seen as a right)
Not saying it's thesolution. Just food for thought.
Possible stupid question but who does the victim claim from for a new bike, someone above mentioned the drivers insurance doesn’t pay out as it wasn’t an accident. So is the victim 10k down as well as injured.
Its not a stupid question, its an interesting point. I can see an insurer try to weedle out of if like that but whilst that would clearly mean they wouldn't be required to cover damage to the car, I'm not sure you can "get out of" a road traffic act claim like that - certainly they pay out for drunk drivers despite policies usually saying not covered. Not sure why the poster thought it was not covered.
If it's not covered he'd have to sue the driver for the loss.
1 is a problem with the legal system in general and if people trying to get off their driving misdemeanor overloads the system then that says a lot.
I'm all for improvements / solutions but the system was creaking before covid, its worse now, and no government seems interested in fixing it - so adding to the problem isn't a solution. In fact you'll likely find your governments are keen to divert more road traffic offences from the court, not to help out drivers, but to save money.
2 is probably true of many crimes in some way. A very small ban for a first offence covers this ok IMO.
It is - that's why we allow magistrates/judges a degree of discretion around sentencing and why the law includes exceptions or exclusions.
On point 3, as already mentioned, not being able to drive shouldn’t be a punishment in itself.
it's not clear what other purpose a very short ban can serve. It clearly can't be for protection of public, restitution or rehabilitation.
In places were public or self propelled transport works there are lots of people happily choosing not to drive.
indeed - but that's not the reality in much of the UK.
It is the removal of a privilege (that is currently seen as a right)
Once covid is over - you should go sit in a magistrates court on traffic day - you might be surprised just how little the bench treat driving as some sort of entitlement.
. But some of the comments are just out of the Daily Mail comments section but from a cycling perspective.
And we never, ever see the irony in these kinds of comments. Especially when aimed at pedestrians wearing headphones on shared parhs, you know, the more vulnerable party.
There is a colossal lack of knowledge around the law in society that is shown by these cases and reflected on here, as with insurance posts. You'd think how the legal underpinnings of our society are set up would be taught in schools, might reduce the number of idiots on the road a little.
Just to clarify, motor insurance is there to cover legal liabilities/pay compensation as a result of the drivers negligence.
It would be a bit perverse if you could deliberately drive at someone, injure them and damage their property and shrug it off as your insurers pay the cost.
Whether the criminal compensation schemes need overhauling to fit in with civil compensation levels is a very valid but separate topic.
Just to clarify, motor insurance is there to cover legal liabilities/pay compensation as a result of the drivers negligence.
It would be a bit perverse if you could deliberately drive at someone, injure them and damage their property and shrug it off as your insurers pay the cost.
Actually s145(3) of the Road Traffic Act says the insurer covers the liability arising from use of the vehicle by the driver(s). I don't think the insurer can get out of the third party claim so easily for motor insurance. Now, they may ? have a basis for suing the driver to recover their loss but I'd be surprised if they don't pay out (once they've stopped saying "how much? for a bike? you could buy a car for that").
Yes,sorry, I'd overlooked MIB obligations, or whatever it is nowadays.
And we never, ever see the irony in these kinds of comments. Especially when aimed at pedestrians wearing headphones on shared parhs, you know, the more vulnerable party.
Like.
it’s not clear what other purpose a very short ban can serve. It clearly can’t be for protection of public, restitution or rehabilitation.
It makes it clear that driving a car is a licensed privilege that can be revoked if the terms of the licence are not upheld, and it is a starting point on a scale whereby if you keep abusing the licence then you’ll eventually lose it entirely.
I’ve always been of the opinion that this loss of licence should be an important part of a “punishment fits the crime” approach that recognises that most driving offences aren’t due to active criminal malice but to wilful disregard of the responsibilities of piloting a ton of metal at speed. (Clearly, using a car as a weapon isn’t a matter of casual incompetence, but of psychological unsuitability for that responsibility in the first place.)
I’d also like to see retesting used similarly: an alternative/complementary tool could be the requirement to sit a retest within a month or two in order to retain a licence.
But then that’s still not as good as making it compulsory for everyone to do that to renew their licence every five years, including full testing on any changes to legislation and/or the Highway Code in the intervening time. I find it curious that driving schools aren’t lobbying for it.
Probably because it would be an administrative nightmare, they just had to scrap trailer tests because they couldn't resource them.
Don't get me wrong it's not without its merits and something that, in an ideal world, would be more than welcome.
It makes it clear that driving a car is a licensed privilege that can be revoked if the terms of the licence are not upheld, and it is a starting point on a scale whereby if you keep abusing the licence then you’ll eventually lose it entirely. I’ve always been of the opinion that this loss of licence should be an important part of a “punishment fits the crime” approach
Absolutely but lets be clear very short bans are about punishment, not any of the other purposes of sentencing.
that recognises that most driving offences aren’t due to active criminal malice but to wilful disregard of the responsibilities of piloting a ton of metal at speed. (Clearly, using a car as a weapon isn’t a matter of casual incompetence, but of psychological unsuitability for that responsibility in the first place.)
I’d also like to see retesting used similarly: an alternative/complementary tool could be the requirement to sit a retest within a month or two in order to retain a licence.
I would be a strong advocate for this. The spectrum of options open to courts is not that great: fine, fine + pts, fine + bad, fine + ban&retest, custody/community payback. None of those is actually about making the driver safer or addressing the underlying behaviour. There's an irony that the police can offer courses but the courts cannot. I don't think a 1/2 day in a classroom is going to help in a lot of cases but 2 days with a mix of classroom and behind the wheel stuff could be *part of* an overall sentence in cases where a ban for < 6 months might be considered at the moment.
But then that’s still not as good as making it compulsory for everyone to do that to renew their licence every five years, including full testing on any changes to legislation and/or the Highway Code in the intervening time.
I'm not actually convinced this is supported by evidence - if it was insurers would offer discounts to drivers who did refreshers rather than based on the time period since you sat your test.
I find it curious that driving schools aren’t lobbying for it.
Most driving instructors are small independents, and all are very busy just now. The large schools are essentially the sort of organisation (e.g. AA) that generally oppose anything that might inconvenience some of their members!
Apologies if this has been posted.
Can I suggest:
1. Read this The secret barrister And gain some understanding of the judicial system.
2. Having read this, recognise judges can only sentence according to sentencing guidelines, if you’re not happy then write to your MP.
but lets be clear very short bans are about punishment, not any of the other purposes of sentencing.
Not at all. There are many reasons.
I'm a big fan of the regular retest idea. It could be a decent cash cow for the government too. And the primary way it could happen is to start off with new drivers and issue them with a 5/10 year licence that can only be renewed with a retest. Easy. Then roll it up through experience levels for existing drivers.
Car manufacturers won't like it though.
I’m not actually convinced this is supported by evidence – if it was insurers would offer discounts to drivers who did refreshers rather than based on the time period since you sat your test.
What, like IAM discounts? They do.
What, like IAM discounts? They do.
Fair point - I had forgotten about IAM, probably because its 20 years since I've been asked if I had one (suggesting perhaps insurers aren't that keen?) but it seems the discount may be less than you think https://www.gocompare.com/motoring/guides/advanced-driving-courses/ - whereas if I've held a license for 10 yrs I'll pay less then if I held it for 2 yrs... and the older your get roughly the cheaper it gets too so insurance stats are presumably not saying 50 yr olds who haven't sat a test for 30 yrs are more likely to be involved in a serious accident?
Your rolling introduction is probably the only way it could be done - but it takes 30 yrs for even half of drivers to have to renew, by which time autonomous driving may be widespread anyway.
Not at all. There are many reasons.
Here are the 5 accepted purposes of sentencing in E&W (similar but slightly diff words in Scotland):
a) the punishment of offenders;
b) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence);
c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;
d) the protection of the public; and
e) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their
offences.’
Which of those would a 1 day ban achieve? 1 week ban might start to be deterrence but you'd still have to expect to be caught, I'm not sure - I'm also not sure the mechanics for how you make 100% sure that the driver knows they are banned TODAY - normally bans are handed out face to face in court. There's no problem with it just being for punishment but its not going to make our roads safer. In fact a 1 day ban is probably less of a hassle for many than having to go and do a 1/2 day speed awareness course!