Increased driver sentencing

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/scots-pensioner-ran-over-schoolboy-27587364

Good, but still not enough and maximum sentences still need to applied consistently and appropriately. I can't get my head around this:

1) Causing death by dangerous driving, on mobile phone, kills 3, jailed 8 years & 10 months: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-59951710

whereas

2) "a string of charges including culpable and reckless endangerment of lives" - HGV driver deliberately rams house, jailed 10 years: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-62318311

I don't understand how causing the deaths of 3 folk doesn't deserve the full sentence, so although it's good that maximum sentences have increased it's a bit meaningless if they're not applied already.

a punishment, not a deterent though. Everyone on the road is thinking "well, it wont affect me, cause im not going to kill anyone".

I do agree there should be much much harsher penalties though.

Taking risks on the road is a risk assessment: Liklihood of getting caught x Impact of getting caught.

We cant really increase the Liklihood of somone getting done for speeding, or using their phone at the wheel, but we can increase the impact of getting caught.

I think a lot of people would drive a lot more carefully if they knew that there was a high risk of getting banned for several years (with none of this "i need my car for work" B*llocks), or a high risk of having your car confiscated and crushed at your own expense.

I don’t understand how causing the deaths of 3 folk doesn’t deserve the full sentence, so although it’s good that maximum sentences have increased it’s a bit meaningless if they’re not applied already.

Most likely cause the3 deaths guy was being a careless dullard, where as the guy who rammed the house was using he truck as a weapon.

Thats another thing that I would change: Vehicles should be able to be classed as offensive weapons, and people charged accordingly

a punishment, not a deterent though.

It's the perception that it will occur that affects behaviour, if drivers don't think it applies to them (eg never happen etc) then it will have no effect on driving....

a punishment, not a deterent though. Everyone on the road is thinking “well, it wont affect me, cause im not going to kill anyone”.

I do agree there should be much much harsher penalties though.

So you realise they're not deterrents but you still want them made harsher - revenge?

This is good I suppose, but my beef really is with getting things prosecuted in the first place, and for dangerous rather than just careless driving.

a11y
Full Member

Good, but still not enough and maximum sentences still need to applied consistently and appropriately. I can’t get my head around this:
...
I don’t understand how causing the deaths of 3 folk doesn’t deserve the full sentence, so although it’s good that maximum sentences have increased it’s a bit meaningless if they’re not applied already.

I haven't read the sentencing notes, but time gets chipped off for making an early guilty plea and some other factors.

Its fear of getting caught that acts as a deterrent not level of punishment broadly

An increase in disqualification periods as well as mandatory disqualification, good news. Can already taste the entitled tears.

Except that they are only for the offences where its all gone terribly badly not for the ones where they got lucky and nobody died, and nothing for the many more people who never get caught in the first place. Pointless, political headline posturing not actually tackling the problems. Its very rare that maximum sentences are imposed so its tinkering to change them but it makes politicians appear that they are acting on the public concerns and means they can complain judges are too soft.

I don’t understand how causing the deaths of 3 folk doesn’t deserve the full sentence, so although it’s good that maximum sentences have increased it’s a bit meaningless if they’re not applied already.

Ignoring for a moment that the offences were in two different jurisdictions and there is no directly analogous offence to wreckless endangerment south of the border, it most likely comes down to: 1. Culpability (one set out to cause harm, the other knowingly broke the law but presumably expected to cause no actual harm); 2. The fact one offence was committed whilst on bail (the court will have been told how much extra the sentence was for that - given the circumstances of the bail order I'd expect it to be significant - although the BBC article doesn't have that detail; 3. possibly the timing of the plea, both pled guilty so would expect a reduction in sentence to reflect that, however its not clear from either report how quickly they plead guilty - the reduction can be 1/3rd for the first opportunity and is often only 1/10th for the day the trial was due to start.

Ask yourself this though, which of those two drivers are you most worried about (1) Walking about freely in society for the next 4 or 5 years? (2) Not learning from their actions? (3) Getting behind the wheel of a moving vehicle in say 15 years time?

We cant really increase the Liklihood of somone getting done for speeding, or using their phone at the wheel, but we can increase the impact of getting caught.

Surely we can increase the likelihood of getting caught?
- More police / more police tasked with road policing responsibilities*
- Less prominent safety camera locations so you are less likely to spot them and have to be cautious all the time
- Safety camera vans who have responsibility for more than just speed (they don't normally do ANPR for MoT, Insurance etc; some you can drive past on your phone and they have no interest / process to pursue)
- Make it easy for drivers / cyclists to upload dashcam footage of other people's stupidity and pursue it
- Roadside spot checks for roadworthiness, paperwork, alcohol etc - common in other countries, basically not used here except for commercial vehicles.

Now you can increase the impact of getting caught - but bear in mind that has consequences too - once the penalty becomes high enough it becomes worth challenging. £90+1/2 day course, £100+3pts, £300+6pts, 6 month ban, losing job, 12 month ban, prison, lifetime ban.... at some point along that progression even drivers who know they were in the wrong will see it as worth rolling the dice that there is either a technicality they can get off on or (more likely) the crown will screw up some aspect of the case and you get off scot free. The more people who fight it, the more chance the crown will screw up some cases and so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

*A previous chief constable here, recognised that you were far more likely to be killed on our roads than murdered and deployed his resources accordingly. ALL officers were expected to stop and report/prosecute even "trivial" stuff like not wearing seat belts - which might previously have been overlooked or had a polite reminder. Of course if you have politically appointed PCCs then you can probably forget rational analysis and expect push back against the war on the motorist.

*A previous chief constable here, recognised that you were far more likely to be killed on our roads than murdered and deployed his resources accordingly.

Murders in England & Wales: 594
Deaths on road in England, Wales and Scotland: 1516

More accurately I should have said homicides rather than murders. In Scotland its about 3:1 road deaths:homicides. 2/3rds of the homicides are linked to drugs*, and 60% of female victims in Scotland are killed by a partner/ex-partner/relative.

* I don't want to imply that makes them OK - simply that what "ordinary" people seem to worry about with crime is being murdered almost at random, which is a tiny percentage of a small number.

*A previous chief constable here, recognised that you were far more likely to be killed on our roads than murdered and deployed his resources accordingly

A conversation I was looking forward to having with our previous PCC who did a lot of public meetings. His replacement does not.