https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623592
I saw this petition go by and thought, "no, surely not, that's far too harsh."
But then in light of the other thread, am I guilty of thinking that driving is a right, that surpasses all others?
Still a joke that you are not reassessed on your abilities to drive after the age of 17
.
I'm not sure about lifetime- I don't like permanent punishments for anything, people can change... but, very long term or with other serious implications, sure.
Trouble is then it goes to a jury of peers which will always include at least a couple of incompetent or care;ess or dangerous drivers just a matter of statistics and they think, lifetime ban? That could be me, I don't like that. Which yep goes back to the other thread in lots of different ways, and is very circular. It's crap tbh.
Bottom line is, we don't treat dangerous driving like we treat dangerous anything else, in a bunch of different ways.
I don't think you can ascribe a punishment specifically to a tragic outcome.
Had the collision happened in the same circumstances without a person being killed then it would still be dangerous driving and that driver deserves a punishment appropriate to the manner of driving, regardless of the tragic outcome.
The question IMHO is more whether appropriate charges are laid and appropriate sentences are a) recommended and b) given:
"Causing death by dangerous driving (Section 1 RTA 1988)
Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, and disqualified for a minimum of two years" (my bold)
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences
Unlawful Act Manslaughter - 18 years' custody, but without disqualification
1 to 14 in prison, plus minimum 2 years driving ban.
Needs reversing. 1 to 14 year driving ban, plus minimum 1 years of incarceration.
Driving ban to start day of release from prison.
Plus more police to enforce said ban, otherwise they just keep on driving as they only killed 1 person in say 100,000 miles so statically it wont happen again and the liklihood of being caught is low.
Agree with STM.
1 to 14 in prison, plus minimum 2 years driving ban.
Needs reversing. 1 to 14 year driving ban, plus minimum 1 years of incarceration.
Driving ban to start day of release from prison.
Plus more police to enforce said ban, otherwise they just keep on driving as they only killed 1 person in say 100,000 miles so statically it wont happen again and the liklihood of being caught is low.Posted 40 minutes ago
All of this.
We don't need more laws for anything, just the resources and the will to enforce the current ones
I’m not sure about lifetime- I don’t like permanent punishments for anything, people can change
Causing another's death is punishable by life incarceration for offences that don't involve a vehicle. There is a licence on release that can be revoked on offending again and recalling that offender to prison to serve the rest of the sentence. Something like that for cars would work with any traffic offence leading to a permanent ban. (Being caught in charge of a vehicle after permanent ban would be prison time and a vehicle destruction, with the owner/keeper of the vehicle due a punishment too, where said owner/keeper was not the driver).
Part of the problem as I see it is far too often the CPS just go for a "careless" rather than "dangerous" charge
Hmm.
I think it depends on the definition of 'dangerous'.
Momentary lapse of concentration, over estimating your speed in an overtake, things like that we can all do, and mostly get away with, there is no intent.
Using a mobile phone at the wheel for example is not an accident, that is a conscious choice to take that risk and ones like that should indeed get the big bans, I would say regardless of whether a death is caused or not, that's just down to luck.
Using a mobile phone at the wheel for example is not an accident, that is a conscious choice to take that risk and ones like that should indeed get the big bans
Nah, don't agree with that - people who use their car as a weapon, they're the only lifetime banned for me.
Punishment as a deterrent to crime is know to be relatively ineffective.
The chance of being caught and charged with a crime is better at stopping the crime.
How about making them drive with a black box for the rest of their lives instead?
Personally I think small bans rather than fines for more minor offences would be more effective in changing overall driving behaviour than increasing bans for major offences.
If a 3-point offence meant you had to take a 2 week break from driving thats pretty embarrassing and inconveniencing - rather than a pretty trivial fine (which offenders tend to class as some sort of stealth tax - they they are being conned rather than punished) which doesnt really carry any social stigma. If its a 3-point offence while you've still got 3 points on your license then the ban would be for all the points you hold - two weeks plus two weeks
An enforced break from driving, even a short one, would be an inconvenience and stigma that most people would be unwilling to risk - and its equally incoinveniencing whatever your means rather than fines that are more affordable to some than others.
To reach a point where you'd accrued enough points to loose your license you'd already have served a few bans - and it thats not a suffcient deterrent then theres no reason not to have a permanent ban from that point on
I think it depends on the definition of ‘dangerous’.
There isn't an objective definition, which is why the CPS so often accept a plea of guilty to Careless driving and drop the Dangerous driving charge as it's quite hard to prove in court.
How about making them drive with a black box for the rest of their lives instead?
We should all have black boxes fitted to all cars all the time period.
Regardless of bans, if I caused someone's death through my poor driving, I don't think I'd ever want to get back behind a wheel.
there would also maybe needs a societal change outside of driving in terms of taking driving convictions more seriously - in all sorts of situations you get asked to declare any criminal convictions - job applications, house insurance and so on - I have to do it sometimes as part of tendering for contracts. But the question typically tells you to exclude driving offences - even though offences like speeding are criminal convictions - you have a criminal record. But in those applications its not just a case of considering driving offences differently - they don't even think they are worth considering
Signed. Its a start.
There are too many drivers on the road, and too many people dont need to drive.
an ABSOLUTE ban on those stupid "wah, i need my car for work" excuses.
"Exceptional hardship" they call it, but i cant look up the record for times used (im sure its getting on for 10 times on one driver), because if you google it you just get a load of solicitors websites telling they can get you off a ban.
youve had 12 points of warnings FFS, if you cant work it out you shouldnt be on the road.
And harsher penalties all round. Perhaps if people considerd there was an actual risk to doing stupid shit (losing your license and therefore losing your job) then they might think harder about it.
people who use their car as a weapon, they’re the only lifetime banned for me.
I pressume you mean kill someone using a car as a weapon.
I would go "using a car as a weapon" whether you killed or hurt anyone or not.
If you went out into the street brandinshing your shotgun in a threatening manner you would lose your gun license.
Why not using your car in a threatening or intimidating way?
https://road.cc/content/news/road-rage-land-rover-driver-jailed-running-over-cyclist-288665
Moult got back in his Land Rover and drove over the victim, seriously injuring him, then called him a “prick.”
“You deliberately drove into and over Mr Cook, accelerating hard as you did so having aimed your vehicle directly at him and he went under your vehicle.
3 year ban FFS
I cant find the link to the case of a guy who took exception to being overtaken by a guy on a bike, so decided to punish him by purposfully driving over a crushing the trailer he was towing with his bike. The guys defence was "i didnt know it had a child in it". I dont know what penatly he got, but it shouldve been a long drop on a short rope.
Causing another’s death is punishable by life incarceration for offences that don’t involve a vehicle.
Not necessarily. Manslaughter can be as little as a community order
Its really difficult one. We need to think about what the punishment is for and what does it achieve. Then there is the difficulty with getting convictions. I would agree that in general it seems punishments are too low but I know of one case - a friend of an ex colleague. she was a professional driver ( buses) in her woks van heading to her next bus run didn't see a cyclist, hit and killed them. never drove again and had huge psychological effects, lost her job of course. I really fail to see what good 14 years inside would have done in that case. Legal vehicle, well trained driver, single mistake. She is never going to reoffend, 14 years injail does not bring the dead person back. Im not comfortable with retribution as an aim in punishments
Deterrence comes from the risk of being caught not the risk of the punishment if you are caught. Personally my solution is zero tolerance to motoring offense, random breath tests, huge investment in roads policing and tougher punishments for the minor stuff like bald tyres or defective vehicles,. I would also have mandatory imprisonment ( but just weeks) for drunk drivers that could be taken at convenience - ie you spend your holidays in jail not on a beach so they get incarcerated but don't lose their jobs
I’d happily see anyone who kills someone through dangerous driving banned from the road for life
It’s not like it’s proposing locking them up and throwing away the key. Plenty of people don’t have a car, never have, and get by.
Driving isn’t a human right
Also, this is a good idea ..
Personally I think small bans rather than fines for more minor offences
I’d happily see anyone who kills someone through dangerous driving banned from the road for life
Personally I think small bans rather than fines for more minor offences
I agree with both of those. hence my embrace of a zero tolerance approach and I like the blackbox in every car idea along with dashcams
I did expect dashcams to be virtually compulsory by now driven by insurance companies. I guess despite dashcams making apportioning blame easier that it doesn't really save insurance companies much overall
If / when I get a car or motorbike I will certainly have a dashcam
I think we’ll move forward when we punish poor driving whether it causes death or not. If it’s a deliberate act of violence then that’s different
But most road deaths are every day rubbish driving like being on the phone. The person didn’t think they’ll cause an accident or injury so the behaviour becomes normal as it’s unchallenged.
We should all have black boxes fitted to all cars all the time period
a black box that only records the car's actions (as per teenager insurance) is a bit of a blunt tool that does not take situation into account.
mandatory dash cams, including a camera focusing on the drivers face is my proposed solution.
But then in light of the other thread, am I guilty of thinking that driving is a right, that surpasses all others?
You have a right to take a driving test subject to passing medical requirements.
You have the privilege of being allowed to drive having passed said test & acquired a license to do so.
I've signed it as I think something needs to be done, If it ever actually gets debated they probably won't go the whole hog but might think about stiffer sentences, or using 'dangerous' rather than 'careless' a bit more.
Saw this the other day https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-64360894 and they've gone for 'death by dangerous driving'. Wife told me this morning it was a father and 16 year old son that was killed. So ****ing sad. I hope they throw the book at them!
mandatory dash cams, including a camera focusing on the drivers face is my proposed solution
Agreed, internal facing is just as, if not more valuable that external. The only reason i dont have one is i dont want it dangling off the windscreen. i dont know why they are not manafacturered into the cars tbh
It should be a sealed system, than no one can access or tamper with other than police, It should be an MOT requirement to be in good working order, and having a bit of black sticky tape over the lens should result in you being "assumed at fault".
Infact, cameras are so cheap now it should be a requirement for everyone, even if not factory fitted.
If you can afford to put fuel in it, you can afford a camera.
Agree with the lifetime ban for the most serious cases, but the problem with bans is that a lot of people who would get one don't give a shiny shit anyway.
I also think in a lot of cases the custodial sentence is nowhere near long enough.
Like this case for example
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/crime/road-killer-hit-cyclist-at-80mph-and-later-posted-on-facebook-f-west-yorkshire-police-3993030
he basically took a Civic Type R, no insurance, already banned, probably pissed (refused to provide sample), drove at 80mph in a 30 limit and killed a cyclist. Left him lying dying in the road, and made his escape. Torched the car to hide the evidence.
Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.
Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.
Which probably equates to an 8 month ban....
I think it depends on the definition of ‘dangerous’.
Momentary lapse of concentration, over estimating your speed in an overtake, things like that we can all do, and mostly get away with, there is no intent.
Is this just another example of 'car brain' (as per the other thread) though?
Would we accept this as an excuse for causing death in any other field? "The pilot only had a momentary lapse of concentration, and flying is his job, so...."
"The crane operator didn't mean to drop those bricks on the crowd, it's just that his wife had just texted him to remind him to get bog roll on the way home and he was distracted..."
We all DO have momentary lapses of concentration, but they're not always acceptable as an excuse for causing the death of another. But we have different logic when cars are involved.
I'm not trying to argue for maximum sentences here necessarily, just challenging the line of thinking.
ads678
Which probably equates to an 8 month ban….
Right, it's pointless at 8 months, but he was already banned so what difference does it make anyway?
FYI driving bans start after custody period.
For offences committed on or after 13 April 2015, where a court imposes a disqualification in addition to a custodial sentence or a detention and training order, the court must extend the disqualification period by one half of the custodial term imposed. This is to take into account the period the offender will spend in custody.
Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.
So if he's good he'll be out in 2.5yrs & then serve 5yrs 8 months ban, if he serves full 5yrs in custody he'll still have 3yrs 2 month ban when released
What Dorris5000 said.
If you killed someone at work through dangerous levels of negligence, you'd be convicted of manslaughter (and if it turned out that your last training and examination was decades ago there would probably be corporate manslaughter charges too) and you'd almost certainly be fired.
Why should it be any different for driving?
Personally I think the FPN system should be linked to short term bans. Replace £60 speeding fines 2 week driving bans, undertaking, tailgating, erratic driving, mobile phone use, etc 4 weeks. The punishments need to be harsh enough that it actually focuses peoples minds on the serious consequences of as some people above put it "getting away with it". Just because you re-programmed your satnav whilst driving up the motorway and didn't crash, doesn't make it ok.
things like that we can all do, and mostly get away with, there is no intent.
TBH, that just sounds like what we all assume occurs on jury's "well I'm just as bad, and I don't want to get convicted, better pay it forward".
Its the risk of being caught that drives behaviour change - not the consequences when caught
speeding is a perfect example. Most car drivers speed routinely. But no longer on the a9 -because the average speed cameras mean you are likely to be caught.
Dickyboy
Full MemberFYI driving bans start after custody period.
For offences committed on or after 13 April 2015, where a court imposes a disqualification in addition to a custodial sentence or a detention and training order, the court must extend the disqualification period by one half of the custodial term imposed. This is to take into account the period the offender will spend in custody.
Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.
So if he’s good he’ll be out in 2.5yrs & then serve 5yrs 8 months ban, if he serves full 5yrs in custody he’ll still have 3yrs 2 month ban when released
Believe that's already taken into account in the 5 year 3 month (not 8 my mistake) driving ban. Happy to be corrected but if you read this for example:
For example where a court imposes a 6 month custodial sentence and a disqualification period of 12 months, the ban will be extended to 15 months. Where a rehabilitation course is completed, the reduction will remain at a maximum of 3 months.
My reading is that the extension is added to the published ban, but the ban still starts on the day of the sentencing. It's just longer so it can't possibly end before the person is released.
a black box that only records the car’s actions (as per teenager insurance) is a bit of a blunt tool that does not take situation into account
Such as? There are very very few situations where excessive acceleration or very hard breaking are necessary if you drive like a tit then you will suffer if you don't you won't?
Our apprentice was on one he moaned that occasionally he got notifications but his biggest complaint was his mum using the car and him getting loads!
he basically took a Civic Type R, no insurance, already banned, probably pissed (refused to provide sample), drove at 80mph in a 30 limit and killed a cyclist. Left him lying dying in the road, and made his escape. Torched the car to hide the evidence.
Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.
What a depressing read. The mitigation* given on his behalf in court suggests his licence should be permanently revoked on medical grounds anyway.
*excuse-ridden horseshit.
Im sure the 37 year old driver that fled the scene in Barnsley at weekend leaving the 2 cyclists dead at the scene felt loads of remorse while fleeing.
two lives lost worth 18 months driving ban ............. Life !
Such as? There are very very few situations where excessive acceleration or very hard breaking are necessary if you drive like a tit then you will suffer if you don’t you won’t?
what counts as "excessive" will vary greatly according to the situation.
a short A-road slip road in light traffic and good conditions driving to the recommendations of the highway code and general politeness, vs dickishly muscling your way through heavy traffic and endangering those around you could give very similar black box readings.
what counts as “excessive” will vary greatly according to the situation.
a short A-road slip road in light traffic and good conditions driving to the recommendations of the highway code and general politeness, vs dickishly muscling your way through heavy traffic and endangering those around you could give very similar black box readings.
The issue is more that you stray into the murky definitions of what would be considered careless driving.
Which then strays back into why do you* accept a lower standard of safety in a car than in any other scenario, which is exactly the point. You wouldn't go to work in a metal fabricator and accept "we've taken the guards off the guillotines so you can get sheets in and out quicker", so why does the world accept "I was just making progress".
*and the jury deciding whether your actions fell below the standard expected of a competent driver (or whatever the exact wording is)
Black box has lots of merit I think.
Clearly highly unpopular and risks accidental incrimination perhaps. But it certainly
Would encourage a lot of people to drive more carefully.
Getting sent to prison is a pretty big deterrent for most people regardless of duration of stay at his majesty’s pleasure. So I’m not sure a bigger / permanent ban will make much difference.
We should all have black boxes fitted to all cars all the time period.
If black boxes were required in all cars then there are other possibilities for how they could be used:
- average speed checks enforced everywhere, all the time (assuming sufficient GPS coverage etc.)
- congestion data for satnav companies to buy, and for the government to use for road planning
Getting sent to prison is a pretty big deterrent for most people regardless of duration of stay at his majesty’s pleasure. So I’m not sure a bigger / permanent ban will make much difference.
You can't deter people not to cause death by dangerous driving - its almost never a conscious act that the person expects to actually cause a collision. At best you can can deter Dangerous Driving, but only if people believe they are likely to get caught.
My reading is that the extension is added to the published ban, but the ban still starts on the day of the sentencing. It’s just longer so it can’t possibly end before the person is released.
Yes effectively the driving ban starts on your release from prison, but for some complicated legal reasons, its wrapped up in this "extension" stuff. But if someone is jailed for 6 years and banned to 4 is will be at least 7 years (1/2 the jail sentence being served + 4 yrs ban) before they can apply to resit their test and get their license back.
It’s not like it’s proposing locking them up and throwing away the key. Plenty of people don’t have a car, never have, and get by.
OK so lets play hypothetical judges! You have a 20 yr old student nurse who passed their test a year ago, does a poorly timed overtake on a bad bend and hits a car coming the other way. They stop a the scene. The call for help. The try to save the other driver's life. In the back of the police car she says "its all my fault, I've killed that person because I was rushing to get home". The CPS look at her black box data and say well she was speeding for 3 minutes before the overtake so along with what she said to the cops we think the overall driving was dangerous. It goes to court 12 months later, her lawyer can't convince the crown to reduce DBDD to DBCD. She pleads guilty. She gets a custodial sentence ruining her nursing career. She gets a lifetime driving ban. A few years later she has a child, the father is violent so she leaves him. She's jumping between claiming benefits and low paid work because nobody wants to employ someone with convictions, with a young child, who can only travel on public transport. In a familiar pattern she bounces between drinking and getting involved with men who are not a supportive environment for her and her kid, the kid's been to 5 schools by the time he's 8. But 10 years on she's managed to battle the odds, shes got a council tenancy, the kid's doing ok at school and she's holding down work. She gets called into her manager's office - they are closing the site, the staff are being made redundant, but she's good at her job. There's a supervisors role at another site which is 20 miles away but nearly 2 hrs by public transport; he'd put in a strong word for her and thinks she would get it. Its a different council area so moving flat is not going to happen. Even if it did her child is just settling into school. She's back to square 1. Another 15 years on, her son has left home, she's making a go of things and got another job, living in a one bed flat that she's managed to scrape together enough money to buy. She gets a phone call from her one surviving parent that they have cancer. They live 60 miles away in a rural location. It will take them 2 hrs each way on public transport to get to the hospital for Chemo. Do you really think in this sort of circumstance we should be punishing the 46 yr old and their elderly parent for something foolish they did at 20? Did her son deserve a shit start to life too because his mum was daft before he was even conceived? Now, 24 hours before she crashed another totally unconnected car made an almost identical overtake on the same dodgy bend, but the reactions of the oncoming drives / exact timings / road positioning meant he got lucky he marked that up to his excellent driving skills! The driver coming the other way wasn't quite so positive about it and sent his dashcam footage to the police who wrote him a letter warning him. The only thing separating them was luck. One gets no action / a warning letter / or perhaps a £200 fine and 3 points and the other gets jail / ban / lifetime of problems.
Sorry for the long ramble and hypothetical situations but by and large we don't sentence people for crimes using strict formulae with no discretion because circumstances are different. Knee jerk "lifetime ban" stuff is the sort of think politicians and journalists love - but has zero consideration for what you are actually trying to achieve: e.g. deterrence (none - nobody expects to crash), punishment (ignore the daily mail - jail and the consequences of having been to jail are punishment), rehabilitation (likely makes person more not less likely to find themselves in circumstances where they offend), protection of the public (is there any actual evidence that people who are convicted of DBDD are more likely to harm again?). Now there are some sentences that seem erratic - they might be because of background factors we don't understand, or possibly because of the variability in judges.
Finally ask yourself, honestly, if accused of DBDD and facing a mandatory lifetime ban if convicted would you plead guilty or hope that the jury say only careless not dangerous? That doesn't help witnesses or victims' families, reliving the trauma. if you were the prosecutor and got a suitable sob story from a defence solicitor are you sure you couldn't be more easily swayed knowing the judge had no discretion to impose a lesser sentence?
You could stop all dangerous driving by removing seatbelts from cars and airbags and put a big metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel. folk would drive safely then or take themselves out of circulation pretty quickly
* not a serious suggestion*
It's telling that a driving ban evokes as much emotion as a prison sentence.
It shouldn't be a punishment. Many people cannot, and never will be able to drive, through no choice of their own. Those people shouldn't be penalised through a lack of mobility options that we've failed to provide as a nation. Neither should it be a given right that we drive, especially if it's been proven we can't do it safely.
15 years on, her son has left home, she’s making a go of things and got another job, living in a Glasgow squat with Begbie and Renton etc
Counterpoint:
Our student nurse is stuck behind a tractor. It's been all over the news and posters for ages now about how dangerous driving can lose you your license, like they used to do with drink driving. She wants to overtake but doesn't want to risk it because she's scared of losing her license, and she needs it for her job, so she doesn't want to take any risks, however small. So she sits behind the tractor until it turns off three miles up the road. She gets home 9 minutes later than usual and does not lose her license.
The point of this stuff is to change behaviour, not slap nurses.
Shortly after I passed my test, I was on the deserted M4 at about 3am, and was tempted to see how fast my Mondeo would go. But I had read somewhere that it was an instant ban if you got done over 100mph, and my income relied on me having a car. So I didn't do it. I don't feel hard done by!
Your lucky, the wheels probably would have parted company with the chassis and made a bid for freedom
Leaving you skidding down the road ina shower of sparks
The point of this stuff is to change behaviour, not slap nurses.
In which case you need better detection and punishment of dangerous driving that does not cause accidents. No one goes out to kill by dangerous driving but many folk drive dangerously or with vehicles in dangerous condition frequently
Again - its not the level of punishment that drives behaviour change - its the fear of being caught. Its so unlikely that you are caught dangerous or careless driving that it becomes normalised. The way to stop these things is to change that
Posted 14 hours ago
Reply | Report
Olly
Free Memberan ABSOLUTE ban on those stupid “wah, i need my car for work” excuses.
“Exceptional hardship” they call it, but i cant look up the record for times used (im sure its getting on for 10 times on one driver), because if you google it you just get a load of solicitors websites telling they can get you off a ban.youve had 12 points of warnings FFS, if you cant work it out you shouldnt be on the road.
I need to not be a sex offender in order to do my job, mysteriously the same argument doesn't apply for me! Or people who can't have financial criminal offences. Professional drivers should be held to a higher standard not a lower, it's again the only time we do this. Hate it.
Our student nurse is stuck behind a tractor. It’s been all over the news and posters for ages now about how dangerous driving can lose you your license, like they used to do with drink driving. She wants to overtake but doesn’t want to risk it because she’s scared of losing her license, and she needs it for her job, so she doesn’t want to take any risks, however small. So she sits behind the tractor until it turns off three miles up the road. She gets home 9 minutes later than usual and does not lose her license.
in your logic you need to believe that the driver:
- assesses the risk of the overtake, knows it is dodgy, knows that if it goes wrong she’ll kill someone (possibly herself) and still thinks, screw it I’ll get home sooner if I’m lucky.
AND under the current rules thinks:
- if I get caught I’ll probably only go to prison for a year and get banned for a few years and that’s not that bad compared to being slightly late home.
that’s not credible to me. I think:
- some dangerous driving is done by people who have no appreciation that the driving is dangerous, they’ve made countless similar manoeuvres and got away with all of them (not crashing never mind injuring/killing anyone). They would do it even if there was a marked police car behind them. They are pretty much driving zombies (see below).
- a lot of dangerous driving is done by people who wouldn’t drive that way if there was a marked police car behind them, but who think they have the skills to drive like that when “nobody is watching”, probably because they’ve done similar things before without coming to harm.
- if people believed there was a realistic prospect of even small fines and points for silly driving mistakes from unmarked cars / dashcams (or even some marked cars who if not in traffic would rather not get involved) then I believe that would change behaviour. NOT the behaviour of the unlucky, but the behaviour of all of us who use the roads.
I don’t believe there’s anybody who has been driving for a decent period of time who can honesty say they’ve never got complacent about their driving; who has never made an error of judgement which in other circumstances could have caused a collision. And I doubt there are many who can genuinely say when they turn the key the thing they have on their mind is either not killing people or what the punishment is for driving like a dick. In fact I suspect a lot of people have driven on a routine journey (like home from work) and got home and actually can’t actually remember any of it - they’ve become driving zombies, there is no thought involved it’s muscle memory, instinct and subconscious. No adverts, headline sentences etc will make a difference because that person is not thinking about what they are doing. They are thinking about what’s for tea, the stupid meeting they just came out of, what’s on the radio, or the STW thread they were reading in the office when they were pretending to work.
an ABSOLUTE ban on those stupid “wah, i need my car for work” excuses.
“Exceptional hardship” they call it,
generally speaking “I need my car for work” won’t wash for exceptional hardship - that is not exceptional.
but i cant look up the record for times used (im sure its getting on for 10 times on one driver),
the law says you can’t use the same basis for exceptional hardship more than once in three years. It’s most likely that you don’t have a driver using the same excuse repeatedly but rather someone who has say gone through the same speed camera twice a day for a week before the first Notice of Intended prosecution arrived and they realised that they had the limit wrong, and managed to get all the cases heard together OR someone who for whatever reason didn’t get / ignored a few NIPs and was convicted in absence then brought before the court when the bailiffs turn up for the fines and has all the cases reheard at once.
youve had 12 points of warnings FFS, if you cant work it out you shouldnt be on the road.
I’ve very little sympathy for anyone who has managed to get 9 points through repeat small offences over 3 yrs. but get your insurance paperwork wrong and it’s straight to six points. You’ll then only need to misunderstand what a dual carriageway is and do 50 in a 30 to be facing a ban. At the same time you’ll be in court alongside the guy who got a course for doing 37 in a 30, 3 pts for doing it again, a course for jumping a red light, another 3 points for speeding and then parked on zig zag lines at a pedestrian crossing! The exceptional hardship cases are not supposed to account for how you got to 12 points, but I do believe some magistrates question the credibility of your claim that your license is so important if you haven’t modified your behaviour. But not everyone on 12 points is necessarily following a pattern of consistent bad driving.
HOWEVER that is all irrelevant to the OP which is about causing death by dangerous driving. Many of those convicted of that offence will have clean licenses. Very few will have 12 or even 9 points.
What if the aforementioned student nurse didn't lose their license, drove everywhere, become obese and dies of a heart attack aged 43?
Wouldn't it be kinder to ban them from driving if we're making wild hypothetical scenarios up? They might Buy a bike, develop a lifelong love of cycling and live to the ripe old age of 106 setting after setting a new distance record for a centurion on their 102nd birthday.
I agree with everything Poly said.
It's a wordy example for sure but the TL;DR is that two people screwed up, one got lucky and the other didn't. Should we penalise both equally or not?
Putting that another way: is it fairer to be prosecuting people based on their actions or based on the outcome of those actions? (I don't have the answer to this, but I think it's an interesting question.)
And yes, of course, the answer in both cases is "well, they should have been driving better." Which is absolutely correct, they should, but people make mistakes. Can anyone here hand-on-heart say that in their entire lives they've never done something and then immediately thought "oh shit, I really shouldn't have done that"? (Not just driving but generally.)
generally speaking “I need my car for work” won’t wash for exceptional hardship – that is not exceptional.
Yep. There seems to be a common perception that Exceptional Hardship is a handy get-out-of-jail-free card. Maybe if you also have an Exceptional Lawyer or are a Tory politician, but generally speaking it really isn't. Exceptional Hardship is when the consequences of a ban would be far above and beyond what would be considered to be reasonable punishment. If such a plea is successful it will be offset by a considerably larger fine instead.
I’ve very little sympathy for anyone who has managed to get 9 points through repeat small offences over 3 yrs. but get your insurance paperwork wrong and it’s straight to six points. You’ll then only need to misunderstand what a dual carriageway is and do 50 in a 30 to be facing a ban.
This happened to me years ago. I got 6 points (and a fine) for a 20 minute gap between two successive insurance policies. Add in two SP30s in three years and it was hello 6-month driving ban (and much larger fine). I have no-one but myself to blame for the fixed penalties of course, but the insurance thing was crossmaking.
You can’t deter people not to cause death by dangerous driving – its almost never a conscious act that the person expects to actually cause a collision.
If it wasn't a conscious act it would be a lesser charge such as careless driving. Dangerous driving from Google is::
The offence of dangerous driving is when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and includes behaviour that could potentially endanger yourself or other drivers. Examples of dangerous driving are: speeding, racing, or driving aggressively
It the deliberate nature that makes the offence serious. for example:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-jailed-after-friends-killed-2300516
Edukator - no, there is no requirement in the legislation for the driver to have any intention to drive dangerously or even to have any awareness that they are doing so, or to have made a deliberate “positive” act. It simply needs the standard of driving to meet the “far below the standard of a careful and competent driver” test AND “it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver that driving that way would be dangerous”. Certainly if you do do something intentionally it becomes harder to argue it was only careless but eg falling asleep at the wheel will almost always be charged as dangerous but it not a deliberate or conscious act; zombie driving where you just overtake every car in front without thinking about the blind bend is arguably not deliberate but is likely dangerous.
snip...eg falling asleep at the wheel will almost always be charged as dangerous but it not a deliberate or conscious act...
Deliberate isn't used, but...
The falling asleep bit isn't conscious (that isn't meant as a pun) but the events leading up to falling asleep are and it takes a deliberate act to ignore the signs of sleepiness; yawning, head nodding, loss of concentration, etc. If you carry on driving then that's dangerous
Narcolepsy sufferers do fall asleep without warning, but they shouldn't be driving without DVLA being satisfied that the condition is controlled
You are also driving dangerously if the condition of your vehicle or load is dangerous, but that needs to be obvious, i.e. your expected level of awareness and knowledge
Shortly after I passed my test, I was on the deserted M4 at about 3am, and was tempted to see how fast my Mondeo would go. But I had read somewhere that it was an instant ban if you got done over 100mph, and my income relied on me having a car. So I didn’t do it. I don’t feel hard done by!
I'd a similar dilemma. Only this one concerned an electrical socket in the kitchen, a plug not pushed in correctly so you could see the pins, and a stainless steel dinner knife.
And I was 7.
Took me seconds to decide and yes i did try to connect the two pins with the knife blade.
Obviously I'll not be doing that ever again.
I must have just missed him on the M4, but i turned off onto the A33 and did 320kph indicated... 🙂
Maybe causing another's death whilst driving should be tried like health and safety offences? The defendant should demonstrate that their actions were appropriate for the conditions at the time (no presumption of innocence).
If I killed someone whilst driving I would never drive again
Agree with the lifetime ban for the most serious cases, but the problem with bans is that a lot of people who would get one don’t give a shiny shit anyway.
it’s a really tricky one isn’t it. The guy that killed my brother, I would’ve been happy with a lengthy ban and community service. He got neither.
The guy that drove in to my house got harsher punishment. He was hammered, drove off, attempted to hide in a pub, denied driving the car, despite having a bloody nose and air bag powder all over him and got a ban, community service and has to pay me the princely sum of £150. I occasionally get a couple of quid in my account despite the fact that he was driving a new Mercedes. Repairs came to £6k with a £300 excess. Had to faff about changing insurance too because my premiums went through the roof. Obviously having a WGBE drive in to my house is my fault so I should be out of pocket and charged more for insurance. Best part, the **** was already banned from driving. I see that one was working well.
Despite all that, I still feel the bloke that killed my brother with his car should’ve had the harsher punishment. A house can be repaired and nobody was hurt other than my wallet.
Exactly this. Death is permanent, a fine or ban is paltry in comparison.
Some sort of social stigma needs invoking. Drunk driving carries longer bans and bigger fines, often the person caught hasn't even had an accident.
If you take a life whilst behind the wheel amd its proven you deliberately took a risk then it should carry a substantial penalty
Maybe causing another’s death whilst driving should be tried like health and safety offences?
Well you could start with making employers liable for deaths carried out by people driving on company time unless they can show that they had training, supervision and job planning approaches (ie. not incentivising speed, lack of rest etc) that put safety first!
The defendant should demonstrate that their actions were appropriate for the conditions at the time (no presumption of innocence).
Shifting the burden of proof isn't necessarily a great idea. I'm not convinced that a lot of workplace stuff is necessary, but its generated a lot of paperwork and arse covering. Why would we stop with road traffic act on presumption of guilt?
funkmasterp
Full MemberAgree with the lifetime ban for the most serious cases, but the problem with bans is that a lot of people who would get one don’t give a shiny shit anyway.
it’s a really tricky one isn’t it. The guy that killed my brother, I would’ve been happy with a lengthy ban and community service. He got neither.
The guy that drove in to my house got harsher punishment. He was hammered, drove off, attempted to hide in a pub, denied driving the car, despite having a bloody nose and air bag powder all over him and got a ban, community service and has to pay me the princely sum of £150. I occasionally get a couple of quid in my account despite the fact that he was driving a new Mercedes. Repairs came to £6k with a £300 excess. Had to faff about changing insurance too because my premiums went through the roof. Obviously having a WGBE drive in to my house is my fault so I should be out of pocket and charged more for insurance. Best part, the **** was already banned from driving. I see that one was working well.
Despite all that, I still feel the bloke that killed my brother with his car should’ve had the harsher punishment. A house can be repaired and nobody was hurt other than my wallet.
Yeah exactly. One thing that occurred to me is that maybe getting caught violating a driving ban should result in an automatic custodial sentence.
Driving while banned is not (generally) a crime of passion, it's a considered action. Weighing up the (vanishingly) small chance of getting caught vs the outcome (probably a fine and another ban?)
So I think increasing the penalty to one with serious consequences would increase the adherence to the ban.
All a bit soft isn't it. That driver has to be guilty of a minimu of manslaughter and should be treated as such. More honsestly, as they chose their crappy driving it was deliberate and thus murder. The only was it can't be is if it can be proved that they had done nothing wrong. Nothing! And even then you are usually at fault as you would not be driving according to the prevailing conditions.
For "smaller" offences I would be looking at a minimum of a thousand quid foeach MPH over tyhe limit and also a point for each MPH.Driving is a prilviledge not a right and infractions should be hammered. If it costs you your job then excellent. Until we get these levels of punishment (and punishment is needed as too many idiots don't accept social pressure or advice) nothing will happen.
Of course it woulkd need more policing but I reckon the fines (ring fenced) would pay for stand alone traffic police.
If I killed someone whilst driving I would never drive again
This was a really good article about that - bloke (apparently sensible and sober) hit and killed a pedestrian, and his attempts to get over it:
Counterpoint:
Our student nurse is stuck behind a tractor.
Lot's of whatiffery BUT
You can’t deter people not to cause death by dangerous driving – its almost never a conscious act that the person expects to actually cause a collision.
Especially most people and it isn't a conscious act to cause their own death ...
That aside it seems the point of if someone dies or not is mostly academic.
Going round a blind bend on the wrong side over taking a tractor is a matter of chance... (just for example) and when someone does that they have either accepted they may kill someone AND/OR themselves or not.
Quite how a potential driving ban makes any difference to that choice seems at best rather remote and more about showing some justice/vengeance than deterring people doing it.
Quite how a potential driving ban makes any difference to that choice seems at best rather remote and more about showing some justice/vengeance than deterring people doing it.
I dunno. It's not (all) that long ago that drink driving was basically socially acceptable, despite being illegal. You've only had a couple. Just go slow. It'll be alright.
There's an episode of Yes Prime Minister where he drives home pissed as a fart, all over the place - it was played for laughs, look at the drunk old duffer bonking off a bollard there, broadcast on primetime BBC1.
But we DID manage to make it socially unacceptable, and now it's generally considered that if you drive pissed, you're a ****.
So perhaps it wouldn't be impossible to do similar for, say, overtaking on blind bends? Happened last week when I was on my bike - **** got bored waiting behind me, overtook, then a combo emergency stop/swerve to the left to avoid crashing into the oncoming car, nearly smashes me into the wall.
In the same way that we got people to pony up for a taxi home instead of driving pissed, we should get people to wait twenty seconds before pulling some moronic maneouvre. It's got to be possible.
Exactly.
The problem is two fold.
Cyclists are a sub human species, cause a nuisance and delays to cars.So they deserve to be hit, see Facebook rants if you disagree. And
Too many people read about non existant penalties for hitting or killing a cyclist.
So the risk V penalty sways the decision process to, screw it, i cant see, im holding up another car, im gping to overtake and hope there is not a bus / lorry / coach coming round the blind bend 20mtr up the road and they then crawl past. 30cm off ypur bar end, at 5mph more than your doing , at 900rpm, in 4th gear. And grip the wheel tighter as that makes the car narrower.
One thing that occurred to me is that maybe getting caught violating a driving ban should result in an automatic custodial sentence.
I'd agree. Well technically I'd suggest it should a presumption of a custodial sentence and it would be for the court to explain why not. E.g. there could be some very rare occasion where someone who is disqualified moves a vehicle to the side of the road after an accident for safety reasons and is breaking the way in doing so, or someone is stuck in a remote farmhouse with no phone signal and the only driver in the house is having a heart attack and needs to get to somewhere to call 999.
However, most people who get a ban did at one point pass a test. So you could argue that they are "better" than the surprisingly large number of people who appear before the courts having never held a license, or driving with only a provisional license and no supervisor, L-plates etc! That's an offence which carries just 3-6pts!
But we DID manage to make it socially unacceptable, and now it’s generally considered that if you drive pissed, you’re a ****.
I worry slightly that the tide is turning on that one - but its not because of the sentence is it? its because of the social stigma.
Cyclists are a sub human species, cause a nuisance and delays to <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">cars.So</span> they deserve to be hit, see Facebook rants if you disagree. And
Too many people read about non existant penalties for hitting or killing a cyclist.
So the risk V penalty sways the decision process to, screw it,
I think you are wrong. I honestly believe those people have absolutely no belief they will crash. They may not be too bothered about some points if they get caught doing a dodgy overtake, they may not even bother about the value of the cyclists life but almost without fail they do give a shit about damage to their car. I'm firmly of the belief that its not "its only a cyclist" its "I'm really good at driving and won't hit anything" or what I've called "zombie driving" above - where they can probably overtake a cyclist and if you asked them 90 seconds later what colour top the cyclist was wearing they would say "what cyclist" because they are just operating as a bunch of reflexes.
Poly
I think you are wrong. I honestly believe those people have absolutely no belief they will crash.
^^ This ^^
but almost without fail they do give a shit about damage to their car
and if not surely their life or the life of their family in the car with them?
TLDR but has anyone mentioned "driving to see if your eyes are working"?
But we DID manage to make it socially unacceptable, and now it’s generally considered that if you drive pissed, you’re a ****.
I thought this as well, and then my daughter learned to drive while in 6th form. She has mentioned a few times that '5 and drive' is still a thing in the slightly more rural part of north Gower that a lot of her school friends are from. Not her friends, of course, but their parents. I guess that if you've got no chance at all of being caught - because of lack of policing and instant social media alerts if the police are waiting - then you're as likely to drink and drive as my parents' generation?
Conversely, seome people who stopped traffic in London for a couple of hours as part of a climate protest are looking at a custodial sentence due to public nuisance. Madness!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/27/climate-activists-city-of-london-protest
Shifting the burden of proof isn’t necessarily a great idea.
Been a bit busy today but that is the approach with H&S cases. The inspector determines what the defendant hasn't done to maintain a safe working environment. The defendant then has to prove that they were compliant and their compliance met the standards the inspector works to. (Basically bring your cheque-book and also your toothbrush as it's vanishingly rare that the inspector loses).
Apologies for the late reply today was a tad exciting after I left home.
