|
Sky news is reporting that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is to be increased to life. Announcement tomorrow.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 14 Oct 17 at 22:38
|
Always somewhat skeptical about maximum sentence increases as the maximum sentence as it stands is never imposed.
Some positive developments over recent years has been the creation of such offences as Death by Careless and Death whilst OPL to name a couple.
The advantage of these offences is that the Courts are aware of the consequences of the offence before it is heard.
Previously, in say Careless Driving, the fact that someone had lost their life could not be introduced in Court as they were looking at the standard of driving immediately prior to impact and not the outcome.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 14 Oct 17 at 23:53
|
Wasn't Death By Dangerous Driving introduced because juries were unwilling to convict for manslaughter after a motoring related fatality because someone could end up in prison for life for what they saw was an accident?
So I suppose this is the logical conclusion as the authorities get what they had in the first place.
Over the years the authorities have been chipping away at the perception of accident, moving to fault and blame.
|
It's spectrum, from "accident" at one end to "deliberate" at the other.
In between are various degrees of neglect to anticipate or take precautions, or pay sufficient attention to surroundings.
|
>> The advantage of these offences is that the Courts are aware of the consequences of
>> the offence before it is heard.
>> Previously, in say Careless Driving, the fact that someone had lost their life could not
>> be introduced in Court as they were looking at the standard of driving immediately prior
>> to impact and not the outcome.
And this to me is where our judicial system is unfair. Every offence should be about action and intent, not the outcome. The actual difference between "Causing Death by Dangerous" and "Dangerous" might be luck, circumstances or the skill of an ambulance crew or A&E consultant,
|
>> And this to me is where our judicial system is unfair. Every offence should be
>> about action and intent, not the outcome. The actual difference between "Causing Death by Dangerous"
>> and "Dangerous" might be luck, circumstances or the skill of an ambulance crew or A&E
>> consultant,
>>
I broadly agree though there are circumstances where the same actions may put more lives at risk, for instance drifting round a corner when the pavements are full of people relative to when there is no one in sight.
|
>> And this to me is where our judicial system is unfair. Every offence should be
>> about action and intent, not the outcome. The actual difference between "Causing Death by Dangerous"
>> and "Dangerous" might be luck, circumstances or the skill of an ambulance crew or A&E
>> consultant,
>>
Absolutely agree. The case that always comes to my mind is the landrover -lack of sleep- rail crash. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-12591249
Since that accident many rail bridge approaches havenow been modified with armco to prevent vehicles ending up on the track. Were not the rail operators etc equally negligent in not forseeing the possibility of a single vehicle causing multiple injuries?
|
>> Since that accident many rail bridge approaches havenow been modified with armco to prevent vehicles
>> ending up on the track. Were not the rail operators etc equally negligent in not
>> forseeing the possibility of a single vehicle causing multiple injuries?
Trains hit vehicles on the track with monotonous regularity due to drivers abusing/misusing level crossings. Tonnes of train at speed v car is usually no contest. Very occasionally though the holes in the cheese line up as they did at Selby. Train was derailed but could still have been brought to a halt safely albeit with damage to track and train. While slowing it encountered facing points for a siding throwing derailed loco/coaches over into path of an approaching freight train.
Modifications to bridges etc with armco or kerbs designed to hurl a car back into road were reaction to fact that such an accident, previously regarded as risk so low as to be acceptable, could actually happen and cause multiple fatalities.
|
>>
>>
>>
>> And this to me is where our judicial system is unfair. Every offence should be
>> about action and intent, not the outcome. The actual difference between "Causing Death by Dangerous"
>> and "Dangerous" might be luck, circumstances or the skill of an ambulance crew or A&E
>> consultant,
>>
I'd agree with that whole heartedly in the case of careless driving, though dangerous needs to be treated on the merits of the individual case. Unfortunately we have moved to a culture where someone is expected to be punished for every instance where somebody is injured or loses a life, no matter what the circumstances.
There are things that are simply no more than accidents, despite the fact that you now get howled down by the newspeak brigade if you use that term in a motoring context.
|
|
Don't agree with that. Short of mechanical failure all motoring accidents are due to human error.
|
|
What are they down to then? The human is (or should be) in control of the vehicle. Please don't say "The road was icy" the human should take account of that, to the point of stopping if they consider driving to be dangerous.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 15 Oct 17 at 16:46
|
>> "The road was icy" the human should take account of
>> that, to the point of stopping if they consider driving to be dangerous.
>>
Stopping a car on an icy bend or abandoning it on the motorway in thick fog might also be considered dangerous?
Sometimes sensible action means chosing the lesser of two evils and trusting to luck.
|
>> Stopping a car on an icy bend or abandoning it on the motorway in thick
>> fog might also be considered dangerous?
>> Sometimes sensible action means chosing the lesser of two evils and trusting to luck.
>>
Agree with you. Happened to me. Years ago as a newish driver. I was caught in a snowstorm and there must have been a number of accidents on a stretch of road.
I managed to make progress because I had skinny wheels and a light Mk 1 fiesta, that is until I got to a very steep hill, heading down.
At the bottom there were half a dozen cars all connected in some way with drivers standing by. Looked like no one was hurt.
The car lost grip on the sheet ice, so I gave up and thought best to abandon it given the scene at the bottom. So I parked it up, put it in to reverse and applied the handbrake and got out of the car.
The car had other ideas though and kept on going. The road was like an ice rink. So I jumped back in and shoved it up against the kerb and in to a pile of snow. So I guess if the car had hit someone, I could have been in real trouble, even though my choices at the time were quite limited.
|
|
Spinning out on an icy road when drunk and smashing through a gate should carry the same penalty, whether or not there was a young child sat on that gate.
|
|
Human error is an accident. It is something you didn't mean to happen, like accidently dropping a plate.
|
Never mind. When autonomous cars take over there won't be any more errors or any more accidents, just lots of gridlocked roads.
And when robots take over there will be no more dropped plates.
|
Only in the sense that it is not deliberate. Virtually all accidents could be avoided if the individuals concerned exercised proper care and attention
"Oh, it was an accidental, I wasn't looking or thinking isn't an excuse".
Accidents are not unlucky chance events. They are due to the faulty judgeemt and behavior of road users
|
>> Accidents are not unlucky chance events. They are due to the faulty judgeemt and behavior
>> of road users
Driving down a road in the dark, deer leaps out of the woods on your left, smashes into your windscreen, you swerve and hit a car coming the other way killing the driver.
Not an accident?
|
>>Not an accident?
No. The result of whoever built the fence, whoever owned the deer, whoever set the speed limits etc etc.
But someone.
There is pretty much no incident that could not have been avoided by someone behaving differently. Whether or not that is a reasonable expectation is another matter.
|
|
If the driver had not swerved there would have been no head on collision. Understandable reaction but death still due to human error of judgement.
|
>> If the driver had not swerved there would have been no head on collision. Understandable
>> reaction but death still due to human error of judgement.
He was stunned and incapable by the deer that came through the windscreen. The Deer got through a hole in the fence caused by a meteorite that knocked over a tree.
Accident?
|
|
If deer came through a laminated screen he was driving too fast.
|
>> If deer came through a laminated screen he was driving too fast.
Ita an old car with a toughened screen.
|
Ok
Willing to accept an immunity from prosecution for anyone driving a car with a laminated windscreen involved in collision which with deer straying on to the road which rendered them unconscious purely as a result of the deer straying as a result fencing damaged by meteor strike providing they were driving within he speed limit.
Hope that's not too big a loophole.
|
>> Hope that's not too big a loophole.
Accidents do exist then.
|
If you can find an example of an incident falling within the specified criteria I would accept that proposition.
By the way laminated screens are moose proof.
youtu.be/-zBRU8TQiYM
|
|
The screen may be moose proof, but that doesn't stop the moose bringing the entire screen, still in one piece, into the car with it.
|
|
No it doesn't . Moose are a major cause of road deaths in Canada. In effect they are a ton or more of meat on top of legs which bring them to windscreen height. That combined with their habit of standing still on unlit country roads at dusk makes them a lethal hazard when driving out there
|
>>Accidents do exist then.
When I was involved in military flying as an instructor there was an absolute statement that there was no incident that could not have been avoided if someone had done something differently and that the person in charge was responsible for that failing.
Its quite a difficult point of view, and frustrating at times, but eventually it does make sense. I've never been as nervous as in my first experience of civilian, amateur flying.
But such accountability *must* be partnered with sensible [including 'no'] penalties which take into account the various factors and real life.
|
>> If deer came through a laminated screen he was driving too fast.
>>
Laminated does not mean shell proof. At the legal limit of 60mph you'd have a hell of a job stopping it, it isn't a bumble bee. A male deer can weigh 190kg.
|
>> >> If deer came through a laminated screen he was driving too fast.
>> >>
>> Laminated does not mean shell proof. At the legal limit of 60mph you'd have a
>> hell of a job stopping it, it isn't a bumble bee. A male deer can
>> weigh 190kg.
with pointy bits.
|
Under Section 170 RTA 1988 a deer is not classed as an animal that fulfills the definition of a 'Reportable' accident.
If it came through the window and injured a passenger it would be. But not a solo driver. Likewise if the car was damaged.
Animals that do fall in the definition are Cattle, Horse, Ass, Mule, Pig, Sheep, Dog, & Goat.
CHAMPS DG.
I know some carp :)
|
>> Driving down a road in the dark, deer leaps out of the woods on your
>> left, smashes into your windscreen, you swerve and hit a car coming the other way
>> killing the driver.
>>
>> Not an accident?
>>
Judge would probably say you should have been going slowly enough to be able to cope with the unexpected.
Case a couple of decades ago locally. Young lad was killed on his moped after hitting a car on a blind corner. It was argued that if he wasn't sure what was around the corner he should have stopped, walked to the corner to get a better view then carried on.
|
a blind corner. It was argued that if he wasn't sure
>> what was around the corner he should have stopped, walked to the corner to get a better view then carried on.
>>
On a blind bind? Sounds like you could just as well cause an accident as trying to stop one.
|
>> On a blind bind? Sounds like you could just as well cause an accident as
>> trying to stop one.
>>
Stopped before the bend. Walked up to it to check it....
|
>> Judge would probably say you should have been going slowly enough to be able to
>> cope with the unexpected.
Do you drive everywhere at 10mph in case of the unexpected?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 16 Oct 17 at 01:59
|
>> Do you drive everywhere at 10mph in case of the unexpected?
>>
Don't be silly, but the prosecution just need to point out that if you had an accident it probably could have been avoided if you were going slower!
The classic, driving down a country lane in the dark at 60 MPH. Probably too fast on some of the twisty lanes round here in the day, let alone night.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 16 Oct 17 at 02:00
|
>> Do you drive everywhere at 10mph in case of the unexpected?
Not necessary...but something that should be taught is the observation of the limit point - maybe it is now.
Another, as I never miss an opportunity to say, is an understanding of how vision works and how it is possible to look without seeing.
And don't get me started on following too closely.
If everybody knew and thought about those three things then it might still be possible materially to reduce KSIs.
|
>>Accidents are not unlucky chance events. They are due to the faulty judgement and behavior of road users
Absolutely.
The penalty should depend on intent, level of carelessness, available alternative actions etc. etc., not the outcome.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 15 Oct 17 at 18:01
|
|
Death by Dangerous is close to manslaughter. If driving is bad enough to be dangerous then risk of causing death will be self evident. Not so for Death by Careless and I share reservations of others about iniquity of sentencing by consequence in such instances.
|
What are the thoughts on this one.
A long time ago someone I knew came around a bend and was confronted by stationary traffic. Driving too fast she swerved right and caused a head on collision. The options were, rear end the traffic causing damage and little injury, or a head on heavy impact causing serious injury to three people including herself. Personally I think it was a split second reaction to swerve right. She was charged with a traffic offence, can't remember what.
If she had killed someone under the proposed new penalties what would be the outcome?
|
That would be down to the Magistrates/Judge but would probably be tried at Crown Court.
Some light reading for you :)
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/
|
>> If she had killed someone under the proposed new penalties what would be the outcome?
She'd be looking at Careless Driving as, even if obeying limit, going too fast to stop in distance visible. Would need more like grossly excessive speed, racing or serious distraction such as facetwitting on phone to justify dangerous.
As before if it was dangerous then risk of death was entirely foreseeable; I'd be uncomfortable about death by careless for reasons already stated.
|
>> The penalty should depend on intent, level of carelessness, available alternative actions etc. etc., not
>> the outcome.
>>
Though the level of carelessness can affect the outcome.
I.e. drifting around a corner and losing control on an empty street and drifting around a corner and losing control on a busy street are the same offence though with subjectively different levels of carelessness (on the basis that it is more careless to drift on a busy street) and different levels of outcome (spinning onto an empty pavement or spinning onto a busy pavement).
|
Death by dangerous penalty increased. - Fullchat
