Can someone explain to me why driving offences have such insultingly low sentences?

[Snapemalloy]

I was just reading about a case where a woman was left brain damaged after being hit in a 30 zone by a driver doing over 60mph who also had cocaine in her system.

The driver received an 18 month suspended sentence and a 2 year driving ban. SURELY someone who does something like that has proven at the very least they should never be allowed to drive again?!?!

I can't get my head round it.

I agree with you, but I also think it shouldn't be dependent on the consequence of their actions - the book should be thrown at people that think it is alright to drive under the influence of anything and who drive more than 15 miles above the limit - not that it only applies if they haven't been caught before they hit someone.

Driving bans for people with that mentality are a bit pointless though - they are rarely insured and often either not passed their tests or are previously banned.

I'm totally with you! Every time I see someone zooming at 40 down my 20mph residential street I think with blind rage: you should not be driving.

I feel there is just no incentive to drive considerately really. The sentences receive are a joke.

The law treats a motoring crime as an 'offence', there are blatant legal double standards, and judges are allowed to reduce sentences based on pleas that somehow to punish or deter will cause the criminal hardship. For example, death by dangerous driving as a separate offence, instead of a charge of manslaughter.

I think there's too much thinking of there but for the grace of God and all that. But if people were charged with manslaughter and punished accordingly, driving would improve. At the moment people don't expect to be caught.

The really sad story was the one of the two teenage girls in Aldershot who were killed by a drunk driver when out running with their athletics club. The driver got 6 years, so presumably was out in 3. It should have been 10 years minimum.