To think people who kill on the roads should face stiffer sentences

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9957063.Eaglescliffe_driver_spared_jail_after_causing_cyclist_s_death/

Basically the driver was driving along the road at 60mph, and made at least two lapses of concentration:

• not seeing the cyclist visible for AT LEAST 11 seconds
  
• driving over the white line at the edge of the road
  
  Obviously he didn't INTEND to kill the cyclist, but equally obviously motor vehicles are dangerous things, deadly weapons, and 'oops' doesn't really cut it. A higher standard of responsibility should be expected of someone in charge of a van at 60mph than say someone walking home from the pub.
  
  It seems to me that a very least he should be banned from driving from life, as well as face a substantial prison sentence to reflect the fact that through his careless driving a family now has no father:
  
  www.gazettelive.co.uk/gazette-communities/ts10-redcar/ts10-news/2011/10/11/tributes-to-redcar-cyclist-killed-in-a174-crash-84229-29571176/
  
  What kind of message does this send out to people? How can it be acceptable that people can not pay attention on the road, say 'oops', and be allowed to drive within a year? This was BTW the MINIMUM possible driving ban, for someone who was supposedly a professional driver.
  
  Road image:
  2.bp.blogspot.com/-FGiPkQB9s7w/UGmnJPza3TI/AAAAAAAAAPI/Mh5DjXHpxtg/s1600/A174.bmp
  
  How can you drive along for 11 seconds without looking at the road? And how is it possible that when you are 100% to blame for someone's death, that you don't see the inside of a prison cell?

[YouOldSlag]

Cake, sorry, I'm not blaming the courts, but the system in general. I know the judge cannot impose a life time ban if that lies outside sentencing guidelines.

However, What I often see is say, someone getting a two year jail sentence and a two year ban, so by the time they're out of prison then ban has been lifted and is therefore pointless.

The Govt, then, rather than the courts as I inaccurately implied, should increase and enforce more lifetime bans. Like I said, driving is not a birthright, it's a privilege earned by driving lessons, training and by passing a test.

If you cannot abide by the rules required of you, you should have your licence removed.

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

FWIW, I wasn't particularly saying the judge got it wrong according to the guidelines, but that the sentence, for whatever reason, is insufficient. So if the guidelines are too lenient (and it seems so to me), so be it.

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

Sentencing guidelines are here:

sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

"Cyclists, motorbike riders, horse riders, pedestrians and those working in the road are vulnerable road users and a driver is expected to take extra care when driving near them. Driving too close to a bike or horse; allowing a vehicle to mount the pavement; driving into a cycle lane; and driving without the care needed in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home, are all examples of factors that should be taken into account when determining the seriousness of an offence. See paragraph 24 below for the approach where the actions of another person contributed to the collision"

"The fact that the victim of a causing death by driving offence was a particularly
vulnerable road user is a factor that should be taken into account when determining the seriousness of an offence. "

"Since the maximum sentence has been set at 5 years imprisonment, the sentence ranges are generally lower for this offence than for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving under the influence, for which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment. However, it is unavoidable that some cases will be on the borderline between dangerous and careless driving, or may involve a number of factors that significantly increase the seriousness of an offence. As a result, the guideline for this offence identifies three levels of seriousness, the range for the highest of which overlaps with ranges for the lowest level of seriousness for causing death by dangerous driving. "

"The three levels of seriousness are defined by the degree of carelessness involved in the standard of driving. The most serious level for this offence is where the offender?s driving fell not that far short of dangerous. The least serious group of offences relates to those cases where the level of culpability is low ? for example in a case involving an offender who misjudges the speed of another vehicle, or turns without seeing an oncoming vehicle because of restricted visibility. Other cases will fall into the intermediate level."

The lowest level is described as "Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from
momentary inattention with no aggravating factors", and for this type, apparently, prison would be inappropriate. For anything beyond that, 36 weeks would be the starting point.

It seems to me that it's a bit more than momentary inattention, when the cyclist would have been visible for at least 11 seconds. Momentary would be ONE second, not 11.

It is stated that tuning a radio is careless driving, but using a mobile phone would be dangerous driving.

[CakeMeIAmYours]

What WMittens said - there are guidelines for sentencing laid down by parliament...we really shouldn't move towards Judge-Based Law; Judges are not elected.

[WMittens]

Sounds like some sort of plea bargain went on there. Death by DD carries a mandatory jail sentence; the driver denied this but admitted to causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving.

"Courts should stop being afraid of banning people for life."

That all depends on if the conviction allows such a sentence. Judges can't just hand out lifetime bans because they feel like it, they have to follow the guidelines laid down for them in statute.

[CakeMeIAmYours]

NB: I do get that its not a defence, more of a doctrine that I think should apply in criminal cases..

[CakeMeIAmYours]

From a legal perspective, the problem here is the absence of Mens Rea

I agree it is one of the nuttier problems of jurisprudence but I'm inclined to think that by getting in a car, you are accepting the risk that some people drive like twats and that you may well be injured i.e. the defence of volenti would apply.

[MummyOnTheLoose]

Thank you SkippyYourFriendEverTrue. It would be simpler if there was something like a late night drinking ban (apparently the majority of road deaths caused by drink driving are a result from a late night binge at a party) and as well as having stronger sentences, routine stop-and-checks by police would also be good. Or police waiting at petrol stations where potential drink drivers fill up their cars.

[YouOldSlag]

OP, I totally agree with you.

If you murdered someone you would probably get 10 to 15. But if you killed them in your car you would only get a couple of years.

I am sick and tired of drivers thinking driving is a birthright. It's not. Courts should stop being afraid of banning people for life. If they repeatedly offend or cause death by dangerous driving, they should forfeit any right to get behind a wheel. And don't give me any sob stories about "how I have to drive for work". lots of people don't drive and still work.

People learn nothing and aren't afraid to take risks because of soft sentencing. Meantime, families have to carry on without brothers, fathers, mothers or sons and daughters.

[VivaLeBeaver]

MummyOnTheLoose, I'm very sorry about what happened to your son.

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

Viva, I've seen that one before.

The only thing I can think of there from the cyclist's perspective is that the stream of cars is visible turning right, and you have to make eye contact with the drivers, but it's hard here because of the van blocking the car behind

Also I wonder about keeping right a bit more here, but I'm not sure it would help.

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

MummyOnTheLoose, I'm so sorry.

I actually think all cars should be equipped with breathalysers, I can't see why they are not mandatory.

[MummyOnTheLoose]

She was 17yrs older, not eighteen- the only difference a year makes would have been one more with DS.

[VivaLeBeaver]

I'm a cyclist, I quite like watching these sorts of films partly as a learning experience.

The bloke who hits the cyclist first was an total fool, God knows how he hit him. No excuse for not seeing him as he's wearing high vis gear. I think he didn't realise how fast the cyclist was going and thought he had time to make it. The cyclist was going at a fair lick.

I do however feel a shred of sympathy for the 2nd driver. I've watched this video numerous times and I think she was probably looking to her left when the accident happened so missed it. By the time she looked back to the right he was on the floor infront of her car so out of her view. Though I fail to understand why she tried to keep on going after running him over, think she said she thought she'd hit the kerb.

I suppose she may just have pulled out without looking. But even with video evidence I think it would be very hard to know which of those 2 cases is right. Only she knows and she's going to say the former rather than the latter.

If she'd killed him and hadn't looked to the right then she should have had the book thrown at her. But if it was a case of him been out of her line of sight and she'd killed him then I'd say it was an accident.

It wasn't the cyclists fault but as a cyclist this has made me slow down when approaching junctions even though I shouldn't need to.

[MummyOnTheLoose]

I agree. Nine years ago, one week and a day, DS was killed aged five after a drunk driver crashed into the car he was in, with his friend and his friend's dad, who had taken them both swimming for the friend's birthday treat. Three weeks later, he died in ICU. It was the worst thing which could ever have happened, and nothing could even get close. I'd do anything to have swapped places with him and have been killed instead. Since then, I've campaigned a lot for this, and I've met with other car crash families- some have lost children like me, some have lost arms or legs after being hit, some have parents or brothers or sisters who'd been killed- whatever happens, it tears people apart.

The drunk driver got 4yrs- she was over the limit and on drugs- she was 22, she was 18yrs older than my son, who'd had his whole life ahead of him to be anything- a scientist, teacher, doctor- even a criminal- the whole point was he could have done anything if that driver hadn't crashed her car. I don't know what's happened since then, it's been five years since she was out of prison, nine years since his death, and four inquests, not to mention countless campaigns, and no one makes changes. Last week there were flowers tied to a lamp post near my house- a pedestrian was killed crossing the road. Somewhere, a family is going to or arranging a funeral, thinking about inquests, memorials, sentencing and having lost a parent maybe or a friend or a brother or sister, or a daughter or son, and I don't want anyone going through what I did.

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

I'm sure people do make a conscious decision to drive like arseholes, you don't tailgate, cut people up, by accident, you do it because there's a perception that you are in your own personal space, inside your car, and essentially you can do as you wish.

This perception is reinforced by sentencing outcomes. In this case the van driver chose to exist in his personal space, inside his van, while not paying attention to the road, rather than to pay attention to his responsibilities to the outside world, and this was reflected by the judge saying 'never mind, it was only an accident'.

In my experience perhaps even a majority of drivers drive selfishly, their cars dehumanize the world around them, they are protected by air bags, NCAP testing, cosseted by air conditioning and music, and they pay only the scantest regard to the law on things like speeding, traffic lights, right of way and so on.

Penal policy should send out a message that drivers are NOT special, and they must pay the consequences for their actions, but instead we are told 'it was only an accident', as if there was anything inevitable about driving over the edge of a carriageway on a straight road and killing someone.

Driving is the only thing most people do that creates an existential threat to others, but we are still so blasé about it.

Personally I would fit black boxes to every car and record and collect the data and ban people automatically. It beggars belief that in our modern, risk-free world, people are still permitted to drive the way they do, at double the speed limit on residential roads, and as if they were competing at the Monaco Grand Prix, not dropping the kids off at school then going out to pick up some groceries.

I don't see that there is any 'right' to drive. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing people do, and laws should be properly monitored and enforced using modern technology, and ignore any bleating about civil rights. I'm all in favour of people asserting their right to free speech, to walk down the street, but no kind of right should involve propelling a 3-tonne lump of metal that will kill anything it hits while largely preserving those inside it.

[Startailoforangeandgold]

There, but for the grace of "God" go all of us who drive.

[VivaLeBeaver]

But people don't make a concious decision to drive like an arsehole whereas speeding, answering the phone is a concious decision. People do drive like arseholes but if you'd asked them before an accident they'd have thought they were driving ok.

[VivaLeBeaver]

Yes but with the punching there is intent.

The roof scenario is also not comparable as there is negligence on a scale where most people would have felt it was too great a risk - so the roof scenario is more comparable with speeding rather than a been distracted for 10 secs scenario.

I can't say hand on heart that my eyes are on the road infron all the time. I glance down and adjust the fan, I look in my rear view mirror, I glance to the right, etc. I've managed to drive over 20 years without hitting anyone but accidents happen.

There was a woman near me who crashed her car and killed her dd and her dd's best friend. She was speeding and was sent to prison. I can understand that as she took a risk. But part of me thought what use was 2 years in prison?? She was never going to be punished anymore than by knowing she'd killed her dd.

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

"I see drivers on mobile phones EVERY DAY. Should they all go to prison? When one of them kills someone no doubt there are calls for it but what about all the others who made a lucky escape?"

Not a bad idea tbh. Let's just think about it.

Scenario A:

• You are in the car, your phone rings, you think 'should I answer it'
  
• You know the penalty if caught is 3 points, and even that's unlikely, so basically the effective penalty is zero, since 3 points won't change your life
  
• As a result you decide to answer the phone.
  
  Scenario B:
  
• You are in the car, your phone rings, you think 'should I answer it'
  
• You know the penalty if caught is a prison sentence, and while it's unlikely you would be caught, it would be catastrophic for you were.
  
• As a result you leave the phone and concentrate on driving.
  
  Using a mobile phone while driving is illegal, but the penalty is so minor that people just use them anyway.
  
  Equally the legal consequences for shit driving are minor, so people drive like aresholes, constantly.

[spoonsspoonsspoons]

Selby Rail Crash demonstrates we punish consequences not actions.

Driving whilst tired and crashing doesn't normally carry a 5 year jail term on it's own.

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

Yes, because when you punch, there is an intention to hurt. When you are driving home from work one night you are just driving home from work, with no intention to do anything to anyone.

What do you think it will achieve to put this guy in prison?

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

"You can't punish according to a consequence, only the original crime"

No that's not the case

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

If you punch someone in a pub on the average Saturday night, you won't face much punishment.

If by reason of some medical condition, that person were to die following an average sort of punch, you'd be going to prison.

[Cartoonjane]

goldmandra i totally agree. The identical actions of two drivers can lead to very different outcomes.

I see drivers on mobile phones EVERY DAY. Should they all go to prison? When one of them kills someone no doubt there are calls for it but what about all the others who made a lucky escape?

dana2000 i don't think ten year sentences would deter in that way. The likelihood of killing someone ( even when driving dangerously) is (thankfully) very low and deterrants only work when people feel there's a high chance of getting caught (which is why the breataliser has worked as a deterrant so well).

[SkippyYourFriendEverTrue]

I don't think that's a bad idea to impose severe penalties on general dangerous driving.

You see people driving like they are on race tracks constantly.

Have a look at this girl:

she smashes her car into the middle of a dual carriageway, giving every indication of having been on the phone while driving, police can't be bothered to investigate that, Dad turns up and says 'oh all my kids do that', as if it's somehow normal behaviour for people to smash cars up.

Not in my family it's not.