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?

[VivaLeBeaver]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[CakeMeIAmYours]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.