To think we need to take death by driving much more seriously

[DynamoKev]

3 years 9 months for the senseless killing of this woman cyclist is inadequate.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/josephine-gilbert-herbert-wyatt-cyclist-4812635.amp

The person who killed my family member, after being three times over the limit and driving with no licence, got three years, he did 18 months.

I have every Christmas with an empty chair at a table and every birthday at a graveside. My family endured a post mortem, court case, long lens photographers at the funeral, press breaking what was then DPA to contact members of my family.

It’s utterly heartbreaking. And the trauma isn’t just, loss. I feel that the process we went through afterwards, made their death have less dignity.

But my biggest bugbear, is there’s no remorse. And I honestly can’t think of a sentence long enough that would match with how I feel about that.

People need to be careful what they wish for.

The Home Office carries our regular and discreet research in to public opinion and sentencing policy. And there is plenty of evidence that making penalties harsher has a limit beyond which juries simply won't convict.

If you start having life sentences for driving offences that result in death, you could see a tendency towards not guilty verdicts as juries are made to think "there but for the grace of god".

Also many drivers that end up killing are already banned - so clearly the system isn't working as it is. Which doesn't engender any confidence that upping the penalties is going to prevent deaths.

My partners grandma was hit by a drunk driver when she was walking her dog, she was left for dead on the side of the road, he didn't even stop to see if she was OK. She and the dog both died.

He got 5 years. Fucking despicable.

I think it really does need to be taken more seriously.

Our very good friend was hit by a driver at a pedestrian crossing and killed. The driver was short sighted and wasn't wearing his glasses - he hadn't worn them for a year and didn't even know where they were.

The driver denied the charge of death by dangerous driving and was found not guilty of that charge. He got a year's ban, 140 hours of community service and a £500 fine on a charge of death by careless driving.

It was devastating and feels so derisory.

Hi @MagentaRocks just to point you in the direction of this section for petitions:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard

@soniamumsnet

Hi *@MagentaRocks* just to point you in the direction of this section for petitions:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard

Thanks but I put the link on as relevant to the thread.

A common factor in many of the cases people have described above is where the offender was already banned from driving. That's where there needs to be a stronger deterrent. It's not unusual for magistrates to impose a further driving ban on someone caught driving DWD. Evidently they didn't care about the first ban so what will another one achieve? Five years for DWD would provide a proper deterrent.

I completely agree though that causing death by dangerous/careless driving or while disqualified should all be treated as seriously as manslaughter with a potential tariff of up to 14 years, currently only available in the case of the former. Maximum sentences should be used more readily, especially with cases such as this where there is indisputable evidence of negligence rather than it being a mere accident.

YANBU, although I don't necessarily think that should automatically result in longer custodial sentences. However, driving offences should result in longer periods of disqualification, with some offences meaning drivers are permanently disqualified, even in cases which have not resulted in death.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if a driver has demonstrated that they won't or can't drive within the law, they should lose their license permanently. Yes, this will cost some people their jobs. Yes, they may not be able to live in places without adequate public transport. But frankly they should have thought of that before they chose to drive drunk/used their phone at the wheel/broke the speed limit. A subsequent offence of driving while disqualified should then carry a custodial sentence because the driver has demonstrated that they willingly and intentionally broke the law.

I'm tired of drivers claiming exceptional hardship to keep their licenses when they've broken the law. I'm tired of people like Mr Loophole keeping dangerous drivers on the road because celebrities shouldn't have to obey the speed limit. I'm tired of a system that allows over 9,000 drivers to keep driving with over 12 points www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-8268881/How-drivers-12-points-licence-road.html. Obey the law or get the bus.

@CounsellorTroi

I agree OP. Nearly 2,000 people a year die on our roads. If that number of people were dying in plane crashes we'd be screaming for something to be done about it.

Not sure about that. After all, we've had 75k die this year from covid and people are still screaming that it's not fair they can't do as they want. People don't want to do anything that might change what they're doing.

I agree OP. I think death by dangerous driving should equate to a murder charge. I suspect many people who are convicted of this have basically got away with poor driving for a long time and were an accident waiting to happen.
But also I would like to see speeds generally reduced on some roads and greater fines for speeding.
And it never ever ever should be possible for someone to be banned from driving multiple times, and get as a punishment "banned for another two years" if they didn't obey it the first five times, they're unlikely to obey it the 6th.

The death by dangerous driving bill is due for second parliamentary reading on January 15th, proposes up to life sentence for death by dangerous and introduction of a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous/reckless/careless driving to fill a gap in current legislation

This is encouraging in principle, but leaves out the point that police first have to be prepared to refer a case for prosecution

I was seriously injured by a reckless driver myself in September - multiple witnesses, blame accepted by both driver and insurers and compensation enquiries ongoing - but after a brief interview at the scene the police merely sent me a letter to say they'd be taking no further action

There was a woman who ran over 7 people on Boxing Day 2019. One woman died, 3 were serious and the other 3 injured but otherwise ok.

The driver has never been to court.

I can't understand it at all.

My DM was killed in a car accident by a pensioner drifting into oncoming traffic. She was 69. He also killed a younger woman and badly injured others.
He was given a suspended sentence.
A tragic genuine accident but I feel very very bitter.

@cptartapp I'm so sorry.

@cptartapp sent that too early. That's awful, I would be feeling bitter too under those circumstances.

I'm so very sorry about your mum, cptartapp - also for everyone else who's suffered these awful losses

I wasn't there of course so can't possibly say, but I can't help wondering if this was a pure accident (as in it couldn't have been foreseen) or a predictable consequence of someone who shouldn't have been driving at all?

It's a bit of a tangent I know, but when thinking of what happens after these incidents, we could perhaps look at whether some who cause them should have been in a position to do so in the first place

Prison doesn't serve as a punishment, our prisons are so lenient it's basically a holiday camp.
In most cases the driver doesn't need to be rehabilitated, again which prisons are absolutely useless at anyway so the 2 reasons to send someone to prison are both useless and no deterrent at all.
A permanent driving ban and some kind of long community service that fits the crime, ie road awareness courses delivered to schools and colleges where they could possible educate kids near driving age about the serious dangers of driving, might be a better option.

The overall point I would like to make is a car is a very heavy piece of equipment, if something with a similar weight/danger to hurt was used in a factory, there would be all sorts of regulations you had to follow and the owner would be liable for corporate manslaughter.

Because legislation was drafted on a bygone age, we can give the thing to a 17 year old, and if something goes wrong, there aren't many legal repocussions relatively speaking.

Prison doesn't serve as a punishment, our prisons are so lenient it's basically a holiday camp.

What were you in for ?

I don't believe in ramping up prison numbers as an effective solution to society's ills but I totally agree that dangerous driving should be taken more seriously. I'd make it much harder to qualify to drive in the first place, and bring in mandatory licence renewals on an annual basis. These should include a psychological component - I witness so much entitled, aggressive behaviour from motorists that IMO should be incompatible with being in control of something that could kill so easily.

I also believe that as a society we should be aiming for far fewer cars on the roads from both environmental and safety perspectives. I do acknowledge that they're necessary for those with disabilities and to get around rural areas, and that public transport provision/cycling support need to be massively improved before we can expect people to abandon their cars.

Surprised to see this thread consensus, I thought MNers were way more protective of the entitlement to drive than this.

@tttigress

The overall point I would like to make is a car is a very heavy piece of equipment, if something with a similar weight/danger to hurt was used in a factory, there would be all sorts of regulations you had to follow and the owner would be liable for corporate manslaughter.

Because legislation was drafted on a bygone age, we can give the thing to a 17 year old, and if something goes wrong, there aren't many legal repocussions relatively speaking.

Factories are required to operate a safe working environment - just as drivers are required to ensure their vehicle is in safe working order and drive safely at all times - even when the MOT isn't due. But we have a ton of specific regulation and government infrastructure attached to driving vehicles on the road. Stringent licensing, which we have for driving, is not a legal requirement for factory machinery. Car owners are legally required to get third party checks on road worthiness (MOT). The law requires nothing remotely similar for factory machinery.

Corporate manslaughter is a far harder charge to prove and with no prison sentence. (In fact, it's a virtually pointless law, given how infrequently it's used and how ineffective it is).

@ProfessorSlocombe

People need to be careful what they wish for.

The Home Office carries our regular and discreet research in to public opinion and sentencing policy. And there is plenty of evidence that making penalties harsher has a limit beyond which juries simply won't convict.

If you start having life sentences for driving offences that result in death, you could see a tendency towards not guilty verdicts as juries are made to think "there but for the grace of god".

Also many drivers that end up killing are already banned - so clearly the system isn't working as it is. Which doesn't engender any confidence that upping the penalties is going to prevent deaths.

Juries are often not the best way to try cases.

@DdraigGoch

A common factor in many of the cases people have described above is where the offender was already banned from driving. That's where there needs to be a stronger deterrent. It's not unusual for magistrates to impose a further driving ban on someone caught driving DWD. Evidently they didn't care about the first ban so what will another one achieve? Five years for DWD would provide a proper deterrent.

I completely agree though that causing death by dangerous/careless driving or while disqualified should all be treated as seriously as manslaughter with a potential tariff of up to 14 years, currently only available in the case of the former. Maximum sentences should be used more readily, especially with cases such as this where there is indisputable evidence of negligence rather than it being a mere accident.

But it doesn't provide a deterrent.

America for instance 3 strikes rule states, people are serving life sentences where thier 3rd crime was stealing a cookie or a vhs tape.

Long sentences, death sentences even don't provide a deterrent, partly because people don't think they'll get caught.

@tttigress

The overall point I would like to make is a car is a very heavy piece of equipment, if something with a similar weight/danger to hurt was used in a factory, there would be all sorts of regulations you had to follow and the owner would be liable for corporate manslaughter.

Because legislation was drafted on a bygone age, we can give the thing to a 17 year old, and if something goes wrong, there aren't many legal repocussions relatively speaking.

And your big peice of machinery will be being used by the 16 year old apprentice at some point, probbaly with the vauge instruction "watch out if it starts doing that thing"

Juries are often not the best way to try cases.

But they are probably the best way to ensure a justice system

It's your choice. You can have ever single case rigidly overseen by experts, and tyranny creep in as always does.

Or you can risk the rare odd perverse result knowing that it's buying you - and your fellow citizen and families - some sort of protection from the most capricious of tyrants.

I know which I would want for me and mine.

But long sentences have been shown to have no effect on crime rates or recidivism.

Its only satisfying your "revenge". If the out xome of a 5 year prison sentence is the same as a 14 year one whats the point?

You've just wasted an extra 9 years

Please dont ever say that last sentence to someone who has lost someone to a dangerous/drunk/drug driver