This is sending the wrong message

[Chilly]

BBC NEWS | UK | Killer drivers could escape jail

So instead of focussing on better training and stricter drivings regs, we let "minor lapses in concentration" mean you can effectively get let off KILLING someone while at the wheel. Plenty of people I know still chat on their phone or do very stupid shit while driving like playing with DV cameras and turning around and completely ignoring the road for several seconds.

The exact opposite of this needed to be introduced. Give the bastards a month to read court transcripts of other convictions for similar offenses where people were killed then ship em off to prison to think about it for a couple of years!

With more cars on the road than ever and worse drivers on the road than ever (distractions are at an all time high in modern cars with the million and one buttons available to press) this is crazy.

 

[Opt1]

Mm I agree.

I think sometimes mistakes and accidents do just happen, but when its obvious they've been driving dangerously and not cared for the consequences the punishment needs to be there to deter people.

A lot of things like this is in the mind - a lot of the things people do seem small and don't matter, but they have big consequences.. and people tend to forget/ignore them.

 

[Will]

They introduced death by careless driving because juries would very rarely convict for death by dangerous driving. I guess this is what happens when you introduce something like this while jails are full.

 

[Tom]

I don't quite grasp the connection you're making Chilly between not going to prison and 'being let off'.

I would think that most people involved in a fatal incident, regardless of blame, would feel a deep sense of shame for the rest of their lives. Most pedestrian deaths on the road are the fault of the pedestrian.

The correct way to treat road safety is not with punishment, but with extra training and extra traffic police - and its cheaper than prison.

 

[MYstIC G]

Kill someone by being a prick (drink driving, on the phone, etc) = Prison
Kill someone by accident (say, they walk out and you cannot stop in time while doing the speed limit) = Lose license

What's so f'kn complicated?

 

[rynnor]

Kill someone by accident (say, they walk out and you cannot stop in time while doing the speed limit) = Lose license

In this case you wont get anything - if your not contributing to their death why would you be morally or legally in the wrong?

 

[rynnor]

The correct way to treat road safety is not with punishment, but with extra training and extra traffic police - and its cheaper than prison.

And it would even save lives - cracking down on un-licensed drivers and un-insured drivers would help a lot too - the roads are full of em...

 

[MYstIC G]

Mostly because it's reasonable to say that (despite not being able to control the universe) drivers should be aware enough to spot in advance that something could potentially happen. Perhaps my wording was too specific.

 

[Tom]

Kill someone by being a prick (drink driving, on the phone, etc) = Prison
Kill someone by accident (say, they walk out and you cannot stop in time while doing the speed limit) = Lose license

What's so f'kn complicated?

I'm glad you're not a magistrate or judge.

Drink driving is an absolute offence, however the context can change quite drastically. Consider the bloke who regularly drives home from the pub bladdered, and kills an entirely innocent party. I have no argument with prison for that. However what about the bloke who is 0.01mg over the limit, driving safely, and someone who runs out into his path is killed - would you have him go to prison also?

Its the standard of driving that is important, not the fact that a person has exceeded the drink drive limit. A prison sentence won't necessarily stop any accidents. Training and education will.

Oh and I'd quite like to see people punished for jaywalking.

 

[MYstIC G]

Yes I would. The whole thing with having laws is that you're drawing lines in the sand. If they're crossed and the punishments not applied they are worthless.

My personal opinion is that it should be illegal to operate any equipment (car, van, road digger, factory saw, etc) whilst under the influence of any substances that potentially impair judgement.

The law should be tuned to taking responsibility. If you get behind a wheel you are agreeing to be accountable.

Your point is fairly mute anyway as it's not like I said "life imprisonment" duration is something for the courts to decide.

 

[Mey]

Fact of the matter is he was still driving whilst under the influence, which whether you like it or not is an aggreviating factor to his sentence. Depanding on the specifics of the case I'd probably give him a jail sentence though it may be a suspended one.

You have to remeber whilst it's easy to come up with fantastic examples like the one's you use, in real life nothing is ever so black and white.

 

[DaGaffer]

Yes I would. The whole thing with having laws is that you're drawing lines in the sand. If they're crossed and the punishments not applied they are worthless.

No-one's saying someone shouldn't be convicted of the crime, but common sense suggests that punishment should fit the severity of the infringement. You're right that laws are "lines in the sand" but its how much someone goes over that line that should define the punishment, and that's the job of the magistrate or judge decide, and in a lot of cases prison wouldn't be the answer.

As for your view that motorists should always be able to anticipate that something could potentially happen; once again you're correct, but there are so many variables that can influence that. In UK law, the test is always what could be expected of "a reasonable man", which basically means the average punter. None of us can honestly say we drive in such a way that we can anticipate every eventuality all the time, and the law is designed to deal with that.

 

[MYstIC G]

No-one's saying someone shouldn't be convicted of the crime, but common sense suggests that punishment should fit the severity of the infringement. You're right that laws are "lines in the sand" but its how much someone goes over that line that should define the punishment, and that's the job of the magistrate or judge decide, and in a lot of cases prison wouldn't be the answer.

As for your view that motorists should always be able to anticipate that something could potentially happen; once again you're correct, but there are so many variables that can influence that. In UK law, the test is always what could be expected of "a reasonable man", which basically means the average punter. None of us can honestly say we drive in such a way that we can anticipate every eventuality all the time, and the law is designed to deal with that.

I agree entirely. However I still feel that the punishment should be stricter when the variables involved have been detrimentally affected by an individual. If someone has been drinking, it's of their own free will that they have chosen to adversely affect their ability to drive. The fact that there is a permissible limit is actually ridiculous in itself on the basis that a zero alcohol intake is the only way to be certain that you've not compromised your abilities.

 

[Chilly]

I guess I'm just angry because as someone pointed out earlier, this is driectly correlated to having full prisons and not enough money for appropriate rehabilitation (education).

But in general, driving standards need to be pushed much higher. I'd be happy to be forced to take another test to verfivy my ability to adhere to newer and tougher standards if it means safer roads for everyone and a higher investment in preventative measures taken against uninsured drivers or unlicenced drivers.

 

[MYstIC G]

higher investment in preventative measures taken against uninsured drivers or unlicensed drivers.

Definitely, driving without a licence/while banned or without insurance should carry a penalty of instant and irreversible confiscation of the vehicle (crush the fuckers cars) and bucket loads of community service, my personal preference would be for them to have to scrape dead foxes off the road without the benefit of a mask to hide the smell.

 

[Kryten]

I'm stuck in two minds over the whole thing.
One of the more annoying factors with a car hitting the pedestrian is that it's always the driver's fault. The pedestrian could be drunk, stoned, and just have jumped off the roof of a Land Rover at teh exact second you are passing and get killed - yet you'd still get locked up for it. That's wrong. Drivers quite rightly have to be aware all the time of their surroundings and take into account things that are likely to happen, spotting hazards all the time.
BUT, we're not psychics, we can't see into the future, we can't predict how many pints of Stella the staggering twat on the path has consumed. Nor can we stop where you are just in case something does happen. And to do all this whilst you're eagly watching your speedo just in case The Fuzz are around the corner with a radar gun. (but you shouldn't be going over the limit anyway!)

There's only so much control you can have over a 2 tonne lump of metal, after all.

That doesn't eliminate the fact that we've still got millions of utter, utter fuckwits more concerned with what's going on with their wife/mistress/boss on the mobile phone or changing the voice on their TomTom, or piddling around with the stereo.

Point is, it IS impossible to draw a line in these instances. Drivers should certainly be punished for lack of attention and general moronism. Should they be punished for pure accidents? Should they be punished because a component of their car fails? Should they be punished because someone else was a numpty?

No.

 

[GReaper]

How are these guidelines sending the wrong message?

If your driving is dangerous then fine, you deserve to be put in prison. For the minority of cases which aren't so obvious what do you do? Throw a remorseful person into prison as punishment for something which might not be directly his fault?

These are sentencing guidelines and requires the common sense of a magistrate. I'm sure someone who is genuinely careless or reckless will get what they deserve.