Safe Speed Forums

This on Sky News today

DRIVING LAWS TOO LENIENT

Dangerous drivers who kill others should be treated as if they had committed manslaughter, MPs have urged.

A parliamentary committee has called for a "radical and urgent" overhaul to laws to make roads safer.


They want punishments for deadly drivers brought into line with those guilty of manslaughter or serious attacks.

The House of Commons Transport Committee said plans to tackle road dangers were useless unless backed up by new laws.

The report said: "The best manifesto in the world will not produce results unless individual forces and individual police officers take road deaths and injuries as seriously as they take cases of manslaughter or grievous bodily harm.

"From the evidence we received, it is clear that in many cases they do not."

Around 10 people die each day on Britain's roads.

The MPs added: "Where death or injury is involved, it appears that police and prosecutors take a more lenient view of drivers' behaviour than does the general public."

They also said the reduction on the number of breath tests carried out by police was "extremely disturbing".

And the MPs encouraged the Government to stand up to the motoring lobby which "bullied" ministers into "dropping effective but controversial policies".

I have mixed feelings about this.

What do they mean by 'dangerous'? I presume they are referring to that small group of people who routinely drive aggresively and push their (and other peoples) luck on regualr occaisions. But what about the plain incompetent - the 'Driving School Maureens' - of this world who find themselves driving the wrong way up a Motorway or dual carriageway?

Secondly, what is going to be done to remind drivers of the possible consequences of their actions if anything? If we are to take this course of action then I feel it is vital that the message is promulgated (by TV comercials etc) in the strongest possible way leaving people in no doubt as to the legal consequences they face if they decide to commit an act of gross stupidity whilst behind the wheel of a car.

Which leads me on to my third point, proving someone did make a concious decision to commit to, say, a dangerous manouevre and didn't make a horrendous error of judgement. But perhaps the latter are to be included as well, if so then we all face the nightmare scenario of being convicted for manslaughter for commiting a human error.

And finally, what controversial policies were dropped? Were they any more controversial than ones that have been enacted?

That is exactly what manslaughter is - taking the life of another by one's own erroneous and unpremeditated action. What have I missed?

I did sign mahali's petition regarding his/her petition for really dangerous drivers serving proper sentences.

But mahali's(and the Sawyer family's ) tragic loss were down to scrote in throwaway car hitting and running. In the Sawyer case 0 the driver had history of bans and DWD, and almost certainly the catalyst driver in the sequence of events which led to the loss mahali's 12 year old daughter had something to hide and as far as am aware - not been caught either.

One would hope that this course of action is aimed at the types involved in hit and runs, DWD and history of seriously dangerous driving - as opposed to the majority for whom set of unfortunate circumstances leads to tragic outcome. Because by that token - parents of toddler who happens to swallow a safety pin, or chokes to death on boiled sweet or has unsuspected allergy to coconut oil and dies after inhaling the perfume in her mother's newly washed hair after use of said product - could face similar charges.

As you say Riggers - information adverts on good road safety practice for all are required - in fact - we need adverts promoting basic common sense in general

A bit OT, but in a shop today I heard the assistant, who I know slightly, telling a friend of hers that '.. she's doing OK. They had to take the nymph gland out of her right arm, so she can hardly lift it now. She can't play her keyboard, but she still drives her car. She sort of hangs her hand on it like this'- (Mimics claw hanging from steering wheel!) After the other woman left, I asked the assistant if her sister had had the car converted. Her answer? 'No, but it's alright, she only goes out when her husband's with her!' Dangerous or what?

I left, muttering somethig about stupidity....

Sorry - can't resist this. I think you mean her lymph gland. Wives' nymph glands, hpefully, are elsewhere

You are right of course and haven't missed anything. The thing is, driving a motor vehicle is an activity that is perhaps unique in that it places in the hands of the ordinary citizen a device which has plenty of potential to kill a fellow human being through the commiting of a small yet disastrous error. I cannnot think of any other individual item of every day equipment or related activity that has such a potential.
Perhaps for this reason alone society has shied away from treating deaths caused by the driving of motor vehicles in the same way as, say, those caused by knives, clubs or other similar weapons. We can all, and that includes those sitting on juries when road death cases get to court, relate to the actions of a driver who has pulled out of a junction having failed to see another vehicle/bicycle etc and think to ourselves - there but for the grace of god go I. However most of us can't relate to a drunk in a pub who hits someone with a chair and kills them without meaning to, it's not a situation most of us will envisage ourselves getting into and therefore we have little sympathy for someone who perpetrates such an act.
If the threat of a manslaughter charge would make those who have a tendency to allow their impatience to force them into commiting a serious act of dangerous driving, to think twice then all well and good. If however that kindly Mrs Jones from across the street ends up being jailed for an error of judgement then perhaps we would all fear for our liberty....

As well as people who drive for a living, many of us actually operate equipment (or, arguably of more importance, maintain equipment or manage operators or maintenance staff of equipment) that has the same, or a greater potential to kill or maim. Gas fitters, furnace operators, glass workers.. I could go on. However, I do take your point that such people choose to work in an industry with these risks known, whereas people who choose a less risk-intense lifestyle will still likely have the risk of the drive to and from one's place of work.

I guess it once again boils down to the fact that driving on the public highway is a privilege, but not a right, although the ease with which one can pass one's driving test and acquire a licence does not convey this.

Around 3500 people die from passive smoking and 4000 die from MRSI in Hospital. Not to mention the 40,000 direct smoking related deaths each year.

One is 100% caused by man
the other is 100% preventable

Can't remember anyone being sent to jail for these deaths....

More people speed than smoke. Yet less people die. So speeding is safer

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I'm broadly in favour of this, provided it is aimed entirely at people who deliberately drive dangerously and not the victims of genuine accidents.

The Commons Transport Select Committee - chaired by Gwyneth Dunwoody calls for police to treat road deaths and serious injuries as seriously as manslaughter or GBH. It also rejects the prpoposals to reduce penalties for speeding (Surprised?)

Ms Dunwoody is calling for the charge of "careless driving" to be replaced by "causing death or serious injury by negligent driving - and this would give the courts a wider choice of options regarding sentences.

She also wants the police to make charge drivers with perverting the course of justice in addition to the failure to report charge - which we already have under s170 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988.

Now in the present - sentences take account of the accidental nature of the death - which is - in my opinion - the correct way of dealing with most cases.

We have a lot of provisions already - and the accidental v manslaughter are covered thus under present system.

Personally - I think it is adequate - the problem is down to the actual sentencing provision and political correctness on the part of judiciary once a guilty verdict has been returned.

Under s3 of the RTA Act of 1988 - we can bring a charge of driving without due consideration.

To make this stick - we have to prove the accused has fallen below the standard of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in the cirumstances and to have done so without due consideration for others. We would also have to prove that another road user was inconvenienced as well - such as forcing them to swerve, brake, move over. Basingwerk - this also applies to you over the tailgating post

If I see you flashing your lights to force someone to move out of your way (and car does not have BiB, complete with blue lights and whoo- whoos) - I can do you!

Misuse of lane, unnecessarily hogging an overtaking lane, braking without good cause (ie to teach a tailgater a lesson), driving unnecessarily slowly like 10 mph below the posted limit - I can have you - and in the light of a thread on the PH site (as reported to me by the Mad Cats) - driving through a puddle and splashing any person - though it helps if you are a BiB

Dangerous driving )S2 of above Act) - driving falls far -far- far below that expected of a comptent driver - repeated disregard of traffic rules, deliberate disregard of traffic rules and signs, racing, inappropriate speed for the prevailing road and conditions, aggressive and intimidating driving style - sudden lane changes, cutting up, tailgating, disregard of traffic lights, forcing a BiB to jump out of the way, anything which is not a monemtary blip, and a disproprtionate load.

Causing death whilst under the influence = undue care, driving has to have caused the death or injury of another and illegal substance has to be proven to have impaired the driver's skill and control. Also the driver's driving must have been found to be a cause of the death - but not necessarily the sole cause of the death or injury

Similarly to get a charge of "causing death by dangerous driving" - element of above must be proven and again the dangerous driving must have been a contributory factor in the death. That is why we chould charge the driver who caused the sequence of events which led to mahali's child being killed with causin death by dangerous driving.

manslaughter - contrary to common law

There we have the very fine line....

Manslaughter is committed when the driver, in breach of a duty of care, is criminally negligent as opposed to accidentally negligent and causes a death.

The offence at present is only triable on indictment. To charge driver with manslaughter under current legislation - CPS and ourselves (BiB) must be able to prove that driver has

1. been disqualified for two years or have 3-11 points on licence

2. Driver must be shown to have been in breach of a duty of care towards the person who died. (This is where there is a very grey area and why we go for lesser charges - burden of proof has to be greater because mandatory sentence is heavier than dangerous driving.)

3. CPS and BiB would have to prove that the accused imperilled the lives of others by

* driving in manner which fell extremely far below the accepted standard
involved a significant risk of death as opposed to accidental risk which is norm each time we drive....

* driving in such an appalling way in all circumstances that the driving would constitute a crime in the opinion of the jury (R v Adomako 1994 - case which set precedent)

* if the vehicle has been used as means to initmidate, deliberately as instrument of attack.

We would very rarely bring a charge of manslaughter because we have so many others as listed above.

In the case of hit and run in a throwaway, recidivist bad driver, unlicenced, untaxed, uninsured who runs .....then - yes - sentences and charges should reflect the seriousness of the offence - and be higher But this assumes we manage to catch them....

Fixed Speed cams not very good at that ... which is why a policy of over reliance (as occurring elsewhere) does not work that well....

If you fail to train your staff - charges of corporate manslaughter on grounds of vicarious liablity.

But there all these other workers do not take the hump at sugestion of refresher courses - nor even job at paying for these courses.

But mention further training in driving ... and - you have dared criticise.

It is noticeable if we are cautioning for drunk/disorderly or any other crime....we do not get as much indignation as we do when a driver is pulled up for whatever reason....

Is it because we know we can kill if we are careless and this is a defence mechanism of some kind?

Any psychologists out there?

]quote="Roger"]
I guess it once again boils down to the fact that driving on the public highway is a privilege, but not a right, although the ease with which one can pass one's driving test and acquire a licence does not convey this.[/quote]

We have said this time and time again - me, the Mad Doc, his wife, our host - Paulie, Riggers, Gatsobait, JT, CarlP, ....

Tighten up the driving test, have periodic tests - graded preferably .with incentives to improve......

Driver pays for his learning and higher qualifications - just as he does for his education for his career (or parents pay to keep the little muppets out of too much debt - yeah ... have one gap year back packing and one at Uni .... nightmare .... )

The offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and effectively is the equivalent of a manslaughter charge.

The concern about introducing a new offence of "causing death or serious injury by negligent driving" is that people will end up being imprisoned when all they have done is made an isolated error of judgment, rather than behaving in a manner that was in any way obviously reckless.

It's more about retribution than justice.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

what if it was not your fault but you were driving the car.

Even the hard-of-thinking sould be able to work out how this could happen.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

If it was not your fault, it was not manslaughter, but either an accidental death, death by misadventure or manslaughter by another. You're right - this happens often. It will happen more often if the 20mph is enforced too by people playing chicken.

Too right..but there are some who would like to blame the driver regardless of the cause.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

In a traumatic situation, particularly one involving the death of a loved one or a child, the aggrieved naturally looks for a reason. When the reason is too close to home, a scapegoat is sought. This is not a deliberate thing, just a natural psychological defence to going insane in a very difficult situation.

One has to rely on the judicial system to make the right call in such a situation. And it will for the most part. After all, we're not talking fines to fule scameras here, but a true inquest into the cause of someone's death.

How many drivers have been blamed because the a parent has been neglegent in not supervising their children properly. Its NEVER their fault is it.

What about the blind drunk pedestrian staggering down middle of the road (and we have all seen them).

We can only do so much to stop other people being victims of their own stupidity.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

In Gear wrote in his post:
quote
Ms Dunwoody is calling for the charge of "careless driving" to be replaced by "causing death or serious injury by negligent driving. end quote.

Fine, wonderful, would someone tell me when Ms Dunwoody passed her driving test, and being a non driver, what the hell makes her so knowledgable and qualified to talk about driving topics.
Or has she read the Highway code twice, mind you, that would be more than some drivers.

As for people just walking out in front of you, I had this happen to me today.
Mother and child crossing the road ahead(stood in the middle of the road), within 100 yards of a formal crossing point, for some reason, mother lets go of child, child then half runs in front of me, fortunately, I was sort of expecting this to happen, so was able to come to a rapid stop about 5 yards short of the child, mother grabs hold of child, drags him off the road and gives his backside a good slap, for her mistake.

Good thing I'm not a boy racer, I surely would have got the kid.

When will pedestrians learn, there are proper crossing point put there purely for them to be able to stop the traffic, just so they can cross safely, and that they will never win an argument with a motor vehicle

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

{snip} They had to take the nymph gland out of her right arm...{snip}

No, that's what she said!

In Gear

You appear to be suggesting that this proposal amounts to little more than a change of name for an existing offence. Ultimately, if intent cannot be proven then the outcome will remain pretty much the same as it is now. Is this right or are they really planning to hammer drivers for this?