Safe Speed Forums

"Review of Road Traffic Offences involving Bad Driving A Consultation Paper"

Page:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/cons ... raffic.htm

Consultation document:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/Roadtraffic.pdf

It looks substantial and sensible, and I can well see the forces driving it, but the old assumption that careless driving can be deterred with penalties seems to feature quite strongly. This won't work except in those rare cases where carelessness is deliberate.

To be fair, I haven't finished reading it yet...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I didn't actually see much about the potential deterrent effects of higher sentences - it certainly doesn't make any claims about numbers of lives saved. The emphasis seems to be more on ensuring that justice is done, and seen to be done.

I would certainly agree (and have said this on this forum in the past) that the gulf between the two offences of "careless driving" and "causing death by dangerous driving" is too great.

However, I would be concerned that, if a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment was available for "causing death by careless driving", in some circumstances generally responsible people could end up being imprisoned for the consequences of very minor errors of judgment.

There's an interesting passage on risk (para 1.6):


(my emphasis)

_________________
"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

The biased thinking isin the linkage of safety and speed here. Why why why are they so locked into this mindset ?

I can think of many many occasions when ...... a driver complying with the speed limit could kill the child when a safer driver, exceeding the limit, could have stopped in time.

Happened to me many many times. Haven't killed or injured anyone in nearly a million miles. A large % of those miles have been at over the speed limit

We cannot have a situation where a family man goes out to commute to work in the morning, makes a small error of judgement, the consequence of which is very dire however, and is jailed for 5 years.

The problem is how to make the judgement that his offence does not merit the jail term when the deceased's family is crying on TV for "justice".

Deliberately dangerous action merits a considerable punishment not a stupid error like we have all made (mostly with no consequences). Bad things do happen in life. You can reduce risks by better training etc. but not eliminate errors totally.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

When will they start looking at the behaviour of pedestrians and suicyclists.
They are often the cause of an accident, the vehicle driver was the innocent bystander.
There was a dreadful incident last week, where a child broke away from the mother, ran into the road and was run over by a huge 4x4.
The emphasis was placed on the 4x4, not the child not being under control, the 4x4 could have been a Smart car or a 44ton truck, the type of vehicle was academic, it was the child that caused this accident, or should I say it was the mother not keeping the child under control.
I have the fullest sympathy for the parents of the child, but I also have the same sympathy for the vehicle driver, it was not their fault.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

I'd like to explore that idea that a forgivable "small error of judgement" could possibly result in a death. I've been trying to imagine suitable small errors of judgement, and I'm finding it hard. Are any of these "a small error of judgement":

* changing lane without checking a blind spot?
* pulling out without looking properly?
* falling asleep while driving?

Or are they seriously negligent driving? Enquiring minds want to know!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Perhaps there are very few minor errors, but there are lots of serious ones without any consequences as usually you need to be unlucky as well. And then there are the downright dangerous ones which are actually likely to cause a crash.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

An animal loving family man goes out in the morning to commute to work. A cat runs into the road and he instinctively swerves to avoid it. A driver coming the other way sees the sudden movement and also swerves but off the road into a tree and is killed. The cat runs off and there is no evidence it ever existed.

The error of judgement was in not running over the cat. Does this warrant 5 years? Who could prove that the commuter didn't fall asleep?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Of our six fatacs on the M6/A74 in Cumbria last year, (7 dead), THREE were pedestrian fatalities, all drunk, trying to cross the carriageway for whatever purpose. The numerous drivers who collided in one way or other with these people were interviewed, although none were ever seriously considered for prosecution. Two of the three first impacts were admitted to be from a speed over the limit.
The sentence, largely unjustified IMO is the mental anguish likely to be suffered by these drivers over numerous years to come.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

It could be argued that any error of judgment that results in a fatality could be regarded as "seriously negligent".

However, what we are discussing here are those actions that the courts would currently class as careless driving - falling below the standards expected of a competent, responsible driver, rather than dangerous driving - falling far below those standards. The debate is about sentencing, not the nature of the offence.

Although it isn't in the legal definition, I always tend to think that a "dangerous driving" charge requires there to be something deliberate or systematic about the bad driving - such as overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic, driving on the wrong side of the road, gross speeding in urban areas, aggressive tailgating etc.

We all make mistakes on the road. A "good" driver will make fewer mistakes, but he won't make none at all. Someone recently wrote in this forum "I drive a high mileage, I don't have any accidents," which struck me as being a dangerously complacent and self-deluding attitude. In the vast majority of cases, a mistake will have no adverse consequences, but very occasionally it will do.

In another thread we've been discussing "SMIDSY" accidents where a driver looked but failed to see an oncoming vehicle. Given a combination of poor light, restrictive road alignment, and mind distracted by work or family problems, this could all too easily happen. With the benefit of hindsight, someone could say "if only I'd looked more carefully", but the fact is that they didn't, but weren't in any sense being consciously negligent. Many years ago, I had a "near miss" in these circumstances with a young lad on a moped, who ended up coming off his bike, although I didn't hit him. Fortunately he wasn't hurt, but the consequences could all too easily have been more serious.

The proposed law doesn't make five years' imprisonment a mandatory sentence for causing death by careless driving, it merely makes it available to the courts. One would hope that sentences of imprisonment would only be used where the behaviour of the driver was obviously somewhat irresponsible or negligent, but not sufficiently bad as to justify a charge of dangerous driving. There will also inevitably be an element of "trading down" from the charge of "causing death by dangerous driving" if the CPS knows that a prison sentence is available for the lesser offence - which is one to which it would be difficult to mount a successful defence given that a fatality had occurred and the driver was to some degree at fault.

But there is a concern that genuine, innocent one-off errors such as the kind I described above will lead to prison, which strikes me as being unjust. We should also bear in mind that any responsible person at fault in a fatal accident will have it on their conscience for the rest of their lives.

If something is not done deliberately, and is a genuine one-off rather than part of a pattern of behaviour, a prison sentence will not serve three of the four reasons normally used to justify it - deterrence, protection of society and rehabilitation. Nor is it in any meaningful sense punishment, as you can only punish someone for something they had a choice about doing. All it does is to satisfy a rather primitive desire for retribution on the part of society - someone has died, therefore someone else must suffer.

_________________
"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

From my knowledge of case law, the first two have been held to be small errors of judgement while the last is generally held to be dangerous driving - the research shows that you don't instantly fall asleep, you are aware of your tiredness and thus should know that you should stop - ergo falling asleep is far below the required standard.

As for the whole question of prosecuting careless drivers with the potential for imprisonment, I fail to see the logic in making it an imprisonable offence for these minor temprorary failings in the standard. The problem is that there is such a huge gulf between what is considered careless and what actual is sufficient for a successful conviction for Death by Dangerous. In short, somebody in government has realised that there is an (unwritten) offence of driving not quite dangerously enough to be dangerous but still kills somebody. Ergo, we need to increase the maximum penalty for careless driving, particularly where someone has been killed.

Here's a real-life example - I had a case involving a disqualified driver, who had never taken or passed his test. He went through a ped crossing at 42 mph taking out and killing an elderly gent on his mobility buggy. He then decamped from the scene. Now, 42 mph falls nicely into the not quite dangerous enough for dangerous given such things as the speed of the buggy, lines of vision, reaction times etc. However, the driver had a long history of driving while disqualified and was truly a menace to society. The stipendiary magistrate threw the book as far as she was able - resulting in a few months inside for FTS, FTR etc. Surely in cases such as this a longish custodial sentence would be appropriate.

We do need to keep a sense of perspective - theft carries a maximum penalty of ten years, yet you rarely see such sentences given out. I'm sure the judiciary (who have significantly more common sense than the CPS) will be capable of moderating sentences taking into account all the factors.

Quite how they deal with the baying families of the deceased will be interesting to see. (Most families don't want to bother with a trial - just give them the defendent, a length of rope and the nearest tree)

It was suggested by someone from RoadPeace that all these "causing death" offences should be replaced by a single offence of "Vehicular Manslaughter" which would carry (as with normal Manslaughter) a maximum life sentence. However, the actual sentencing would be at the discretion of the judges.

In practice, a life sentence for normal Manslaughter is very rare, and people often receive suspended sentences, depending on the circumstances of the case.

I'm not saying I agree with this (indeed I am very reluctant to agree with anything from RoadPeace), but it's an interesting proposal.

There are some cases, such as that of Peter Noble - the disqualified driver who had drunk thirteen pints, killed seven people in a head-on collision, and tried to claim one of the dead people in his vehicle had been driving - where a life sentence might well seem justified.

_________________
"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

Manslaugher is, and will remain, an option in any case. It's not unknown for it to get a result either - I had a case at the Old Bailey in 1997. (Google A316 & road-rage for the details). I don't see why we need to juggle with the existing offences themselves, merely the sentencing guidelines.

I have strong doubts that this sort of case meets the definition of careless driving. If it doesn't then we haven't moved forward with this example.

I would point out that my question is a bit theoretical - a devil's advocate question if you like.

Unlike others, I don't have a strong opinion about the proposed "causing death by careless driving" offence. By asking the question, I'm trying to firm up my own opinion.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

No. You can only say the consequences are serious. Numerous examples can be found of a minor error of judgment that has serious (including fatal) consequences. To separate "minor error" from "serious error" by reference to the consequences, I'd say you have to examine the foreseeability of the consequences.

The following were given in the "Times" today as examples of the two types of offences:

Causing death by careless driving

• Trying to overtake on hill, killing oncoming motorist. Probable sentence: five years’ jail
• Pulling out of junction in front of motorcycle or other vehicle, killing rider or driver
• Falling asleep at wheel and crashing, killing people in another vehicle
• Speeding motorist losing control of vehicle and crashing into another car, killing occupants
• Driver talking on a mobile phone, fatally injuring a pedestrian

Causing death by dangerous driving

• Man drives on wrong side of road, hits a car and kills occupants
• Youth races another driver along city street, hits pedestrian who dies
• Angry motorist objects to criticism, makes a high-risk three-point turn and hits a buggy, leading to child’s death
• Motorist drives at 50mph in a 30mph area, loses control, hits another car, killing child
• Disqualified driver steals car, jumps red light, hits another car killing a child

_________________
"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

:? And if a qualified driver jumps the lights in a stolen car and kills someone?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

To date, the threat of being properly punished for careless driving has carried very little weight. Perhaps, just perhaps, the threat of a very real punishment being handed out for the very real misery road deaths cause might begin to serve as a deterrent.
I fully accept that tough and sad cases make bad law. But, I also feel that it is high time people got it through their thick skulls that using their mobile phone, crass overtaking, lack of attention/observation at junctions etc etc is serious, can lead to someones death and would be punished accordingly if they commited such an offence.
I can see that there is some understandable concern that a small mistake could lead to jail for some unfortunate - the scenario builders have been busy dreaming up situations which may result in a driver winding up in court for such an act. However, there is already a tolerance built into the system to accomdate this - the fact that such cases are heard before a jury who, to date, have demonstrated a definite reluctance to come down like a ton of bricks on errant drivers. So why should that attitude change just because the law chages?
And this, finally, is the ultimate irony. At the lower end of the 'offence' scale the authorities seem determined to chuck fines and bans at all and sundry, all in the name of Road Safety. Yet when the more serious offences wind up in court, the public's collective acceptance of bad, mistake prone, inattentive etc driving becomes apparent. And it's this, that IMHO, we have to cut through if inroads are to be made in the overall standard of driving in the UK. And jumping up and down hysterically, as the media recently did over perceived police over-reaction, when someone lands themselves in court for eating/holding/whatever an apple whilst driving, doesn't help in the slightest.

I think we'll find the problem in your suggestions / position if we define and charcterise "careless driving". Here's my version:

Careless driving is a metal error - a driver fails to pay attention, fails to observe properly or fails to respond to a hazard.

I appreciate that we're getting a lot of messages about holding apples, kitkats and drinks, but NONE of these are careless driving UNLESS a driver's attention is undermined.

Since no-one INTENDS to make a mental error while driving, I don't believe that the proposed offences have a realistic deterrent effect.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

But careless driving isn't just about making cognitive errors is it? It is about cutting margins too fine - perhaps through years of getting away with it. Its about taking risks and ignoring clear instructions, e.g. do not use a handheld mobile phone whilst driving.
I accept that the threat of a more severe penalty is unlikely to deter some folks, but I'll wager it will make others think twice. Which is good.