Safe Speed Forums

Just heard this on radio Two's 2 am News bulletin.

The government are considering introducing a new offence:

"Causing Death By Driving Whilst Disqualified or Unlicenced"

Apparently, there are problems with the "Causing Death By Dangerous Driving" charge - as there is the accidental aspect - and it seems that many of these deaths are actually caused by banned and unlicenced drivers. The sentence for this has been increased to 14 years - but courts do not always give maximum sentences. Also, there is recognition that there is a little more "deliberation" in driving a car whilst unlicenced.

Thus, they are considering introducing this new offence which will carry a much stiffer sentence. They did not say how long in the brief bulletin.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 33,00.html

More drivers face jail
By Richard Ford

PROPOSALS for new offences to tackle deaths on the road that will result in more motorists who kill going to jail will be published today.

Ministers will unveil new offences of causing death by careless driving and causing death when driving while disqualified or without a licence.

Both offences will carry substantial jail terms and are intended to meet public anger that too many motorists who kill escape jail and receive punishments that do not reflect the seriousness of the crime.

The Government is already planning to increase the penalties for dangerous driving and the aggravated taking of a vehicle from two to five years.

At the moment, if a motorist who kills is not charged with causing death by dangerous driving, he or she may be charged with careless driving, which carries a maximum pen- alty of £2,500, or causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.

Figures show that 3,500 people a year are killed on the roads. Road safety groups claim that too often cases are treated as accidents rather than as the result of criminal behaviour.

===========================================

What's next, I wonder - causing death while having a blown tail light?

The current law is in my view entirely adequate to prosecute people who have caused death while driving in a dangerous manner.

All this change will do is lock people up for making an honest mistake. That, of course, won't deter people from making mistakes in future.

_________________
"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 idea of having an offence of causing death while driving unlicenced interests me. But wouldn't such an action meet the definition of manslaughter?

I do hear about far to many road deaths involving unlicenced or disqualified drivers. These are difficult to address - and we hear about folk who come of out of clink and soon cause a big crash despite disqualification. How on earth do we address these - except perhaps by keeping them in prison for longer?

I also find the following arguments fairly persuasive:

* There's presently too big a gap between careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving.

* Families of victims of negligent driving deserve a sense of justice.

But we do have to draw a careful balance between "an honest mistake" and a "sense of justice". Sometimes victim's families seem to believe that it has to have been a big mistake to cause a death, but that's simply not true.

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

I don't understand the need for this new law. Surely it's about asking the courts to issue tougher punishments for unlicensed/banned drivers.

secondly how many drivers think they are still allowed to ride a 125cc motorcycle with L plates (for many it says so on their licence). Yet they would be classed as unlicenced.

How many learners forget to renew their CBT after 2 years? Again unlicensed.

How many motorclists with A (2) licenses don't get their bikes properly restricted.

There is a big difference between these folk and those who've never taken their test or deliberately drove while disqualified.

Lastly lets assume a drunken pedestrian stepped off the road in front of an unlicenced driver and was killed. I'd want to a level of proof that the death would have been different for a legal driver? At the end of the day the driver has committed the offence of driving without a licence. For that he should be punished. But to link it automatically to a death is wrong.

My views on the proposed new law - “Causing death by careless driving (max. penalty 5 years)”

I am surprised that our ruling elite could stoop to this level, particularly when we are told that truly nasty people such as burglars, muggers etc. are better helped by employing non-custodial sentences. Imprisoning “careless drivers” is just pandering to the understandable anger of the bereaved, and to the larger number of ignorant people who don’t or can’t think these things through.

I am sure that we have all seen the news reports over and over again. Something along the lines, “Little Johnny, or little Janey, or whoever, was killed by a motor car and the evil, wicked motorist was only fined £60. The distraught parents call for custodial sentences. etc. etc.” Was the motorist homicidal, careless or innocent? We rarely, if ever find out.

It should come as no surprise that our politicians, who are probably clever enough to understand what is and isn’t justice, are only too happy to look for votes by pandering to this ignorance.

I would suggest that justice calls for a person to be punished in proportion to the wickedness or evil intent of his or her crime. Inadvertent or accidental consequences should play little part in the punishment allotted.

Let me give a personal example. 35 years ago I committed the crime of, “Careless driving”. Like the vast majority, if not all other motorists, I’ve committed this crime on other occasions since, but the instance that I am about to describe has always stuck in my memory.

Mini-skirts had just achieved fashionable status in Malvern, Worcestershire, and I was a newly qualified 19 year old male motorist who was distracted by a young lady wearing one of these skirts. I lost control my car and mounted the curb, but I was lucky and didn’t hit anything. I managed to get back on the road, and was in full control of my car about 50 metres later.

So, what punishment did I deserve for my heinous crime of careless driving? At the time, if I had been caught it would have attracted perhaps a £20 fine. Even this punishment, which I would have happily accepted, would have been fairly pointless. What had far more affect on me as a result of this incident was my extreme annoyance with myself and the lesson learned which has remained with me ever since.

What if, during my brief time on the pavement, I’d ploughed into a young mother and her two children and killed them all. Believe me, I’ve often considered this nightmare scenario, and the possibility that this could have happened reinforced my “lesson learned”.

Fast forward to today. What possible justification could there be for someone guilty of my offence receiving a punishment of a £20 fine, or 5 years in prison, where the actual punishment given depended on an outcome totally unforeseen and totally beyond the control of the offender. One might justifiably claim that any fatal outcome, whilst unforeseen was foreseeable. Well if this is the case then true justice would only be served if everybody guilty of careless driving was given 5 years in prison.

Careless drivers are guilty of careless driving. Nothing more and nothing less, and should be punished accordingly.

Hi Johnny44. Pretty much agree with all that, apart from this very last bit. One of the problems in the current system AIUI is that in practice a driver who was driving dangerously might be charged with careless driving when a conviction on the more serious dangerous driving charge looks shaky. I think this is one of the things that brings the system into some disrepute and gets the Helen Lovejoys going (altogether now... won't someone please think of the children ).

Thing is, I really do sympathise with them when someone obviously driving like a loon gets off with a slap on the wrist, and I suppose this is why the government is constantly having to tinker with the range of charges available. Why they don't simply issue the courts with better sentencing guidelines is beyond me. Like you I feel that examples of careless driving should be prosecuted as such, and dangerous drivers likewise. Where deaths or injuries are involved that can always be considered when sentencing, and since each incident is more or less unique that's probably a better way to deal with it than to try and cover crashes involving deaths with a seperate charge or two.

As for this latest idea of a charge of causing death while driving unlicensed or disqualified... . Am I missing something here? Why aren't they simply adding a seperate charge of driving while disqualified to the dangerous driving (or whatever) charge(s)? Surely it can't take up that much extra court time and police paperwork to wallop Charley Chav with two charges instead of just one.

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

I think the problem here is that there isn't the evidence for a charge of dangerous driving, and so Charley Chav gets off with "careless driving" and a fine despite having been driving a nicked car and never had a licence in his life.

_________________
"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

That's exactly my point. Like I said, in reality a driver may have been driving dangerously, but if plod/CPS don't think they've got better than a 50:50 chance of making that charge stick they'll go for careless driving instead. Which does tend to make headlines and upset the public, and I have some sympathy with that. But to be honest I think it's more the weak sentencing that causes the red-top righteous outrage rather than the actual charges brought in court, and that can be addressed by looking at sentencing guidelines.

BTW I was just using dangerous driving for Charley Chav as an example - it could easily have been careless driving and it wouldn't matter. That was a slightly seperate point specifically about the plans to bring in a new offence about causing death while being unlicensed or disqualified. I'm saying a new offence is unnecessary when you can add a driving while disqualifed charge to dangerous driving, careless driving, causing death while unfit through drink etc. They've got six different disqualification and license offences, any one of which can be added to the main charge, and all of which are absolute offences (with the possible exception of LC40 - Driving a vehicle having failed to notify a disability, but probably not. Depends on definitions I expect). So, nice and easy to prove.

So... why do TPTB want to create a new offence? I just don't see the point.

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