Safe Speed Forums

Threat of jail could see drivers blame employers

New, tougher offences allowing the courts to imprison drivers who cause death by careless driving could lead motorists caught up in such incidents to blame their employer, a leading barrister has warned.

Under new Road Safety Act laws, which came into force on 18 August, drivers who kill while distracted by carrying out an avoidable activity at the wheel could face up to five years in prison.

Activities described as avoidable distractions include: calling or texting on a mobile phone; drinking and eating; and applying make-up. Previously, the maximum sentence for those convicted of causing death by careless driving was a £5000 fine and licence penalty points.

The threat of a long prison sentence could now tempt motorists charged with such an offence to deflect responsibility on to another party – and their employer, warns barrister Kevin McLoughlin, could be the first one they blame.

He told SHP: “Blaming their employer for causing them to hurry, make business-related phone calls, or drive when tired may all figure in future cases. Prudent employers should review their driving policies to ensure they contain clear statements of principle. ‘You must never contravene the Highway Code when driving in the course of business’ might be a decent starting point.”

ACPO spokesperson on roads policing, Mick Giannasi, said: “The introduction of this legislation will hit home the message that driving is a hazardous activity that requires total concentration.”

But Nigel Humphries, of the Association of British Drivers, said the offences were discriminatory against drivers and that the country had “moved from a system of justice to a system of knee-jerk reaction”. He said employers need to improve their driver training schemes, and that there is a need for compulsory post-test training for drivers, as making the driving test harder has little bearing on safety.

The new laws will also carry custodial sentences of up to two years for causing death by driving while uninsured, disqualified, or unlicensed.

http://www.shponline.co.uk/article.asp?pagename=news&article_id=7897

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

So far there hasn't been much publicity about the fact that the new law of causing death while uninsured or unlicensed does not require any proof of poor driving to secure a conviction.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I did cover this ina thread in which I asked folk to consider how far these laws constitute justice or feed a desire for revenge.

I did pass comment on the fact that deliberately choosing to drive whilst not qualified or insured to do so only carries 2 years .. whilst the avoidable crime of killing whilst texting etc carries a harsher sentence. I do not understand this. To my mind.. choosing to drive if unfit.. disqualified .. unlicenced.. and thus uninsured. is more DELIBERATE of malice intended.. especially when this type refuse to stop for the police and then manage to smear the police with their sick-inducing slime.

_________________
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.

I watched a girl driving along the other day, talking on a mobile phone and changing gear with her free hand, she was wobbling all over the road and braking sharply when she managed to turn her concentration to what was in front of her.

Damn straight if she killed somebody whilst behaving like that I'd want her to serve a stretch.

Personally I wouldn't mind a stretch even if she was just arrested for driving like that and didn't hit anybody, a terrible desertion of responsibility in a potentially lethal situation (i.e. driving a car).

Weepy.. posted something from Bolton press in "News" Similar offence. PCOJ case. No licence. No insurance. Suspended sentences.

It's a discussion . how the hell do we educate the idiots away and back to common sense of pre-phones.

Phones? I don't like them and have never been a slave to one anyway.

_________________
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.

Another potential unintended consequence I have thought of...

Let's say for whatever reason you've hit someone. Maybe they're elderly, or "vulnerable".
If you don't stop then chances are nobody will know who you are.
Do you stop to help them and risk 5 years in prison?


So driving dangerously then? Gosh, if only there were a law to cover that.

_________________
Andrew.

I also posted up a discussiion in which I pondered how far the new laws would "work" ..given we have already provided for the avoidable stupid act.


I do not condone anything which rejoices in revenge. Revenge is not justice.. nor does it heal wounds.


I do know from my own and my wife's experiences. I have already emptied my soul in public on this.

Revenge feeds anger. It does not soothe or heal. Understanding.. and coming to terms do heal when we are dealing with the honest .. but momentarily careless or even stupid.

I do not extend such "understanding" to the thug who knowingly flouts the law.. fails to stop for the police.. and does everything illegal and dangerous to others . and this includes the child who died last October after some alleged fracas in a bowling alley.. and the drunk jay walker on the M61.. to avoid being fined a pittance in reality This type kills and we all pay... to much.

Like my wife.. I do not condone daft, and deliberate, stupidity ..the actions which a normal person just will not DO! A real error.. a real human error. which we can all do,. so easily,., oh .. we identify with and understand..

I want policemen. to stop this type. I am not asking for the moon. I am not being unreasonable nor illegal nor saying I want to drive at whatever speed "satisfies my male ego". I have a very nice wife who caters quite sassily and happily for my human needs... and we have proof in "marital produce here"!

No one on this site condones sheer stupidity,. We can understand .. and even discuss errors with a view to helping folk improve on skills.

We all want to improve standards. I give Paul Smith the credit. His legacy and what he wanted to achieve.. was . improvd road user skills.., responsibility and a constant need to learn from any error or perceieved error ..

His legacy. LIVE UP TO IT GUYS.!

_________________
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.

Hard to prove.

I'm all for using mobile phone = driving dangerously full stop.

and using one whilst cycling - reckless cycling ..


Do not misinterpret .. I am no fan of mobile phones.. but I do not see why one type of traffic should be exempt when there exists an obvious danger. and cyclists are NOT ABOVE LAWS .. and I would wish them to beheld to equal account when they kill .. and we now have FIVE cases of cyclists KILLING pedestrians in the last 12 months.

Still like to claim "holier than thou"? .. but how the hell "learning difficulties" can be offered as an excuse given the gearing system of modern bicycles is not accepted by intelligent types who do not wear black lycra or hug trees for a living

_________________
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.

Trouble is, the gist of that argument is that just because *you* feel unable to walk and chew gum at the same time, nobody else should be allowed to do so!

*I* know that *I* am not able to cycle safely on the public highway! Therefore ALL cycling on the pubic highway should be made illegal!


(I am happy to cycle miles over rough ground but I have never been able to master hand signals and shoulder checks without falling over! Ho Humm! )

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

That way, we can get one step closer to driver's licenses being dispensed from CrackerJack boxes, like in the good ol' days.
I'm all for
if you are struck by a vehicle crossing a street while using your cellphone = crossing recklessly full stop. Driver accrues no penalty.

I wonder, which one makes less sense?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

The latter.

A pedestrian using a mobile phone isn't likely to kill somebody if they walk into them, a car driver is (cyclist less so).

I understand a mobile phone using ped stepping into the path of a cyclist is an intereting one, but then frankly the cyclist should be looking out for that sort of thing.

But that's the problem .. failing to apply COAST values... especially O for Observation and A for Anticipation

By the way .. weepej... we have now had 4 deaths to date in the UK within the past year.. all cyclists who have HIT a pedestrian. I call that a significant upswing .. a worrying one given the constant rise in cycling numbers .. which then brings us back to the increased likelihood of such accidents occuring through increased cycling traffic. Denser the traffic .. odds change dramatically. A similar problem is also developing as more and more take to mobility scooters too. - with calls to licence these scooters and motorised wheelchairs too. It will not take many more accidents with cyclists v cyclists and pedestirans for legislation to kick into cycling

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

The "avoidable distractions" must apply equally to all road users. Pedestrians on the phone and cyclists with iPods should all be in the net. These are things which distract or reduce observational awareness leading to potential death or injury.

Before someone says it will only be the iPod wearer who is injured, what about the driver that swerves into the path of another vehicle to avoid a pedestrian walking off the kerb in front of him?

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

For the benefit of anybody who may not be familiar with the different sentences available for driving offences.

Driving while disqualified carries a maximum sentence of 6 months custody.
driving without insurance carries a maximum sentence of a fine.
Driving while texting could be considered either as DWDC, in which case it carries a maximum sentence of a fine. Or as dangerous driving, in which case it carries a maximum sentence of 2 years custody.

Causing death by driving while disqualified, uninsured or unlicensed carries a maximum of 2 years custody. It is important to note that no error in driving standards has to be proved to secure a conviction for this offence.

causing death by careless driving carries a maximum sentence of 5 years custody. It is necessary to prove a driving standards offence to secure a conviction in these cases.

I can't speak in any official capacity for either parliament who made these new laws, or the Sentencing Guidelines Council who have set out the sentencing framework, but it seems to me that they have drawn a distinction between documentary offences and those where the driver failed to drive at the minimum acceptable standard.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Some years ago, during my working day..I left one location to meet my boss at another. I was late as I'd been delayed by the pressure of work. I reached the main road and turned right behind a 12 seater van just as my boss phoned me (mobile unit fitted) asking where I was 'cause he was waiting for me....

Trying to speak to him, and drive..under pressure. The Guy in the 12 seater slowed (no indication) me still talking and distracted, then the guy in front suddenly stopped dead! BEFORE putting on his indicators after he'd stopped to signal that he was turning right into a pub carpark to take his wife (or whoever) to lunch! He didn't drive correctly, I was being pressured, much of the fault was his.....but? I got the blame.

A victim of circumstance? Yes! Had he signalled before his intended turn....then it wouldn't have happened. But, as the law stands, if you run into the back of someone then you'd better have a good excuse.....AND be able to prove it.

I've now learned my lesson. These days if I'm driving for work.............Then I never break sweat no matter what. I'm NOT going to lose my licence for them. I'm a good boy I am.

You drove into the back of somebody and you don't think it was your fault?

Did your brakes fail?

Not always so clear cut. Person changes lane without indicating. Person in the other lane does not expect and hits the rear. Neither accept liability. IN the absence of witnesses - insurers will run a split liability which can result in loss of NCB if not "protected"


Then we have the scam. Now this one is a very real one. Of course if you are using COAST properly and keeping a decent margin - you can manage to avoid this type.

The clue. Old-ish car. Bought at auction and registered and insured third party. Fully laden.

You are in slow moving traffic. They use this scam in slow traffic for obvious reasons usually on approaches to roundabouts .. and T-junctions in residential "20 mph". Look out for the partner car which this old car is "tailgating slightly". This stops and he slams on emergency brake. The car in front of him accelerates away and their victim has now rear-ended a car. Cue all on board to have whiplash injuries at a low impact smash - because this is where the money is to be made and not in the repair to an old "heap"


But Draco's scenario.. is also all too frequent. Boss places untoward demands on the employee and it causes accidents out there as a result. One of the things we back BRAKE on absolutely is their call that employers who employ folk to drive for a living have a duty of care to those employees just as they do to office based desk jockeys and pen pushers They are using machinery which places their duties of care and "Health and Safety requirements" equal to those using heavy duty manufacturing machinery on a shop floor when all is said and done. I am sure Draco could have well done without his boss mithering him on the phone.. which is another reason why we dislike the mobile telephone and the lack of consideration and courtesy displayed t#when the thing rings. with its naff and mostly irritating ring tones I think this and the fact it rings louder if not answered add to a stressful pull to answer them. My answer? Switch them off

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

[quote="fishermanFor the benefit of anybody who may not be familiar with the different sentences available for driving offences.

Driving while disqualified carries a maximum sentence of 6 months custody.
driving without insurance carries a maximum sentence of a fine.
Driving while texting could be considered either as DWDC, in which case it carries a maximum sentence of a fine. Or as dangerous driving, in which case it carries a maximum sentence of 2 years custody.

Causing death by driving while disqualified, uninsured or unlicensed carries a maximum of 2 years custody. It is important to note that no error in driving standards has to be proved to secure a conviction for this offence.

causing death by careless driving carries a maximum sentence of 5 years custody. It is necessary to prove a driving standards offence to secure a conviction in these cases.

I can't speak in any official capacity for either parliament who made these new laws, or the Sentencing Guidelines Council who have set out the sentencing framework, but it seems to me that they have drawn a distinction between documentary offences and those where the driver failed to drive at the minimum acceptable standard.[/quote]

Unfortunatelyour benovolant government did not consider the crimes of "causin injuries etc whilst phoning /texting whilst cycling " or "causing an accident by misuse of a mobile phone whilst walking on the highway "--
Oh but then - that would need a camera (and some form of ID displayed on the person )

Sorry -Fisherman - being sarcastic - but then that;s now how car drivers are begining to feel

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Apart from themselves?
Yes, the driver and the cyclist should be looking out for the pedestrian.
However, there is something fundamentally wrong when pedestrians place the majority of their own safety outside themselves before even setting foot upon a crossing.

I suppose I stand against the wind; the current mode seems against the idea of holding people responsible for contributing to their own danger levels, and I will admit that pedestrians are unlikely to hurt others besides themselves.

Either way, the fact that some people can't drive and use a phone at the same time, in and of itself, is insufficient reason to force everyone else to limbo into stupidity under such a low bar. A few generations of that kind of social eugenics, and the IQ tests will probably reverse trend.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation