Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Apr 21, 2026 13:22

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 04:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15208065

BBC News wrote:
Dangerous driving - new injury offence plan
Image
Driving offences: Sometimes difficult to prosecute

Dangerous drivers could face longer jail terms under a proposal to go before Parliament.
A new crime of causing serious injury by dangerous driving will carry a maximum sentence of five years.
Most people jailed for dangerous driving receive sentences of less than two years.
The proposed new crime will be an amendment in the government's mammoth sentencing and rehabilitation bill.

Dangerous driving offences can be difficult to prosecute because it can be hard to prove that an injury was caused by a brief lapse in concentration.

Fill a legal gap
Last year, more than 3,000 drivers were convicted of dangerous driving and 154 of causing death by dangerous driving.
The proposed new offence has been designed to fill a gap between standard dangerous driving charges and the death offence.
The maximum jail term for dangerous driving is two years - while those who kill through their mistakes behind the wheel can face up to 14 years.
While the lower sentence is thought to cover most acts of dangerous driving, road safety campaigners have long argued that there needs to be tougher jail terms for drivers who cause life-changing serious injuries.

The proposed new offence will be trial-able at both magistrates and crown courts and drivers could also face an unlimited fine alongside a jail term.
Drivers in Scotland, which has its own legal system, will commit an offence where they cause "severe physical injury".

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said: "We have listened to the victims of dangerous drivers, their families, MPs, judges and road safety groups and their experiences have directly informed these changes.
"Making our roads safer is a priority - five people died on our roads each day last year, so we need to do everything we can to further improve safety."

Some 1,850 people died on British roads in 2010 and Ellen Brook of the Brake road safety campaign welcomed the new offence.
"As a charity that supports bereaved and seriously injured victims of road crashes, we repeatedly see victims' families being grossly let down by the justice system, which only adds to the terrible trauma they must endure.
"This new offence finally means that serious injury is recognised within the title of the offence, and this recognition is vitally important to victims and their families.

"It also means that dangerous drivers who inflict serious injuries can expect to see higher sentences to better reflect the terrible trauma and injuries they have caused."

The former Labour government had said it wanted to increase jail terms for dangerous driving but ran out of time before it could do so.
The new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving will be introduced as an amendment to the government's Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

You can comment on the BBC page at present!

I am broadly in favour of this, as often a serious injury can be life altering, or only mitigated from a fatal injury by modern medicine, so the new penalty would reflect that difference, as long as it is reserved for cases where the driving is dangerous, and the injury severe.

However, I think this measure will not be a deterrent to some of the driving we all see from time to time which results from carelessness and lack of observation, and other measures are needed to improve driving standards - especially in drivers who are many years from the time they took their test!
Nor will it deter those we see on Road Wars and the like, fleeing from police, and crossing busy junctions at high speeds and endangering other drivers.
In the main, law abiding drivers do not set out to drive dangerously - and too many simply fail to recognise when their driving is of such a poor standard that it IS dangerous. This law will only punish them AFTER their driving results in a injury - not before.
But those that flee from police MUST know that their driving is dangerous and even plan it - and I think the new sentencing proposed is still not tough enough on those drivers!

Perhaps an offence of fleeing from police in a motor vehicle could supplement this proposed law?
Offenders could be given additional jail time - not concurrent - and persistent offenders, or those already banned should suffer amputated limbs to PREVENT their re-offending! :angry:

I see that in this article, BRAKE are described as a victims help charity... BUT at the side, a CAMPAIGN GROUP.
In the same spirit as the new law, of listening to the public, this organisation should be split up into a charity - AND a Campaign Group with NO CHARITABLE status! They are not able to form reasonable arguments for many of their proposals, and should not be getting any recognition for some of the daft proposals they come out with, such as lowering a speed limit because drivers are breaking the existing limit!!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 07:49 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I broadly agree too - provided there is a proportionate application of the new law. Clearly the person who is lousy at driving and fails to see tha ttheir driving is dangerous, does not deserve the same sentence as someone who deliberately sets out to endanger. A longer prison term for the latter would, at least keep them off the roads for the duration of the sentence, and I always thought that prison sentences were primarily for those who posed a danger to society!

I also think the "fleeing from police" is an excellent idea, if it can be "made to stick"? Perhaps an offence of "aggravated failure to stop when requested by a police officer" or somesuch?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 08:27 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Mole wrote:
I also think the "fleeing from police" is an excellent idea, if it can be "made to stick"? Perhaps an offence of "aggravated failure to stop when requested by a police officer" or somesuch?

Something needs to be done to DETER these scroats who race off at light speed on unsuitable roads, posing a danger to other road users.
The penalty needs to be severe enough to make them think twice about it.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 08:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
A few points.

- The term "serious injury" will need definition.
- Why not just increase the maximum term for dangerous driving to 5 years and let the courts decide on the sentence.
- We must be careful not to conflate "careless" and "dangerous".
- Should the crime dictate the punishment or the incidental outcome of the crime? You might just be unlucky one day when you swerve to avoid a kid on a bike and plough into a bus queue. Should the kid be prosecuted as a murderer? Should you?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 08:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
malcolmw wrote:
- Why not just increase the maximum term for dangerous driving to 5 years and let the courts decide on the sentence.

That would seem a more sensible option, really.

However, as I've often said on here before, given that in the vast majority of such cases there is no mens rea (guilty intent), longer sentences have no deterrent effect and merely serve to express a desire for retribution, which seems a rather questionable principle to bring into the justice system.

malcolmw wrote:
- Should the crime dictate the punishment or the incidental outcome of the crime? You might just be unlucky one day when you swerve to avoid a kid on a bike and plough into a bus queue. Should the kid be prosecuted as a murderer? Should you?

The concern, of course, is that people end up being imprisoned for simply making an error of judgment. So far I haven't seen much actual evidence of that, but when the likes of BRAKE take the view that if you are in any way responsible for an accident, your conduct is by definition dangerous, you never know.

The courts in general (IMV quite rightly) seem to have been reluctant to use the full extent of the new sentencing powers they have been given for careless and dangerous driving offences.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 09:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I'm not bothered about retribution, and I agree that the length of the sentence may or may not act as a deterrent to people like that. I'm really just coming from the viewpoint that the longer they're inside, the longer they're not on the roads.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
IAM Press release
IAM wrote:
our response to the Justice Secretary’s announcement about tougher penalties for dangerous driving.

IAM spokesperson Vince Yearley said: "Dangerous driving can result in anything from near misses to serious injuries. But the maximum jail term for dangerous driving must relate to the driving offence - not the consequences, however awful."

The following figures represent the number of accidents caused last year by various types of dangerous driving activity (Department for Transport statistics):

• 18,803 accidents were caused by careless, reckless or hurried driving.
• 3,862 accidents were caused by aggressive driving.
• Aggressive, careless, reckless or hurried driving caused at least one death a day.
• 5,858 accidents were caused by drivers impaired by drugs or alcohol, resulting in 160 deaths.
• A significant 32,525 accidents were caused by illegal manoeuvres such as exceeding the speed limit, illegal turns, disobeying traffic signals and disobeying rules pedestrian crossings.
• 14 deaths and 139 serious accidents involved a stolen vehicle.
Wesley Johnson, Press Association wrote:
DANGER DRIVERS FACE LONGER SENTENCE
LEGAL Driving
Oct 7, 2011 2:45:29 AM By Wesley Johnson, Press Association Home Affairs Correspondent
(ADVISORY: First ran yesterday under embargo)
Page 1

Dangerous drivers who cause serious injuries on the road could be jailed for up to five years under new plans, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said today.
The introduction of a new offence of "causing serious injury by dangerous driving" would more than double the current maximum sentence of two years for dangerous drivers whose victims are seriously injured but not killed.
Campaigners welcomed the proposals, saying that, with 1,850 deaths on the roads in Britain last year alone, the move would "help to provide justice to families whose lives have been ripped apart by dangerous drivers".

Mr Clarke said: "We have listened to the victims of dangerous drivers, their families, MPs, judges and road safety groups and their experiences have directly informed these changes.
"Making our roads safer is a priority - five people died on our roads each day last year, so we need to do everything we can to further improve safety."

Ellen Booth, senior campaigns officer of the road safety charity Brake,
said: "This new offence finally means that serious injury is recognised within the title of the offence, and this recognition is vitally important to victims and their families.
"It also means that dangerous drivers who inflict serious injuries can expect to see higher sentences to better reflect the terrible trauma and injuries they have caused."

Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said the changes, which will be part of the Government's Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, "should make sentences more proportionate to the devastation dangerous driving causes and should also deter people from driving badly".

Road Safety Minister Mike Penning added that while the vast majority of motorists were safe and responsible, "the wilfully reckless minority who put lives in danger must face serious penalties".

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), said: "RoSPA has previously called for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving to be extended to cover causing serious injury, so we welcome the announcement of a new offence of 'causing serious injury by dangerous driving'.
"Serious injuries often cause life-long disability for the victims of bad drivers and can fundamentally affect their quality of life and that of their families. To ensure this new law works as intended, it will be absolutely crucial to ensure that it is applied consistently in terms of prosecution and sentencing."

Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said "The main response to this proposal must be to ask: what exactly is meant by "serious injury"? The definition in Reported Road Casualties refers to a visit to accident and emergency or an overnight stay in hospital.
"I assume that, if the injury results from an act of dangerous driving, then the definition must imply an injury that is life-changing.
"It will be important for Parliament to give a clear indication of what is understood by serious when the amendment is debated. Otherwise, it is quite likely that the offence may be placed on the statute book with little or no effect.
"At present, just under 6,000 drivers are charged every year with dangerous driving. Yet we have no information about how many of those charges are the result of a crash involving serious injuries. So, it will be important to understand just how many extra court cases will result from the new offence.
"I hope that MPs and peers will therefore look very carefully at the detail of this offence to ensure that it leads to improvements in road safety, especially as it was not referred to in either the Strategic Framework for Road Safety published by the Government in May 2011 or the earlier consultation document on Road Safety Compliance published in November 2008".


I have merged this post into the existing topic on the subject - PeterE as moderator

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 14:51 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
I tend to mistrust authority - just look at speed cameras and what the world has become. New laws are all very good but only if they are upheld judiciously and with at the very least a modicum of common sense. Which a lot of laws are not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 14:57 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Mole wrote:
I'm not bothered about retribution, and I agree that the length of the sentence may or may not act as a deterrent to people like that. I'm really just coming from the viewpoint that the longer they're inside, the longer they're not on the roads.

Works for burglars, but it's nowhere near as clear-cut for dangerous drivers, especially given the fact that many such offences are one-off aberrations.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 15:39 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
The Road Safety Minister did use the words "wilfully reckless" in connection with this proposal which seems fair enough to me.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 15:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
malcolmw wrote:
The Road Safety Minister did use the words "wilfully reckless" in connection with this proposal which seems fair enough to me.

Yes, I'm not seriously concerned about it. The interpretation of the courts seems to be generally sensible, and there have been cases where grossly reckless driving has just failed to kill someone, where a five-year sentence may well seem appropriate.

I'd like to see the previous standard of "reckless driving" restored which, AIUI, meant that someone was driving in a way that obviously was, and he/she should be well aware, was grossly risky. The current interpretation of "dangerous driving" makes it too easy to prosecute people for mistakes.

Dare I mention Gary Hart?

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 16:02 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
Define wilfully reckless...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 16:13 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Not a definition but... overtaking round a bend over a blind brow in fog because you are a bit late for your lodge dinner.

Basically, "wilfully reckless" describes a deliberate act that you know (or a reasonable person would know) to have a significantly higher level of risk than normal driving activities.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 16:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
What about exceeding the speed limit?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 16:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
This falls outside my definition as simply exceeding a posted limit does not have a significantly higher risk.

Here is an example. One day I drive down a road at the posted limit of 60mph. Next week I do the same but the limit has been reduced to 40mph for political reasons. There is no difference in risk.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 17:01 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
No and you and I know this. However TPTB do not. They may well interpret 'wilfully reckless' as exceeding the limit. I know you can use speed recklessly but in the situation you gave to you and I there is no difference but to the speed obsessed authorities you would be 20mph over the posted limit.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 17:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
The proposed change has come about because of the difference in penalties AVAILABLE (the judge can opt for a lower sentence) between Death by Dangerous Driving and somebody who is so seriously injured as to have a vastly reduced quality of life.

It has been pointed out on another forum that under the existing legislation (Offences against the person) a driver could be jailed for causing injury. What is required it seems is a willingness for the CPS to put their cases together in an appropriate manner, and judges to hand down apt sentences.

In most of the cases I have seen the sentence has been a punishment, not a deterrent.
It really does need to reflect the quality of the driving which led up to the accident.
Any driver who has been warned by a doctor to have their eyes tested etc. then goes on to drive is NOT guilty of a single aberration and should be dealt with accordingly, using the new (or old) sentencing... IMHO.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 18:07 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
While I agree with you Ernest, I can't help but think we don't need prisons full of elderly but stupid people who have kept on driving because it was expedient for them to do so.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 14:09 
Offline
Police Officer
Police Officer

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 22:37
Posts: 279
Location: Warrington
I welcome the change in the new proposals,for years there has been a big gap in trying to get justice for families whos'e lives have been changed for life the example of little Cery's is only one of many.
The court's will be able to make it easier when deciding as it is at the moment we work on the principle of serious or life changing injury,and that will be what the main crux of the matter "LIFE CHANGING INJURY". I am sure we all know that it is not speed that kills,it's Impact which doe's it,so,if you drive at 100mph and loose control hitting very little and only causing minor injury,then above doe's not count.
On the other hand drive at say 60mph loose control hitting something solid and immovable like a tree or such like causing "LIFE CHANGING INJURY" then the new act will apply and rightly so.
Many people think that it is only in their words scrotes that drive and cause devastation on our roads,wrong there are decent law abiding drivers who have for some reason a moment of madness,that goes pear shaped are we saying that they should be dealt with differently than the scrotes no anyone who drives dangerously ie standard falls below that of a reasonable competent driver,and inflicts above mentioned injuries then they take the punishment for what they have done end of story.
It breaks my heart to see all of these people young and old injured to the degree that there life is ruined only to see a small punishment handed out that inconveniences them for a few months and causes grief and heartache for the family and loved ones for the rest of that families life,so,bring it on and now i might able to protect anyone who needs protecting from these morons who cause havoc on our roads daily. Just my opinion .
Stephen


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 18:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
iam wrote:
But the maximum jail term for dangerous driving must relate to the driving offence - not the consequences, however awful.


Hmmmm.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 346 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.222s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]