Safe Speed Forums

I think it is absolutely appalling that someone could potentially be locked up for five years for a one-off error of judgment without any need to demonstrate that they had knowingly been acting in a dangerous or irresponsible manner.

This isn't justice, it's revenge, pure and simple.

_________________
"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

Nicely put.

It's even worse if it's a one-off observation error.

And there's absolutely no deterent value because the behaviour they are seeking to punish is involuntary.

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

It's difficult to come to any other conclusion. If someone causes a death by driving, the offence related to dangerous driving already exists - should the driver be deemed sufficiently culpable.

Good old BBC, trotting out the "human interest" sensationalist "shock-horror"...


Motorist "speeding at 60mph"... Where? 30 limit? 40? NSL?

"a tragic accident which could have been avoided if he had been driving more sensibly".. What about the sense or otherwise of the girl who was killed? When I was a law student I'm sure that we were taught a concept called "contributory negligence".

But, the court, after hearing "the graphic details..." decided to fine the driver £300 and points. We arer not given any details about what the unfortunate man's daughter was doing when she was struck, but it tends to suggest that the court was much of the opinion that it was an accident.

I know that "even paranoids have enemies" - but "the war on motorists" seems to becoming more and more a reality.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I think Bob Dylan's "Percy's Song" should be required listening for all the MPs who are debating and voting on this issue.

(For those who don't know it, this is a song written in the 1960s about a driver sentenced to "99 years" after being involved in an accident where four people were killed. IIRC

"He ain't no criminal and his crime it is none,
what happened to him could happen to anyone")

I predict an increase in failure to stop at the scene of an accident offences.

'tis very stupid and ill though out. This road safety bill will be the icing on the cake of failure

Conservatives PR:

Ref: 2303/05

Knight: Careless driving offence must be fair and just

Commenting on the Government’s announcement that they intend to create a new ‘death by careless driving’ offence, Shadow Transport Minister Greg Knight said:

“We all feel for those suffering the pain and heartbreak of losing a loved one through road traffic accidents. We support tough measures to combat those who drive dangerously.

“However, we will be looking very carefully at the terms of what is proposed by the Government – we feel it is important that in those cases where there is mitigation or where driver
culpability is ambiguous that the courts can have discretion and flexibility to impose an appropriate sentence.

“This is an area of law that is very difficult and emotional – the key is to provide fairness and justice.”

ENDS


Safe Speed PR issued at 3:08 this afternoon:

PR249: Causing death by careless driving. Justice or revenge?

news: for immediate release

Details are emerging of a long-discussed proposal to create an offence of
'causing death by careless driving'. Apparently sentences of up to five years'
imprisonment will be available to the courts.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "My heart goes out to anyone who has lost a loved
one on our roads. It's that awful loss that makes it so very important that we
get our road safety policies right. We must have policies that punish the
dangerous minority and educate the responsible majority. We must have policies
that actually make the roads safer."

"Careless driving is a minor error. A momentary lapse of concentration, a minor
error of judgement or an observation failure are all careless driving - and
rightly so. Sometimes a commonplace and minor driving error can have deadly
consequences. No driver can guarantee not to make a minor mistake. This new law
will imprison good people on the random roll of a tragic dice."

"This new law isn't a valid attempt to improve justice or road safety. Victims
groups want revenge and the government seems intent on giving it to them want."

"It's not justice. It's revenge. Pure and simple."

<ends>
=========================================

PeterE, I nicked your words there. Things have been going pretty bonkers this afternoon and I didn't get time to ask. I hope that's OK.

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

But the problem is that people who should be charged with dangerous driving always seem to have the charge downgraded to careless driving in exchange for them pleading guilty -- so a lot of the time, people convicted of careless driving were actually driving dangerously.

No problem, 100% behind you on this

_________________
"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 does anyone else think about the relative severity of the two new offences introduced today.

Causing death by dangerous driving = 5 years

Causing death while driving uninsured/unlicensed = 2 years

(I apologise if I have missed anything here, but I heard this on radio while driving)

Now it seems to me that the latter should be treated at least as seriously as the former, given the aspect of criminal intent.

But presumably you are only charged with causing death while driving uninsured/unlicensed if they can't even pin a careless driving charge on you, in which case what have you done wrong beyond driving without a licence?

_________________
"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

I might be dumb here, but what is the difference between killing somebody while licensed and insured, and killing somebody with either one or both of these documentry procedures missing?
Surely causing death is ONE offence, not having licence or insurance is another?
I think we need the BiB members to explain if what we are seeing is correct, and how they apply the present distinctions.
I for one will sit back and wait before commenting on something which might be incorrectly reported

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

What worries me about the uninsured offence is that having no insurance is a strict liability offence. Insurance could be invalidated by an administrative mistake or misunderstanding, or the driver could be assured by a third party that he is insured when he is not. Or a learner's L-plates could fall off - no insurance.

I DO think that driving while unlicensed/uninsured (in general) should have the ability to attract more than just a fine. I hasten to add that I'm not talking about minor/transient infractions.

It strikes me that the kind of driver that goes about with no licence/insurance/MOT is the type that if caught would have personal circumstances taken in to account and be "punished" by having 28p taken from their benefits for 45 years....

PUT THEM IN JAIL.

To be honest, I'm very surprised not to see a "Causing death while driving in excess of the speed limit" law amongst the changes. Give it time....



You buy a second hand car. Tax it, insure it, MOT it and keep it in good order. One day a teenager (on her mobile phone) walks right out in front of you from between parked cars and you have no chance to stop, even though you're within the speed limit and driving perfectly for the conditions. Teenager dies in hospital. Car gets pulled apart by inspectors and they find an upgraded ECU chip that was fitted by the car's previous owner. Insurance invalidated. What then? Do you seriously think the bereaved family and their solicitors, armed with this new law, are going to let you walk free regardless of whether you've knowingly done anything wrong or not?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

I agree with Johnnytheboy on this one.
We're not talking about knocking down a bollard, or scratching a bumper- we're talking about KILLING someone.
As we all agree, driving a car/riding a bike is a task that demands 100% concentration. If as a result of your tuning the radio/fiddling about/dreaming of England winning the World Cup/pulling out without PROPERLY looking someone died, you deserve to go down.

my emphasis above.

Sorry if this sounds hard, but good observation scans should spot the teenager, realise the increased risk (by the phone), probably be slower and certainly be covering the brake and paying a greater percentage of attention to that hazard.

Even if your driving, observational skills etc are impeccable, circumstances which make accidents unavoidable still can and do occur - although the risk is very much lower.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

One would hope in such circumstances that a prosecution would not be brought, as indeed it is not for all fatal accidents now.

But in a sense it is almost as bad if someone is treated like a suspect by the police and subjected to a prolonged grilling *.

The other night, I was driving at night along a 30-limit road bordering parkland, and a kid on an unlit mountain bike shot across less than a second before I would have passed that point

They couldn't have been looking at all, and there could all too easily have been a collision with no fault on the part of the driver. But if I'd been doing 35, and had a bald rear tyre, then possibly I would have been looking at several years in prison.

* this is a major part of the concern about householders using reasonable force on burglars. Very often, no charges are brought, but the householders are subjected to a lengthy grilling by the police which can leave long-lasting mental scars. IMV, unless there is evidence that householders have used force in a grossly disproportionate or vindictive manner, the police should just leave it alone.

_________________
"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

I am somewhat worried at the way this looks on face value, I lost my fiance several years ago to a drunk driver, he had a history of drunk driving, but had been given the minimum penalties for his offences as he was a HGV driver an relied on his licence for his livelyhood.

This particular incident he had been drinking, climbed into his lorry and plowed into the side of a car, my fiance was a passenger and died 20 minutes later, her friend driving was killed outright.

He was fined and given a three month ban, judge told him that he escaped a stronger sentance as he wasn't speeding !

The above driver I have no issue with locking up, he's killed as a result of persistantly dangerous behaviour.

A one of lapse of concentration that results in a death seem OTT to me, also when we have a pedestrian that runs into traffic, is hit and killed, will this be investigated impartialy or will the investigation start with the assumption that the driver is guilty? I suspect the latter and that concerns me greatly

_________________
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