Safe Speed Forums

As many of you know I am running a petition asking for a change in the laws as to how fatal accidents are dealt with and the sentences recieved when a person is at fault through bad driving. Just 11 days after I lost my daughter a young lad was killed whilst on his way to work. It seems he was a passenger in a car and was not aware of the fact that the person who was giving him a lift was on prescribed medication of a high enough dosage to affect his judgement plus also had been drinking. It seems as though speed was not a factor in this accident but the valium and alcohol was. The man driving knew he shouldn't have been behind the wheel and now almost 18 months on he has just recieved his sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. He got just 2 years custodial and a 3 year ban. This is apparently not his first offence either. I know it could have been a worse sentence but when will the punishment fit the crime. This young man will probably be out of prison in less than a year. It took the police longer than that to bring the case to court. It is high time that the government and the courts stand up and take notice of what the victims families want and the police have to go through to enable some form of justice.
For those of you who haven't yet signed my petition or want to know more about my daughter you can find it here. http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/4549.html

I couldn't agree more with you, but unfortunately the government are too busy sitting down with their noses in the trough to listen to us peasants.
It will take one of their children to get killed in this fashion before they will even think about this problem, even then the human rights leeches will make sure it is watered down so it will be yet another worthless bit of legislation.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Hi there mahali!

Saw you on the TV - and could tell that that was an ordeal for both you and your wife.

Wife and I do agree with you mate.

As for this case - issue warnings about driving / operating machinery on when prescribing - and warnings about this - plus combining with alcohol are on instructions and packaging as well.

Trouble is - people do not read them properly, and choose to ignore the advice as given. For some reason - they seem unable to grasp concept that a drug will interact with all the chemicals in their bodies to zap the harmful "invading lurgy", and certain properties will interact with chemicals in the brain as well - especially with alchohol and anything else taken either by mouth or injected

My advice to all browsers to this site:

Listen to Doctor, Pharamacist, Read Label and Follow Instructions CAREFULLY - and if we advise DO NOT DRIVE - WE JOLLY WELL MEAN THAT!


As for the courts - to certain extent - they are bound by guidelines, precedent laws and ratio decedendi, etc - and of course ... that daft bench book guideline which outlaws common sense and seems to lean towards extreme politically correct daftness when dealing with OTT scrotes, hit and runs (assuming they get caught), those copped without legal documents in their defective throwaway cars, drink/drug/ asylum seeking drivers .....

.... but be legal, normally law abiding citizen, (millions of them now ) driving safely, alertly and competently - albeit just above an "inappropriately low" speed limit on a dual carriageway with no houses, schools or anything remotely like a hazard, who drifts marginally above a speed limit for a couple of yards in front of a speed camera situated anywhere but where it should be and you are instantly Mr Big of the criminal world. (Which is why we are against this form of enforcement. Police did do job better and more fairly overall!)

Does not make sense - does it!

Take care mate - let us know how things develop for you.

I think another element of this applies to any kind of drug.

The mentality of some is to claim they're not affected by drigs. For example, when you're 18 and claim to be able to take and colume of alcohol.

People's ignorance is factor that cannot be under-estimated. While the packaging may warn of the effects of the drug, some people will actually read it and disregard it as they believe they are more capable of handling the drug than the manufaturers claim.

These people need to be made aware of heir mistakes!

It's a cynical argument, but knowing how public expenditure works, and keeping in mind that the people managing that expenditure have short guaranteed tenure on their job, short term thinking becomes the norm, therefor saving money in the short term is the overriding factor.

Custodial sentences incur costs. Longer custodial sentences incur greater costs. The long term benefits for society do not matter to the bureaucrats as all they are interested in is the direct drain on their budgets.

Individuals pushing for tougher sentencing are seen at best as naive, and at worse as a menace.

It's as simple as that.

(edited for spelling )

I can see what you are saying R11co. It's a shame that the bureaucrats can't see beyond their noses and their budgets. If they were to spend some money putting these sort of criminals behind bars then there would be less money spent by the police in having to pursue these people again and again when they should have been locked up in the first place. Maybe they should have put people like us in their job and see just how much money they could have saved by tougher sentencing to begin with.

Trouble is - the judiciary are bound by sentence guidelines as well - and do not always sentence accordingly.

I have lost count of number of times I have arrested the same scrote- who repeats the same offence over and over again. I would just love to chop his hands and feet off - but we are not allowed to do that - unfortunately!

Prison would keep him off street for a while - but they invariably turn up again on early release/remissions etc.

I can see you joined up in the days when every nick still a flight of stairs and several doors on the way to the cells.

Certainly there is a problem with sentencing. Okay, fair enough, it shouldn't be all about punishment/retribution, but mickey mouse sentences just cost the justice system credibility. Fine, let's try to rehabilitate offenders, but let's be realistic about it too. Justice must be seen to be done, more or less. Something that seems to escape the notice of judges and magistrates when sentencing - criminals don't commit much crime while they're locked up. Okay, maybe prisoners are stoned out of their brains half the time, which is still criminal. But when they come down they don't pop round, nick my car and run over some poor sod walking his dog. Or break in and nick my TV to pay for the next fix. Or get drunk and bottle someone outside a club. And so on. There needs to be a balance between rehabilitation, retribution and giving the rest of us a few years of peace and quiet while the bastard is locked away.

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