smart51
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 11:58 AM |
|
|
Jail for dangerous driving starting today
Link to BBC
If you cause death by dangerous driving from today, you face upto 5 years in Jail, according to the BBC. Dangerous driving in this context is not
giving driving your full attention, e.g. using the phone or texting, eating or messing with your satnav. Do you ever look for things in your glove
box whilst driving? Do you turn round to shout at the kids? Be careful.
|
|
|
|
|
JAG
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
Sorry to disagree but that's 'careless driving' aka "Driving Without Due Care & Attention"
"Dangerous Driving" is another crime/charge altogether.
Sorry mate  
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
I feel sorry for the dad in that son died, but I cant help thinking he is a little off the mark when he says at the end that its come to late to
help..... Well it wouldnt have helped anyway, his son would still be dead.
How would you prove it was careless driving?
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
Death by Dangerous Driving has always carried a jail term!
It's Death by Careless Driving that this effects.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 12:17 PM |
|
|
Generally speaking, most (right-minded) drivers who cause Death by Careless Driving (CARELESS not dangerous or grossly negligent) will be stung far
more by the simple fact that another human being has died as a result of their mistake. Begs the question - why punish someone twice?
Up till now, the courts have always discounted that someone has died when sentencing on Careless Driving. They judge purely on the level of
carelessness and sentence accordingly. i.e. most of us glance down to change the radio - most will get away with this every single time, but
occasionally some sorry sod will take someone else's life via a momentary lack of concentration! Does he deserve to go to jail... objectively
speaking, I don't think so, and up till now the courts have applied points and a fine to such circumstances so that justice can be seen to be
done... not because they think it will achieve anything!
If it was my kid that he killed? I'd want him lynched!
Not an easy one to comprehend unless you've been exposed to either end of such an incident.
To work, then it really needs consistent sentencing commensurate with the level of Carelessness.
|
|
|
JAG
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 12:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
How would you prove it was careless driving?
It's seen as a relatively minor offence and hence simply the opinion of the Police Officer attending is sufficient. If they've got
independant witnesses even better but they don't NEED them.
Don't ask me how I know 
Justin
Who is this super hero? Sarge? ...No.
Rosemary, the telephone operator? ...No.
Penry, the mild-mannered janitor? ...Could be!
|
|
|
Fatgadget
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 12:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dangle_kt
I feel sorry for the dad in that son died, but I cant help thinking he is a little off the mark when he says at the end that its come to late to
help..... Well it wouldnt have helped anyway, his son would still be dead.
How would you prove it was careless driving?
I think he was referring to his personal circumstances. He obviously does not feel the guy who caused the death of his son received an appropriate
sentence.
|
|
|
Delinquent
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 01:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
quote:
How would you prove it was careless driving?
It's seen as a relatively minor offence and hence simply the opinion of the Police Officer attending is sufficient. If they've got
independant witnesses even better but they don't NEED them.
Don't ask me how I know
It goes a step further - the police opinion over-rides independant witnesses statements in the eyes of the courts (even when the policemen only turn
up 20 minutes after the event!) ... I'm sure you don't have to ask me how I know that either
[Edited on 18/8/08 by Delinquent]
|
|
|
turbodisplay
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 04:09 PM |
|
|
I was involved in an accident where a woman stuck in a queue decided on doing a three point turn, in front of a 50mph car in front of me.
Person in front went into a ditch, person behinf drove into me 3 seconds after i stopped (idiot!).
I don`t think she got prosecuted, not that the situation will be changed if she did.
It is wrong that the outcome determines the punishment.
If every accident regardless of blame results in a range of penitalies of 1/2 - 12 points I bet accidents and deaths would immeadiately fall as it
would stop the current thinking "i`m in the right".
Darren
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 05:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
If you cause death by dangerous driving from today, you face upto 5 years in Jail
i think the death is more of an issue than just being caught picking your nose...
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 05:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by turbodisplay
It is wrong that the outcome determines the punishment.
So if you make an error of judgement or are negligent in some way, you should be prosecuted for what could have happened, even if disaster was
averted? No, I can't agree. If you crash and no-one is hurt, that is less bad than the exact same crash but someone dies. Just as a bank
robbery with a gun is less bad than a bank robbery where the gunner shoots everyone. The intention and the outcome together make a crime.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 06:47 PM |
|
|
It all depends on the level of carelessness.
I'd wager that every one of us has a momentary lapse of concentration on every journey that we make.
Should we go to jail if we kill someone due to said momentary lapse of concentration... again depending on what that momentary lapse of concentration
was, then no, I don't think so.
You could do what you like to me, but NOTHING would make me 'learn my lesson' more than reflecting on the heartache I've caused and
the fact that another human is no longer on the planet. Irrespective of this, you bet your boots that there will be further lapses of concentration
(it's human) on subsequent journeys... just not the one that caught you out (probably)!
When you move into the realm of ancillary issues like changing CD's, tuning radio's, etc. then it becomes more clear. Sure, we all do it,
but we all know that we shouldn't really, so we got what's coming.
Using the phone? As far as I'm concerned - that's Dangerous and jail time is deserved.
Difficult one, and hard to cater for every set of circumstances, hence the reason that the courts will come up with a lot of inconsistent sentences
which is not really in anyone's interests.
For me, the only debate should be - dangerous or careless? If it's dangerous then go straight to jail. If it's careless and the culprit
passes the 'attitude test', then what is to be gained from jailing them?
Oh, I don't know!
Is a BEC faster than a CEC?
|
|
|
rf900rush
|
| posted on 18/8/08 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
So what happens when you take your eyes off the road for that split second,
then someone runs out with out looking and dies.
Whos at fault?
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 19/8/08 at 10:10 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Generally speaking, most (right-minded) drivers who cause Death by Careless Driving (CARELESS not dangerous or grossly negligent) will be stung far
more by the simple fact that another human being has died as a result of their mistake. Begs the question - why punish someone twice?
Also would act as a deterent.
the number of peolpe you see on mobiles, desptie being it being against the law seems to have not diminished. : mad:
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 19/8/08 at 10:34 AM |
|
|
As I said before - if you're using the phone whilst driving and cause someone else to lose their life, then that for me is Dangerous Driving,
not Careless.
Defo jail time!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 19/8/08 at 04:10 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
As I said before - if you're using the phone whilst driving and cause someone else to lose their life, then that for me is Dangerous Driving,
not Careless.
Fortunately it's a judge with access to all the evidence that actualy gets to decide how far the standard of driving fell below acceptable
levels.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 19/8/08 at 07:30 PM |
|
|
Sure it's for the Judge to consider if the standard of driving fell sufficiently far below that of a careful and considerate driver, but only if
the Charge libeled by the Crown is one of Careless Driving. If it's a Dangerous Driving offence, then it's a completely different set of
circumstances.
It's not the Judge's job to consider the relevance of the Charge libeled by the Crown - hence the debate of what's Dangerous and
what's Careless! The prosecution has to get it right in the first place!
The Judge can only decide on guilt for the Charge libeled and can only sentence within the guidelines set for that particular Charge. If presented
with Careless Driving Charge and the driver is clearly guilty of the more serious Dangerous Driving offence, then the Judge cannot convict him of
Dangerous Driving and sentence him / her appropriately.
Hence the reason that there have been a number of instances where Judges have expressed surprise that a less serious charge has been libeled as the
full penalty of law could not be applied.
This is what confuses and pisses folk off - the lack of consistency in libeling the correct Charge in the first place and then a lack of consistency
in sentencing!
Anyhow, surely it must be considered dangerous to use the phone whilst driving... not careless? I mean, it's not like you used the phone
'by accident'! You have to make a conscious decision to carry out these actions in the full knowledge that society now deems this to be a
dangerous act.
Roused my interest sufficiently to speak to one of the local PF's and he said he would always expect a Section 1 charge to be libeled against
someone who was alleged to have been using their phone whilst driving and subsequently killed another road user. Doesn't mean that another PF
may have a different opinion!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 19/8/08 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
One thing continues to puzzle me - if a person does something stupid or careless that results in the death of another human being, then that person is
liable to be charged with manslaughter.
So why does the fact that the perpetrator is sitting in a car mean that the charge becomes 'causing death by dangerous driving', or even
just 'driving without due care and attention', often with considerably less penalty? Another human being has still been killed by
stupidity or carelessness. Surely they should be charged with manslaughter?
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 19/8/08 at 08:07 PM |
|
|
The woman who caused the accident that killed my father and left the scene got a 2 year ban and 200 hours community service, she even got to choose
what community service she did!! As far as I'm concerned jail was too good for her.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 19/8/08 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
i think the consequense is what makes the difference. If it goes horribly wrong it was obviously dangerous. There are lots of different things you can
do when driving that will either distract you or cause you to lose control or a mix of either, for instance, putting shades on, polishing them, taking
a coat off, changing station, picking your nose, opening a bottle of drink, steering with your knees whilst you do the last, reprogramming the satnav,
going through the trip computer, lighting a cig, checking a pocket for change, writing a text message, taking your shoes off etc.
Any one of those could cause a fatal mistake. Driving is about balancing risks. Some of the above are acceptable in the right circumstances. The
problem is, some drivers cant balance risks well, hence the sick number of f**k ups every day. And hence why the law covers them all with careless and
dangerous tags. In reality, the offense should just be 'f**king up and killing someone', then it wouldnt matter if you were distracted or
not, just that you fooked up.
Another reality is that the majority of mistakes on the road are actually just driving errors, not necessarily to do with anyone being distracted. My
last 3 near misses were, someone swerving into a sliproad infront of me when they missed their exit (good luck they didnt pick my lane), someone
pulling out of a layby into my path (gook luck i managed to swerve), and a lad who had broken down leaving if car in the middle of the first lane and
then sitting on a wall 50 yards upstream to distract people. God alone knows how i missed him, but that wouldve been my fault. However, none of those
due to all the bad things i do whilst driving (most of the above list if im honest).
|
|
|
.jpg)
