A small step in the right direction



T

Tony Raven

Guest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm

Death driving offences announced

Drivers who cause death by careless driving could face five years in
prison under a string of new driving offences announced by the government.

They have been tabled as amendments to the Road Safety Bill and would
apply in England, Wales and Scotland.

The measures also create a new offence of "causing death when driving
while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured", carrying a sentence of up
to two years.

Road charity Brake said the proposals were a "step in the right direction".

BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds said the new offence of death by
careless driving was a toughening of the law that road safety groups had
been demanding for a long time.

Current laws mean that someone convicted of death by dangerous driving
can be sentenced to 14 years in prison, while the penalty for careless
driving has a maximum penalty of a £2,500 fine.

Tom Symonds said: "The problem is, if you kill someone when you've only
driven carelessly, then you can't be sent to prison - you can only have
a fine.

"This new offence will make it a lot more difficult for people to get
away with that lower level of penalty."

The new measures also include a statutory definition of careless driving.

'Overdue' changes

Brake spokesperson Aimee Bowen said: "Changes to the system of charges
and penalties for driving offences are long overdue.

"All too often we see killer drivers, who devastate families and
communities through reckless and selfish behaviour behind the wheel,
getting away with little more than a fine."

But, while welcoming the proposals, she said: "They fail to address the
ongoing lack of justice for many drivers who cause serious injury on the
roads."

Criminal Justice Minister Fiona MacTaggart told BBC Radio Five Live that
the offence of death by careless driving would allow courts to take into
account the fatal consequence of careless driving.

"At present you can get such a sentence if someone is drunk, but you
can't if someone is sober and just driving carelessly," she said.

"What we're doing is - we're on the side of the victim, we're making
sure that people who kill on the road can get proper prison sentences.

"We're making sure that if someone kills when they're driving carelessly
- even if they didn't mean to - then they can be sent to prison."

'Horrendous' sentence

Tony Leigh's 14-year-old daughter Jessica was killed instantly by a
motorist speeding at 60mph.

He told Five Live: "[The driver] went to court and pleaded not guilty
and then, when he finally got into court after about a year-and-a-half,
all he got was a £300 fine and six penalty points."

Mr Leigh said he believed the punishment - after hearing the graphic
details of his daughter's death in court - was "horrendous" in its
inadequacy.

But he said the new measures would address his concerns: "In a car, I
must admit, you don't go out on that day saying I'm going to run someone
over.

"So up to five years in his case - where it was a tragic accident, which
could have been avoided if he had been driving more sensibly - then I
reckon five years is quite good."


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>
> Death driving offences announced
>
> Drivers who cause death by careless driving could face five years in
> prison under a string of new driving offences announced by the government.


Yes, it's starting to head in the right direction.

IMO, though, the "causing death when driving while unlicensed,
disqualified or unisured" is grossly lenient, and they /still/ haven't
addressed the fact that it's "cheaper" to hit and run than to stop at
the scene - particularly if you've been drinking.

R.
 
Many are not convinced that this IS a step in the right direction. What
will probably happen is that many drivers who would have faced (and
have been found guilty of) a 'causing death by dangerous driving'
charge will face the new lesser charge instead. What was really needed
was a redefinition of 'dangerous driving' so it included far more
examples of objectively dangerous driving! For example until recently
hurtling around a street corner to fast to be able to stop in the
distance which could be seen to be clear and mowing down and killing a
pedestrian who was crossing a side-street perfectly correctly was
actually given as an example of where the driver should only face a
'driving without due care' charge. Madness!

As J.S. Dean of the Pedestrians Association wrote back in 1947:

'The "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced On the insistence
of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for offenders- should
be abolished in the existing circumstances careless driving is of
course always also dangerous driving.'
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Many are not convinced that this IS a step in the right direction. What
> will probably happen is that many drivers who would have faced (and
> have been found guilty of) a 'causing death by dangerous driving'
> charge will face the new lesser charge instead.


And how many get charged with that vs the lesser charge? IME the vast
majority are under the careless driving charge and then they get off
with a fine and wrap on the knuckles. Anything to make the punishment
closer to fitting the crime is a step in the right direction although I
was careful to call it only a small step.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>
> Death driving offences announced
>
> Drivers who cause death by careless driving could face five years in
> prison under a string of new driving offences announced by the government.
>
> They have been tabled as amendments to the Road Safety Bill and would
> apply in England, Wales and Scotland.
>
> The measures also create a new offence of "causing death when driving
> while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured", carrying a sentence of up
> to two years.


I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified be
treated as severely as dangerous driving. It seems absolutely bonkers
to me that causing death due to driving without a licence (especially
if already disqualified) is treated more leniently than causing death due
to careless driving.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
Tony Raven wrote:
>
> And how many get charged with that vs the lesser charge?


I guess that the devil will be in the detail. (I note that a statutory
definition of what constitutes 'dangerous' driving will be given).
However, it will doubtlessly remain the case that in many instances
someone's driving will so deficient that it causes a death (or deaths)
and yet in law will not be held to be 'dangerous', which does seen
illogical!
 
"Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>>

> I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified be
> treated as severely as dangerous driving.


Even if the driving wasn't dangerous? A licence is a piece of paper which
bears no relation to how well one can drive. I would rather dangerous
driving was judged regardless of whether a technical offence was also being
committed.

> It seems absolutely bonkers
> to me that causing death due to driving without a licence (especially
> if already disqualified) is treated more leniently than causing death due
> to careless driving.


Surely the only valid measure is the quality of the driving. Many (most?)
accidents are caused by bad/careless/dangerous driving. Having had ones
licence removed, for whatever reason, does not automatically make one a
worse or more dangerous driver than any of the millions still with a
licence.

--
Matt B
 
Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>>>

>> I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified
>> be treated as severely as dangerous driving.

>
> Even if the driving wasn't dangerous? A licence is a piece of paper
> which bears no relation to how well one can drive. I would rather
> dangerous driving was judged regardless of whether a technical
> offence was also being committed.


I should be intrigued to learn what manner of driving causes death and yet
would still be deemed "not dangerous"?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Never tie your shoelaces in a revolving door.
 
Dave Larrington wrote:
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>>>>
>>> I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified
>>> be treated as severely as dangerous driving.

>> Even if the driving wasn't dangerous? A licence is a piece of paper
>> which bears no relation to how well one can drive. I would rather
>> dangerous driving was judged regardless of whether a technical
>> offence was also being committed.

>
> I should be intrigued to learn what manner of driving causes death and yet
> would still be deemed "not dangerous"?
>


Load falling off a lorry through being poorly secured/securing failure,
swerving to avoid something or someone and hitting another vehicle.
There are lots of situations which are of themselves not dangerous but
lead to danger through the unexpected happening.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>>>>
>>> I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified
>>> be treated as severely as dangerous driving.

>>
>> Even if the driving wasn't dangerous? A licence is a piece of paper
>> which bears no relation to how well one can drive. I would rather
>> dangerous driving was judged regardless of whether a technical
>> offence was also being committed.

>
> I should be intrigued to learn what manner of driving causes death and yet
> would still be deemed "not dangerous"?


You agree that the existence of a licence is not the key issue?

--
Matt B
 
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:12:04 -0000, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>>>

>> I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified be
>> treated as severely as dangerous driving.

>
> Even if the driving wasn't dangerous? A licence is a piece of paper which
> bears no relation to how well one can drive. I would rather dangerous
> driving was judged regardless of whether a technical offence was also being
> committed.


I would say that driving whilst disqualified or without passing a test
is showing gross disregard to the laws of the land and is likely to
indicate a similar disregard to the well-being of other road users.

In the case of driving whilst disqualified it also shows that the driver
has previously (and usually within the past year) been committing enough
driving offences (which bring their own risks) that it was deemed that
the privilege of a driving licence should be removed.

Basically I am of the opinion that the sentence for driving whilst
disqualified should be harsh regardless of whether they have an accident
or not.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
"Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:12:04 -0000, Matt B <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>>>>
>>> I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified be
>>> treated as severely as dangerous driving.

>>
>> Even if the driving wasn't dangerous? A licence is a piece of paper
>> which
>> bears no relation to how well one can drive. I would rather dangerous
>> driving was judged regardless of whether a technical offence was also
>> being
>> committed.

>
> I would say that driving whilst disqualified or without passing a test
> is showing gross disregard to the laws of the land and is likely to
> indicate a similar disregard to the well-being of other road users.


Do you think it displays any more contempt for the law and your fellow
citizens than, say, having no tv licence, or cycling on the pavement, or
dropping litter?

> In the case of driving whilst disqualified it also shows that the driver
> has previously (and usually within the past year) been committing enough
> driving offences (which bring their own risks) that it was deemed that
> the privilege of a driving licence should be removed.


A disqualification can result from an offence or offences which were not
related to driving at all.

> Basically I am of the opinion that the sentence for driving whilst
> disqualified should be harsh regardless of whether they have an accident
> or not.


Should other everyday activities be licensed so that those licences too can
be endorsed/revoked thus enabling the holders to be discriminated against if
they have a motoring accident?

--
Matt B
 
Dave Larrington wrote:
>>I should be intrigued to learn what manner of driving causes death and yet
>>would still be deemed "not dangerous"?


and Tony Raven responded:
> Load falling off a lorry through being poorly secured/securing failure,


Sounds like dangerous driving to me. The driver is responsible for
making sure the load is properly secured. What charge would be brought
for driving with an improperly secured load, if not dangerous driving?

> swerving to avoid something or someone and hitting another vehicle.


I believe serving to avoid something when there are other vehicles
around would usually be considered dangerous (that's what I was taught,
anyway). Swerving to avoid someone is equally dangerous, although
somewhat more justifiable. (I could argue that the driver should be
able to stop in the distance he can see to be clear ahead, which would
avoid the need to swerve, but I'm aware of the practicalities of driving
near parked cars).

> There are lots of situations which are of themselves not dangerous but
> lead to danger through the unexpected happening.



--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
Matt B wrote:
>
> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > In the case of driving whilst disqualified it also shows that the driver
> > has previously (and usually within the past year) been committing enough
> > driving offences (which bring their own risks) that it was deemed that
> > the privilege of a driving licence should be removed.

>
> A disqualification can result from an offence or offences which were not
> related to driving at all.


Out of interest what could cause disqualification that wasn't related to
driving?

James
 
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:22:21 -0000, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:12:04 -0000, Matt B <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>>>>>
>>>> I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified be
>>>> treated as severely as dangerous driving.
>>>
>>> Even if the driving wasn't dangerous? A licence is a piece of paper
>>> which
>>> bears no relation to how well one can drive. I would rather dangerous
>>> driving was judged regardless of whether a technical offence was also
>>> being
>>> committed.

>>
>> I would say that driving whilst disqualified or without passing a test
>> is showing gross disregard to the laws of the land and is likely to
>> indicate a similar disregard to the well-being of other road users.

>
> Do you think it displays any more contempt for the law and your fellow
> citizens than, say, having no tv licence, or cycling on the pavement, or
> dropping litter?


All those display a contempt for the law. However not all of them
display the same degree of contempt for the well-being of my fellow citizens.

>> In the case of driving whilst disqualified it also shows that the driver
>> has previously (and usually within the past year) been committing enough
>> driving offences (which bring their own risks) that it was deemed that
>> the privilege of a driving licence should be removed.

>
> A disqualification can result from an offence or offences which were not
> related to driving at all.


Fair enough (I knew that) - I will correct my previous statement to read
the vast majority.

>> Basically I am of the opinion that the sentence for driving whilst
>> disqualified should be harsh regardless of whether they have an accident
>> or not.

>
> Should other everyday activities be licensed so that those licences too can
> be endorsed/revoked thus enabling the holders to be discriminated against if
> they have a motoring accident?


Not at all. Your point about licensing other activities is a diversionary
tactic - a driving licence is applicable to driving. If you lose that
licence and then continue driving then you deserve to be dealt with by the
law. Simple. I find your use of the word discrimination offensive.
To punish a law-breaker is not discrimination.

If you feel that people should not need a licence in order to drive on
the roads then maybe you should campaign for the law to be changed in
your favour.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>
> Death driving offences announced
>
> Drivers who cause death by careless driving could face five years in
> prison under a string of new driving offences announced by the government.


I think we should introduce a new offence of murder with extreme
prejudice in a motor vehicle, carrying a 30 pound fine. Then all the
drivers who kill anyone can get charged with it, they'll willingly plead
guilty anyway, and Justice Will Be Done.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
 
"Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:22:21 -0000, Matt B <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:12:04 -0000, Matt B <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:36:45 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4392584.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer death when driving whilst unlicensed or disqualified be
>>>>> treated as severely as dangerous driving.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the driving wasn't dangerous? A licence is a piece of paper
>>>> which
>>>> bears no relation to how well one can drive. I would rather dangerous
>>>> driving was judged regardless of whether a technical offence was also
>>>> being
>>>> committed.
>>>
>>> I would say that driving whilst disqualified or without passing a test
>>> is showing gross disregard to the laws of the land and is likely to
>>> indicate a similar disregard to the well-being of other road users.

>>
>> Do you think it displays any more contempt for the law and your fellow
>> citizens than, say, having no tv licence, or cycling on the pavement, or
>> dropping litter?

>
> All those display a contempt for the law. However not all of them
> display the same degree of contempt for the well-being of my fellow
> citizens.


Elaborate. Surely it depends upon which offence(s) the disqualification is
for?

>>> ...
>>> Basically I am of the opinion that the sentence for driving whilst
>>> disqualified should be harsh regardless of whether they have an accident
>>> or not.

>>
>> Should other everyday activities be licensed so that those licences too
>> can
>> be endorsed/revoked thus enabling the holders to be discriminated against
>> if
>> they have a motoring accident?

>
> Not at all. Your point about licensing other activities is a diversionary
> tactic - a driving licence is applicable to driving.


But, if the disqualification is not driving related, why should a further
driving offence be construed differently because of that disqualification?

> If you lose that licence and then continue driving then you deserve to be
> dealt
> with by the law. Simple.


Yes, for driving whilst disqualified - nothing else.

> I find your use of the word discrimination offensive.


You misunderstood my point then, I'm sorry.

> To punish a law-breaker is not discrimination.


I never said it was. The discrimination is in selection of the offence,
based, not not upon the facts of the incident, but on whether the offender
has had his licence revoked for any reason. There will be an unjust
distinction in the treatment of different categories of people.

> If you feel that people should not need a licence in order to drive on
> the roads then maybe you should campaign for the law to be changed in
> your favour.


He he.

--
Matt B
 
"James Grabowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>>
>> "Andy Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> > In the case of driving whilst disqualified it also shows that the
>> > driver
>> > has previously (and usually within the past year) been committing
>> > enough
>> > driving offences (which bring their own risks) that it was deemed that
>> > the privilege of a driving licence should be removed.

>>
>> A disqualification can result from an offence or offences which were not
>> related to driving at all.

>
> Out of interest what could cause disqualification that wasn't related to
> driving?


Take your pick:
http://www.dvla.gov.uk/drivers/endorsem.htm#7. Endorsement Offence Codes

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:

> >> A disqualification can result from an offence or offences which were not
> >> related to driving at all.

> >
> > Out of interest what could cause disqualification that wasn't related to
> > driving?

>
> Take your pick:
> http://www.dvla.gov.uk/drivers/endorsem.htm#7. Endorsement Offence Codes


There is DR60 which is the only non-driving related one there.

...d
 
James Grabowski <[email protected]> wrote:
....
| Out of interest what could cause disqualification that wasn't related to
| driving?

Medical conditions e.g. diabetes usually results in degraded eyesight,
at some point they disqualify you from driving. Some would say old age
should do this too...

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph