BBC: Stiffer sentences for drivers who kill

[Tim Woodall]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:32:26 -0000, raptorman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm completely unconvinced that stiffer sentences will do anything at all to lower the accident
> statistics (it's incredibly rare for someone to be convicted for DbDD twice - and yes I know it
> happened recently and yes he

"The number of Dangerous Driving offences committed in 1999 was 5,950, more than the total number of
offenders (5,744) as some drivers committed more than one Dangerous Driving offence _IN_THAT_YEAR_"
(emphasis mine)

http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/research26/17.htm

Some of the other bits of this research are interesting as well (Page 09 I think) The police tend to
believe that careless driving is charged when DD would be better, but the CPS complain that the
police don't provide enough evidence, and yet the CPS/Magistrates are less likely to think that it
is necessary to prove for example that driving the wrong way along a one way street was deliberate
rather than accidental in order for a DD charge to be brought.

All very inconsistent :-(

Regards,

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Frank]

"Geraint Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote: ( I've never understood the logic of sending some
> one to jail
to
> ) protect us from their driving (at considerable cost to the taxpayer)
rather
> ( than just taking the obvious step of removing their licence.
>
> Do you have any idea how many people drive without a licence?

Yes but it is a different offence, jail should only be used if other solutions wouldn't work. If
someone drives without a licence Jail may become appropriate.

I hate dangerous drivers as much as anyone, but the goal should be to minimise the number of
bad drivers. I believe that enforcement, detection and education are far better at deterring
poor driving.

A lot of poor drivers are punished with the death penalty, certainly 100's per year, Why would
jailing a similar number deter them more? A few high profile jailings is probably worthwhile as it
advertises the issues, but there is no point in making it run of the mill.

 

[Guy Chapman]

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> A lot of poor drivers are punished with the death penalty, certainly 100's per year, Why would
> jailing a similar number deter them more? A few high profile jailings is probably worthwhile as it
> advertises the issues, but there is no point in making it run of the mill.

The point is that killing someone through bad driving will still attract a shorter sentence than
killing someone through many other forms of aggressive or negligent behaviour. Look at the list of
aggravating factors: it's not as if people are unaware that these things are dangerous is it?
Jailing people who kill while driving too tired or drunk or speeding seems entirely appropriate to
me as the aggravating factors take it out of the realms of carelessness and into the area of
deliberately putting personal convenience above the safety of others.

But I would also make retraining and retests mandatory - and after any ban as well - because I
believe that this would actually help to tackle the problem rather than /just/ punishing the
clueless. It's not that the clueless shouldn't be punished, but forcing them to become slightly less
clueless as a result can't be a bad thing either.

 

[Frank]

"Guy Chapman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > A lot of poor drivers are punished with the death penalty, certainly
100's
> > per year, Why would jailing a similar number deter them more? A few
high
> > profile jailings is probably worthwhile as it advertises the issues, but there is no point in
> > making it run of the mill.
>
> The point is that killing someone through bad driving will still attract a shorter sentence than
> killing someone through many other forms of aggressive or negligent behaviour. Look at the list of
> aggravating factors: it's not as if people are unaware that these things are dangerous is it?
> Jailing people who kill while driving too tired or drunk or speeding seems entirely appropriate to
> me as the aggravating factors take it out of the realms of carelessness and into the area of
> deliberately putting personal convenience above the safety of others.
>
Jailing someone has to serve a purpose, it is bad for them and bad for society as it costs a lot
of money. We need to be sure jailing someone has benefits, deterence, rehabilitation or protecting
the public. I can't really see any justification for most motoring offenses apart from a few
exemplar cases.

I agree these people are bad people who have commited crimes but I can't see Jail doing any good.

> But I would also make retraining and retests mandatory - and after any ban as well - because I
> believe that this would actually help to tackle the problem rather than /just/ punishing the
> clueless. It's not that the clueless shouldn't be punished, but forcing them to become slightly
> less clueless as a result can't be a bad thing either.

I think all drivers should retest every few years and I wouldn't ever give a driver who killed a
licence again. What we really need to do is convince people that driving offences are antisocial.

 

[Michael Macclan]

Frank wrote:
> "Guy Chapman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>> A lot of poor drivers are punished with the death penalty, certainly 100's per year, Why would
>>> jailing a similar number deter them more? A few high profile jailings is probably worthwhile as
>>> it advertises the issues, but there is no point in making it run of the mill.
>>
>> The point is that killing someone through bad driving will still attract a shorter sentence than
>> killing someone through many other forms of aggressive or negligent behaviour. Look at the list
>> of aggravating factors: it's not as if people are unaware that these things are dangerous is it?
>> Jailing people who kill while driving too tired or drunk or speeding seems entirely appropriate
>> to me as the aggravating factors take it out of the realms of carelessness and into the area of
>> deliberately putting personal convenience above the safety of others.
>>
> Jailing someone has to serve a purpose, it is bad for them and bad for society as it costs a lot
> of money. We need to be sure jailing someone has benefits, deterence, rehabilitation or protecting
> the public. I can't really see any justification for most motoring offenses apart from a few
> exemplar cases.
>
> I agree these people are bad people who have commited crimes but I can't see Jail doing any good.
>
>
>> But I would also make retraining and retests mandatory - and after any ban as well - because I
>> believe that this would actually help to tackle the problem rather than /just/ punishing the
>> clueless. It's not that the clueless shouldn't be punished, but forcing them to become slightly
>> less clueless as a result can't be a bad thing either.
>
> I think all drivers should retest every few years and I wouldn't ever give a driver who killed a
> licence again. What we really need to do is convince people that driving offences are antisocial.

I'm with Frank on this one. Jail is already an option for severe cases of bad driving but it
shoudn't be automatic for every instance. Jail is considered to be a major sanction and it is
unlikely that substantial jail terms would be combined with the substantial driving bans and retests
that are needed to improve road safety.

Killers should receive automatic lifetime bans. One strike and you're out. Sounds hard and it is.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Russ P]

"Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:32:26 -0000, raptorman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm completely unconvinced that stiffer sentences will do anything at
all to
> > lower the accident statistics (it's incredibly rare for someone to be convicted for DbDD twice -
> > and yes I know it happened recently and yes
he
>
> "The number of Dangerous Driving offences committed in 1999 was 5,950, more than the total number
> of offenders (5,744) as some drivers committed more than one Dangerous Driving offence
> _IN_THAT_YEAR_" (emphasis mine)
>
> http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/research26/17.htm
>
>
> Some of the other bits of this research are interesting as well (Page 09 I think) The police tend
> to believe that careless driving is charged when DD would be better, but the CPS complain that the
> police don't provide enough evidence, and yet the CPS/Magistrates are less likely to think that it
> is necessary to prove for example that driving the wrong way along a one way street was deliberate
> rather than accidental in order for a DD charge to be brought.
>
> All very inconsistent :-(

I was however specifically refferring to DEATH by Dangerous Driving - I don't think there's any
proposals to jail dangerous drivers per se just yet.

Russ

 

[Lardy Ninja]

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... <snip>
> Jailing someone has to serve a purpose, it is bad for them and bad for society as it costs a lot
> of money. We need to be sure jailing someone has benefits, deterence, rehabilitation or protecting
> the public.
<snip>

I think it should also serve as punishment. The offender may well have seen the error of his ways
and never do it again anyway, but letting them off without serious punishment for a serious offence
is not really an option IMHO.

LN

 

[James Hodson]

On 20 Feb 2003 02:07:29 -0800, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote:

>James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Had Hart crashed either a few hundred years later or sooner I doubt we'd have heard of him.
>
>Of course not. Either we wouldn't have been born or we'd have been long dead.

OK, OK, Dave

Typographical error. For "years", read "yards".

James

--
A speed limit is NOT a target.

 

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:17:04 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>And if it had been a few hundred years sooner it would have been at a very low speed. A few hundred
>years later? Who can tell, I expect we'll all be wearing silver suits and cycling around in
>recumbent hover bikes.
>

And the traffic in London would and will quite probably be moving at the same speed.

Can't a bloke make the occasional typo?

James

--
A speed limit is NOT a target.

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:34:09 +0000, James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:17:04 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>And if it had been a few hundred years sooner it would have been at a very low speed. A few
>>hundred years later? Who can tell, I expect we'll all be wearing silver suits and cycling around
>>in recumbent hover bikes.
>>
>
> And the traffic in London would and will quite probably be moving at the same speed.
>
> Can't a bloke make the occasional typo?
>
Not liking to admit my ignorance[1], I kept schtum because I hadn't got a clue what you were talking
about. Now that your other post has explained that years=yards (I honestly hadn't worked that one
out) it makes sense.

Yes I would agree that I think we probably wouldn't have heard of him but sleeping drivers killing
people has come a little bit too close for me to be able to approach any incident like this
unemotionally.

On the whole I think his sentence was fair. Falling asleep and writing off your own car - OK you got
lucky - only two years for dangerous driving. Falling asleep and killing someone else ....

Tim.

[1] So far tonight - about 2/3 of a bottle of wine so "looking stupid" doesn't figure at the
moment

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:24:01 GMT, Ian Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The other day I was waiting at a bus stop and started doing some driver- watching (and
>incidentally, they really don't like being stared at, do they? It's like they think those
>windscreens are one-way mirrors or something). I counted that 1 in 10 solo drivers were on
>the phone.

Sound of penny dropping.

We now know what is responsible for Mr. Safety's observed reduction in the downward trend of road
fatalities.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:30:34 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The other day I was waiting at a bus stop and started doing some driver- watching (and
>>incidentally, they really don't like being stared at, do they? It's like they think those
>>windscreens are one-way mirrors or something). I counted that 1 in 10 solo drivers were on
>>the phone.

>Sound of penny dropping.

>We now know what is responsible for Mr. Safety's observed reduction in the downward trend of road
>fatalities.

RoSPA have attributed 19 deaths to mobile phone use.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email promoting
intelligent road safety

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:46:58 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>We now know what is responsible for Mr. Safety's observed reduction in the downward trend of road
>>fatalities.

>RoSPA have attributed 19 deaths to mobile phone use.

See later post.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 06:38:05 +0000, "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree with posts elesewhere that the real changes are needed at the lower end of the offence
>spectrum. Losing one's license for short periods should be a common occurence for all but the very
>best drivers. It seems ridiculous that you can go through your life 'turning over' points on your
>license but never be told to get out of your car.

Yes. Courts should impose bans of short duration - days in some cases
- for acts of everyday crass stupidity, and every ban should carry mandatory training and an
extended retest. That way the punishment would actually - almost uniquely in British law -
address the underlying cause of the problem.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:18:52 -0000, "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jailing someone has to serve a purpose, it is bad for them and bad for society as it costs a lot
>of money. We need to be sure jailing someone has benefits, deterence, rehabilitation or protecting
>the public. I can't really see any justification for most motoring offenses apart from a few
>exemplar cases.

It serves a purpose in deterrence (and recidivism rates for bad driving are apparently high). It
serves the public good by avoiding the cheapening of life in these very public cases where drivers
who kill are let off without even losing their licence (which absolutely disgusts me, but that's by
the by). It protects the public by ensuring that drivers absolutely do not drive while banned for at
least that period (again, driving while banned is not at all uncommon).

I am happy for my tax pounds to be used in this way.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[James Hodson]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 22:53:50 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes I would agree that I think we probably wouldn't have heard of him but sleeping drivers killing
>people has come a little bit too close for me to be able to approach any incident like this
>unemotionally.
>

Tim, I'm sorry if I have brought up a sensitive subject.

>[1] So far tonight - about 2/3 of a bottle of wine so "looking stupid" doesn't figure at the
> moment

Only 2/3 - you need lessons, and I can provide them at a reasonably cheap rate. :-/

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.

 

[Dave Kahn]

James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> OK, OK, Dave
>
> Typographical error. For "years", read "yards".

Sorry, James. Like Oscar Wilde I found the best way to remove temptation was to yield to it.

--
Dave...

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> Courts should impose bans of short duration - days in some cases
> - for acts of everyday crass stupidity, and every ban should carry mandatory training and an
> extended retest. That way the punishment would actually - almost uniquely in British law -
> address the underlying cause of the problem.

Perfectly fair and extremely sensible. That's why it'll never happen. :-(

--
Dave...

 

[James Hodson]

On 24 Feb 2003 07:59:24 -0800, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote:

>> Typographical error. For "years", read "yards".
>
>Sorry, James. Like Oscar Wilde I found the best way to remove temptation was to yield to it.

Dave

Go on, Dave, feel free to yield all you want.

BTW, who's Osc ... shut up me

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.

 

[Dave Kahn]

James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> BTW, who's Osc ... shut up me

An Irish playwright who died just over 100 yards ago.

--
Dave...