Debate in Westminster hall about Road Fatalities

[Martin Dann]

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates

I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found
guilty of dangerous driving.


Martin.

 

[Trevor A Panther]

"Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
newsY%[email protected]
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>
> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the short
> sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been found guilty
> of dangerous driving.
>
>
> Martin.

Thanks for highlighting this debate.

It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence --- killing by
motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of driving licence not a
brief 6 month "let off"

I am quite doubtful whether increases in imprisonment is effective and these
days costs a huge amount of money.

But permanent removal of licence would seem to be an effective way of dealing
with these sort of killers. Effective provided that subsequent driving
offences of any kind for the disqualified driver should then be appropriately
severe

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Trevor A Panther wrote:
> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> newsY%[email protected]
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>
>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the
>> short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been
>> found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>
>>
>> Martin.
>
> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>
> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"


Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.


I'm of the view that the current sentencing of bad/dangerous/inappropriate
driving is too low, but a knee-jerk reaction to the other extreme isn't
going to help the situation. We'd improve safety much more if the overall
incidence of bad driving were reduced. Just removing, at most, a few
thousand drivers per year (even all those involved in fatalities) from the
roads will make no noticable difference to road safety.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]>:
>Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.

However, I very much doubt you would be able to get a firearms license
after committing manslaughter with a firearm. Perhaps the difference is
that a pickaxe is not unusually dangerous compared to other items you
might lay your hands on; a firearm is, and so is a motor car.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Teleute, December.

 

[marc]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> newsY%[email protected]
>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>
>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the
>>> short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been
>>> found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin.
>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>
>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>
>
> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.

So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be treated
the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me, lock them up for
a number of years and let them keep their licence that they then can't
use, if it's murder with a vehicular style tool then lock them up for
life and effectively they get a life ban from driving. You're right a
very good suggestion.

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

marc wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> newsY%[email protected]
>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>>
>>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the
>>>> short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been
>>>> found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin.
>>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>>
>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>
>>
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>
> So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be treated
> the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me, lock them up
> for a number of years and let them keep their licence that they then
> can't use, if it's murder with a vehicular style tool then lock them
> up for life and effectively they get a life ban from driving. You're
> right a very good suggestion.


I could have predicted that one..

How many possible murder by vehicle incidents have their been in the last 10
years ? In my view, less than a handful where the charge may have been
justified.


Manslaughter is a much more realistic charge; unintentional killing of
another. Manslaughter attracts all sorts of different sentences from non
custodial to lots of years in prison.



- Nigel





--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Matt B]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]>:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>
> However, I very much doubt you would be able to get a firearms license
> after committing manslaughter with a firearm.

Do you have any evidence to support that suggestion? In any case, how
many of the 3200 or so annual road deaths result in a manslaughter charge?

> Perhaps the difference is
> that a pickaxe is not unusually dangerous compared to other items you
> might lay your hands on; a firearm is, and so is a motor car.

Motor cars are not "unusually dangerous", compared to other types of
road vehicles. The latest RCGB figures show the following vehicle
involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
million vehicle km):-

Motorcycles: 471
Pedal cycles: 361
Buses: 169
Cars: 67
HGV: 39
LGV: 24

We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
safest.

If we use the model of basing penalties on how dangerous things are,
rather than intention, negligence, etc. of the user, then motorcycle and
pedal cycles riders, and bus drivers should receive harsher penalties
than car drivers, and WVM should be treated most leniently.

Would you support the use of the item "danger level" in determining
charges and penalties???

--
Matt B

 

[marc]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> newsY%[email protected]
>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing the
>>>>> short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have then been
>>>>> found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin.
>>>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>>>
>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss of
>>>> driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>
>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract a
>>> life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>> So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be treated
>> the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me, lock them up
>> for a number of years and let them keep their licence that they then
>> can't use, if it's murder with a vehicular style tool then lock them
>> up for life and effectively they get a life ban from driving. You're
>> right a very good suggestion.
>
>
> I could have predicted that one..
>

Of course you should have, it's your idea, don't treat vehicular deaths
differently to pick axe deaths
> How many possible murder by vehicle incidents have their been in the last 10
> years ? In my view, less than a handful where the charge may have been
> justified.

Your point is?
>
>
> Manslaughter is a much more realistic charge; unintentional killing of
> another. Manslaughter attracts all sorts of different sentences from non
> custodial to lots of years in prison.
>
Fine, and when in custody, they are barred from driving.

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

marc wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> marc wrote:
>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>>> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> newsY%[email protected]
>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>>>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing
>>>>>> the short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have
>>>>>> then been found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin.
>>>>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss
>>>>> of driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>>
>>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract
>>>> a life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>> So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be
>>> treated the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me,
>>> lock them up for a number of years and let them keep their licence
>>> that they then can't use, if it's murder with a vehicular style
>>> tool then lock them up for life and effectively they get a life ban
>>> from driving. You're right a very good suggestion.
>>
>>
>> I could have predicted that one..
>>
>
> Of course you should have, it's your idea, don't treat vehicular
> deaths differently to pick axe deaths
>> How many possible murder by vehicle incidents have their been in the
>> last 10 years ? In my view, less than a handful where the charge
>> may have been justified.
>
> Your point is?

Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle will have
a negligible effect on road safety.


>> Manslaughter is a much more realistic charge; unintentional killing
>> of another. Manslaughter attracts all sorts of different sentences
>> from non custodial to lots of years in prison.
>>
> Fine, and when in custody, they are barred from driving.


Which is completely acceptable if society wants to pay for their prison
terms, but such a policy has a neglible impact on road safety. Take every
motorist involved in a fatality off the road, every year, permenantly, and
in 10 years time you have reduced the driver population by 35,000. You
won't notice that change in the number of drivers on the road. You might
notice it in your income tax bill, as its a 40% rise in the prison
population which will need to be paid for somewhere.


Instead, spend the time working out how to deal with bad driving. Most bad
driving does not result in an accident, let alone a fatality. But its the
amount of bad driving where people "get away with it" which re-inforces bad
driving standards.




- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
> million vehicle km):-
>
> Motorcycles: 471
> Pedal cycles: 361
> Buses: 169
> Cars: 67
> HGV: 39
> LGV: 24
>
> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
> safest.
>
Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
malicious.

Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
vehicle km at all.

Tim.

 

[David Martin]

On Dec 7, 12:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
> > million vehicle km):-
>
> > Motorcycles: 471
> > Pedal cycles: 361
> > Buses: 169
> > Cars: 67
> > HGV: 39
> > LGV: 24
>
> > We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
> > motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
> > safest.
>
> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
> malicious.
>
> Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
> vehicle km at all.

And listing deaths by vehicle operated is not the same as deaths
caused by vehicle. Most cyclist deaths are due to a collision with a
motor vehicle. Exclude those, and add in the pedestrian deaths caused
by cyclists, and things look different.

It is a question of which question you are asking.

...d

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
> difference to road safety.

Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
for that view?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Andrew May]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> Take every
> motorist involved in a fatality off the road, every year, permenantly, and
> in 10 years time you have reduced the driver population by 35,000.

Bet it wouldn't be. If you start locking people up for killing someone
with a motor vehicle then other drivers will start driving much more
carefully and the number of deaths on the road will go down markedly.
which is the desired result surely?

Andrew

 

[Steve]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:26:05 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:

> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle will have
> a negligible effect on road safety.

I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit was
given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't that have a
positive effect?

Steve

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just removing, at most, a few thousand drivers per year (even all
>> those involved in fatalities) from the roads will make no noticable
>> difference to road safety.
>
> Is this just proof by assertion, or do you have some justification
> for that view?

How long did you think about that reply before you wrote it?

Even if we assume that each of the 3000, or so, fatal collisions that
occurred last year, resulting in about 3200 fatalities, had one culpable
driver, then we have 3000 candidates for a ban. If we now assume that
none of the 1800, or so, drivers who were themselves killed in those
collisions are eligible to banned, that leaves us with 1200 bannable
drivers. If we now assume the unlikely scenario that none of those 1200
drivers would ever drive again if they were banned, then we would reduce
the 30 million, or so, drivers on our roads by about 0.004%.

Now, how many of those drivers do you think would have been involved in,
let alone be to blame for, another fatal road collision during their
driving lives?

Do you now see how foolish you have been (again).

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
>> million vehicle km):-
>>
>> Motorcycles: 471
>> Pedal cycles: 361
>> Buses: 169
>> Cars: 67
>> HGV: 39
>> LGV: 24
>>
>> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
>> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
>> safest.
>>
> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
> malicious.

That would be a convenient excuse to avoid losing the argument - if only
it were true.

--
Matt B

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Steve wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:26:05 -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
>> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle
>> will have a negligible effect on road safety.
>
> I think you ignore the point of a stretch inside being a deterrent to
> others. If the next person to kill while 2 or 3 times over the limit
> was given 20 years, and told s/he would serve every day, wouldn't
> that have a positive effect?


There will be (almost) no convictions for murder using a vehicle, because
you cannot bring a case for murder without showing intent.
A driver who killed because they lost control due to driving too quickly,
whilst over the limit in a car with illegal brakes, without a license, has
not committed murder. They might be stupid, they might be driving
recklessly, they might be driving dangerously, they might have committed
manslaughter.

Your claimed deterrant for murder will be zero.


So, you now go back to the bits you cut out of my previous posting.



- Nigel




--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> On Dec 7, 12:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> involvement casualty rates by vehicle type (all severities per 100
>>> million vehicle km):-
>>> Motorcycles: 471
>>> Pedal cycles: 361
>>> Buses: 169
>>> Cars: 67
>>> HGV: 39
>>> LGV: 24
>>> We see that cars are involved in less casualties per km than
>>> motorcycles, pedal cycles, or buses. Surprisingly LGVs (WVM) are the
>>> safest.
>> Hanlon's razor comes to mind although you are a troll therefore
>> malicious.
>>
>> Pedestrians, after all, are infinite on your list as they do no
>> vehicle km at all.
>
> And listing deaths by vehicle operated is not the same as deaths
> caused by vehicle.

The stats do not specify which party "caused" the collisions.

> Most cyclist deaths are due to a collision with a
> motor vehicle.

That doesn't mean that they weren't to blame. Many motorists kill
themselves by colliding with other motor vehicles.

> Exclude those, and add in the pedestrian deaths caused
> by cyclists, and things look different.

Should motorists killed by other motorists be excluded?

> It is a question of which question you are asking.

And of your prejudices and preconceptions.

--
Matt B

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Andrew May wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> Take every
>> motorist involved in a fatality off the road, every year,
>> permenantly, and in 10 years time you have reduced the driver
>> population by 35,000.
>
> Bet it wouldn't be. If you start locking people up for killing someone
> with a motor vehicle then other drivers will start driving much more
> carefully and the number of deaths on the road will go down markedly.
> which is the desired result surely?



And, go back to the rest of my post, where I said that tackling bad driving
would have a much bigger impact on safety. If people thought they would be
caught for bad driving they would be far less likely to do it (overtaking
too close, overtaking in dangerous place, tailgating, intimidation, etc..).
People do not drive badly because they think "it doesn't matter if I kill
someone because I'll only get a £100 fine", they drive badly because either
they are too stupid to know it's bad driving (so they need educating), or
because they think they will get away with it (in the sense of not being
caught for any offence and not being involved in a collision).

At the moment, you can drive incredibly badly with no consequences (with the
exception of exceeding the speed limit near a working camera).



Next look at the economics. Locking up 35,000 people doesn't come cheap. The
government announced plans to add 10,000 or so prison places the other day
for £1.2Bn capital cost, running costs are extra. Quite how many extra
road traffic policemen could you get for that sum to deal with general cases
of bad driving ? And do you really think its worth the substantial rise in
income tax to pay for all those extra prison places for drivers involved in
fatalities.



(General thread comment, not specifically aimed at A.May) I am not going to
discuss further with a bunch of "lock them all up" idiots.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[marc]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>> marc wrote:
>>>> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>>>>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>>>>> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> newsY%[email protected]
>>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-12-05a.284.1&s=cycle#g284.2
>>>>>>> Road Fatalities: 5 Dec 2007: Westminster Hall debates
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not read the full details yet, but they were discussing
>>>>>>> the short sentences given out to motorists that kill and have
>>>>>>> then been found guilty of dangerous driving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin.
>>>>>> Thanks for highlighting this debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been mooted by many on here that this sort of offence ---
>>>>>> killing by motor vehicle --- should result in a lifetime loss
>>>>>> of driving licence not a brief 6 month "let off"
>>>>> Why ? Manslaughter with a pick-axe doesn't automatically attract
>>>>> a life-time ban from operating hand digging tools.
>>>> So you want killing someone with a vehicular style tool, to be
>>>> treated the same way as with a hand digging tool? Works for me,
>>>> lock them up for a number of years and let them keep their licence
>>>> that they then can't use, if it's murder with a vehicular style
>>>> tool then lock them up for life and effectively they get a life ban
>>>> from driving. You're right a very good suggestion.
>>>
>>> I could have predicted that one..
>>>
>> Of course you should have, it's your idea, don't treat vehicular
>> deaths differently to pick axe deaths
>>> How many possible murder by vehicle incidents have their been in the
>>> last 10 years ? In my view, less than a handful where the charge
>>> may have been justified.
>> Your point is?
>
> Locking up every motorist who has committed murder with a vehicle will have
> a negligible effect on road safety.

May I point out that you seem to now want to treat vehicle created death
differently to other deaths.Please make up your mind. Justice has a
number of aspects, deterence is one, punishment is another, protection
of the public is a third, I don't think road safety is anywhere on the
scale, in the same way that sending killer to jail for using a pick axe
isn't measured in the scale of reducing work related deaths from misuse
of pick axes.


You really do have to decide if you want vehicle related deaths to be
treated like other crimes or not, at the moment you seem to be swinging
back and fore
>
>
>>> Manslaughter is a much more realistic charge; unintentional killing
>>> of another. Manslaughter attracts all sorts of different sentences
>>> from non custodial to lots of years in prison.
>>>
>> Fine, and when in custody, they are barred from driving.
>
>
> Which is completely acceptable if society wants to pay for their prison
> terms, but such a policy has a neglible impact on road safety.

See above.
Take every
> motorist involved in a fatality off the road,

Not involved in a fatality but those proved criminaly liable.
every year, permenantly, and
> in 10 years time you have reduced the driver population by 35,000. You
> won't notice that change in the number of drivers on the road.

But you may notice a reduction in deaths, I think the word would quickly
get around the lorry drivers that it is worth looking for cyclists, that
companies shoudn't expect their employees to asnwer phones.How long do
you think a concrete compnay would last if it was known that their
employees/contractors employed murderers/manslaughters?