Safe Speed Forums • View topic - Drivers who kill could escape being sent to jail

View unanswered posts | View active topics

Board index » News » Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy News

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Drivers who kill could escape being sent to jail

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

Page 1 of 2

[ 32 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Author

Message

Dixie

Post subject: Drivers who kill could escape being sent to jail

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 18:21

Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness

Daily Telegraph

Quote:

Drivers who kill could escape being sent to jail
Last Updated: 1:53am GMT 08/01/2008

Drivers who kill could escape being sent to jail under new sentencing guidelines for the courts.

The new proposals are set to put judges on a collision course with prosecutors because they appear to end a crackdown on dangerous driving, announced last month.

Under the plans, people whose driving is considered "careless" rather than "dangerous" should be spared prison and given a "community" penalty instead.

The new rules - to be published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council - appear to undermine the determination of the Crown Prosecution Service to punish rogue drivers.

Last month the CPS published guidelines recommending that motorists caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving could be jailed for two years.

However under the new changes, to be set out in a consultation document, drivers who cause fatal accidents while using a mobile phone could escape prison if they were "avoidably distracted".

Only those found by the courts to have been "dangerously distracted" by a mobile phone, an iPod or another electronic device, will be routinely jailed, it was reported last night. The Sentencing Guidelines Council is headed by Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, and lays down rules on sentencing for judges and magistrates.

Others who will not be imprisoned for killing by careless driving will be those found to have been "undertaking" on the inside, tailgating, running red lights by mistake, or pulling out of side turnings into other vehicles.

Factors that count as careless will also include driving while distracted by tuning the radio or lighting a cigarette.

The council's guidelines are being set down to help the courts deal with new road traffic laws brought in during 2006 in response to repeated complaints that those who kill while driving were being dealt with too leniently.

The laws will replace the old crime of causing death by careless driving with a new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.

Last night the Ministry of Justice declined to comment. A spokesman for the CPS said that any proposals were only "draft". The CPS would be invited to take part in the consultation.

Last night a spokesman for the road safety group Brake said: "Someone who kills through careless driving should go to jail unless there are extremely persuasive mitigating circumstances."

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Top

RobinXe

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 18:59

Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire

So only electronic devices are capable of being dangerously distracting?

Top

botach

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 21:46

Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK

RobinXe wrote:

So only electronic devices are capable of being dangerously distracting?

Phew -so we can still count on seeing a nice young female walking along the high street in summer(unless of course she's a robot) ( or will the sharia law of the talivan stop that too) ---a total distraction to us oldies. :lol:

(Just to show up the stupidity of the present law )

And funeral directors should watch out - undertaking is now a serious crime

Seriously - undertaking and the cause of -should be viewed on the same level - might give some of the pious prats( that sit in the outer lanes doing NSL-1MPH) something to think about. Nice to see that tailgating is getting recognised.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Top

malcolmw

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 22:59

Gold Member

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border

Quote:

Last night a spokesman for the road safety group Brake said: "Someone who kills through careless driving should go to jail unless there are extremely persuasive mitigating circumstances."

I don't agree with this. If the person has indeed been careless and has been correctly charged then this punishment cannot have any corrective effect whatsoever. What sort of mitigating circumstances could apply to carelessness?

This is confusing negligent or dangerous behaviour with carelessness for the expediency of retribution due to an unfortunate outcome.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Top

botach

Post subject:

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:15

Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK

malcolmw wrote:

This is confusing negligent or dangerous behaviour with carelessness for the expediency of retribution due to an unfortunate outcome.

This is similar to the ideas about disciplining kids --and look where that has got us --

Kid taunts mum - Mum says "wait till dad gets home " - dad whacks kid round ear - does kid know what whack was for .

In older times - kid did wrong - mum went whack - and kid knew what it got whack for. Worked for mine - not often I had to dish it out and then -they knew why.

This is what is wrong with UK LTD today.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Top

anton

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:12

Life Member

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266

Recently I saw a friend die of cancer just after her husband died of a genetic condition. they were suvived by kids 1,10,11,16

ok so a single mum, to four children two of which have special needs. round a corner clips a kerb and the car turns over and kills a pedestrian or even a passenger in the car.

It could be that you clipped an elderly pedestrian who fell and hit thier head on a kerb.

It is a careless mistake, not speeding.

It might also apply to a bus driver, who have a small collising with a bus, but someone falls over on the bus and dies.(this happened in southampton)

I would argue that if you put the bottom of the scale as jail and the top of the scale as jail (And 4 kids go into care), you lose the option of a community service + driving ban and extended test at the end of the ban.

Is society (brake?) saying that if some one dies, someone must go to jail, no matter what the consiquences for thier family?

PS.Did any rail execs go to jail for those rail crashes?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Top

ipsg.glf

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:31

Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland

malcolmw wrote:

Quote:

Last night a spokesman for the road safety group Brake said: "Someone who kills through careless driving should go to jail unless there are extremely persuasive mitigating circumstances."

Exactly. Carelessness is exactly that. Where is the culpability if someone makes a simple, yet fatal, driving error:

Distracted by kids fighting in the car.
Dustracted by the sound of a emergency vehicle siren.

What about those things that happen that we have NO control over:

Sneezing at 70mph.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Top

Johnnytheboy

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:00

Life Member

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border

On R4 this am, a reporter said that people who make a simple error rather than something deliberate shouldn't expect a jail sentence, just some "serious community service".

I see.......

Top

anton

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:14

Life Member

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266

Quote:

Last night a spokesman for the road safety group Brake said: "Someone who kills through careless driving should go to jail unless there are extremely persuasive mitigating circumstances."

So Brake agree that the proposal for the minimum sentance proposed is correct in "extremely persuasive mitigating circumstances". that is exactly what the law is proposing. Such as when a labour peer hits a pedestrian on a motorway?

Top

malcolmw

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:20

Gold Member

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border

Clearly the way forward is to check the political affiliation of all careless drivers that kill. Public spirited New Labour supporters obviously didn't mean to do it so can be let off but those hard-hearted capitalists ...

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Top

anton

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 13:57

Life Member

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7178120.stm

Quote:

Lorna Jackson, from the road safety charity, Brake, said she still hoped custodial sentences would be a "starting point".
"Obviously if there are some really persuasive mitigating circumstances then that could be reduced down to a community sentence. But we really do want to see the custodial sentence as the starting point."

She claims to want the sentance to be jail-jail in one sentance and in the next community service-jail in the next.

If you write the minmum sentance down as jail. that is it jail. :banghead:

Top

malcolmw

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 14:25

Gold Member

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border

I've just heard Mary Williams on the BBC news at 1pm and she was implying that there shouldn't be any differentiation between careless and dangerous as driving was "the most dangerous activity we do" and thus our attention should be at its utmost all the time.

I think she needs to get back to the real world from her idealistic position.

What is the difference between killed and seriously injured? Luck? How close you are to a hospital when the incident occurs? So, should drivers who are involved in serious injury accidents be automaticallly be jailed?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Top

RobinXe

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 14:50

Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire

Its important to remember that, regardless of the cause of a fatal accident, people who staff organisations like Brake will want to exact revenge on someone, anyone.

Top

civil engineer

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 15:11

Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)

There but for the grace of god goes anyone who gets behind the wheel.

Anyone could have an accident that results in a fatality. ANYONE. You don't have to cause it just be involved.

Once you're in that situation you could be prosecuted....depending on the whim of a police force/CPS or the prevailing political circumstances. Once you're charged then it really is a lottery.

There was a debate on 5 live about it this morning. The vast majority agreed with my sentiment that it should be the driving behaviour not the outcome that should determine the charge/prosecution/sentence.

There was a lad on there who'd tragically lost a brother when he was knocked over. The guy was absolutely distraught as you would expect. The driver wasn't even charged but the guy felt that he should have been jailed for life. A vehicle is a lethal weapon etc etc.

This same bloke then admitted that he'd recieved 3 points for jumping a red light but completely failed to see the linkage between his seemingly minor mistake and the accident that claimed his brother. He was careless to jump a red light, his carelessness could have caused another fatality, he would have been jailed for life if subjected to his own logic. He let himself down very badly on this point.

I truely feel for anyone who has lost a loved one in these tragic circumstances but there needs to be circumspection and proportionality. Sometimes there are simply accidents, there may be cuases but that doesn't necessarily equate to blame.

Top

semitone

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 16:58

User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643

You could have a fit, healthy 20 year old step out in front of you and you hit them still doing 15 mph - they would probably suffer nothing more that bruising. Equally you could have a frail 80 year old step out in front of you that you hit doing 15mph who would likely fall to the floor with broken bones and possibly die later as a result of the injuries. Exactly the same accident but with two very different outcomes. Brake would jail the driver who hit the 80 year old.

Top

civil engineer

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 18:06

Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)

semitone wrote:

A caller highlighted a very similar real example of where someone was jailed for 4 1/2 years because he knocked over and killed an elderly lady who walked out on a zebra crossing without looking. The caller, who was in the car behind, maintains that it was a pure accident and that he may well have been in the same boat had things been slightly different. The Caller was an experienced driving instructor.

Top

ipsg.glf

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 18:14

Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland

semitone wrote:

You could have a fit, healthy 20 year old step out in front of you and you hit them still doing 15 mph

and if they do step out unexpectedly and you are within your thinking distance when they present themselves in front of you, then no power on earth will allow you to avoid the collision.

Simply becasue by the time you react to them being there, you will have hit them.

On that basis, I think we should have punishments for pedestrians (and, in particular, drunk pedestrians) who cross the road without looking.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Top

Dusty

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 18:20

User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693

Personally I dont think anyone should be gaoled for anything unless there is a clearly established Mens Rea.

And even then, punishment should reflect intent not outcome.

Gary Hart would not have been gaoled if he had simply ended up in a field and he shouldnt have been gaoled simply because he was unlucky enough to land on a railway line.

(Actually, his whole trial smells of a setup! My brother is a (rather good!) barrister and recons that the admisability of a lot of the prosecutions evidence was rather questionable)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Top

semitone

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 20:03

User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643

ipsg.glf wrote:

semitone wrote:

You could have a fit, healthy 20 year old step out in front of you and you hit them still doing 15 mph

That's precisely what I was thinking when I posted, although I didn't explain it.

Top

Rigpig

Post subject:

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 20:40

Member

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire

This is a not-insiginficant issue for a developed society to have to deal with, i.e. what does one do with somone who kills another person whilst undertaking an everyday task such as driving.
Ultimately we all want the safest roads we can get and that means, amongst other things such as engineered solutions, instilling safety first attitudes and behaviour into drivers. But here we seem to have a dichotomy between what one deems to be 'safe behaviours'. If someone loses control fo the car because of a sudden sneeze, then this unintended action and its outcome should be treated differently to an intended action even if the outcome is unintended.
There is a great strength of feeling on this forum that drivers should not be prosecuted for, say, using a mobile phone whilst driving if they are seen to be doing it safely. The problem is, the most extreme outcome of them not doing it safely is they kill someone. So do we have to wait until this intended action has a visibly detrimental effect on their driving before acting.
And in such a case we have an unintended end result from an intended behaviour which we have been warned not to do. A life needlessly lost because someone thought they were immune from the distracting effects of the mobile phone. Should that person be jailed? IMHO yes, not because they pose a threat to society by killing another person whilst using a mobile, but because society has to take the stance that taking the life of another is not acceptable.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Top

Page 1 of 2

[ 32 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2 Next

Board index » News » Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy News

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Jump to: