Clause a says - you drive really badly and clause b says - and its obvious that driving that badly is dangerous.
So is it not obvious to a competent driver that clipping a cyclists, or attempting to overtake one without changing lanes is dangerous? I mean that is hardly rocket science is it? Yet driving at that standard appears not to meet the criteria for dangerous driving. Something is wrong.
Now when rather wooly terminology is used in legislation (common) it usually ends up with the Appeal courts determining where the line is drawn. That is what has happened here. Case law has helped define what is and is not one side of the line from the other. When parliament disagrees with the interpretation of the appeal court it can refine the law to make its intention clearer - it has not done so.
How does clipping a cyclist come into that wooly area? So the courts are applying the law in a way which sets an extremely low standard for "competent driver" and parliament is populated by people who drive just as badly as the rest of the population, so hasn't seen fit to correct them. The current situation doesn't really reflect very favourably on any of the parties involved in our justice (sic) system.
clearly you have low morals if you will drive home tonight more recklessly than you need to because the sentencing is so light. That is the inevitable conclusion of an argument that sentencing needs to be tougher.
What's the point of long sentences for murder and manslaughter - I doubt anybody thinks of that when killing somebody (following the same logic)? What you're missing is that the sentencing regime might not have a direct effect on people's thinking, but it is part of a wider culture of acceptance of poor driving and placing a very low value on the lives of vulnerable road users. There certainly are plenty of people out there who appear to care very little about the wellbeing of cyclists. I mean you only have to look at the comments after any press article to find people suggesting cyclists deserve to be killed - that's in a dispassionate situation rather than the heat of the moment whilst driving, I doubt such people go out of their way to drive safely around cyclists. A tougher sentencing regime might just make them think that killing a cyclist whilst driving is rather more of a big deal than the current situation where it's seen as just "something which could have happened to anybody".
Judges are specifically trained not to use "but for the grace of god go I / could have been me".
Yet they still do whether or not they explicitly mention it, and such decisions don't always get appealed (in the case of them not mentioning it, I doubt very many do). I'm sure there was one very recently, will see if I can remember...