http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41627240

at least in the most serious cases…….

On one hand stiffer punishments might make people think again but will it make juries less likely to convict? Although TBF speed / phone use / drink or drugs are not matters of opinion, if you kill someone while drink driving it doesn’t matter if your driving was good or not, being drunk is enough.

will it make juries less likely to convict

Certainly a risk. It might also might reduce the number of prosecutions.

A start would be to apply the current laws – like a ban for 12 points.

I’m sure they’ll be an exception for killing cyclists, so the maximum penalty is still £250 and a slapped wrist.

Increase in hit ‘n’ run probably and more people pleading guilty for death by careless driving to make CPS lives easier.

I don’t think prison is the answer . If you kill somebody by driving badly then you should lose your license for the rest of your life . Probably a worse penalty for most than a few weeks in jail .

few weeks?

“Killer drivers to get life sentences”

Few weeks

Killer drivers ‘get’ 14 years at the moment. How many drivers who kill go to prison at all, let alone get the full 14 years?

Having a high chance of being caught for all bad driving would make more of a difference (it’s not as if killer drivers go out expecting to kill but not caring about the prison sentence).

This – plenty of scope within current guidelines for heavier sentencing. The problem here is with juries and the judiciary, not the sentencing guidelines. I doubt this change will make the slightest difference to the number of people killed on the roads, let alone road safety in a broader sense. What might is to change the definitions of careless and dangerous driving so that juries aren’t instructed to compare with their own (usually woeful) standards of driving and more objective definitions are used instead. That and better enforcement of offences which don’t result in death – if you’re going to increase the sentence for anything it should be for the equivalent offences which don’t result in a death, that might make a small difference.

You have a jury of 12 drivers, in front them a driver. They know that they have done stupid things that mean they could easily be the one on trial. There are very few drivers who have not done things that mean they should be banned, just a case they were never caught.

Do you really think they are going to push for the harshest sentence?

but as I said, these are for ‘black and white’ cases like drink, phones, speeding, etc.

If you cause death (fact) and you were over the limit / on your phone (fact) then you get screwed. It matters not in that case if you were driving ‘OK’ or not, you need the message that by driving while on the phone or at excessive speed you get a life sentence, not a chance to convince 12 others that it could happen to them.

but as I said, these are for ‘black and white’ cases like drink, phones, speeding, etc.

I’ll believe it when i see it. Harsher penalties are there now, the CPS, etc don’t use what they have.

the CPS, etc don’t use what they have

hence a law change is in order. Send the message there are no mitigating circumstances.

Nobody goes out driving expecting to kill somebody. Nobody even uses their phone whilst driving expecting to kill somebody. Hence harsher sentences for something people don’t think will happen to them aren’t going to have a particularly significant (ie zero) deterrent effect. If we’re going to have harsher sentences it should be for the thing people do choose to do – ie using a phone whilst driving. Though just increasing the chances of getting caught would be rather more efficient, given nobody expects to get done for using a phone whilst driving, because nobody expects to get caught.

I don’t think prison is the answer . If you kill somebody by driving badly then you should lose your license for the rest of your life . Probably a worse penalty for most than a few weeks in jail .

Dunno it seems you can get pissed, TWOC a beemer and kill two cyclists while already disqualified and only get ten years… Sort of makes a mockery of “justice” IMO…

I think prison can be an answer, depending on the circumstances, there can be a range of sentencing options but the current 14 year cap (irrespective of how many people you kill in a single incident) is seldom applied and is still a bit weak for certain cases…

Driving home from work today along the A59 there were two ****ts in Audis (typical) overtaking with oncoming traffic, tailgaiting when there was a big although fast moving queue of traffic, overtaking on solid lines etc. We all ended up at the roundabout at the same time so the needlessly dangerous overtaking was completely pointless.

One of them rode me right up the a$$. I could see in my mirror that he was a middle aged man in a shirt. How do you get to that age and still drive like a chav?

Too many twunts on our roads.

Nobody goes out driving expecting to kill somebody.

Maybe, but everyone with a licence has received training on how to drive safely and within the law and therefore know not to use their phone, drink-drive or speed.

Yes harsher sentences for detection of those non-fatal breaches has the potential to be an effective deterrent, but drunk/phone/speeding drivers who do kill should receive significantly heavier sentencing IMO, partly as a deterrent and partly to reflect the serious effects of their actions…

Except that as already pointed out, it’s utterly useless as a deterrent.

Mr Scott argued that the announcement was a “crowd-pleasing gesture” and that life sentences “should be reserved for the most serious offences”.

Killing someone would seem to be a serious offence, no?

I’ll believe it when i see it. Harsher penalties are there now, the CPS, etc don’t use what they have.

My understanding of the process (having spent some time talking to a JP) is that the minimum sentencing is the default outcome and anything beyond that has to be justified. Ie, what needs to change isn’t the maximum penalty but the minimum. It’s not clear to me from that article which is the case here.

Except that as already pointed out, it’s utterly useless as a deterrent.

It’s only ineffective because detection is pretty much nill.
Address the lack of detection and you begin to make it an effective deterrent. Of course I don’t hold out much hope of the rozzers actually priotising phone driver detection…

At the moment I witness several phone drivers a day, they’re all out there begging to be caught, In fact I have just reported the genius I saw watching sky sports on his phone while driving in busy traffic (towards a motorway junction) on Friday night.

Obviously I don’t expect them to try for a prosecution, I don’t have a dashcam so there’s no evidence, but I would like the police to at least have a word, and if driver’s start becoming aware that the driver behind or the cyclist they just passed might be a busybody like me (with a camera), they might just start obeying the rules… Well it’s a hope I suppose.

Of course it’s the lack of any consequences that keep arseholes like that, behaving like arseholes…