Forum menu
She'll probably be out of jail in a couple of years but at least she won't (legally) be able to drive her car until at least the end of the 5 years.
To be honest I think this news should be publicised much better with it being the main headline on the BBC and ITN national news, just to make a few other drivers think and realise there is payback for their stupid actions.
Mmm, yes, so it's really a 2 year ban, I just don't get why they're concurrent.
Quite pathetic regarding the ban, obviously the court knows 5 years doesn't mean 5 years and has banned accordingly.
Imo she doesn't deserve the right to drive again, it is not a right.
Not sure the sentence is long enough, but it's longer than some sentences for similar offences.
Needs a high profile so drivers understand actions have consequences.
Personally I don't understand why we [b][i]ever[/i][/b] allow someone back behind the wheel after they have been found guilty of Death by Dangerous Driving. It's madness.
@njee - it's effectively a two year sentence and a 5 year driving ban. Its quite common for jail sentences to be concurrent so this seems consistent
I'm not sure about that though. I suspect that in this case this girl will be more that aware of the consequences of what she did and is unlikely to do it again. It's the people that still think that it is safe to drink and drive that worry mePersonally I don't understand why we ever allow someone back behind the wheel after they have been found guilty of Death by Dangerous Driving. It's madness
Concurrent because prison is variable , subject to appeal early release ,Home Detention curfew home leave licence etc and indeed recall to serve full term . So one needs clarity as to when starts and ends this is also an indefinite ban in so far as she needs to take and pass the extended test before getting her licence back.
Far too much of this around, sadly - just locally:
[url= http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11700692.Cyclist_killed_in_road_crash_named/ ]Cyclist killed on A3, man arrested for driving without due care[/url]
The incident is one of three in the past week in which cyclists have died.
Also on New Year's Day, at about 4am, a 23-year-old man died after he was in collision with a Ford Focus car on the A259 Grand Parade, St Leonards, East Sussex.
Three men and a boy, were arrested later during the day, all on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
And on December 28, a 79-year-old cyclist, Michael Long - of Hop Gardens, Fairwarp, East Sussex, died after he was in collision on the A22 at Nutley with a Renault Megane being driven by a 32-year-old man from East Grinstead.
I'm all for more stringent sentencing as a deterrent, but bans can be (and often are) ignored.
I'm not sure about that though. I suspect that in this case this girl will be more that aware of the consequences of what she did and is unlikely to do it again.
Why take the risk though? She might be a reformed character when she comes out, or she might turn out to be an alcoholic with a sociopathic disregard for other road users.
By the same token, someone who has done time for armed robbery might well just want a shotgun license to do spot of clay-pigeon shooting. But he shouldn't be given one!
The difference is that driving is seen as a basic human right, which cannot be permanently removed even if someone fatally demonstrates that they can't be trusted to do it safely.
True, but it wasn't shown that she set out to deliberately harm someone. So, for example, I had an electrician once that made a mistake in some rewiring such that a circuit that looked as though is was fully isolated with the double pole switch being open was still actually live because it was also connected to another circuit. It's the sort of thing that can kill but it was also clearly a stupid mistake. I would rather have retraining than a ban for life if that had happenedWhy take the risk though? She might be a reformed character when she comes out, or she might turn out to be an alcoholic with a sociopathic disregard for other road users.
The only reason I would want a lifetime ban would be as a deterrent but as noted earlier, it's not clear that that works. I also applaud Scotland's reduction of the limit. I think some folk think that any limit other than zero means a little is ok and they get to choose how much that is
Agreed 100%. There are already too many shit drivers on our overcrowded roads so one less to worry about has got to be a good thing.Why take the risk though?
As has been mentioned, driving should be a right and not a privilege. IMO driving bans should be handed out more frequently, should be longer, and where appropriate should be permanent. I think in most cases a long or permanent driving ban serves the public interest much more than a prison sentence.
Genuinely remorseful. For who? A measure for herself no doubt. God sometimes takes the bright and the good as he needs help in heaven.
It's the sort of thing that can kill but it was also clearly a stupid mistake. I would rather have retraining that a ban for life
If your electrician made a genuine mistake that could cost someone their life then that is one thing.
But if he made that "mistake" because he was pissed and behaving recklessly then that is a different matter surely?
The only reason I would want a lifetime ban would be as a deterrent but as noted earlier, it's not clear that that works
Yeah I don't think prison sentences are very effective as a deterrent for exactly that reason: few people set out to drive dangerously and no one (sane) sets out to kill someone.
But why should they ever be allowed behind the wheel again if they do?
I had the privilege of meeting Kate Cairns and listening to her talk bravely about her sister Eilidh Cairns, who was killed by Joao Lopes when he hit her from behind after he made the "mistake" of not wearing his glasses while driving his tipper truck.
He got a £200 fine and 3 points.
If he had been banned from driving then maybe he wouldn't have made that same "mistake" again and killed a second person just sixteen months later. 🙁 (in a vehicle with an illegally disabled tachograph system that could interfere with the brakes)
http://eilidhcairns.com/eilidhs-crash/the-investigation-and-sentence/
(and even then he only got disqualified for 6 years!)
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/joao-lopes-sentence.html
Not many people pass the extended retest, so I wouldn't be worrying too much about her getting her driving licence back.
@Graham - thought provoking links.
^ i knew of this but just read that stuff and it's disgusting. We as humans should be ashamed of ourselves.
your example shows the problem with sentencing and predicting future behaviour (lets ignore the clearly inadequate initial sentence). What would happen if we started applying that sort of rule to all the people who get caught 'making progress' for want of a better description. Drink driving or driving without your glasses are things most of us wouldn't do so are happy to apply the 'never drive again' rule. Speeding is a different matter and although there may not be any initial injury we could argue that it shows dangerous behaviour so we are just avoiding future accidents
Wanmankylung do you have a source for your coment re pass rate for the extended test?
A lot of people on this forum want permanent bans for drivers who kill as a result of their poor driving, just wondering if people share the same sentiment when 'life' sentences are handed down for murder etc...should 'life' mean life in those cases?
Some people on here argue that a person can become a reformed character in prison and that being released for a crime such as murder is the right thing to do once the sentence has been served....and yet as a forum of cyclists we grab the pitchforks and start foaming at the mouth when it comes to motorists who kill (generally) by accident.
Drunk and speeding = accident?
It comes down to intent doesnt it?
If i throw a punch i'm trying to hurt somebody, if i stab somebody i'm trying to hurt them or even worse actually kill them....if i get in my car pissed (however stupid that may be) i havent actually set out thinking "right, lets find a cyclist to run down"....the consequences are horrific but the intent to harm isnt there.
It disgusts me that there is hardly any coverage of these sad happenings. Media coverage of harsh sentencing can be the only way drivers will learn.
Here's an [url= http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67911 ]epetition[/url] take a look. Scum like this shouldn't have a second chance at being a part of society.
And such a topic only hits 2pages whereas anything about a politician from 30yrs ago might go into 20+pages QuickTime on here.
Speeding is a different matter and although there may not be any initial injury we could argue that it shows dangerous behaviour so we are just avoiding future accidents
True, but you have to draw a line somewhere and an actual conviction for Death by Dangerous Driving seems like a pretty simple level.
I agree that speeding might correlate with a certain attitude towards road safety, but when it goes beyond speeding and into actual "dangerous driving" then another line has been crossed.
(I actually think the current points system for speeding is sufficient [b]IF[/b] they actually removed people's licences when they clock up 12 points. But they don't.)
Some people on here argue that a person can become a reformed character in prison and that being released for a crime such as murder is the right thing to do once the sentence has been served....and yet as a forum of cyclists we grab the pitchforks and start foaming at the mouth when it comes to motorists who kill (generally) by accident.
I don't see the contradiction.
People have a basic right to their freedom, which they forfeit for an extended period if they commit a serious crime.
People [b]do not[/b] have a basic right to drive. It is a licensed privilege which can (or should) be revoked if they demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to safely operate a vehicle.
> ...who kill (generally) by accident.
> It comes down to intent doesnt it?
They didn't set out to kill someone, but if they were done for dangerous driving then they behaved in a way which a jury agrees put innocent people at risk of injury or death (such as speeding whilst more than double the alcohol limit).
The thing is drink drivers rarely drink drive as a one off. Its habitual. When they are 'caught' its 'I only decided to drive at the last moment'.
^ Not always the case though.
Not to mention the fact that that decision can often be impaired by the fact they are drunk!
A close friend of mine served an 18month ban for drink driving, he drove less than half a mile home at 3am in the morning, and was stopped by police because he took a corner a bit too wide and fast in front of them, he was that far gone, he did it right in front of a police car.
Once sober he was devastated by his own stupidty, despite him facing the loss of his job and only means of transport to his ageing parents who live on a farm in the middle of Dartmoor he didn't make any attempt to defend or wriggle out of it in court because he knew what he had done, he probably could have reduced his ban if he'd tried but he didn't.
He's said over and over again that the decision to drive that 1/2 mile that night is one he never would have taken while sober. He also didn't go out with the intention of getting drunk that night, but drunk he got, and it impaired him enough to make a stupid decision later.
A catch 22 for him, he didn't intend to get drunk. And while sober he wouldn't have even entertained the idea of driving while drunk *
What he could have done is decided not to drink at all, or as soon as he knew he was going to have a drink given his keys to someone else, but that's being doubly pre-emptive, and trying to instil that behaviour in people is difficult. He didn't give his keys to anyone because he didn't think he would try and drive after drinking, but his alcohol impaired brain decided otherwise.
* [i]not making excuses for him at all, he was an idiot, he got what he deserved and he is just lucky he didn't hurt anyone or himself. And I'm tee-total and have been my entire life, but I can see how he got into that situation without intending to.
Hopefully we can get to a point where its socially unacceptable to drink and drive at all, but the alcohol impairs judgement and humans are fallible, until we have cars that can tell if you have alcohol in your system and refuse to start we're going to have to live with reducing the instances as much as possible rather than eliminating them entirely.[/i]
Yup, that's exactly what the lower limits in Scotland are about- taking away that "I'll take the car and have one drink" which sometimes leads to "I'll have a couple more and just get the bus home" then once the decision-making process is screwed by drink, to "I feel fine, I'll just drive home". Not that this is excusable but it's more understandable than deciding while sober to drink and drive.
he drove less than half a mile home at 3am in the morning
I realise his judgement was impaired, but how pissed do you have to be to decide that is a better idea than simply leaving the car and walking home, especially if it is so essential to him?
Apparently pissed enough to then wobble round a corner at speed in front of a police car.
but to actually answer your question I guess that's either
A. extremely
B. not so pissed that he didn't reason that he was OK enough to risk it on the basis that it was only 1/2 a mile, but pissed enough that he shouldn't have.
point is, a decision he would not have made sober, he did make while drunk. Which means the point at which you need to make the right decision is exactly the point at which you're less likely to.
I'm all for zero limit and zero tolerance, hopefully will put people on the front foot and make them (while sober) not put themselves in a situation where they can make a bad decision while drunk later.
I hate driving to the pub as I know without doubt it'll involve me leaving prematurely just when you don't really want to. So I engineer a means to get a lift/stay over etc in advance. Plus driving back on a Fri or Sat night theres a high chance you will be pulled. Around where I used to live and my current you can hear the familiar short whoop-whoop of a Police car pulling someone over. It was worse in my old house- even dinner guests used to be pulled on the short 500m stretch at the top of our road.
If they're going to that level of restriction why not just ban it completely (which personally is something that I'm in favour of. you either drink or you drive - simple yes/no option)?Northwind - Member
Yup, that's exactly what the lower limits in Scotland are about- taking away that "I'll take the car and have one drink" which sometimes leads to "I'll have a couple more and just get the bus home" then once the decision-making process is screwed by drink, to "I feel fine, I'll just drive home".
Otherwise you're still encouraging people to take the risk, because they know they'll be ok, after all it was only a couple of small drinks....
If they're going to that level of restriction why not just ban it completely
It's not really an extreme "level of restriction" - it just seems that way because [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content ]the UK has one of the slackest legal alcohol limits in the world.[/url].
The new Scottish limit of 0.05% brings it in line with most of Europe. I suspect that, like the smoking ban, the rest of the UK will adopt this once they see how it works in Scotland.
[img] 
[/img]
@ Pinkster Total zero tolerance isn't really workable, there's legit reasons why you might have a trace- so they've brought the limit down to be less than a pint or a large glass of wine for most people, which will push most folks towards zero, and all the advice, literature etc is "the best advice is none". "A couple of small drinks" would take most people over.
Here's a question.
In 20 years of driving I've never once been pulled over and breathalysed nor have I ever seen a random roadside test station with people getting pulled.
Despite all the anti-drink drive stuff it does seem bizarre to have lasted 20 years without being checked once. Has anyone else experienced this or am I the exception? I'd love to see a lot more random checks going on.
I imagine there may be a self selecting bias there though.
do you drive at prime 'drunk driving time' in built up areas?
I have never been breathalysed either, but I'm rarely out on the road in my car late in the eve or in the wee hours, but I have seen plenty of people stopped and being checked when I've been out on foot or on ym bike at those times.
In 20 years of driving I've never once been pulled over and breathalysed nor have I ever seen a random roadside test station with people getting pulled.
In 10yrs I've never been pulled either but then I don't drive after 10pm as a rule etc etc. So maybe thats why for me.
What's the point of random breath testing considering you can decline the test.
They can only force you if they reasonably believe you are drink driving.
Failing to provide a specimen?
Yup, that's exactly what the lower limits in Scotland are about- taking away that "I'll take the car and have one drink" which sometimes leads to "I'll have a couple more and just get the bus home" then once the decision-making process is screwed by drink, to "I feel fine, I'll just drive home". Not that this is excusable but it's more understandable than deciding while sober to drink and drive.
I've been a bit sceptical of the new limit since it was introduced, but in fairness that is by far the best argument i've heard for it.
A lot of people on this forum want permanent bans for drivers who kill as a result of their poor driving, just wondering if people share the same sentiment when 'life' sentences are handed down for murder etc...should 'life' mean life in those cases?
Just like a life sentence, a permanent ban could be managed by allowing the offender to drive after passing stringent tests and assessments (which they pay for), where their licence would be instantly revoked should they offend in any way again.
IIRC there were arrangements made for any driving ban to run after jail time but the form wasn't signed and we had a change of government (to a seemingly overtly pro driver one) so no-one has bothered to get it signed 😥Assuming those are concurrent (as I believe they usually are), what's the point in the ban?
<edit> [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/when-is-law-not-law-when-no-one.html ]sauce[/url] (well that's where I learned of it anyway)
a lifetime of prison versus a lifetime of not being able to drive to the shops, not really [i]that[/i] comparable are they?just wondering if people share the same sentiment when 'life' sentences are handed down for murder etc...should 'life' mean life in those cases
do you drive at prime 'drunk driving time' in built up areas?
I have done, and living in a busy city, I often do.
I don't drive after 10pm as a rule etc
Because you'll turn into a pumpkin?
[quote=deviant ]It comes down to intent doesnt it?
If i throw a punch i'm trying to hurt somebody, if i stab somebody i'm trying to hurt them or even worse actually kill them....if i get in my car pissed (however stupid that may be) i havent actually set out thinking "right, lets find a cyclist to run down"....the consequences are horrific but the intent to harm isnt there.
If you get in your car pissed you've made a conscious decision to do something dangerous (or sometimes as discussed above failed to take measures to prevent you taking such a decision when your judgement is later inhibited).
If I walk down the street with a loaded gun and it accidentally goes off killing somebody, I didn't set out intending to kill anybody, so presumably I should be let off lightly and be allowed to own guns again?