It's easy to blame the jury, and say they simply carry the prejudices and bad habits of drivers in to court with them, but if the measurement of "careless" or "dangerous" isn't actually defined with clear measurable criteria then prosecutions will continue to fail or defendants plead down to lesser charges...Such a definition might not be particularly easy to come up with but it would be worthwhile.
Don't need it. Presumed liability , automatic suspension and reassessment of anyone driving a vehicle involved in a fatal accident, together with requiring retesting every 5 years or on accumulation of 6 points would deal with most of the issues. Would also take power out of the hands of game playing lawyers and driving juries.
[quote=cookeaa ]It's easy to blame the jury, and say they simply carry the prejudices and bad habits of drivers in to court with them, but if the measurement of "careless" or "dangerous" isn't actually defined with clear measurable criteria then prosecutions will continue to fail or defendants plead down to lesser charges...
It's a failure of both the jury and the law - I'm not quite sure which is easier to fix.
We need to get to position ensure that any RTA that results in a death is heard in court. When you're in charge of a couple of tonnes of speeding machinery there comes a certain responsibility.
To say 'Oops, I didn't see..' and to be allowed to get away with it is inexcusable, both from the driver, the Police and CPS.
Absolutely shocking to read that, thanks for linking to it Bez.
Too stunned to know exactly what to think but these two quotes by others on here hit a nerve about how I, as a regular cyclist, is viewed by drivers that I would consider friends:
It appears to suggest that you can be a sh1t driver, cause an accident & stand a good chance of getting away with it.
The narrative around cyclist and cycling has been allowed to sink so low that anything goes, your just a **** cyclist and asking to be killed.
I've had to walk out of a room after a friend of many years called me a dangerous idiot for cycling to work every day. Driving is seen as a right and anyone who questions someone's skill level or ability is seen as the enemy.
Hope they put pressure on the Police, CPS and government to have this changed, we need to be seen as equals when using public infrastructure legally on a bicycle.
Crushing miscarriage of justice. 🙁
This concluding point is a biggy IMO:The current classification of careless and dangerous driving offences, how driving standards are assessed, and charging standards, are simply not fit for purpose. They must be changed, with the standard of driving required being more objectively determined. Currently, the law requires jurors to consider whether another driver’s standard of driving fell "below", or "far below" the standard which they believe would be expected of "a careful and competent driver", whatever that standard might be. One person might well think they’re a careful and competent driver as they overtake a cyclist whilst speeding, leaving a 30 cm gap. I would disagree, so our perspectives on what falls "below the competent and careful driver" test will be irreconcilable. We are asking jurors to apply a standard that few understand, and which is far too subjective.It's easy to blame the jury, and say they simply carry the prejudices and bad habits of drivers in to court with them, but if the measurement of "careless" or "dangerous" isn't actually defined with clear measurable criteria then prosecutions will continue to fail or defendants plead down to lesser charges...
Such a definition might not be particularly easy to come up with but it would be worthwhile.
It's not a biggy, and not only would it not be worthwhile, it would be a waste of time, effort and resources that could be better directed into actions that would genuinely improve road safety and reduce the number of such fatalities.
The sanctions imposed in the form of fines, points, bans and in extreme cases imprisonment by the criminal justice system probably have a relatively low impact on road safety, especially when assessed against the cost of the system.
If you want people to behave in a certain way, whether that be at work, in the emergency services, in the military, or driving on the roads, you do it best by training them, not by the threat of punishments or sanctions.
araceryou have to start by changing those attitudes before you can get anywhere with addressing the bigger picture.
With something like drink driving, I agree that the change in societal attitudes over the last generation has been very effective, and probably much more so than the threat of of being caught by the police and prosecuted. However, whereas a driver makes a conscious decision to drink and then drive, there is not a similar conscious decision not to concentrate fully at all times and not to drive carelessly.
I suspect that with careless/substandard driving, we need to focus on changing behaviours first by training, and then people's attitudes will follow.
I suggested above that there should be more re-testing of drivers, including testing to advanced driver level, to raise standards of driving overall in the UK. What I implicitly mean by this is that there should be more training, since many drivers would probably struggle to pass their test without paying for lessons to unlearn bad habits, and the requirement to pass the test is really a way of getting people trained.
Switching the emphasis from punishment to what is effectively a competency test necessitating training to pass the test, would also change people's attitudes: people/juries/magistrates/police may have sympathy for someone who was careless and faces a ban, loss of livelihood etc. (there but for the grace of God etc.), but if someone fails to pass their test again when required (or an advanced level test), then others will see that as that specific driver's problem ("If you can't pass the test, you shouldn't be on the road..."). This has the added benefit of making this approach much more acceptable to politicians, who could implement it without being seen as the enemy of all drivers (=voters), and what would really appeal to them is that the drivers would pay for their own training (lessons).
With regard to zanelad's comment about lacking the numbers of traffic police to make any significant impact on people's driving standards, I would suggest a fairly ruthless approach making full use of camera technology, probably without even bothering to stop drivers at the time, simply sending notification in the post of having been seen tailgating, failing to use an indicator etc. etc., and a requirement to take the test within 90 days.
As to whether the numbers involved would have a significant impact, there is not only the deterrent factor, but I suspect also a potential 'critical mass' factor. If you can turn 1,000 bad drivers into good drivers, I suspect that they will have a positive effect on other drivers around them. Put crudely, if some people are not bothering to indicate to change lane, then others may be influenced by them and do similar. Conversely, the more people that do follow the rules, the more that others will behave similarly.
Don't need it. Presumed liability , automatic suspension and reassessment of anyone driving a vehicle involved in a fatal accident, together with requiring retesting every 5 years or on accumulation of 6 points would deal with most of the issues. Would also take power out of the hands of game playing lawyers and driving juries.
I don't think presumed liability is the panacea some think, and it feels an awful lot like introducing a special class of offence where the defendant is "presumed guilty" to a legal system based on the polar opposite principle...
The issue is ambiguity built into the charge as it stands...
...Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways...
Clarify "the standard" and deciding guilt or innocence becomes a simpler task for any [i]confused[/i] jurors...
except, oddly enough, h&s legislation....nd it feels an awful lot like introducing a special class of offence where the defendant is "presumed guilty" to a legal system based on the polar opposite principle...
[quote=ianbradbury ]Don't need it. Presumed liability , automatic suspension and reassessment of anyone driving a vehicle involved in a fatal accident, together with requiring retesting every 5 years or on accumulation of 6 points would deal with most of the issues. Would also take power out of the hands of game playing lawyers and driving juries.
That's even less likely to happen than any of the other suggestions, given that it pokes holes in the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty (which despite these issues is preferable to any other system of justice). There often seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of "strict liability" - where it does apply it is used only in civil cases, not criminal ones. I certainly don't disagree with the principle that if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that another road user was sticking to all the rules and it is also proven beyond reasonable doubt that a driver's actions resulted in their death then that should be sufficient for a conviction - but then you just have to see the Helen Measures case for the holes an unprincipled lawyer can stick in proving a driver's actions resulted in a death.
[quote=slowster ]With something like drink driving, I agree that the change in societal attitudes over the last generation has been very effective, and probably much more so than the threat of of being caught by the police and prosecuted. However, whereas a driver makes a conscious decision to drink and then drive, there is not a similar conscious decision not to concentrate fully at all times and not to drive carelessly.
In the general case you're correct. However in the more specific case of driving carefully around cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) there does appear to be a distinct problem with attitude amongst a significant proportion of drivers. They do make conscious decisions not to give them the care they should get by overtaking too closely etc.
Addressing that would help significantly - and I don't think it's even a particularly difficult problem to address. All you have to do is humanise them - they're not a cyclist, they're a father/wife/son/sister. Because most of those people are themselves daughters/husbands/mothers/brothers rather than monsters. If you can actually get people on the roads to relate to other people on the roads at a human level then you've got a significant way towards solving the problem.
Impatience. Inconsiderate. And, I think, they know really they should pull further over (maybe, some appear to see it as a weakness) but *there is oncoming traffic* so they just squeeze past as the easier option. Maybe also the perception that cyclist = push bike = 5mph tops..
That's even less likely to happen than any of the other suggestions, given that it pokes holes in the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty (which despite these issues is preferable to any other system of justice). There often seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of "strict liability" - where it does apply it is used only in civil cases, not criminal ones
I had in mind exactly civil cases, where it already applies to some aspects of motoring (most obviously, rearending). The rest is about licensing, not punishment.
I do think we need to explicitly move away from treating this area as one of punishment, in part because it's so nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a plainly incompetent driver is guilty of an offence, and in part because it really isn't a punitive issue, but more about improving standards, in part by reducing the number of license holders.
No one worries about "fundamental legal principles" when someone is denied a gun license because of doubts about suitability. Since cars are at least as dangerous why apply less stringent standards?
100% agree with cookea on this.
We need an objective definition of careless and dangerous driving.
Without this it's a case of circular reasoning isn't it??
Now everyone thinks that Ms Purcells driving was not careless. These people will be in the jurys of future trials and so on.... nothing will ever improve.
Clear legal guidance is necessary.
No surprise to me that she avoided conviction, she got away from being held to account for poor driving due to police incompetence in proving a viable case for the CP. I cycle to work every day on rural galloway roads and whilst the traffic i encounter is in no way comparable to the sheer amount that those in the city face i often have to deal with idiots attempting to pass me at speed on twisty A and B class rural roads and whilst i have reported reg numbers to the police of dangerous passes where i have had to take evasive action onto the grass verge and occasions where i've had a whack from a wing mirror the response is usually a variation (my words/interpretation) of " The incident you have reported will not be followed up with an investigation as there are no witnesses etc etc".
Needless to say i have a very good memory for reg numbers and types of cars so as soon as i can come to a stop i make a note of the reg number/car type/time & place of incident in my waterproof field notes notebook in my work rucksack and when the time comes that i find the vehicle parked up i take my revenge by writing on the windscreen with a permanent marker "Drive like a dick you'll get treated like a dick", if i've had a shunt or had to take to the verge to avoid a shunt then i've absolutely no qualms about taking my leatherman to the tyre sidewalls as i pass.
**** em, if they show such scant regard for my life on the road and the police don't care when i report it then ****-em - they deserve it.