[Closed] Tougher sentences = safer roads

30mph in a modern car feels so slow that it's easy to forget that you're operating nearly a ton and a half box along the road.

So, perhaps instead of putting a spike in the centre of the steering wheel, we lower urban speed limits on residential roads, enforce them (the flashing 30 limit sign on my local high street, which includes shops, homes and a school, is actually burning out from all the inconsiderate bellends setting it off) and actually try and make drivers legally responsible for their actions?

great that's addressed the 60% (the drivers of cars who cause bike related accidents). What are you proposing to do about the 40%?

What are you proposing to do about the 40%?

Pin summonses to their prone bodies? Annoying as bad cyclists are, you can't say they pose the same threat to safety as bad drivers by any objective measure.

Neo: Whoa. Déjà vu.

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/so-what-do-you-think-would-improve-safety-for-cyclists/page/2 ]Last Weeks Safety Thread[/url]
[url= http://dl.dropbox.com/u/81427686/PPR445_new.pdf ]Causes of Cycle Accidents on Britians Roads[/url] by the Transport Research Lab

Tougher sentences would work. However successive goverments don't seem to understand what tougher means. There is no good reason why speeding egts 60quid and 3 points. Make it a thousand or more and 11 points maybe. 2nd offence life time ban. That would make people slow down. People rant about it being out of proportion but whose says so. Apparently life is so important nowadays, why not show that. Minimum sentence for death my dangeropus driving etc should be the same as murder and thats should be real life. If your actions kill you should suffer. For ever!
Remember, there is no such thing as an accident, just bad driving.

dazh - Member

No, but maybe a blanket rule that if a motorist has collided with someone, and it's shown that it was their fault, then it should be assumed that they are not capable of driving a vehicle to the required standard, and the onus should then pass to them to prove otherwise. If they can't, then take away their license.

This is what happens already.

If a motorist collides with someone and its shown to be the motorist's fault then they face the consequences, every case judged on merit....the problem is the judges/magistrates who seem reluctant to hand down stiffer punishment.

Courts already have the power to disqualify drivers for careless driving but rarely seem to implement this.

Likewise there is scope to imprison somebody for 14 years when convicted of Death by Dangerous Driving.....but when was the last time this happened?!

The laws are fine.....the leniency of the judicial system is all wrong.

spxxky - Member

I read today of a lorry driver who killed TWICE and still did not receive a ban

Care to provide a link? People seem to be assuming you're talking of Joao Lopes but that can't be right as he did receive a ban.

Anyway. The reason tougher sentencing won't work, is that dangerous drivers don't think of themselves as criminals. They rarely even think of themselves as dangerous drivers.

Therefore getting any punishment will always come as a shock- and if it's coming as a shock then it's obviously not a deterrant. Adding 2 years or a lifetime ban onto a sentence nobody expects to get will make no difference whatsoever.

I think the OP meant that the ban wasn't enforced in any meaningful way. And scarily it doesn't seem to have affected his employability, either.

Mr Agreeable - Member

I think the OP meant that the ban wasn't enforced in any meaningful way. And scarily it doesn't seem to have affected his employability, either.

Er, are you familiar with the case at all? His ban (and prison sentence) are recent, he wasn't driving or working while banned.

Not trying to be rude, but it might be worth your time to read it up a little.

In New Zealand, the motorcycle gangs are really dangerous guys.

🙄

Anyway. The reason tougher sentencing won't work, is that dangerous drivers don't think of themselves as criminals. They rarely even think of themselves as dangerous drivers.

Therefore getting any punishment will always come as a shock- and if it's coming as a shock then it's obviously not a deterrant. Adding 2 years or a lifetime ban onto a sentence nobody expects to get will make no difference whatsoever.

This would only be true if all dangerous driving was a "first offence", which it doesn't seem to be, for instance in the case of Joao Lopes, or the 10,000 drivers with > 12 points.

Until drivers actually get meaningful sentences they will continue to take chances with pedestrians and cyclist

I read today of a lorry driver who killed TWICE and still did not receive a ban

Edit#
Random Google [url= https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=does%20punishment%20work&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=99b0cee94ed2fe06&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1777&bih=887 ]On Does Punishment Work?[/url]

Therefore getting any punishment will always come as a shock- and if it's coming as a shock then it's obviously not a deterrant. Adding 2 years or a lifetime ban onto a sentence nobody expects to get will make no difference whatsoever.

Attitudes change. I'm sure at one point it was a big shock to be told that killing someone in a duel was technically murder, or that clubbing someone over the head to steal their joint of mammoth would lead to your expulsion from the cave.

This research (which I'm proud to say comes from my home town of Bristol) sets out the case for tougher sentencing and enforcement very clearly:

The average sentence for causing an accidental death by driving is 50% of the average sentence for causing accidental death by other means. We have a massive collective blindspot in our society.

Sorry to bang on about this, but I was "left hooked" twice on the way to work this morning, three times last night, and I'm feeling like something's gotta give...

You're completely right about Joao Lopes not receiving a ban Northwind, although he was convicted of an offence, and I'm really surprised that anyone hired him after the publicity around the original case.

http://road.cc/content/news/47057-eilidh-cairns-killer-implicated-second-london-lorry-fatality

Pin summonses to their prone bodies? Annoying as bad cyclists are, you can't say they pose the same threat to safety as bad drivers by any objective measure.

Well you can say they are a significant threat to their own safety if they are causing or contributing to nearly half of all car/cycle accidents. I.E 40% of them are injuring or killing themselves. I never said it was as bad, just that it needs addressing together and demonizing one side of the equation won't solve anything.

Remember, there is no such thing as an accident, just bad driving.

Utter rubbish that. My one and only "crash" was caused by a farmer leaving a road covered in slurry like an ice rink. I was under the speed limit (as I had just come round a blind bend), my car was almost new so tyres were fine. The moment I hit the shite it went and couldn't be brought back in. I left the road into a fence and nobody was hurt.

I also know someone who's car's accelerator pedal jammed. Again within warranty, perfectly good car, forced them off the road, thankfully nobody hurt.

I heard about a guy at work who's car veered into incoming traffic after his suspension broke in a pot hole. He had a head on with a bus. I don't know how avoidable the pot hole was, but I doubt he expected a wishbone to snap.

There are plenty of times where accidents just happen to motorists through no fault of their own.

Mr Agreeable - Member

This research (which I'm proud to say comes from my home town of Bristol) sets out the case for tougher sentencing and enforcement very clearly:

Well, yes and no. It's a good presentation of the numbers, and correctly makes the case that driving offences seem disproportionately sentenced. But it doesn't actually have anything to say about the likely benefits or deterrance effect of tougher sentencing.

Yes I do think we seem to have weak sentencing for motoring offences. But it doesn't follow that making sentences harsher would have a deterrant effect.

Utter rubbish that. My one and only "crash" was caused by a farmer leaving a road covered in slurry like an ice rink. I was under the speed limit (as I had just come round a blind bend), my car was almost new so tyres were fine. The moment I hit the shite it went and couldn't be brought back in. I left the road into a fence and nobody was hurt.

I'd say that's not very good judgement of the road conditions. Speed limit has nothing to do with it.

I do agree though, accidents happen ( I just think that one happens to be your own fault 😛 ).

Mistakes are easy to make. And I'm not sure the answer is to punish people so harshly that they feel nothing but distrust for the society that does so. Meanwhile the people who are yet to make their mistakes remain unaware that they're about to make them.

The laws are fine.....the leniency of the judicial system is all wrong.

Surely if the laws are fine then they wouldn't allow judges/magistrates/police to ignore them? In the vast majority of collisions the facts of the case are easily established and undeniable, so surely this makes the case for automatic bans a no-brainer?

I'll never understand why drivers are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue driving when there's a serious question over whether they're competent to do so. It wouldn't happen in any other walk of life.

But it doesn't actually have anything to say about the likely benefits or deterrance effect of tougher sentencing.

Thorough regulation, investigation and enforcement is a key factor in making roads safe. There's a great chapter in Tom Vanderbilt's book "[url= http://www.howwedrive.com/ ]Traffic[/url]" where he explains how countries with systematic corruption problems (like India) are also some of the least safe places to drive.

He also mentions the example of France referred to above - a country that, along with places like Mexico, has become noticeably safer on the roads after steps were taken to address corruption.

The UK doesn't have a problem with corruption, but it does have a similar mechanism in effect whereby many people who commit motoring offences get off completely, or very lightly.

I'll never understand why drivers are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue driving when there's a serious question over whether they're competent to do so. It wouldn't happen in any other walk of life.

Already linked to this but it's well worth reading: http://www.jake-v.co.uk/resources/documents/cycling/summary_of_findings.pdf. It basically comes down to "there but for the
grace of God go I".