Not like me to feel that a driver has been severely treated, but the bloke has hit the accelerator of an EV he'd never driven before: Given the way people who have deliberately driven in a completely insane fashion are sentenced, (I'm thinking police chases here) 8 years seems a bit harsh.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze0xr9g5lno
To judge whether it’s too harsh perhaps we need to look at the bigger picture? What was his driving like in the minutes leading up to the collision? What was his driving record like?
Or, we could ask the two people severely injured or the relatives and friends of the injured woman whether they think it’s too harsh?
It seems to be a deviation from the norm, especially if there's not more to the story than on that page
You do hear the "same" sort of story on a repeat basis. Never having driven one, I do wonder whether e-vehicles need some sort of attenuation to that "instant max power" when in towns
What was his driving like in the minutes leading up to the collision?
The report says he had just picked up the van & was leaving the site when he drove into the gates. I know we have limited information available, but just from what I've read I'm surprised at the sentence compared to others.
Jumping in any unfamiliar vehicle, you need to be cautious. Simple. I changed from a large saloon car to a van with 400nm - I took it very easy driving something significantly wider and significantly more powerful than my car had.
Must admit I read this earlier today. The guy immediately admitted fault and clearly showed a large level of guilt.
I don't disagree that he was clearly at fault and his driving fell well below the standard you'd expect if a competent driver.
But compared to other deaths by driving the sentence does seem high.
I guess the question is whether this was a harsh sentence or other sentences are unduly lenient?
I completely feel for the family of the deceased. But I also feel for the bloke found guilty. Wasnt intentionall in any way, not drunk or on drugs based on the reporting. Hell have to live with this every waking day and the impact on his family, both emotionally and financially will be harsh.
No winners here 🙁
It doesn't seem to be consistent, considering this story was also reported recently - where the driver killed two people through dangerous driving. She gets a lesser sentence. Makes no sense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ew3vp8dlzo
The sentence will be within the sentencing guidelines for the offence, taking account of all the evidence and mitigating factors. The judge will have that info that won't be in the press reports.
Jnr (well his other half) has just got an EV. He said it's a pocket rocket compared to what they had before and he sees no need for the sports mode. Pretty sure any driver getting into any new vehicle needs to be cautious until they are confident with the controls
The judge's sentencing remarks are available here:
Some people may find them useful.
Draft sentencing guidelines here: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving-for-consultation-only
It does seem a long sentence in comparison with many others but I think in general sentences should be tougher.
Does the employer have any responsibility here? Instructing an employee to use a new style of vehicle with no training seems to be a bit dubious.
I had a look at the location and it seems to have all happened over about 20 meters, trying to work out out I was wondering if he was speeding or out of control for a considerable distance but it doesn’t seem that way.
Perhaps there is other evidence suggesting he was not driving in a sensible manner beforehand as it seems strange that 1) They charged him with death by dangerous driving rather than the easier to prove death by careless driving, and 2) that he pleaded guilty to the charge, presumably he received advice that the minimum term for a guilty plea would be 2 years.
Well having read the sentencing remarks I do think it’s harsh. Ultimately the degree to which he is being blamed for getting into an EV van without having driven one before seems excessive. Surely if this is such a step then there should be some sort of licensing requirement involved. I’m not saying he isn’t culpable at all, but as I said above, you see videos of people driving at 90mph on the wrong side of the road in police chases & they don’t get anything like this.
It seems excessive to me.
Ultimately the degree to which he is being blamed for getting into an EV van without having driven one before seems excessive
Surely there is a first time you get into an EV.
To judge whether it’s too harsh perhaps we need to look at the bigger picture? What was his driving like in the minutes leading up to the collision? What was his driving record like?
Or, we could ask the two people severely injured or the relatives and friends of the injured woman whether they think it’s too harsh?
here’s the sentencing remarks:
[url]
<[/url]
clean driving license. Collision happened immediately after getting in an driving the vehicle - appears to have selected forward rather than reverse, panicked and hit accelerator rather than brake and then swerved to try and avoid a car but collided with gates and pedestrians.
the judge outlines his reasoning, but I hope he appeals - there are some bits of his logic I’m not sure i agree with. He WAS inexperienced in the type of vehicle, the criteria is not “recently passed their test”. But he makes a big point of he should never have accepted the “task” in the first place given his lack of relevant experience - I think that is unrealistic. If electric vehicles need special training DVLA need to change the rules or at at least employers and hirers need to do familiarity training. This error does happen - it shouldn’t because drivers should be smarter (and perhaps vehicles better engineered to mitigate stupid humans) but he seems to have made 2 or 3 driving errors over a total period of 6 seconds. I don’t believe his culpability began when he accepted the job. Whilst those affected were vulnerable road users - the particular significance of that only becomes logical if the driver had any reason to modify their behaviour because of their presence (or potential presence). He didn’t intend to move forward. He didn’t intend to further accelerate. If there is relevance it’s to the third part of swerving but I’d suggest that is not a conscious act it’s impulse.
It would be interesting to see what the appeal court makes of his assertion that had it been intentional he’d have been charged with something more serious (presumably murder) because I think that is asking if the harm was intentional whereas the question of intent with driving is really about culpability.
After all that i then am not convinced that the judge has not double counted the concurrent offences. Treating an offence which you have also pled guilty to as an aggravating factor when they both arise from exactly the same mistake/course of action seems potentially unfair to me.
If the appeal court says the judge got it right - it’s good news for all the people who want to see tougher road traffic sentences, and so an appeal would be useful case law to establish this. If the appeal court says he got it wrong it will help other judges know how to apply the guidelines.
finally I’ll just say what I always say on these cases - had he made the same error but the gates missed the pedestrians and the bench was empty he would have been charged with careless or dangerous driving (I suspect careless and am surprised his lawyer didn’t talk the crown down to this) and would never have realistically been considered for a custodial sentence never mind a lengthy one. It’s tragic when people are killed on our roads, but we won’t instill better driving in people by locking up those who are unlucky enough to kill people whilst those who luckily miss just write off a van and some street furniture get some points and a small fine. Meanwhile other drivers make exactly the same mistake but happen to do it in an empty car park and get away with it - they aren’t smarter with better foresight who new to try their EV in an empty car park they are just lucky. We shouldn’t fill our prisons with unlucky people who intended no harm.
Agreed, the comments don’t seem to justify the sentence. when I got my electric van I was under the impression I was meant to get a show over from the fleet operator, but when I asked they just looked at me in amusement and gave me the keys. If I had then called the boss and said I wasn’t driving it, there would have been a load of pss taking and then he would probably have popped over, ragged it around the yard doing some wheelspins and asked what the problem was.
As it was, it took me some time to work out how to move it as I’d turned the key, it wanted me to press the brake to put it in gear, with increasing effort eventually it went into drive but gingerly prodding the accelerator it didn’t seem to be trying, even when I manually released the automatic handbrake. Eventually I realised that you still need to turn the key further as if starting a normal car, and at that point the brake servo started running and then of course it would go into drive with just a gentle press on the brake.
Additionally the drive and reverse rocker switch was directly alongside the Sport-Eco rocker switch and I did have a few occasions of putting it in neutral whilst moving, which is distracting as of course there is no revving sensation, it just starts slowing down!
As others note we're short on information. Assuming: no drink, no drugs, no intent, no previous convictions. Yes it seems harsh. A good friend killed someone on a pedestrian crossing (UK) and didn't get a custodial sentence. Another friend was seriously injured (broken legs) when a driver parking in a supermarket car park (France) accidently hit the accelerator crushing her against another car, no custodial sentence.
Check out the number of American Youtubes of drivers destroying their garage door or a shop front in their auto when pressing the wrong pedal.
It does seem a long sentence in comparison with many others but I think in general sentences should be tougher.
Does the employer have any responsibility here? Instructing an employee to use a new style of vehicle with no training seems to be a bit dubious.
there’s no causing or permitting dangerous driving offence (unlike say a dangerous vehicle, insurance, mot etc where someone other than the driver can be held at fault). Even for road traffic matters that do have that option it’s quite rarely used.
I’m all for pursuing employers who cause their drivers to break the law but I’m not sure that wouldn’t be a 20:20 hindsight issue here. If they foresee even a risk of him scratching their new van - they would presumably have acted differently.
Does the employer have any responsibility here? Instructing an employee to use a new style of vehicle with no training seems to be a bit dubious.
HSE might want to have a chat.
The company could possibly be prosecuted for Gross Negligence Manslaughter or under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 provided certain conditions are met.
Instructing an employee to use a new style of vehicle with no training
"All" this was, was an electric vehicle, for which the govt requires ZERO specific training, let alone certification. I assume the pedals are effectively identically placed to any automatic ICE vehicle - for which the govt requires ZERO specific training, let alone certification.
In my mind this is a power thing, not a format thing - shit happens so fast that drivers get that cognitive failure where they just mash the accelerator in panic, thinking they are (or at least knowing they should be) on the brake but there's no time for them to rationalise it.
Sentence does seem harsh but the EV thing seems not at all relevant. Pedals are identical to a conventional vehicle just no clutch, so akin to any automatic. Power delivery is not that different either. Moving from ICE to electric car there was really no adaption other than they’re easier to drive.
When I saw the thread title, I knew what this was about having read the article earlier and had the same reaction. I'm not sure it's excessive in itself, but certainly disproportionate compared to the dozens of killed-3-people-on-cocaine-and4-times-the-limit-got-3-years-suspended cases. I'd rather those cases were punished properly, but this does seem unfair.
Having read the sentence report, my opinion hasn't changed, but I understand there are guidelines, and sometimes their application might not seem fair.
Power delivery is not that different either. Moving from ICE to electric car there was really no adaption other than they’re easier to drive
I'm surprised, though have never driven one. I thought the power came in very quickly (and presumably with no revvy noise to tip you off either). If you sat in your e-car in a nice empty safe space and pressed hard on the accelerator (like you would on a brake if you were about to crash), what would happen ? I really don't think I could get my ICE auto car to do what his van achieved
From a review site: "The Ford E-Transit is available with a choice of two electric motors, offering 184hp and 269hp respectively. ... The more powerful motor is almost indecently quick for a vehicle of this size and shape". I've no idea which van he was in, of course
Power delivery is not that different either. Moving from ICE to electric car there was really no adaption other than they’re easier to drive
I think that will depend what the ICE vehicle is, and what the EV is. Going from my daughter’s 1L Picanto to even my MG5 in eco mode is like night and day. A careful and competent driver applies the accelerator in a feedback loop with what the see, hear, feel etc. so it’s perfectly possible to drive one sensibly. But if you somehow mix up the pedals you would very quickly be in a mess. It happens surprisingly often. I’m not sure how people do it - but I have a suspicion: they think it’s a good idea to use right foot for accelerator and left foot for brake - but muscle memory takes over…
You do hear the "same" sort of story on a repeat basis. Never having driven one, I do wonder whether e-vehicles need some sort of attenuation to that "instant max power" when in towns
When I was working for Cazoo, we had quite a few Tesla and other high-value/high-powered vehicles on site, and they had the keys locked up, and only certain people were allowed to drive them. I had to move a Tesla once from its parking location for a driver who was picking it up for delivery - honestly, while I’ve a fair amount of experience driving a very wide range of vehicles, I was very, very wary of moving that damned thing, because I had NO idea what sort of accelerator pressure would get what sort of response from the car! I’d driven a 650hp Mercedes before, but you get feedback from the car, EV’s give nothing.
It does seem a long sentence in comparison with many others but I think in general sentences should be tougher.
Does the employer have any responsibility here? Instructing an employee to use a new style of vehicle with no training seems to be a bit dubious.
Funnily enough I was once sacked for refusing to drive a 7.5 tonne van which I was licensed to drive but which was significantly bigger than any other van I had driven. As wide as an HGV and around 7M long. Gross misconduct.
I maybe didn't help myself by making it a flat refusal and not agreeing to go out on an assessment drive.
On thre other hand I had the advantage it was only one of two part time jobs I had at the time and I didn't need the money to pay my mortagage.
As for hitting the wrong pedal a driver at my work managed to badly damage 3 cars by inadvertently hitting the accelerator while parked and leaning into the back seat to get her lunch. I presume she inadvertently nudged to selection lever on the center console into drive at the same time. Zoomed across the carpark and rammed two parked cars into a fence. If anyone had been walking in front of her car she would be in prison as I think her culpability was equal to the case in this thread.
The sentencing remarks make clear there was nothing else the guy did wrong (no drink drugs etc. clean license). The judge seems to consider it irresponsible that the guy drove a van having not done so before and an EV having not done so before which seems to form the basis for the high sentence. It was being done for work and the judge states it was irresponsible not to have refused.
I'm not sure the judge lives in the same world as the rest of us.
Tis a deviation from the norm agreed but the norm is wrong. Better to say that this might be a new norm and base other penalties on this. He made bad choices. Punish him and set and example . The example being set, the next person gets 10 years.
Don't disagree with harsher sentences for causing death while driving.
But it sounds like this should have been the lesser charge of death by careless driving, rather than death by dangerous driving, to me.
but the bloke has hit the accelerator of an EV he'd never driven before:
and kills a person and nearly kills two others. I think 8 years with a recommendation of 2/3rds is about right.
The judge seems to consider it irresponsible that the guy drove a van having not done so before and an EV having not done so before
That's not correct. It was not having operated dangerous machinery like that before, and not having bothered to familiarise himself with the controls or how it operates beforehand.
this should have been the lesser charge of death by careless driving
Why do you think that? The offender pled guilty.
On pistonheads a specialist RTA lawyer suggests he should seek leave to appeal the sentence.
It highlights how weak the sentencing is of what we perceive as greater crimes. I would hazard though that those defendants are still pleading innocence and trying to minimise their punishment and pushing back against maximum tariffs.
On the work training front, where I used to work we ran through the 4x4 functions with new staff to make sure they knew what to engage/disengage, where and when, and that it is not a go anywhere function.
When the trailer test was removed that became additional structured training that we started to deliver which I co-wrote for the organisation and meant we also covered more real life task relevant information that the test briefly mentioned without practice.
I don’t think this sentence is harsh. I think there have been too many lenient ones.
The judge seems to consider it irresponsible that the guy drove a van having not done so before and an EV having not done so before
That's not correct. It was not having operated dangerous machinery like that before, and not having bothered to familiarise himself with the controls or how it operates beforehand.
this should have been the lesser charge of death by careless driving
Why do you think that? The offender pled guilty.
Can't speak for why he pled guilty, but looking at recent cases of death by careless driving it seems to include a lot of accidentally running over pedestrians, including while doing things like cutting corners ie imperfect driving leading to an unfortunate outcome, which seems more fitting with the facts of this case to me.
Does seem harsh given the sentencing given to others for very culpable dangerous driving but that doesn't result in KSI incidents. Kind of like loosing off a weapon into a crowded shopping centre but missing everyone is then only a minor offence.
OTOH the sentence is for three offences, one death and two very significant injuries, running concurrently, so I wonder if the sentence he'll actually serve time for (the death) has been boosted on an almost 'natural justice' basis because of the others even though they are concurrent.
I wonder if the Secret Barrister will comment, their comments are usually very instructive.
OTOH the sentence is for three offences
No its not. Its for the death by dangerous driving. Plus two 3 years sentences for the "lesser" charges to be served concurrently unless o read a totally different report.
Did you not read the rest of my post?
I suppose in reality the issue is what he was charged with and pled guilty to.
It was not having operated dangerous machinery like that before
I'm no big driving apologist but what was it about the electric Transit that made it dangerous and what instruction/certification should he have had? I imagine he'd driven a van before, so size doesn't matter (as my penis tattoo clearly states in the small print 😀) and so we're down to it being an EV. If that in itself makes a vehicle dangerous, what rules should be attached to private drivers buying new EVs, would we suggest ? Presumably there should be some substantiation of this competency ... like an additional driving test, maybe ? (I'd actually be in favour - same for anything with perhaps 250 bhp or more (ETA or maybe a 0-30 mph under a certain limit))
I’ll admit I zeroed in on his plea; guilty to causing death by dangerous driving.
My assumption would be that unlike the Older/wiser/richer/better briefed defendants we often hear about, his solicitor didn’t barter their way down to the old “careless” driving charge.
I’m also going to contradict my typical stance on drivers who kill here and agree that, in this instance, 8 years might not best serve the public good. If it is for an honest mistake, where genuine remorse is felt, but I wasn’t in court and I am not the one constrained by sentencing guidelines…
At the end of the day the public do need an adjustment in their perception of consequences for actions when driving, some of that is harsher sentences, some better education and some more explicitly showing the harms victims suffer. But that’s a bigger conversation.
I suppose in reality the issue is what he was charged with and pled guilty to.
That would potentially create an expectation of a lenient sentence for an early guilty plea, but he might have been badly advised on getting a lenient / discounted sentence for a more serious offence vs getting a full sentence for being found guilty at trial of a lower offence. It's not always what people think they are really guilty of, there is a strategic choice. I wouldn't use his plea as absolute confirmation the offence was properly categorised.
It's also not clear what the outcomes for the other two were - very little reported and their victim statements were not read out at the hearing. But understood they have very serious, life changing injuries. So as I said before, whether their outcomes affect the sentence or run concurrently to it, I can't help feeling (and IANAL but my understanding is that this would not be legally correct) they have had some effect on the harshness of the main sentence.
If it is for an honest mistake, where genuine remorse is felt,
It feels like that is the case, no effort to wriggle out, pure admission of blame.
What feels hard is that this feels to me like a sin of omission - he didn't do enough to ensure he would be safe, didn't consider enough of the risk of driving a van he's unfamiliar with out into crowded London traffic, didn't ...etc. Not like someone who did drink, did speed, did film themselves for clicks, did.....etc. Much as it isn't an excuse ever, this feels much closer to the 'There but for the grace of god' excuse that is often made.
FWIW, whether a year or 8 years, this is a significant sentence for the average person, not the career criminal type. A schoolfriend's Dad was imprisoned some 30-odd years ago - I don't know what the actual offence was but he killed another driver in an accident because he was speeding (always an offence) and on the phone (noting 30-odd years ago hands free wasn't a thing and nor was using a phone banned). No excuses made, he served about 18 months and it absolutely broke him, he never really recovered. As a typical white collar exec he was bullied, abused, attacked by the big dogs in the prison. Those 18 months lasted far longer (and in saying that of course I make no light of the cost to the victim and her family)
The sentence is arguably wrong in law. AS per AGTLaw a RTA specialist who posts on Pistonheads.
"Paragraph 37 is particularly bonkers. The max sentence (counts 2 and 3) is 5 years and as, a matter of law, concurrent sentences should be imposed in the circumstances of this case.
To use a notional sentence of 12 years before applying one-third credit is way too high. The category B offence range is 4-9 years! Starting point 6 years. It's arguably a category C case, but that's a separate point.
I know what is said in the judgment but it looks like he took 6 years (count 1) + 6 years (counts 2 and 3) = 12 years. Then one-third off. Therefore, 8 years immediate custody. That's plainly the wrong approach and on appeal I'd anticipate a reduction of 3 years from the notional sentence. 9 years with one-third off. Therefore, 6 years immediate custody.
If this is the eventual outcome then it would have a significant effect on the time spent in custody as the offender would not have to spend two-thirds in prison (applicable to sentences over 7 years) as he would be on the 40% release scheme (or whatever the government of the day puts in place)."
the EV thing seems not at all relevant. Pedals are identical to a conventional vehicle just no clutch, so akin to any automatic.
A mate of mine has an EV, the accelerator and brake are one combined pedal - you lift off and it brakes. There is an emergency brake but it is, well, an emergency brake.
I have no opinion on this case as I don't know the facts of it, but I wouldn't assume that the vehicle in question was identical to conventional ones.
they think it’s a good idea to use right foot for accelerator and left foot for brake - but muscle memory takes over…
I spent years doing that in competition. IME the worst that happens is you end up with two feet on the brake. Muscle memory takes over and both braking reflexes kick in a the same time. I still do it (left-foot brake) in the EV which requires a foot on the brake to change between R and D, it makes for seamless three point turns. But this guy had never driven an EV before so wouldn't have had time to think of work arounds to the irritating need to press the brake to put it in gear. I suggest he was driving totally conventionally but made a mistake with the pedals as he claims with extreme consequences due to the EV's disorientating level of acceleration. Mistake - extreme reaction from vehicle - panic.
It is odd that you can drive an auto having only taken a manual test but not the other way around.
