Forum menu
Your lucky, the wheels probably would have parted company with the chassis and made a bid for freedom
Leaving you skidding down the road ina shower of sparks
The point of this stuff is to change behaviour, not slap nurses.
In which case you need better detection and punishment of dangerous driving that does not cause accidents. No one goes out to kill by dangerous driving but many folk drive dangerously or with vehicles in dangerous condition frequently
Again - its not the level of punishment that drives behaviour change - its the fear of being caught. Its so unlikely that you are caught dangerous or careless driving that it becomes normalised. The way to stop these things is to change that
Posted 14 hours ago
Reply | Report
Olly
Free Memberan ABSOLUTE ban on those stupid “wah, i need my car for work” excuses.
“Exceptional hardship” they call it, but i cant look up the record for times used (im sure its getting on for 10 times on one driver), because if you google it you just get a load of solicitors websites telling they can get you off a ban.youve had 12 points of warnings FFS, if you cant work it out you shouldnt be on the road.
I need to not be a sex offender in order to do my job, mysteriously the same argument doesn't apply for me! Or people who can't have financial criminal offences. Professional drivers should be held to a higher standard not a lower, it's again the only time we do this. Hate it.
Our student nurse is stuck behind a tractor. It’s been all over the news and posters for ages now about how dangerous driving can lose you your license, like they used to do with drink driving. She wants to overtake but doesn’t want to risk it because she’s scared of losing her license, and she needs it for her job, so she doesn’t want to take any risks, however small. So she sits behind the tractor until it turns off three miles up the road. She gets home 9 minutes later than usual and does not lose her license.
in your logic you need to believe that the driver:
- assesses the risk of the overtake, knows it is dodgy, knows that if it goes wrong she’ll kill someone (possibly herself) and still thinks, screw it I’ll get home sooner if I’m lucky.
AND under the current rules thinks:
- if I get caught I’ll probably only go to prison for a year and get banned for a few years and that’s not that bad compared to being slightly late home.
that’s not credible to me. I think:
- some dangerous driving is done by people who have no appreciation that the driving is dangerous, they’ve made countless similar manoeuvres and got away with all of them (not crashing never mind injuring/killing anyone). They would do it even if there was a marked police car behind them. They are pretty much driving zombies (see below).
- a lot of dangerous driving is done by people who wouldn’t drive that way if there was a marked police car behind them, but who think they have the skills to drive like that when “nobody is watching”, probably because they’ve done similar things before without coming to harm.
- if people believed there was a realistic prospect of even small fines and points for silly driving mistakes from unmarked cars / dashcams (or even some marked cars who if not in traffic would rather not get involved) then I believe that would change behaviour. NOT the behaviour of the unlucky, but the behaviour of all of us who use the roads.
I don’t believe there’s anybody who has been driving for a decent period of time who can honesty say they’ve never got complacent about their driving; who has never made an error of judgement which in other circumstances could have caused a collision. And I doubt there are many who can genuinely say when they turn the key the thing they have on their mind is either not killing people or what the punishment is for driving like a dick. In fact I suspect a lot of people have driven on a routine journey (like home from work) and got home and actually can’t actually remember any of it - they’ve become driving zombies, there is no thought involved it’s muscle memory, instinct and subconscious. No adverts, headline sentences etc will make a difference because that person is not thinking about what they are doing. They are thinking about what’s for tea, the stupid meeting they just came out of, what’s on the radio, or the STW thread they were reading in the office when they were pretending to work.
an ABSOLUTE ban on those stupid “wah, i need my car for work” excuses.
“Exceptional hardship” they call it,
generally speaking “I need my car for work” won’t wash for exceptional hardship - that is not exceptional.
but i cant look up the record for times used (im sure its getting on for 10 times on one driver),
the law says you can’t use the same basis for exceptional hardship more than once in three years. It’s most likely that you don’t have a driver using the same excuse repeatedly but rather someone who has say gone through the same speed camera twice a day for a week before the first Notice of Intended prosecution arrived and they realised that they had the limit wrong, and managed to get all the cases heard together OR someone who for whatever reason didn’t get / ignored a few NIPs and was convicted in absence then brought before the court when the bailiffs turn up for the fines and has all the cases reheard at once.
youve had 12 points of warnings FFS, if you cant work it out you shouldnt be on the road.
I’ve very little sympathy for anyone who has managed to get 9 points through repeat small offences over 3 yrs. but get your insurance paperwork wrong and it’s straight to six points. You’ll then only need to misunderstand what a dual carriageway is and do 50 in a 30 to be facing a ban. At the same time you’ll be in court alongside the guy who got a course for doing 37 in a 30, 3 pts for doing it again, a course for jumping a red light, another 3 points for speeding and then parked on zig zag lines at a pedestrian crossing! The exceptional hardship cases are not supposed to account for how you got to 12 points, but I do believe some magistrates question the credibility of your claim that your license is so important if you haven’t modified your behaviour. But not everyone on 12 points is necessarily following a pattern of consistent bad driving.
HOWEVER that is all irrelevant to the OP which is about causing death by dangerous driving. Many of those convicted of that offence will have clean licenses. Very few will have 12 or even 9 points.
What if the aforementioned student nurse didn't lose their license, drove everywhere, become obese and dies of a heart attack aged 43?
Wouldn't it be kinder to ban them from driving if we're making wild hypothetical scenarios up? They might Buy a bike, develop a lifelong love of cycling and live to the ripe old age of 106 setting after setting a new distance record for a centurion on their 102nd birthday.
I agree with everything Poly said.
It's a wordy example for sure but the TL;DR is that two people screwed up, one got lucky and the other didn't. Should we penalise both equally or not?
Putting that another way: is it fairer to be prosecuting people based on their actions or based on the outcome of those actions? (I don't have the answer to this, but I think it's an interesting question.)
And yes, of course, the answer in both cases is "well, they should have been driving better." Which is absolutely correct, they should, but people make mistakes. Can anyone here hand-on-heart say that in their entire lives they've never done something and then immediately thought "oh shit, I really shouldn't have done that"? (Not just driving but generally.)
generally speaking “I need my car for work” won’t wash for exceptional hardship – that is not exceptional.
Yep. There seems to be a common perception that Exceptional Hardship is a handy get-out-of-jail-free card. Maybe if you also have an Exceptional Lawyer or are a Tory politician, but generally speaking it really isn't. Exceptional Hardship is when the consequences of a ban would be far above and beyond what would be considered to be reasonable punishment. If such a plea is successful it will be offset by a considerably larger fine instead.
I’ve very little sympathy for anyone who has managed to get 9 points through repeat small offences over 3 yrs. but get your insurance paperwork wrong and it’s straight to six points. You’ll then only need to misunderstand what a dual carriageway is and do 50 in a 30 to be facing a ban.
This happened to me years ago. I got 6 points (and a fine) for a 20 minute gap between two successive insurance policies. Add in two SP30s in three years and it was hello 6-month driving ban (and much larger fine). I have no-one but myself to blame for the fixed penalties of course, but the insurance thing was crossmaking.
You can’t deter people not to cause death by dangerous driving – its almost never a conscious act that the person expects to actually cause a collision.
If it wasn't a conscious act it would be a lesser charge such as careless driving. Dangerous driving from Google is::
The offence of dangerous driving is when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and includes behaviour that could potentially endanger yourself or other drivers. Examples of dangerous driving are: speeding, racing, or driving aggressively
It the deliberate nature that makes the offence serious. for example:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-jailed-after-friends-killed-2300516
Edukator - no, there is no requirement in the legislation for the driver to have any intention to drive dangerously or even to have any awareness that they are doing so, or to have made a deliberate “positive” act. It simply needs the standard of driving to meet the “far below the standard of a careful and competent driver” test AND “it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver that driving that way would be dangerous”. Certainly if you do do something intentionally it becomes harder to argue it was only careless but eg falling asleep at the wheel will almost always be charged as dangerous but it not a deliberate or conscious act; zombie driving where you just overtake every car in front without thinking about the blind bend is arguably not deliberate but is likely dangerous.
snip...eg falling asleep at the wheel will almost always be charged as dangerous but it not a deliberate or conscious act...
Deliberate isn't used, but...
The falling asleep bit isn't conscious (that isn't meant as a pun) but the events leading up to falling asleep are and it takes a deliberate act to ignore the signs of sleepiness; yawning, head nodding, loss of concentration, etc. If you carry on driving then that's dangerous
Narcolepsy sufferers do fall asleep without warning, but they shouldn't be driving without DVLA being satisfied that the condition is controlled
You are also driving dangerously if the condition of your vehicle or load is dangerous, but that needs to be obvious, i.e. your expected level of awareness and knowledge
Shortly after I passed my test, I was on the deserted M4 at about 3am, and was tempted to see how fast my Mondeo would go. But I had read somewhere that it was an instant ban if you got done over 100mph, and my income relied on me having a car. So I didn’t do it. I don’t feel hard done by!
I'd a similar dilemma. Only this one concerned an electrical socket in the kitchen, a plug not pushed in correctly so you could see the pins, and a stainless steel dinner knife.
And I was 7.
Took me seconds to decide and yes i did try to connect the two pins with the knife blade.
Obviously I'll not be doing that ever again.
I must have just missed him on the M4, but i turned off onto the A33 and did 320kph indicated... 🙂
Maybe causing another's death whilst driving should be tried like health and safety offences? The defendant should demonstrate that their actions were appropriate for the conditions at the time (no presumption of innocence).
If I killed someone whilst driving I would never drive again
Agree with the lifetime ban for the most serious cases, but the problem with bans is that a lot of people who would get one don’t give a shiny shit anyway.
it’s a really tricky one isn’t it. The guy that killed my brother, I would’ve been happy with a lengthy ban and community service. He got neither.
The guy that drove in to my house got harsher punishment. He was hammered, drove off, attempted to hide in a pub, denied driving the car, despite having a bloody nose and air bag powder all over him and got a ban, community service and has to pay me the princely sum of £150. I occasionally get a couple of quid in my account despite the fact that he was driving a new Mercedes. Repairs came to £6k with a £300 excess. Had to faff about changing insurance too because my premiums went through the roof. Obviously having a WGBE drive in to my house is my fault so I should be out of pocket and charged more for insurance. Best part, the **** was already banned from driving. I see that one was working well.
Despite all that, I still feel the bloke that killed my brother with his car should’ve had the harsher punishment. A house can be repaired and nobody was hurt other than my wallet.
Exactly this. Death is permanent, a fine or ban is paltry in comparison.
Some sort of social stigma needs invoking. Drunk driving carries longer bans and bigger fines, often the person caught hasn't even had an accident.
If you take a life whilst behind the wheel amd its proven you deliberately took a risk then it should carry a substantial penalty
Maybe causing another’s death whilst driving should be tried like health and safety offences?
Well you could start with making employers liable for deaths carried out by people driving on company time unless they can show that they had training, supervision and job planning approaches (ie. not incentivising speed, lack of rest etc) that put safety first!
The defendant should demonstrate that their actions were appropriate for the conditions at the time (no presumption of innocence).
Shifting the burden of proof isn't necessarily a great idea. I'm not convinced that a lot of workplace stuff is necessary, but its generated a lot of paperwork and arse covering. Why would we stop with road traffic act on presumption of guilt?
funkmasterp
Full MemberAgree with the lifetime ban for the most serious cases, but the problem with bans is that a lot of people who would get one don’t give a shiny shit anyway.
it’s a really tricky one isn’t it. The guy that killed my brother, I would’ve been happy with a lengthy ban and community service. He got neither.
The guy that drove in to my house got harsher punishment. He was hammered, drove off, attempted to hide in a pub, denied driving the car, despite having a bloody nose and air bag powder all over him and got a ban, community service and has to pay me the princely sum of £150. I occasionally get a couple of quid in my account despite the fact that he was driving a new Mercedes. Repairs came to £6k with a £300 excess. Had to faff about changing insurance too because my premiums went through the roof. Obviously having a WGBE drive in to my house is my fault so I should be out of pocket and charged more for insurance. Best part, the **** was already banned from driving. I see that one was working well.
Despite all that, I still feel the bloke that killed my brother with his car should’ve had the harsher punishment. A house can be repaired and nobody was hurt other than my wallet.
Yeah exactly. One thing that occurred to me is that maybe getting caught violating a driving ban should result in an automatic custodial sentence.
Driving while banned is not (generally) a crime of passion, it's a considered action. Weighing up the (vanishingly) small chance of getting caught vs the outcome (probably a fine and another ban?)
So I think increasing the penalty to one with serious consequences would increase the adherence to the ban.
All a bit soft isn't it. That driver has to be guilty of a minimu of manslaughter and should be treated as such. More honsestly, as they chose their crappy driving it was deliberate and thus murder. The only was it can't be is if it can be proved that they had done nothing wrong. Nothing! And even then you are usually at fault as you would not be driving according to the prevailing conditions.
For "smaller" offences I would be looking at a minimum of a thousand quid foeach MPH over tyhe limit and also a point for each MPH.Driving is a prilviledge not a right and infractions should be hammered. If it costs you your job then excellent. Until we get these levels of punishment (and punishment is needed as too many idiots don't accept social pressure or advice) nothing will happen.
Of course it woulkd need more policing but I reckon the fines (ring fenced) would pay for stand alone traffic police.
If I killed someone whilst driving I would never drive again
This was a really good article about that - bloke (apparently sensible and sober) hit and killed a pedestrian, and his attempts to get over it:
Counterpoint:
Our student nurse is stuck behind a tractor.
Lot's of whatiffery BUT
You can’t deter people not to cause death by dangerous driving – its almost never a conscious act that the person expects to actually cause a collision.
Especially most people and it isn't a conscious act to cause their own death ...
That aside it seems the point of if someone dies or not is mostly academic.
Going round a blind bend on the wrong side over taking a tractor is a matter of chance... (just for example) and when someone does that they have either accepted they may kill someone AND/OR themselves or not.
Quite how a potential driving ban makes any difference to that choice seems at best rather remote and more about showing some justice/vengeance than deterring people doing it.
Quite how a potential driving ban makes any difference to that choice seems at best rather remote and more about showing some justice/vengeance than deterring people doing it.
I dunno. It's not (all) that long ago that drink driving was basically socially acceptable, despite being illegal. You've only had a couple. Just go slow. It'll be alright.
There's an episode of Yes Prime Minister where he drives home pissed as a fart, all over the place - it was played for laughs, look at the drunk old duffer bonking off a bollard there, broadcast on primetime BBC1.
But we DID manage to make it socially unacceptable, and now it's generally considered that if you drive pissed, you're a ****.
So perhaps it wouldn't be impossible to do similar for, say, overtaking on blind bends? Happened last week when I was on my bike - **** got bored waiting behind me, overtook, then a combo emergency stop/swerve to the left to avoid crashing into the oncoming car, nearly smashes me into the wall.
In the same way that we got people to pony up for a taxi home instead of driving pissed, we should get people to wait twenty seconds before pulling some moronic maneouvre. It's got to be possible.
Exactly.
The problem is two fold.
Cyclists are a sub human species, cause a nuisance and delays to cars.So they deserve to be hit, see Facebook rants if you disagree. And
Too many people read about non existant penalties for hitting or killing a cyclist.
So the risk V penalty sways the decision process to, screw it, i cant see, im holding up another car, im gping to overtake and hope there is not a bus / lorry / coach coming round the blind bend 20mtr up the road and they then crawl past. 30cm off ypur bar end, at 5mph more than your doing , at 900rpm, in 4th gear. And grip the wheel tighter as that makes the car narrower.
One thing that occurred to me is that maybe getting caught violating a driving ban should result in an automatic custodial sentence.
I'd agree. Well technically I'd suggest it should a presumption of a custodial sentence and it would be for the court to explain why not. E.g. there could be some very rare occasion where someone who is disqualified moves a vehicle to the side of the road after an accident for safety reasons and is breaking the way in doing so, or someone is stuck in a remote farmhouse with no phone signal and the only driver in the house is having a heart attack and needs to get to somewhere to call 999.
However, most people who get a ban did at one point pass a test. So you could argue that they are "better" than the surprisingly large number of people who appear before the courts having never held a license, or driving with only a provisional license and no supervisor, L-plates etc! That's an offence which carries just 3-6pts!
But we DID manage to make it socially unacceptable, and now it’s generally considered that if you drive pissed, you’re a ****.
I worry slightly that the tide is turning on that one - but its not because of the sentence is it? its because of the social stigma.
Cyclists are a sub human species, cause a nuisance and delays to <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">cars.So</span> they deserve to be hit, see Facebook rants if you disagree. And
Too many people read about non existant penalties for hitting or killing a cyclist.
So the risk V penalty sways the decision process to, screw it,
I think you are wrong. I honestly believe those people have absolutely no belief they will crash. They may not be too bothered about some points if they get caught doing a dodgy overtake, they may not even bother about the value of the cyclists life but almost without fail they do give a shit about damage to their car. I'm firmly of the belief that its not "its only a cyclist" its "I'm really good at driving and won't hit anything" or what I've called "zombie driving" above - where they can probably overtake a cyclist and if you asked them 90 seconds later what colour top the cyclist was wearing they would say "what cyclist" because they are just operating as a bunch of reflexes.
Poly
I think you are wrong. I honestly believe those people have absolutely no belief they will crash.
^^ This ^^
but almost without fail they do give a shit about damage to their car
and if not surely their life or the life of their family in the car with them?
TLDR but has anyone mentioned "driving to see if your eyes are working"?
But we DID manage to make it socially unacceptable, and now it’s generally considered that if you drive pissed, you’re a ****.
I thought this as well, and then my daughter learned to drive while in 6th form. She has mentioned a few times that '5 and drive' is still a thing in the slightly more rural part of north Gower that a lot of her school friends are from. Not her friends, of course, but their parents. I guess that if you've got no chance at all of being caught - because of lack of policing and instant social media alerts if the police are waiting - then you're as likely to drink and drive as my parents' generation?
Conversely, seome people who stopped traffic in London for a couple of hours as part of a climate protest are looking at a custodial sentence due to public nuisance. Madness!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/27/climate-activists-city-of-london-protest
Shifting the burden of proof isn’t necessarily a great idea.
Been a bit busy today but that is the approach with H&S cases. The inspector determines what the defendant hasn't done to maintain a safe working environment. The defendant then has to prove that they were compliant and their compliance met the standards the inspector works to. (Basically bring your cheque-book and also your toothbrush as it's vanishingly rare that the inspector loses).
Apologies for the late reply today was a tad exciting after I left home.