[Closed] The CPS actually manage to convict someone of Death by Dangerous Driving

Better driving training, better cyclist training, and wearing more high viz stuff etc etc.

High quality separated infrastructure on major/fast roads to ensure that when a driver fails to pay proper attention it doesn't result in the death of a cyclist. Slower speed limits on roads where separate infrastructure cannot be provided and cyclists and vehicles do mix. Strict enforcement of speed limits, mobile phone use etc, with increased penalties .

IMO the problem is not so much the law, it's lack of enforcement combined with social acceptance...

'Minor' infringement of the law is an accepted social norm and there's few examples of people being prosecuted, so the majority believe it's acceptable. Only those who hold themselves to a higher standard will behave legally...

The public at large only tend to keep to those traffic laws they think they'll get caught for.

Right now there seem to be so few visible police on the road, the average Joe Public doesn't believe they'll get caught for what they frame as minor misdemeanours e.g. speeding, accelerating through an amber, overtaking into oncoming or across a solid white line, using a mobile.

Some of these things are illegal so if you carry them out, you're a criminal. But as they're believed to be so common (borne out by watching other drivers and media releasing figures showing that the majority of drivers speed, use mobile phones etc) then most drivers would frame themselves as 'a normal citizen' rather than a criminal.

So the solution IMO is a) more police arresting or at least having a stiff word with drivers who break the law, however minor (or compulsory black boxes in cars which send a signal when laws are broken) and b) making minor infringements socially unacceptable (worked for drink driving)...

Then maybe UK drivers at large would grow up...

Yes, an advertising campaign:

We see a cyclist set off from home, waving goodbye to his/her family.
We see a motorist set off from home, waving goodbye to his/her family.
(See? cyclists are people too).

We see the cyclist riding along.
The motorist driving along. (The same road = cyclists do the same things as motorists).

Driver's phone announces a text. S/he looks at it.

Camera looking from back seat into rear view mirror.
Driver smiling down at phone screen.
Driver suddenly reacts. Car jolts. Stops. Driver's face, shocked, horrified, realisation dawns, OH NO NO NO!!!

Cyclist's family at the hospital, waiting in A&E. Surgeon comes out, film goes from colour to mono. Surgeon shakes his head. Family stunned, devastated, clinging to one another in agony - look across at driver.

...

Or something along those lines.

konabunny - Member

No - they're completely oblivious to everything, that's the whole point. Relying on their good nature and to consider the guilt that might happen doesn't work. You need a strong penalty to pierce their consciousness.

Which they'll also be oblivious to. It's nothing to do with "relying on good nature", it's just facing the fact that sentencing isn't a very effective deterrant even for "intentional" crimes like theft etc, let alone ones which people have no intention of committing.

If I thought high sentencing would work I'd say go for it. But there's zero chance. The problem is not punishment or lack of, the answer's not so simple and going down a wrong alley just means not getting any closer to fixing hte problem.

Which they'll also be oblivious to. It's nothing to do with "relying on good nature", it's just facing the fact that sentencing isn't a very effective deterrant even for "intentional" crimes like theft etc, let alone ones which people have no intention of committing.
let alone ones which people have no intention of committing.

Have to disagree with this no intention bit. People have the intention to use handheld mobiles or satnavs while driving knowing full well it is illegal and unsafe. Just like someone who punches somebody without intending to kill them can be convicted of manslaughter if the victim falls and bangs their head.

Leaving aside for the moment the argument about whether jail is a deterrent to others what about some good old fashioned Old Testament style punishment. I think anyone who takes the conscious decision to adjust their satnav or use a hand held mobile while driving and as a result kills someone deserves a couple of months of jail time.

Something needs to be done. I started a new job a couple of years ago where I was driving alongside various other employees at different times. I got odd looks from all of them when I didn't answer my handheld mobile while driving. Everyone else without exception did. As for deterrence the worst offender was cured of both her speeding and handheld texting habits when she was caught by the police twice within a week and a ban was suddenly within sight if she kept on going. What is needed is heftier punishments, publicity, and more traffic police.

irc - Member

Have to disagree with this no intention bit. People have the intention to use handheld mobiles or satnavs while driving knowing full well it is illegal and unsafe.

The former, sure. The latter... How many people think "Oh, I know it's not safe but I'll do it anyway"? They think "Oh well it's illegal but I'll do it safely"

Nobody ever thought "I'll answer my phone because I don't care if I hit a cyclist/pedestrian", they just don't think it will happen.

Have to disagree with this no intention bit. People have the intention to use handheld mobiles or satnavs while driving knowing full well it is illegal and unsafe.

Yeah but that is a totally separate crime than Death By Dangerous Driving and one where fear of sentence [i]could[/i] be effective if it were enforced (as your colleague showed) though actually jailing people for answering their mobile is probably a bit heavy-handed!

though actually jailing people for answering their mobile is probably a bit heavy-handed!

True, though I think the greater success was in making drink-driving socially unacceptable with a strong advertising campaign.

true, guess it's going to be tricky to prove which was more effective. No reason why they can't do both publicity and punishment with mobile/satnav/other driver distractions aswell tho. Mobile use at the wheel is pretty rife round here.

I am amazed at some of the attitudes on here, a cycling site - eg cyclists will die, get used to it, etc. We rode for about a mile on Sunday along a country lane and saw cars on the other side of the road carve up two cyclists forcing them to swerve; on Saturday a young girl just drove at me without slowing down and then blared her horn continuously after she passed as I had dared be in the road coming the other way. These attitudes of assumed superiority are utterly unacceptable, in just the same way as Jimmy Savile's crimes were excused by some long ago as he was famous at the time. Such attitudes have been sub-consciously brought in and reinforced in society for decades. High-profile sentencing for killing vulnerable people with dangerous weapons is one way of doing so. I won't be an apologist for such people, let alone blatantly encourage them like that idiot pub owner recently and certain journalists in the past.

However, seeing some of the other deeply irritating posts elsewhere on this site of the "I can drive a really powerful car really fast and not get caught, aren't I a man", I despair, I really do.

Sorry for a quasi-rant but I feel so strongly about this.

Sorry for a quasi-rant but I feel so strongly about this.

So do I but I think you are mis-reading the tone of the posts on this thread if you think anyone here is dismissive of cyclist deaths or thinks we should get used to it.

No - they're completely oblivious to everything, that's the whole point. Relying on their good nature and to consider the guilt that might happen doesn't work. You need a strong penalty to pierce their consciousness.

Yup, such as permanent removal of their driving license.

Most recent comment on [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fatal-distraction-drivers-and-cyclists-need-all-their-attention-for-the-road-8733639.html ]that Independent article[/url]:

albertcornercrew 1 days ago:

Quite easy to attack the careless driver, however what about the Lycra clad club members who use roads as playgrounds. Their pelatons on country lanes bring on the potential for mayhem. Add this to the ones who don't use cycle lanes when provided and it is a two sided problem.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! 👿

"Yeah, why attack this poor driver who drove illegally and killed someone when there are cyclists out there wearing lycra and riding entirely legally? Clearly it is two-sided problem."

What a tit.

Graham S - a quote from above from funkydunc (sorry to pick on you):

"Cyclist will always die on the roads, stands to reason when a metal object hits a soft person. If you don't want that to be a risk, then the only answer is to stay off the roads."

PS - yes fully agree with your post immediately above this!

b) making minor infringements socially unacceptable (worked for drink driving)...

I see what you mean but I wouldn't class drink driving as a minor infringement and neither is death by dangerous driving. Personally, I hope she gets the full 14 years custodial sentence to send a message out to other drivers.

ononeorange: yeah I saw FunkDunc's post but I think you are misreading the tone (or maybe I am).

I don't think he is being dismissive of cyclist deaths - just acknowledging that there will always be risk to cyclists, even in utopia's like the Netherlands. The only way to truly remove yourself from that risk is to not cycle.

(Which of course increases your risk of far more common sedentary-lifestyle issues).

Personally, I hope she gets the full 14 years custodial sentence to send a message out to other drivers.

But I don't think that would send a message out - other than perhaps [i]"Our justice system is severely screwed up"[/i] and [i]"It's better to be dishonest if you hit someone"[/i] (as she did, to her credit, cop to the the blame and the sat-nav fiddling).

I really don't think putting her in jail would make any difference to the thoughts of any drivers and it would be seem incredibly harsh compared to the drivers that have killed multiple times, been caught for other offences, tampered with safety equipment, driven without sight correct and still been let off!

I don't think he is being dismissive of cyclist deaths - just acknowledging that there will always be risk to cyclists, even in utopia's like the Netherlands. The only way to truly remove yourself from that risk is to not cycle.

If you look at the CPS guidelines for dangerous driving then [i]anything[/i] involving a cyclist should be classed as dangerous rather than careless driving.

Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:
-failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists
-overtaking which could not have been carried out safely

It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and material dangers.

I'd be interested in any statistics regarding deaths/injuries of cyclists and in fact motorcyclists (particularly mopeds, scooters etc.) since the advent of (affordable) SatNav and smartphones. Still seems to be the root cause (or the blamed root cause) in so many of these tragedies, and one of the reasons my phone stays in the bag, I won't use a hands free, and don't use a satnav, as I've caught myself making the same mistake. I just got lucky and didn't kill anyone.

I see what you mean but I wouldn't class drink driving as a minor infringement and neither is death by dangerous driving.

Drink driving [i]was[/i] seen as a minor infringement though - that's the point.

If you look at the CPS guidelines for dangerous driving then anything involving a cyclist should be classed as dangerous rather than careless driving.

I think those have changed very recently - the CTC was at the table and I believe got most of what they wanted. The trouble is the previous guidelines didn't even appear to be applied correctly - any incident of careless driving involving a cyclist (or other vulnerable road user) should have got the highest range of tariff, yet all too often the judges in such cases used the lowest range. We shall wait and see if things improve.

They've been like that for a while, at least 3 years. There may be changes in the pipeline though.

Until cars are fitted with devices to jam mobile phones things are going to get worse. [url= http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/120965-more-us-teens-killed-texting-while-driving-than-drinking ]How many of you text while driving?[/url]

Until cars are fitted with devices to jam mobile phones

How would that practically work though? Would it only jam when it detects you are moving and there are no passengers? And how would you prevent it from jamming random phones it drives past (which I believe may be illegal)?

Even if it got implemented I think people would just find a way around it: mobiles are too useful to too many people.

It was meant as an "if, then, else" comment in which the condition that would stop things getting worse wasn't going to happen, Graham. I know jamming the things isn't going to happen for the reasons you state, so things will get worse and I'd like to bet the majority of people on this forum are part of the problem. Some posters here have stated they are stuck in jams/slow moving traffic in their posts or posted things that make it clear they are on the move.

I did some counting as I rode past the cars in traffic in my local town and found about one in five drivers was using a mobile device.

She's been sentenced. 18 months, so below the sentencing guidelines for level 3 CDBDD which states a 3 year minimum prison term.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10293094/It-took-satnav-18-seconds-to-tear-two-families-apart.html

Judge Wood added: “Your mitigation reduces the sentence below the sentencing range but it cannot enable me to suspend the sentence. Your driving created a serious risk of danger.

👿

Jesus, as a dad of two girls myself that's a hard article to read. Brings a lump to my throat just thinking about it. Poor family. 😥

Judge Wood added: "Your mitigation reduces the sentence below the sentencing range

WHAT MITIGATION?????

She didn't look where she was going for (at least) 18 BLOODY SECONDS whilst travelling at, at least, 40 miles an hour.

Another neighbour, Ronnie Mendoza, 47, said of the sentence: “I think it’s all a bit harsh. I know it should never have happened, but anyone could make that mistake.”

Such people make up juries in these cases...

Yeah. That's a pretty hard read and to be honest is the kind of thing that if often in my head while I am cycling on the road.
I try to wear bright clothes, I generally use my lights unless it's a really bright day, my bike is white etc. but none of this matters if the person coming up behind is looking for a CD, changing a destination on the sat nav, trying to send a text message.

This comment from one of the woman's neighbours amazes me:

Another neighbour, Ronnie Mendoza, 47, said of the sentence: “I think it’s all a bit harsh. I know it should never have happened, but anyone could make that mistake.”

Bleurgh...... 🙁

Satnavs are a bloody liability. I was behind someone at the weekend driving erratically whilst they fiddled about with their satnav. FFS just pull over, sort it out and drive off.

That was a tough read. 🙁

How did the polis/prosection know she'd been fiddling with the satnav for 18 seconds?

(I didn't read the details of the original prosecution.)

Better article:
[url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100010363/we-should-waste-no-sympathy-on-the-driver-who-killed-a-cyclist-while-she-fiddled-with-her-satnav/ ]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100010363/we-should-waste-no-sympathy-on-the-driver-who-killed-a-cyclist-while-she-fiddled-with-her-satnav/[/url]

I just cannot comprehend how someone can drive for 18secs without looking at the road, not from the stupidity point of view sadly, but how could you possibly resist the urge to look up? Genuinely baffled.

I drove past a car the other day with not a sat nav stuck slap bang in the middle of the windscreen, but an iPad. One hopes it was being used as a satnav.

Entirely safe I'm sure...

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

(If I ever see one of these in use in a moving car then it won't be moving for very long!)

Tough story to read.

Surely there must be technology that can be built into satnavs that prevents them being changed/altered whilst it is recording movement? That would seem an obvious safety feature.

See them stuck in the centre of windscreens so many times.

Pity he wasn't a CPO or Cabinet Minister, then we might have seen some action.

WHAT MITIGATION?????

Whilst I recognise the need for sentencing to be used for deterrence, I can't help but think that an 18 month prison sentence in this case doesn't really help anyone. Wouldn't it be much more useful to give her a lifetime driving ban along with a community service sentence, perhaps based around educating drivers about the dangers of not not taking their responsibilities seriously?

Surely there must be technology that can be built into satnavs that prevents them being changed/altered whilst it is recording movement? That would seem an obvious safety feature.

Housemate has one in his focus that won't allow changes whilst the cars moving.

I think my garmin rather pointlessly let's you dissable it when you first get it out the box and switch it on.

I do agree with you dazh in that I don't believe long sentences are a deterrent for bad driving because killing someone by driving badly isn't a premeditated crime.

On the other hand, joke sentences send entirely the wrong message about the responsibility and duty of care that drivers (should) face.

Personally I can't see any reason to [i]ever[/i] let someone drive again if they have been done for Dangerous or Careless Driving. They've proven themselves incapable of driving safely so don't let them drive

I can relate to the victim which makes ready the article even more difficult.

Prosecutions, Sentencing, Speed limits, Education, Road design, Technology, Regulation we need to use all levers possible to reduce the dominance of vehicles and put people back in the ascendancy.

With any luck someone will pull the plug on oil supply or a similar to force the situation.

18 months,so out in 9. Already being portrayed as a victim, "two families torn apart" She will be out on home leave within 3 months. That is what we are worth,less than 100 days in prison.

That is what we are worth,less than 100 days in prison.

This is exactly why I don't think prison sentences are a good option in cases like these. Just how long would we be 'worth'? Throwing someone in prison for a significant period doesn't do much good practically, other than destroying more lives. The focus on cases like these should be on how they can be used for prevention and deterrence. Automatic life bans plus community service would be much better I think as it would send the message that there is zero tolerance towards negligent driving, and would provide less opportunity for the wider public to see the perpetrator as a victim too.

[quote=GrahamS ]I do agree with you dazh in that I don't believe long sentences are a deterrent for bad driving because killing someone by driving badly isn't a premeditated crime.
I understand where you're coming from. I'm sure no one starts out their drive thinking "I'll hit a cyclist today" but then I'm equally sure no one starts out thinking "I'll have an accident (let's not get hung up on that word) today" either. However if, instead of an airbag, a big metal spike came out of the steering wheel, do you think folk would be more, or less careful? My point is that, at some level, we all weigh up the consequences of our actions. When those consequences are dire enough, they [i]do [/i] influence our behaviour.

With you on that dazh - I think many of the general public would see a lifetime driving ban as just as "harsh" as a few months in prison.

I also think jurys would find it much easier to find someone guilty if they knew they were [i]"permanently taking a dangerous driver off the road"[/i], rather than [i]"breaking up another family by sending a mother to jail"[/i].

The only trouble is with people who don't give a crap and will just drive anyway even if they are banned.