Search the forum using the power of Google

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 73 total)
  • Lifetime ban for causing death by dangerous driving?
  • oldnpastit
    Full Member

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623592

    I saw this petition go by and thought, “no, surely not, that’s far too harsh.”

    But then in light of the other thread, am I guilty of thinking that driving is a right, that surpasses all others?

    jimster01
    Full Member

    Still a joke that you are not reassessed on your abilities to drive after the age of 17
    .

    Northwind
    Full Member

    I’m not sure about lifetime- I don’t like permanent punishments for anything, people can change… but, very long term or with other serious implications, sure.

    Trouble is then it goes to a jury of peers which will always include at least a couple of incompetent or care;ess or dangerous drivers just a matter of statistics and they think, lifetime ban? That could be me, I don’t like that. Which yep goes back to the other thread in lots of different ways, and is very circular. It’s crap tbh.

    Bottom line is, we don’t treat dangerous driving like we treat dangerous anything else, in a bunch of different ways.

    timba
    Free Member

    I don’t think you can ascribe a punishment specifically to a tragic outcome.
    Had the collision happened in the same circumstances without a person being killed then it would still be dangerous driving and that driver deserves a punishment appropriate to the manner of driving, regardless of the tragic outcome.
    The question IMHO is more whether appropriate charges are laid and appropriate sentences are a) recommended and b) given:
    “Causing death by dangerous driving (Section 1 RTA 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, and disqualified for a minimum of two years” (my bold)
    https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

    Unlawful Act Manslaughter – 18 years’ custody, but without disqualification

    singletrackmind
    Full Member

    1 to 14 in prison, plus minimum 2 years driving ban.
    Needs reversing. 1 to 14 year driving ban, plus minimum 1 years of incarceration.
    Driving ban to start day of release from prison.
    Plus more police to enforce said ban, otherwise they just keep on driving as they only killed 1 person in say 100,000 miles so statically it wont happen again and the liklihood of being caught is low.

    Coyote
    Free Member

    Agree with STM.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    1 to 14 in prison, plus minimum 2 years driving ban.
    Needs reversing. 1 to 14 year driving ban, plus minimum 1 years of incarceration.
    Driving ban to start day of release from prison.
    Plus more police to enforce said ban, otherwise they just keep on driving as they only killed 1 person in say 100,000 miles so statically it wont happen again and the liklihood of being caught is low.

    Posted 40 minutes ago

    All of this.

    We don’t need more laws for anything, just the resources and the will to enforce the current ones

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    I’m not sure about lifetime- I don’t like permanent punishments for anything, people can change

    Causing another’s death is punishable by life incarceration for offences that don’t involve a vehicle. There is a licence on release that can be revoked on offending again and recalling that offender to prison to serve the rest of the sentence. Something like that for cars would work with any traffic offence leading to a permanent ban. (Being caught in charge of a vehicle after permanent ban would be prison time and a vehicle destruction, with the owner/keeper of the vehicle due a punishment too, where said owner/keeper was not the driver).

    FuzzyWuzzy
    Full Member

    Part of the problem as I see it is far too often the CPS just go for a “careless” rather than “dangerous” charge

    andrewh
    Free Member

    Hmm.
    I think it depends on the definition of ‘dangerous’.
    Momentary lapse of concentration, over estimating your speed in an overtake, things like that we can all do, and mostly get away with, there is no intent.
    Using a mobile phone at the wheel for example is not an accident, that is a conscious choice to take that risk and ones like that should indeed get the big bans, I would say regardless of whether a death is caused or not, that’s just down to luck.

    desperatebicycle
    Free Member

    Using a mobile phone at the wheel for example is not an accident, that is a conscious choice to take that risk and ones like that should indeed get the big bans

    Nah, don’t agree with that – people who use their car as a weapon, they’re the only lifetime banned for me.

    seadog101
    Full Member

    Punishment as a deterrent to crime is know to be relatively ineffective.
    The chance of being caught and charged with a crime is better at stopping the crime.

    How about making them drive with a black box for the rest of their lives instead?

    maccruiskeen
    Full Member

    Personally I think small bans rather than fines for more minor offences would be more effective in changing overall driving behaviour than increasing bans for major offences.

    If a 3-point offence meant you had to take a 2 week break from driving thats pretty embarrassing and inconveniencing –  rather than a pretty trivial fine (which offenders tend to class as some sort of stealth tax – they they are being conned rather than punished) which doesnt really carry any social stigma. If its a 3-point offence while you’ve still got 3 points on your license  then the ban would be for all the points you hold – two weeks plus two weeks

    An enforced break from driving, even a short one, would be an inconvenience and  stigma that most people would be unwilling to risk – and its equally incoinveniencing whatever your means rather than fines that are more affordable to some than others.

    To reach a point where you’d accrued enough points to loose your license you’d already have served a few bans – and it thats not a suffcient deterrent then theres no reason not to have a permanent ban from that point on

    footflaps
    Full Member

    I think it depends on the definition of ‘dangerous’.

    There isn’t an objective definition, which is why the CPS so often accept a plea of guilty to Careless driving and drop the Dangerous driving charge as it’s quite hard to prove in court.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    How about making them drive with a black box for the rest of their lives instead?

    We should all have black boxes fitted to all cars all the time period.

    Aidy
    Free Member

    Regardless of bans, if I caused someone’s death through my poor driving, I don’t think I’d ever want to get back behind a wheel.

    maccruiskeen
    Full Member

    there would also maybe needs a societal change outside of driving in terms of taking driving convictions more seriously  – in all sorts of situations you get asked to declare any criminal convictions – job applications, house insurance and so on – I have to do it sometimes as part of tendering for contracts. But the question typically tells you to exclude driving offences  – even though offences like speeding are criminal convictions – you have a criminal record. But in those applications its not just a case of considering driving offences differently – they don’t even think they are worth considering

    Olly
    Free Member

    Signed. Its a start.

    There are too many drivers on the road, and too many people dont need to drive.

    an 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.

    And harsher penalties all round. Perhaps if people considerd there was an actual risk to doing stupid shit (losing your license and therefore losing your job) then they might think harder about it.

    people who use their car as a weapon, they’re the only lifetime banned for me.

    I pressume you mean kill someone using a car as a weapon.

    I would go “using a car as a weapon” whether you killed or hurt anyone or not.
    If you went out into the street brandinshing your shotgun in a threatening manner you would lose your gun license.
    Why not using your car in a threatening or intimidating way?

    https://road.cc/content/news/road-rage-land-rover-driver-jailed-running-over-cyclist-288665

    Moult got back in his Land Rover and drove over the victim, seriously injuring him, then called him a “prick.”
    “You deliberately drove into and over Mr Cook, accelerating hard as you did so having aimed your vehicle directly at him and he went under your vehicle.

    3 year ban FFS

    I cant find the link to the case of a guy who took exception to being overtaken by a guy on a bike, so decided to punish him by purposfully driving over a crushing the trailer he was towing with his bike. The guys defence was “i didnt know it had a child in it”. I dont know what penatly he got, but it shouldve been a long drop on a short rope.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Causing another’s death is punishable by life incarceration for offences that don’t involve a vehicle.

    Not necessarily.  Manslaughter can be as little as a community order

    Its  really difficult one.  We need to think about what the punishment is for and what does it achieve.  Then there is the difficulty with getting convictions.  I would agree that in general it seems punishments are too low but I know of one case – a friend of an ex colleague.  she was a professional driver ( buses) in her woks van heading to her next bus run didn’t see a cyclist, hit and killed them.  never drove again and had huge psychological effects, lost her job of course.  I really fail to see what good 14 years inside would have done in that case.  Legal vehicle, well trained driver, single mistake.  She is never going to reoffend, 14 years injail does not bring the dead person back.  Im not comfortable with retribution as an aim in punishments

    Deterrence comes from the risk of being caught not the risk of the punishment if you are caught.  Personally my solution is zero tolerance to motoring offense, random breath tests, huge investment in roads policing and tougher punishments for the minor stuff like bald tyres or defective vehicles,.  I would also have mandatory imprisonment ( but just weeks) for drunk drivers that could be taken at convenience – ie you spend your holidays in jail not on a beach so they get incarcerated but don’t lose their jobs

    tpbiker
    Free Member

    I’d happily see anyone who kills someone through dangerous driving banned from the road for life

    It’s not like it’s proposing locking them up and throwing away the key. Plenty of people don’t have a car, never have, and get by.

    Driving isn’t a human right

    Also, this is a good idea ..

    Personally I think small bans rather than fines for more minor offences

    tjagain
    Full Member

    I’d happily see anyone who kills someone through dangerous driving banned from the road for life

    Personally I think small bans rather than fines for more minor offences

    I agree with both of those.  hence my embrace of a zero tolerance approach and I like the blackbox in every car idea along with dashcams

    I did expect dashcams to be virtually compulsory by now driven by insurance companies.  I guess despite dashcams making apportioning blame easier that it doesn’t really save insurance companies much overall

    If / when I get  a car or motorbike I will certainly have a dashcam

    ampthill
    Full Member

    I think we’ll move forward when we punish poor driving whether it causes death or not. If it’s a deliberate act of violence then that’s different

    But most road deaths are every day rubbish driving like being on the phone. The person didn’t think they’ll cause an accident or injury so the behaviour becomes normal as it’s unchallenged.

    ayjaydoubleyou
    Full Member

    We should all have black boxes fitted to all cars all the time period

    a black box that only records the car’s actions (as per teenager insurance) is a bit of a blunt tool that does not take situation into account.

    mandatory dash cams, including a camera focusing on the drivers face is my proposed solution.

    mrlebowski
    Free Member

    But then in light of the other thread, am I guilty of thinking that driving is a right, that surpasses all others?

    You have a right to take a driving test subject to passing medical requirements.

    You have the privilege of being allowed to drive having passed said test & acquired a license to do so.

    ads678
    Free Member

    I’ve signed it as I think something needs to be done, If it ever actually gets debated they probably won’t go the whole hog but might think about stiffer sentences, or using ‘dangerous’ rather than ‘careless’ a bit more.

    Saw this the other day https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-64360894 and they’ve gone for ‘death by dangerous driving’. Wife told me this morning it was a father and 16 year old son that was killed. So **** sad. I hope they throw the book at them!

    Olly
    Free Member

    mandatory dash cams, including a camera focusing on the drivers face is my proposed solution

    Agreed, internal facing is just as, if not more valuable that external. The only reason i dont have one is i dont want it dangling off the windscreen. i dont know why they are not manafacturered into the cars tbh
    It should be a sealed system, than no one can access or tamper with other than police, It should be an MOT requirement to be in good working order, and having a bit of black sticky tape over the lens should result in you being “assumed at fault”.
    Infact, cameras are so cheap now it should be a requirement for everyone, even if not factory fitted.
    If you can afford to put fuel in it, you can afford a camera.

    multi21
    Free Member

    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.

    I also think in a lot of cases the custodial sentence is nowhere near long enough.

    Like this case for example
    https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/crime/road-killer-hit-cyclist-at-80mph-and-later-posted-on-facebook-f-west-yorkshire-police-3993030

    he basically took a Civic Type R, no insurance, already banned, probably pissed (refused to provide sample), drove at 80mph in a 30 limit and killed a cyclist. Left him lying dying in the road, and made his escape. Torched the car to hide the evidence.

    Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.

    ads678
    Free Member

    Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.

    Which probably equates to an 8 month ban….

    doris5000
    Full Member

    I think it depends on the definition of ‘dangerous’.
    Momentary lapse of concentration, over estimating your speed in an overtake, things like that we can all do, and mostly get away with, there is no intent.

    Is this just another example of ‘car brain’ (as per the other thread) though?

    Would we accept this as an excuse for causing death in any other field? “The pilot only had a momentary lapse of concentration, and flying is his job, so….”

    “The crane operator didn’t mean to drop those bricks on the crowd, it’s just that his wife had just texted him to remind him to get bog roll on the way home and he was distracted…”

    We all DO have momentary lapses of concentration, but they’re not always acceptable as an excuse for causing the death of another. But we have different logic when cars are involved.

    I’m not trying to argue for maximum sentences here necessarily, just challenging the line of thinking.

    multi21
    Free Member

    ads678

    Which probably equates to an 8 month ban….

    Right, it’s pointless at 8 months, but he was already banned so what difference does it make anyway?

    Dickyboy
    Full Member

    FYI driving bans start after custody period.

    For offences committed on or after 13 April 2015, where a court imposes a disqualification in addition to a custodial sentence or a detention and training order, the court must extend the disqualification period by one half of the custodial term imposed. This is to take into account the period the offender will spend in custody.

    Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.

    So if he’s good he’ll be out in 2.5yrs & then serve 5yrs 8 months ban, if he serves full 5yrs in custody he’ll still have 3yrs 2 month ban when released

    thisisnotaspoon
    Full Member

    What Dorris5000 said.

    If you killed someone at work through dangerous levels of negligence, you’d be convicted of manslaughter (and if it turned out that your last training and examination was decades ago there would probably be corporate manslaughter charges too) and you’d almost certainly be fired.

    Why should it be any different for driving?

    Personally I think the FPN system should be linked to short term bans. Replace £60 speeding fines 2 week driving bans, undertaking, tailgating, erratic driving, mobile phone use, etc 4 weeks. The punishments need to be harsh enough that it actually focuses peoples minds on the serious consequences of as some people above put it “getting away with it”. Just because you re-programmed your satnav whilst driving up the motorway and didn’t crash, doesn’t make it ok.

    things like that we can all do, and mostly get away with, there is no intent.

    TBH, that just sounds like what we all assume occurs on jury’s “well I’m just as bad, and I don’t want to get convicted, better pay it forward”.

    tjagain
    Full Member

    Its the risk of being caught that drives behaviour change – not the consequences when caught

    speeding is a perfect example.  Most car drivers speed routinely.  But no longer on the a9 -because the average speed cameras mean you are likely to be caught.

    multi21
    Free Member

    Dickyboy
    Full Member

    FYI driving bans start after custody period.

    For offences committed on or after 13 April 2015, where a court imposes a disqualification in addition to a custodial sentence or a detention and training order, the court must extend the disqualification period by one half of the custodial term imposed. This is to take into account the period the offender will spend in custody.

    Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.

    So if he’s good he’ll be out in 2.5yrs & then serve 5yrs 8 months ban, if he serves full 5yrs in custody he’ll still have 3yrs 2 month ban when released

    Believe that’s already taken into account in the 5 year 3 month (not 8 my mistake) driving ban. Happy to be corrected but if you read this for example:

    For example where a court imposes a 6 month custodial sentence and a disqualification period of 12 months, the ban will be extended to 15 months. Where a rehabilitation course is completed, the reduction will remain at a maximum of 3 months.

    https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/road-traffic-offences-disqualification/9-extension-of-disqualification-from-driving-where-custodial-sentence-also-imposed/

    My reading is that the extension is added to the published ban, but the ban still starts on the day of the sentencing. It’s just longer so it can’t possibly end before the person is released.

    joshvegas
    Free Member

    a black box that only records the car’s actions (as per teenager insurance) is a bit of a blunt tool that does not take situation into account

    Such as? There are very very few situations where excessive acceleration or very hard breaking are necessary if you drive like a tit then you will suffer if you don’t you won’t?

    Our apprentice was on one he moaned that occasionally he got notifications but his biggest complaint was his mum using the car and him getting loads!

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    he basically took a Civic Type R, no insurance, already banned, probably pissed (refused to provide sample), drove at 80mph in a 30 limit and killed a cyclist. Left him lying dying in the road, and made his escape. Torched the car to hide the evidence.

    Only got 5 years custodial/ 5 years 8 months ban.

    What a depressing read. The mitigation* given on his behalf in court suggests his licence should be permanently revoked on medical grounds anyway.

    *excuse-ridden horseshit.

    stevedoc
    Free Member

    Im sure the 37 year old driver that fled the scene in Barnsley at weekend leaving the 2 cyclists dead at the scene felt loads of remorse while fleeing.

    two lives lost worth 18 months driving ban …………. Life !

    ayjaydoubleyou
    Full Member

    Such as? There are very very few situations where excessive acceleration or very hard breaking are necessary if you drive like a tit then you will suffer if you don’t you won’t?

    what counts as “excessive” will vary greatly according to the situation.

    a short A-road slip road in light traffic and good conditions driving to the recommendations of the highway code and general politeness, vs dickishly muscling your way through heavy traffic and endangering those around you could give very similar black box readings.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Full Member

    what counts as “excessive” will vary greatly according to the situation.

    a short A-road slip road in light traffic and good conditions driving to the recommendations of the highway code and general politeness, vs dickishly muscling your way through heavy traffic and endangering those around you could give very similar black box readings.

    The issue is more that you stray into the murky definitions of what would be considered careless driving.

    Which then strays back into why do you* accept a lower standard of safety in a car than in any other scenario, which is exactly the point. You wouldn’t go to work in a metal fabricator and accept “we’ve taken the guards off the guillotines so you can get sheets in and out quicker”, so why does the world accept “I was just making progress”.

    *and the jury deciding whether your actions fell below the standard expected of a competent driver (or whatever the exact wording is)

    muddyjames
    Free Member

    Black box has lots of merit I think.
    Clearly highly unpopular and risks accidental incrimination perhaps. But it certainly
    Would encourage a lot of people to drive more carefully.

    Getting sent to prison is a pretty big deterrent for most people regardless of duration of stay at his majesty’s pleasure. So I’m not sure a bigger / permanent ban will make much difference.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 73 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Search the forum using the power of Google

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.