Search the forum using the power of Google

Viewing 33 posts - 41 through 73 (of 73 total)
  • Lifetime ban for causing death by dangerous driving?
  • impatientbull
    Full Member

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

    If black boxes were required in all cars then there are other possibilities for how they could be used:
    – average speed checks enforced everywhere, all the time (assuming sufficient GPS coverage etc.)
    – congestion data for satnav companies to buy, and for the government to use for road planning

    poly
    Free Member

    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.

    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.  At best you can can deter Dangerous Driving, but only if people believe they are likely to get caught.

    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.

    Yes effectively the driving ban starts on your release from prison, but for some complicated legal reasons, its wrapped up in this “extension” stuff.  But if someone is jailed for 6 years and banned to 4 is will be at least 7 years (1/2 the jail sentence being served + 4 yrs ban) before they can apply to resit their test and get their license back.

    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.

    OK so lets play hypothetical judges!  You have a 20 yr old student nurse who passed their test a year ago, does a poorly timed overtake on a bad bend and hits a car coming the other way.  They stop a the scene.  The call for help.  The try to save the other driver’s life.  In the back of the police car she says “its all my fault, I’ve killed that person because I was rushing to get home”.  The CPS look at her black box data and say well she was speeding for 3 minutes before the overtake so along with what she said to the cops we think the overall driving was dangerous.  It goes to court 12 months later, her lawyer can’t convince the crown to reduce DBDD to DBCD.  She pleads guilty.  She gets a custodial sentence ruining her nursing career.  She gets a lifetime driving ban.  A few years later she has a child, the father is violent so she leaves him.  She’s jumping between claiming benefits and low paid work because nobody wants to employ someone with convictions, with a young child, who can only travel on public transport.  In a familiar pattern she bounces between drinking and getting involved with men who are not a supportive environment for her and her kid, the kid’s been to 5 schools by the time he’s 8.  But 10 years on she’s managed to battle the odds, shes got a council tenancy, the kid’s doing ok at school and she’s holding down work.  She gets called into her manager’s office – they are closing the site, the staff are being made redundant, but she’s good at her job.  There’s a supervisors role at another site which is 20 miles away but nearly 2 hrs by public transport; he’d put in a strong word for her and thinks she would get it.  Its a different council area so moving flat is not going to happen.  Even if it did her child is just settling into school.  She’s back to square 1.  Another 15 years on, her son has left home, she’s making a go of things and got another job, living in a one bed flat that she’s managed to scrape together enough money to buy.  She gets a phone call from her one surviving parent that they have cancer.  They live 60 miles away in a rural location.  It will take them 2 hrs each way on public transport to get to the hospital for Chemo.  Do you really think in this sort of circumstance we should be punishing the 46 yr old and their elderly parent for something foolish they did at 20?  Did her son deserve a shit start to life too because his mum was daft before he was even conceived?   Now, 24 hours before she crashed another totally unconnected car made an almost identical overtake on the same dodgy bend, but the reactions of the oncoming drives / exact timings / road positioning meant he got lucky he marked that up to his excellent driving skills!  The driver coming the other way wasn’t quite so positive about it and sent his dashcam footage to the police who wrote him a letter warning him.  The only thing separating them was luck.  One gets no action / a warning letter / or perhaps a £200 fine and 3 points and the other gets jail / ban / lifetime of problems.

    Sorry for the long ramble and hypothetical situations but by and large we don’t sentence people for crimes using strict formulae with no discretion because circumstances are different.  Knee jerk “lifetime ban” stuff is the sort of think politicians and journalists love – but has zero consideration for what you are actually trying to achieve: e.g. deterrence (none – nobody expects to crash), punishment (ignore the daily mail – jail and the consequences of having been to jail are punishment), rehabilitation (likely makes person more not less likely to find themselves in circumstances where they offend), protection of the public (is there any actual evidence that people who are convicted of DBDD are more likely to harm again?).   Now there are some sentences that seem erratic – they might be because of background factors we don’t understand, or possibly because of the variability in judges.

    Finally ask yourself, honestly, if accused of DBDD and facing a mandatory lifetime ban if convicted would you plead guilty or hope that the jury say only careless not dangerous? That doesn’t help witnesses or victims’ families, reliving the trauma. if you were the prosecutor and got a suitable sob story from a defence solicitor are you sure you couldn’t be more easily swayed knowing the judge had no discretion to impose a lesser sentence?

    tjagain
    Full Member

    You could stop all dangerous driving by removing seatbelts from cars and airbags and put a big metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel. folk would drive safely then or take themselves out of circulation pretty quickly

    * not a serious suggestion*

    butcher
    Full Member

    It’s telling that a driving ban evokes as much emotion as a prison sentence.

    It shouldn’t be a punishment. Many people cannot, and never will be able to drive, through no choice of their own. Those people shouldn’t be penalised through a lack of mobility options that we’ve failed to provide as a nation. Neither should it be a given right that we drive, especially if it’s been proven we can’t do it safely.

    doris5000
    Full Member

    15 years on, her son has left home, she’s making a go of things and got another job, living in a Glasgow squat with Begbie and Renton etc

    Counterpoint:

    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.

    The point of this stuff is to change behaviour, not slap nurses.

    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!

    singletrackmind
    Full Member

    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

    tjagain
    Full Member

    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

    Northwind
    Full Member

    Posted 14 hours ago
    Reply | Report
    Olly
    Free Member

    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.

    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.

    poly
    Free Member

    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.

    poly
    Free Member

    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.

    thisisnotaspoon
    Full Member

    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.

    Cougar
    Full Member

    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.

    Edukator
    Free Member

    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

    https://visionzerosouthwest.co.uk/dangerous-driver-caught-doing-118mph-on-wet-road-loses-license-and-is-fined-5000/

    poly
    Free Member

    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.

    timba
    Free Member

    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

    dyna-ti
    Full Member

    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.

    weeksy
    Full Member

    I must have just missed him on the M4, but i turned off onto the A33 and did 320kph indicated… 🙂

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    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).

    simondbarnes
    Full Member

    If I killed someone whilst driving I would never drive again

    funkmasterp
    Full 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.

    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.

    singletrackmind
    Full Member

    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

    poly
    Free Member

    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?

    multi21
    Free Member

    funkmasterp
    Full 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.

    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.

    mattsccm
    Free Member

    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.

    doris5000
    Full Member

    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:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/05/i-became-a-killer-fatal-road-accident-forgiveness

    stevextc
    Free Member

    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.

    doris5000
    Full Member

    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.

    singletrackmind
    Full Member

    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.

    poly
    Free Member

    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.

    stevextc
    Free Member

    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”?

    IdleJon
    Full Member

    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?

    jeffl
    Full Member

    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

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    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.

Viewing 33 posts - 41 through 73 (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.