The ultimate murder weapon

The car

It’s pretty simple. If you wanted to off someone with minimal consequences, do it with your car

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37275528

His age should be irrelevant here. A £5,000 fine and a five year ban is laughably bad. The horrid old cretin denied responsibility continuously.

By my calculations he passed his test in 1931 when the criteria for driving would have been substantially different from what is required today. Yet other than applying to the dvla once you reach 70 there is no restriction other than medical related that would stop a licence being issued???

Luckily, we convinced the farther in law to surrender his driving licence before he did something that couldn’t be undone.

Would have been nice to get a thank you letter back from the DVLA as some form or recognition as to just how much of a sacrifice he’d made.

Not ‘murder’ though, is it?

Should be manslaughter, really. Yes, ridiculously lenient – the other one announced today was a nurse who killed someone by overtaking a lorry without looking and wiping them out. Community service and 2 year ban.

clodhopper – Member
Not ‘murder’ though, is it?

No but the fact is killing someone with a car seems to result in ridiculously low penalties

It’s all very well getting a Fly6 rear light with HD camera and something similar on the front, but until the courts start handing out stronger sentences for careless driving, these gadgets are giving cyclists a very false sense of security IMO.

Icicle?

It was an accident. It certainly wasn’t helped by the fact the dumb old fool was too damn stubborn to hold his hands up and accept responsibility, but an accident all the same.

It was an accident.

Compare with corporate manslaughter – a quick example from Google:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/failed_company_and_its_manager_convicted/

2 years suspended sentence, £600,000 fine.

That’s what it should be treated as.

It was highly likely it was deliberate but te fact remains he somehow managed to “accidently” reverse a car over somone and leave it on to p of them

The real issue here is whether he could meet the necessary skill level and whether he knew his health was sufficient to let him drive

I have to wear contacts to drive

if i dont use them i wont mean to kill anyone but it would be beyond irresponsible to do this

Sometimes its a “foreseeable” accident – this may well have been

The broad point is the sentence for the death of someone caused by your lack of skill/stupidity in a car is beyond lenient

Tougher sentences for careless driving will not affect anything. Accidents are accidents and careless drivers don’t tend to know or understand their driving is careless until something goes wrong. And even good drivers can, from time to time, be careless. it’s not an issue where tough sentences will affect the risks. Better education and maybe re-testing every 20 years or so, but not tougher sentences.

i think if the risky drivers knew they were going down for 20 years they are their families may well intervene

As it stands they know elderly parents will not be banged up even if their ineptitude kills someone

If that changes its highly likely attitudes to driving will change

The poor victims family will probably never get over this. Automated cars with more safety features cant come soon enough.

It’s not murder as there was no intent. Emotive click baiting thread titles don’t help that aspect of the discussion.

The case highlights the importance of regular medical and driving skills tests for all drivers. The logistics and cost implications of this can be worked out by those who would have to do it.

That and short sharp bans for more minor offences might make people realise that a license is a privilege.

Terrible tragedy and needless loss of life. I do think there is a case for at least a short compulsory prison sentence for causing death by careless/dangerous driving. In relation to the other thread that should include being on the phone if a crash results in a fatality.

On the age issue. Is it not true that the (vast?) majority of fatal accidents involve young drivers ?

On the age issue. Is it not true that the (vast?) majority of fatal accidents involve young drivers ?

This is indeed true, J-

Hence the higher premiums for young drivers. At one time the leading cause of death in women under 25 was said to be their partners behind the wheel.

Never understood why society is so quick to demand retests for those over 70 when proportionally more road deaths are caused by younger drivers. Probably a refusal to look in the mirror and honestly admit that it could be “me” that is that driver one day, and that we should all be retested.

A problem with elderly drivers is that the decline in their abilities is gradual which makes it difficult for them to decide at which point they should stop driving.

And if their cognitive abilities have declined in parallel with their physical abilities that additionally makes it difficult for them to realise they have to stop.

There needs to be some external mechanism for judging their competence.

We should have mandatory retests for anyone involved in a crash and anyone accumulating more than (x) points on their licence

… and a suspended jail sentence for many of the more serious offences*, in addition to the miniscule fines. Get even a speeding ticket, off to jail

*drink/drugs/massive speeding/careless/dangerous driving

… and the law changed to enshrine (a better version of) the HC as the definition of what a safe driver should do

if he did this inside B&Q with a fork lift truck what charges would he realistically face?

As it stands they know elderly parents will not be banged up even if their ineptitude kills someone

Have you tried to get an elderly relative’s licence removed? It isn’t easy. GP refused to help confirm the lack of physical capacity. It took until we managed to get a formal diagnosis for my Dad from a consultant looking at him to notify the DVA and get a formal driving medical test done. Without the formal diagnosis of alzheimers the DVA was not interested in what the family thought.

I believe the GMC is looking at changing guidance for Doctors, which may help.

Not even elderly… My dad’s going blind, it’s a known condition on a completely predictable trajectory, he voluntarily stopped driving as soon as he felt he wasn’t seeing well enough (later than he should have, but that’s by the by), it was well over a year later before the dvla took it away- he couldn’t even see the TV picture across the room by the time they took action. That is ****ed. And without blaming the doctors, the attitude was “we’ll keep you driving as long as we possibly can” not “holy crap man, you are blind, you drove here?”

He’s 83 and been banned for 5 years.

So, he’ll get his licence back aged 88 having not driven for five years…

If it underlines one thing..

It’s the need for EVERYBODY to be re-tested on a regular basis..

I really fail to understand why we dont have the legislation in place for a mandatory medical and re-test once you reach a certain age?. Is it too much like common sense or something?

It’s all part of how we treat driving as a divine right, anything else is a War On Motorists.

Stabbed by a large icicle, will melt..

Speaking as somebody who lost their brother due to what was deemed careless driving. I would like to see mandatory evaluations for all drivers every ten years and harsher measures for driving that results in loss of life. A permanent ban and threat of prison sentence if caught driving after said ban is what I’d like to see. My views are perhaps a little harsh considering personal circumstances though.

Should have to re-take driving test every ~5 years, perhaps annually for 70+, in my opinion.

Beat them to death with a frozen leg of lamb – then cook it and feed it to the policemen when they turn up.

whatyadoinsucka » Stabbed by a large icicle, will melt..
Beat them to death with a frozen leg of lamb – then cook it and feed it to the policemen when they turn up.

Freeze giant Toblerone, use as bludgeon, eat evidence yourself…. Nom nom….. Sweet, sweet evidence!

Use a nuke. No witnesses left.

Beat them to death with a frozen leg of lamb – then cook it and feed it to the policemen when they turn up.

You Unexpectedly beat me to it.

200 hrs + 2 yr ban.

an interesting piece

SUPPORTING SAFE DRIVING INTO OLD AGE: A dreadful report

Something on twitter tonight. Basically, a Tory councillor from Sandwell (ithink) tweeted something along the lines of ‘cyclists, wear hi vis so elderly drivers can see you at night’.
Of course, she was taken apart over this & came back with the line that ‘driving was a right’ and a essential for the elderly. She actually made the claim that cyclists should wear hi vis because older drivers don’t see very well at night – she couldn’t understand the reaction to her tweeting this stupidity.

@funkmasterp a plus one from me. I have no personal tragedy to influence this. Kill a fellow citizen with a car and lose the privilege to drive for life as you are demonstrably incompetent.

Muddydwarf see the link I posted….that sort of attitude is mainstream

Muddy dwarf: it was Solihull, home of the aspiring middle class driver, riding a bike is for commoners.

How about this one:
http://m.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/14724217.Motorist_jailed_for_nine_years_after_causing_death_of_cyclist

Convicted 8 times of driving while using his phone, pleads hardship and keeps his licence. Kills a man while texting and driving. Deletes text messages to try to hide it. Actually got a substantial sentence, but that should have happened after the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth conviction, rather then waiting until Christopher Gard killed someone.

This was not an accident it was human error.