Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: quixoticgeek on 01 February, 2019, 02:27:47 pm
-
Whilst I totally agree with the bolded text, I think you need to have served 10 weeks jail time to comment on its leniency. Would you prefer they chop his phone hand off?
No, but a life time driving ban seems appropriate. How can it be that someone who killed someone with a vehicle, will be allowed on the road to potentially do it again? Driving is a privilege, not a right.
J
-
Whilst I totally agree with the bolded text, I think you need to have served 10 weeks jail time to comment on its leniency. Would you prefer they chop his phone hand off?
No, but a life time driving ban seems appropriate. How can it be that someone who killed someone with a vehicle, will be allowed on the road to potentially do it again? Driving is a privilege, not a right.
J
I can think of 2 off the cuff:
- a ban doesn't stop anyone driving (google the stats)
- if you stab someone, how should we stop you re-offending? Hmm?
-
No, but a life time driving ban seems appropriate. How can it be that someone who killed someone with a vehicle, will be allowed on the road to potentially do it again? Driving is a privilege, not a right.
J
I can think of 2 off the cuff:
- a ban doesn't stop anyone driving (google the stats)
It doesn't stop all people from driving, but it does stop many. Some idiots will drive even when banned, but the majority don't. Driving without a license also tends to come with driving whilst uninsured, which is something that tends to get picked up by ANPR cameras on plod cars.
- if you stab someone, how should we stop you re-offending? Hmm?
Not a valid comparison. It is an offence to carry a knife that is either:
a) locking
b) longer than 75mm
c) you have no valid reason to carry
d) or meets other criteria such as flick knives, butterfly knives.
See section 139 of PACE...
As such, the carrying of the weapon is already banned (stabbing someone with a non locking folding knife is pretty hard), so a person who is stabbing someone is already breaking the law in additional ways. It would be similar to the case of a person who had been banned from driving killing someone through dangerous/careless driving.
So the better way of asking your question is: if you have a person who kills someone with a vehicle, gets a life time ban from driving, but continues to drive, how do you stop them reoffending?
And that is a very good question.
J
-
I'd have been happy if his hand was cut off (to encourage the others). Is that the answer you wanted Matt?
-
I'd have been happy if his hand was cut off (to encourage the others). Is that the answer you wanted Matt?
@QG: is that the answer we seek?
-
I tend to think that if someone can't take a curb on their privileges, then others could be removed on top of that. Like where they live, if needs be.
Socially, recognising that it's a deliberate choice with stronger words seems appropriate too.
-
Caught driving whilst banned, crush the car regardless of ownership. Caught driving for a company whilst banned, very large fine for person, and company.
-
The law against using a mobile whilst driving was being ignored so how do we know he would obey a driving ban?
By that logic, there should be no laws, as laws are going to be broken, so why have them?
I'd have been happy if his hand was cut off (to encourage the others). Is that the answer you wanted Matt?
@QG: is that the answer we seek?
No. I do not support corporal or capital punishment.
I tend to think that if someone can't take a curb on their privileges, then others could be removed on top of that. Like where they live, if needs be.
Socially, recognising that it's a deliberate choice with stronger words seems appropriate too.
That leads to ghettoisation. "I'm sorry, you have commited too many crimes to live here in the suburbs, you must now go live in the desolate north..."
Caught driving whilst banned, crush the car regardless of ownership. Caught driving for a company whilst banned, very large fine for person, and company.
Does that also apply if the car is stolen?
The problem with any punishment system is that you have to be careful about feedback loops locking people into a cycle of crime. For many people who serve a prison sentence, once released it can be very hard for them to get any job, or even to open a bank account, no job, no income, so now they steal the bread to live, and the loop continues.
It's a non trivial problem.
J
-
Stolen no, but not being able to drive is hardly a preventative to getting job nor means a life of crime.
-
Stolen no, but not being able to drive is hardly a preventative to getting job nor means a life of crime.
Depends where you live. If you live in a village, chances are you have to have a car to get to/from work. Many villages have no buses, or if they do have a bus, it's once per day. There are even some villages where the bus from the village is on one day, and the return is the next.
This is why the car is still seen as king by many. Public transport in the UK is fucking awful, esp if you leave anything smaller than a medium size town. And of course the roads do not favour cycling...
J
(edited to correct buses to villages)
-
I just don't want bad drivers running over me while I am riding my bike. Whether bad drivers are very careful around cyclists because they'd get the book thrown at them if they crashed into cyclists or because bad drivers are banned (and don't keep driving anyway) or because bad drivers are locked up, I don't care.
-
I just don't want bad drivers running over me while I am riding my bike. Whether bad drivers are very careful around cyclists because they'd get the book thrown at them if they crashed into cyclists or because bad drivers are banned (and don't keep driving anyway) or because bad drivers are locked up, I don't care.
Oh I agree with that aim. I'm just suggesting it's not an easy problem to solve.
There are massive structural issues with transport in the UK. The solutions are not going to be easy.
J
-
If I recall, they tried to delete their call histories. Nice people. Only stumbled upon remorse when it was explained to them that taking the plea would mean a minimal sentence. I've no idea what the point of putting anyone in prison for 30 weeks is (which will be, what, ten weeks actual time).
I completely agree with Boardman though, it's too late sending people to prison after the fact. But that said, the consistent message from this kind of derisory sentencing, like calling it 'careless driving', is that driving is an activity far removed from the standard expectations of responsibility.
Whilst I totally agree with the bolded text, I think you need to have served 10 weeks jail time to comment on its leniency. Would you prefer they chop his phone hand off?
My point was the literal pointlessness of such short sentences. No one should be going to prison for weeks. Either the crime is worth doing the time, or some other sentence should be given.
That said, if you make the decision to use a phone while driving and kill someone as a result, I don't see an option that doesn't include significant jail time.
But rather than wait until someone is dead, perhaps it's time now to think how we stop mobile phone and bad driving. That frankly requires better enforcement and more significant punishments for minor stuff.
-
Stolen no, but not being able to drive is hardly a preventative to getting job nor means a life of crime.
Depends where you live. If you live in a village, chances are you have to have a car to get to/from work. Many buses have no buses, or if they do have a bus, it's once per day. There are even some villages where the bus from the village is on one day, and the return is the next.
This is why the car is still seen as king by many. Public transport in the UK is fucking awful, esp if you leave anything smaller than a medium size town. And of course the roads do not favour cycling...
J
Well they can get a bike and ride it from their village to work then can't they?
-
I tend to think that if someone can't take a curb on their privileges, then others could be removed on top of that. Like where they live, if needs be.
Socially, recognising that it's a deliberate choice with stronger words seems appropriate too.
That leads to ghettoisation. "I'm sorry, you have commited too many crimes to live here in the suburbs, you must now go live in the desolate north..."
...
The problem with any punishment system is that you have to be careful about feedback loops locking people into a cycle of crime. For many people who serve a prison sentence, once released it can be very hard for them to get any job, or even to open a bank account, no job, no income, so now they steal the bread to live, and the loop continues.
It's a non trivial problem.
J
My comment wasn't so much "live over there" as "if they keep at it then use prison" - prison being the lack of choice as to where they live rather than the first choice.
[you followed up with much this point after I started typing]
Thinking a little more, there is also the issue (often used in defence against a ban) that some people live in a place / have a job where driving is important. Greater care over the vital freedom hasn't occurred to them though. But we do, effectively, already have judges considering that someone might have to move if they no longer have access to a car. Typically from country to town. A driving ban has to involve some inconvenience - unless the car was purely recreational anyway.
-
The use of a car is a right. That is embedded in the public's mind. The public vote.
I see the only way that this will be improved is:
a) massive public protest
or
b) a significant increase in the number of deaths on the roads
On Tuesday I had a meeting with two senior County Highways Officers. We want some changes to traffic management in town.
The told me that the key factor was KSIs and that KSIs were fine. I pointed out that this was not really down to driver behaviour, but to changes in vehicle design and the fact that over the last 30 years vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders had been bullied off the roads. I also pointed out that this was a town the happened to have an A road running through it, and that the behaviour of people in the area should reflect what the area is for. They changed their attitude somewhat and we are now far more likely to get what we wanted for the town.
They did say that in this (rural) county the major problem is on small urban roads. The other major problem is that the resource to catch/deal with bad driving just isn't there any more.
Given drivers are voters, and that a large number of MPs are pig-ignorant about driving standards (or lobbied up by the industry), and that the media is pretty much reliant on the car industry through advertising, I think the only way this will change is many more people being killed.
-
> massive public protest
All for it.
Only yesterday I was wondering about a public information service style film on giving RLJers the Vs. Make it a popular past-time.
More pragmatically, in our town we also have a 30mph A road that is anti-social, though not "bad enough" for a camera. We've now got residents trained in speed gun use. I'm looking forward to stats on how effective this has been.
-
b) a significant increase in the number of deaths on the roads
I don't think so. Drivers have a total belief that it won't be them. Road accidents are sad, terrible things that happen to other people. A toxic mix of overestimating their own abilities and lack of risk comprehension. And a system that continually emphases the blamelessness of drivers, their passive role in proceedings. Cars crash. Roads are dangerous. Drivers are afterthoughts. It all adds up.
The injury and death toll on the roads is ~180,000 per year. If there's a war on motorists, then the soldiers are other motorists. And that's direct, we're not tallying up the secondary effects of air pollution etc. In any other context it would be a public health emergency. If 1800 people were being stabbed to death every year, or blown up by terrorists, you could imagine the uproar, how many billions would be flung at the problem.
I think we have to change the conversation. That's uncomfortable for a nation now reliant on their cars, but then perhaps we should stop pampering drivers, and face up to the real impacts.
-
No,
I mean b) would get thing changed by politicians. Like with seat belts and drink driving. If there was a consistent 20% increase in road deaths they would take action. Why do anything when the measure used is fine.
-
If I recall, they tried to delete their call histories. Nice people. Only stumbled upon remorse when it was explained to them that taking the plea would mean a minimal sentence. I've no idea what the point of putting anyone in prison for 30 weeks is (which will be, what, ten weeks actual time).
I completely agree with Boardman though, it's too late sending people to prison after the fact. But that said, the consistent message from this kind of derisory sentencing, like calling it 'careless driving', is that driving is an activity far removed from the standard expectations of responsibility.
Whilst I totally agree with the bolded text, I think you need to have served 10 weeks jail time to comment on its leniency. Would you prefer they chop his phone hand off?
My point was the literal pointlessness of such short sentences. No one should be going to prison for weeks. Either the crime is worth doing the time, or some other sentence should be given.
That said, if you make the decision to use a phone while driving and kill someone as a result, I don't see an option that doesn't include significant jail time.
I don't understand this - where does "doing the time" start? What is "significant jail time"?
Do you really think that a 10 week (let alone 30 weeks - that's over 7 months) stretch in jail would feel like a telling off? Like after-school detention, or writing a thousand lines?? I'd find those 10 weeks pretty fucking unpleasant.
(especially if I didn't have access to these stimulating debates :-* )
-
The problem for Government is a sudden increase in prosecutions, or increase in sentences/etc, will criminalise a huge number of people before the necessary change in behaviour (and lack of acceptance to it in society) catches up.
What Governments tend to do is slowly increase the penalties whilst also increasing the publicity. We've seen points/fines for mobile use whilst driving more than double since being introduced, i suspect a further increase will come along soon.
Insurers could also help by bumping up insurance costs for those convicted of various offences, although that often leads to people driving without insurance (ANPR helps a little here but it's easy to get someone else without convictions to insure the car for you so it doesn't ping up on ANPR).
-
Stolen no, but not being able to drive is hardly a preventative to getting job nor means a life of crime.
Depends where you live. If you live in a village, chances are you have to have a car to get to/from work. Many buses have no buses, or if they do have a bus, it's once per day. There are even some villages where the bus from the village is on one day, and the return is the next.
This is why the car is still seen as king by many. Public transport in the UK is fucking awful, esp if you leave anything smaller than a medium size town. And of course the roads do not favour cycling...
J
Perhaps if traffic laws were enforced and the legal system didn't let drivers off bans when they exceed 12 points there would be better bus services etc for the extra demand, less pollution, the roads would be less congested and everyone would be safer.
Sounds like a win to me.
-
You have to do something to tackle the "Getting caught won't happen to me" crowd. It doesn't matter if the penalty for getting caught is massive, if the liklihood of getting caught is low then people will do it.
The massive reduction in drink driving hasn't happened because people were worried about getting caught. It happened because it became socially unacceptable to go out drinking and then drive. If driving while using a phone is a problem on a similar scale, then it needs the same treatment.
Also, while in some cities (London, Manchester? Oxford?) you can operate perfectly well without a car, almost everywhere else has such paucity of public transport that living without a car is a challenge. I bet there are a lot of people on YACF who manage it it, but for much of the country it's somewhere between awkward and impossible (maybe unless you are a dedicated cyclist). You can't remove car dependence without addressing this head-on. That's a different discussion though.
-
Some people might be able to 'afford' 10 weeks in prison. They might be able to keep their job, house, relationship.
30 weeks is different. I suspect that few employers would wait for 30 weeks for an employee, and a lot of people would struggle to keep up mortgage payments without an income for 30 weeks. 30 weeks is also (I imagine) harder on a relationship than 10.
Without going too far off topic, we (as a people) still don't agree on the point of our criminal justice system. At the very least, I think we have to separate it from the process of electing our politicians. And then we need to get more imaginative with how we deal with offenders - and I don't necessarily mean we should cut anything off.
But I don't know what would stop someone doing something they know could kill another. In a sophisticated society, that alone should be a deterrent. If it isn't (and it isn't), tinkering with sentences is largely pointless.
-
Also, while in some cities (London, Manchester? Oxford?) you can operate perfectly well without a car, almost everywhere else has such paucity of public transport that living without a car is a challenge. I bet there are a lot of people on YACF who manage it it, but for much of the country it's somewhere between awkward and impossible (maybe unless you are a dedicated cyclist). You can't remove car dependence without addressing this head-on. That's a different discussion though.
I commute by cycling between two fairly large cities... 12 miles apart. There is only one bus per hour and the last is around 6PM. The question is whether the service is so infrequent because there is no demand (buses are always half empty) or there is no demand because the service is too infrequent.
I suspect operators will tell you that it's the former and customers will tell you that it's the latter... chicken and egg situation. The only way to get out of it would be to subsidise a more frequent service for one year and see if that changes anything.
I will continue to cycle regardless, but I would use the bus in case of bad weather, whereas now I drive when it's icy or it's just too wet to bother
-
The massive reduction in drink driving hasn't happened because people were worried about getting caught. It happened because it became socially unacceptable to go out drinking and then drive. If driving while using a phone is a problem on a similar scale, then it needs the same treatment.
Yes. Starter for 10: If you find yourself in a phone call with someone driving a motor vehicle, tell them to call back when they're not.
-
And therein lies the reason for lenient sentences.
Judges and juries alike sit there thinking "Blimey. That could have been me driving." Rather than "Blimey. That could have been me cycling."
-
Also, while in some cities (London, Manchester? Oxford?) you can operate perfectly well without a car, almost everywhere else has such paucity of public transport that living without a car is a challenge. I bet there are a lot of people on YACF who manage it it, but for much of the country it's somewhere between awkward and impossible (maybe unless you are a dedicated cyclist). You can't remove car dependence without addressing this head-on. That's a different discussion though.
I commute by cycling between two fairly large cities... 12 miles apart. There is only one bus per hour and the last is around 6PM. The question is whether the service is so infrequent because there is no demand (buses are always half empty) or there is no demand because the service is too infrequent.
I suspect operators will tell you that it's the former and customers will tell you that it's the latter... chicken and egg situation. The only way to get out of it would be to subsidise a more frequent service for one year and see if that changes anything.
I will continue to cycle regardless, but I would use the bus in case of bad weather, whereas now I drive when it's icy or it's just too wet to bother
It takes much longer than a year to change people's behaviour. Unless you hurry them up with charges or other penalties.
-
You have to do something to tackle the "Getting caught won't happen to me" crowd. It doesn't matter if the penalty for getting caught is massive, if the liklihood of getting caught is low then people will do it.
The massive reduction in drink driving hasn't happened because people were worried about getting caught. It happened because it became socially unacceptable to go out drinking and then drive. If driving while using a phone is a problem on a similar scale, then it needs the same treatment.
I can't speak for the UK, but I do remember the big drive to reduce drink-driving in Oz. Two-headed campaign. Advertising "Have a skipper, mate", where the 'skipper' was the 'hero' of the group, the person who had volunteered to not drink, so he could drive his mates. Loads of adverts on prime time, making a big deal of it.
Second head were random breathalizing people. Police just pulled over cars on-mass and breathalized the drivers.
It worked.
-
Unfortunately for most road crime, we treat it as a minor admonishment. Speeding? Frowny face for you, good sir. The police might have a few words. It's like drivers are misbehaving schoolchildren and not in fact adults deliberately and often aggressively misusing tonnes of machinery.
-
It's like you see on forms: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime (other than a motoring offence)?"
-
The 'funny' at the end of the news earlier – man so pissed he crashed his car because he thought he saw an octopus. Ha ha.
-
But rather than wait until someone is dead, perhaps it's time now to think how we stop mobile phone and bad driving. That frankly requires better enforcement and more significant punishments for minor stuff.
Already raised upthread is “what do you do with someone who continues to drive when banned?”, I think this links with your point, namely that we need to work on the re-education and reintegration side of the penal system. The problem there is that we can’t get people to vote for the funding for the police to arrest criminals (or in fact agree to police the laws that are “a war on motorists”) let alone the catch slogan “raise taxes to spend on criminals!”. Unless we significantly increase our spending on law enforcement and invest in stopping reoffending we are stuck. As we can’t fund the nhs or schools I think that we have to look elsewhere from policing and punishment/re-education. Potentially along the lines of social stigma.
-
Current motoring legislation punishes the action on the basis of the consequences rather than the act. Drive dangerously, get lucky and nothing happens. Do this often enough and bad habits form such that it is no longer dangerous driving in the eyes of the perpetrator.
-
The 'funny' at the end of the news earlier – man so pissed he crashed his car because he thought he saw an octopus. Ha ha.
Oh ho ho. What a cheeky chappy. :facepalm:
-
Some people might be able to 'afford' 10 weeks in prison. They might be able to keep their job, house, relationship.
30 weeks is different. I suspect that few employers would wait for 30 weeks for an employee, and a lot of people would struggle to keep up mortgage payments without an income for 30 weeks. 30 weeks is also (I imagine) harder on a relationship than 10.
Without going too far off topic, we (as a people) still don't agree on the point of our criminal justice system. At the very least, I think we have to separate it from the process of electing our politicians. And then we need to get more imaginative with how we deal with offenders - and I don't necessarily mean we should cut anything off.
But I don't know what would stop someone doing something they know could kill another. In a sophisticated society, that alone should be a deterrent. If it isn't (and it isn't), tinkering with sentences is largely pointless.
12 months of weekend jail seems about right. Every friday after work report to jail. Released on monday ti go to work.
The constant reminder in the workplace that Dave can't do whatever at the weekend or Friday night because he has jail might help the deterant factor on others.
-
But when would he ride his bike?!?
(Actually, that's not a bad idea - especially for a non-parent. It fits my ideas about raising awareness amongst their peers :thumbsup: )
-
Here’s an 18 month offence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-surrey-47175359/dashcam-footage-shows-driver-narrowly-miss-14-year-old-boy
-
The text on that link says that the driver (Gruber) was sentenced to six weeks, suspended for 18 months, ordered to carry out 80 hours' community service, was banned from driving for 15 months and ordered to take an extended test.
-
So much for speed reading..
-
Speed reading should be criminalised. Convicted offenders should be sentenced to read the Daily Mail, crossing out all the "o's" in "chaos". How many pages they are given will depend on the speed of the original reading.