Killer Drivers Treated Leniently - Official

[Aunt Maud]

Well, the Danish Pig Cunt who deliberately ran in to me got away with it and I had to pay to get his van fixed, so it's not just a UK thing.

[ian]

That's another example, mobile phone use is still ubiquitous. People know there's little likelihood of being caught and if they do manage to get caught (presumably by driving around the police station car park for an afternoon with a phone jammed against their ear), the punishment is little more than an inconvenience.

Go speeding by a school, what do you get, a frowny face. Look at it. It's so sad. The next time I murder someone, I want to be sentenced to thirty minutes of looking at unhappy kittens.

[madcow]

The article also points out that no- one has ever been given the maximum sentence ,despite the fact that it was thought necessary to increase maximum tariff from 10 to 14 years.

[mattc]

That's the problem. It's too late when they've injured or killed someone. Interventions need to be at the other end of the scale. Otherwise bad behaviour becomes normalised.

Well, sure ...

but it's still a good idea to throw resources at the lethal end. They are likely to be the most dangerours drivers. They are the ones that get the publicity. (And grieving families make effective publicity).

So I reckon hitting the bastards that kill/main someone would be a good place to start 

[ian]

At the end of the process you're just punishing (and I don't disagree with that). But it won't change behaviour much because drivers don't think it'll happen to them. Crashes happen to other people. If they do crash, it'll just be a little bump. Check out the absence of mind of most drivers. They'll speed, make a quick call, faff around in the glove box, because they feel pretty safe. These aren't people who think they might crash.

We've even contort language to indulge for this belief. People don't crash, cars do. Other people's cars. And if crashes might happen, the entire rhetoric of the car industry is safety. Not for the people you hit, for you, dear driver. A nice warm hug of airbags and crumple zones.

[Redlight]

How about we ban insurance for everything but theft? You cause an accident YOU pay the costs of repairing the damage. You wreck your own car. Tough - start saving your pennies for a new one. 

[jsabine]

That's another example, mobile phone use is still ubiquitous. People know there's little likelihood of being caught and if they do manage to get caught (presumably by driving around the police station car park for an afternoon with a phone jammed against their ear), the punishment is little more than an inconvenience.

To be fair, TPTB are on course to make it six points not three, and I understand that, at least according to radio reports, the Met is launching a crackdown on mobile use.

[caerau]

How about we ban insurance for everything but theft? You cause an accident YOU pay the costs of repairing the damage. You wreck your own car. Tough - start saving your pennies for a new one. 

Who pays for lifelong care for people left in a wheelchair or given debilitating brain injuries? Compensates them for lost earnings? I know your point was largely    but compulsory insurance isn't really there for this, though of course it's included, it's for paying for things that cannot possibly be afforded by all but the very few.


A point that is largely missed by the 'cyclists must have insurance brigade 

[mattc]

3rd party liability is the only compulsory bit. You don't even need theft cover

So redlight could certainyl ban cover for "self-harm" accidents 

[mattc]

At the end of the process you're just punishing (and I don't disagree with that). But it won't change behaviour much because drivers don't think it'll happen to them.

Really? that's an incredibly narrow view of our justice system. (And I think you know that!)

The word "much" in your 2nd sentence is the tricky bit - neither of us can quantify it, but it's rather important ...

[ian]

It doesn't matter what the severity of the sentence if you don't think (a) it's going to happen and/or (b) you'll be caught.

[mattc]

... but if the convicted are often not punished AT ALL, then drivers will never worry about being caught.

(and any sane person can see the benefits of giving some punishment to the convicts that have actually caused death/major-harm.)

So: decent sentences for the Killer Drivers seems a pretty decent (and cost-effective) place to start.

[Whitedown Man]

Mrs WDM is under strict and explicit instructions that if I die out on the road then there's to be no namby-pamby "it won't bring him back" nonsense. I want my killer to face the fullest possible legal process and punishment, and if she's so inclined she should engage a hitman to finish the job after the law's done with him.

[ian]

Oh, I think drivers should be punished, I just don't believe the threat of such punishment has any effect on their behaviour. It really is more 'retributive justice' at that point (and bring it on). Of course, we then get hung on intent, because most drivers don't intend to kill or injure, but really there's no punishment unless they do kill or injure someone. The driver who hit me didn't intend it, he was just driving too fast because he was in a hurry to get home in time for the start of a football game on the TV. He had a few tickets for driving too fast, like many people, but sometimes you're in a hurry, right? Speeding is normalized, it's a little bit naughty and might get you a slap on the wrist, but everyone does it. I'm sure he didn't contemplate that through this he might severely injure or kill someone. We don't bring the consequences home until it is too late.

[Riggers]

This is great for US letting off steam, about the injustice of sentences meted out to collisions that involve car drivers and cyclists, and Ian touched on an important point further up, which was nowadays, modern cars protect much more, those inside a vehicle, and now, perhaps, the perception is, it's much safer now to go faster. Again, advances in car design such as improved braking adds to this.

All these advancements haven't advanced our brains. It means you are delivering a potential killing machine, more speedily into a situation that has to be assessed much more quickly and, frankly, I don't think a lot of drivers have the necessary skills to be properly in charge of some of these vehicles, that not so long ago, might well have graced our racing tracks, with their performance levels.

The campaign for (made law of course) for wearing a seat belt was reinforced with aggressive advertising and statistics, which everyone could see helped save lives (their own of course!), and it's an easy operation to undertake when getting into a car – simple and accepted as good sense. What doesn't appear to make good sense, and in any way hazardous to other road users (definitely US included here) or pedestrians, is the use of mobile phones, and I'm sure we ALL can tell of seeing drivers still casually driving along using them. It's difficult to judge to what extent drink-driving has on crashes nowadays.

Perhaps those who wish to drive a car, should be made to ride a bike for some weeks, to drive home how vulnerable cyclists are with drivers of today, and those causing accidents should be made to ride bicycles for some period, and not just attend speed awareness classes.

I don't hate the driver who caused my trauma. As Ian said, his intention wasn't to injure somebody, but his inattention has had a devastating effect.
5 seconds prior to the crash or 5 seconds afterwards, and none of my trauma would have happened. How many more 'accidents' have we each avoided in our lives?

Not sure where I'm going with this, but it's jolly good to let off steam.

[mattc]

Oh, I think drivers should be punished, I just don't believe the threat of such punishment has any effect on their behaviour.

Then may I ask you a different question:

If a driver watches the news, and sees his fellow driver getting off scot-free after negligently murdering someone with his vehicle, do you think that will have:
A) a positive effect on his behaviour? Or
B) a negative effect on his behaviour?

[ian]

I think it will have very little effect at the personal level. Because that driver doesn't believe they'll ever kill someone. But as a statement, it's certainly useful as an indication that we treat this seriously. Of course, we fail at this by giving out paltry sentences, accepting all and any mitigation, and persisting with terms like 'careless driving' (frankly, it's just offensive for the legal system to consider incidents in which people have died as merely 'careless').

[Riggers]

Pah! That's an easy one to answer Matthew.
C) It won't have any impact on a fellow driver … because the crash involved somebody else, and not them.

[Cudzoziemiec]

It used to be called Driving Without Due Care and Attention, which probably expresses a better attitude to the offence than Careless Driving. Perhaps it was too many words to be media friendly.

Yes, negligible sentences for headline-making events send a large-scale message that it's simply bad luck rather than a result of personal behaviour (or of road environments and transport systems), that killing someone with a car isn't really killing. But it's still something huge and dramatic which won't happen to us. I think Ian's right in saying that to change drivers' behaviour we need to intervene little and early, reacting to things which people think don't matter in a way which hurts without disabling. For instance, 1mph over the speed limit, big fine (say a week's income) and points. Mobile phone, a week's ban. And no excuses that you've got to drive to work or take you kids to school (perhaps courts should hand out numbers for local taxi firms!). We probably also need to look long and bravely at roads and transport as a whole, but that's a different topic.

[Riggers]

I also think what isn't helpful, in the grand scheme of things, is the message given out by those in authority* when they dismiss cyclists as an intrusion on the roads, an inconvenience, and jokingly wishing that they should be run off the roads, and trifling, if somebody's knocked off their bike. "Well, they brought it on themselves, didn't they?"

*Used in this instance as: presenters on television (and journalists) who petrol heads look up to in admiration and wish to emulate.

[caerau]

What's 'namby pamby' about 'punishment doesn't bring anyone back...?


It doesn't.  It's simple fact.


Rather than hiring a hit-man, wouldn't your wife prefer to be out and about with you at the weekend because the moron who would have run you over was prosecuted for their illegal mobile phone use heavily 10 years ago and has maybe thought about it and doesn't do it any more?


I'm not sure there's anyone in this thread advocating not punishing serious road crime. 

[hellymedic]

Most 'minor' traffic offences go uncaught and unpunished.
HUGE numbers of these incidents occur without trouble.
Which is the problem.
A small number cause carnage.
We need to deter, catch and punish the 'minor misdemeanours' before carnage ensues.
We don't.

[Si S]

What truly boggled my mind in the OP was the three cases of absolute discharge. I just can't get my head around that.

[Whitedown Man]

ADs were used by Magistrates to circumvent the Criminal Courts Charge whilst that was in place, so maybe that explains (nb. NOT excuses) it ?

[mattc]

What truly boggled my mind in the OP was the three cases of absolute discharge. I just can't get my head around that.

... and 1-in-7 "walked free from court".

Astonishing.

If these people were being killed by negligence in industry, it would be a different story.