Killer Drivers Treated Leniently - Official

[spindrift]

500 culpable killer drivers have avoided prison in the last five years.

[caerau]

Another good point that someone has made somewhere (I think it was in the comments below the original article in the OP) is that noone being killed in some crashes is just a matter of pure luck.
I always recall in these conversations, the incident several of us were involved in in Newport on the BB audax a few years back when we were very nearly hit from *above* by a flying car.  This car (or rather the occupant) was also an innocent bystander - they'd been flung in the air through getting rear ended by a moron driving with such speed that they destroyed a wall AND flung another car into the air and across the road.
Charged with careless driving as I recall.    


If someone had been killed I have no doubt they'd have prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving.


Yet since noone was killed it somehow transmogrifies into 'careless' driving.


What the heck is the difference?  The appalling driving is no different - it's just a matter of pure luck what the outcome is.  When I think about this it always boggles my mind as to what the level of driving must be to be considered 'dangerous' in court if no-one is killed.  There is clearly a disconnect with reality in the (interpretation of?) law on this front.

[Gattopardo]

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.

Didn't Gulianin try that in New York and it failed?

[Gattopardo]

As I keep saying, I'm going to become a hitman and use a car.  Willbe able to get away withit.

People have got longer sentences for speeding than killing someone.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I hope that, if I get wiped out by a driver, they get nailed to the wall by my nearest and dearest. Actions should most definitely have consequences.

[mattc]

Another good point that someone has made somewhere (I think it was in the comments below the original article in the OP) is that noone being killed in some crashes is just a matter of pure luck.

You're completely right - and I would love to see all negligent driving stamped out - but we have to be realistic about law enforcement.

It will always be easier to convict when there are tangible (tragic) consequences. The deaths/injuries are a key part of evidence for the prosecution.

How do you define "bad driving" in general? There are limited metrics: speed, blood alcohol level ...er ... there may be others that I can't think of right now, but they are few. Actual fatal "collisions" are usually caused by negligence combined with a number of pieces of bad luck.

You can't measure "not paying enough attention"; but actually hitting someone is pretty damning.


[If we had massive budget + public will, my preferred approach would be regular retesting for all drivers. An examiner in the passenger seat can make accurate judgements of driver ability. Just MHO! ]

[caerau]

You are quite right too and that is the problem - definition.


I would like to think that any sensible person would think that hitting a car ahead with enough velocity to fling it clean through the air into the air whilst simultaneously destroying a brick wall and nearly wrecking a third - all in built up road with a 30 mph limit - might just think that was dangerous and not just careless driving.  If this is an isolated case I'd happily eat my hat.


I wonder if anyone has ever been convicted of dangerous driving without fatal consequences also being involved.

[hatler]

I wonder if anyone has ever been convicted of dangerous driving without fatal consequences also being involved.

There must have been.

[hatler]

If someone had been killed I have no doubt they'd have prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving.

I imagine they would have been charged with causing death by careless driving.

[caerau]

What makes you think that?

[caerau]

And by way of explaining my question, a personal tutee (I lecture, one of my responsibilities is to mentor a small number of our students) of mine a couple of years ago watched her little brother get killed by a speeding driver in front of her here in Cardiff.  The speeding was far less than what nearly did for me in Newport, no walls were destroyed no other vehicles were involved and certainly weren't flung clean through the air, the driver stopped at the scene (or around the corner at least iirc) and didn't just fuck off like the dude in Newport.
He was jailed for quite some time for causing death by dangerous driving.


My point it is 'dangerous' driving seems to be rather 'easier' to demonstrate in court once someone has been killed.

[hatler]

What makes you think that?

Sorry, I put that reply together in a bit of a hurry.

It was more an implicit comment on how bloody ridiculous it is that : -

• there is such a thing as a charge for 'Causing death by careless driving',
• the bar for proving beyond reasonable doubt that the standard of driving was dangerous is set so high.

If the chap in your instance was done for careless driving there would appear to be a reasonable chance that had someone died as a result then the charge would have been 'causing death by careless driving'. The only difference in that instance is that someone died. The nature of the driving wasn't any different. Therefore, if it was only thought to be worthy of a careless driving charge as things turned out, then, given the hideously slack way that our entire enforcement/prosecution/justice system seems to work in these sort of cases, I think it entirely probable that the charge would have been 'causing death by careless driving'.

[mrcharly-YHT]

All this makes my last "stopped by police" even more ludicrous. Pulled over when driving the landy. Why? You were "driving extremely cautiously through town, sir, and I wondered if you were under the influence of something."

When I pointed out that A) That part of town was notorious for drunks staggering out on the road and tourists wandering out not realising it wasn't pedestrianised and B) the landy was large with no soft crumple zones and a very hard bumper the police officer turned crimson with embarrassment and couldn't apologise enough.

But how absolutely effing ridiculous. If I'd driven carelessly on the edge of the speed limit he wouldn't have pulled me over.

[caerau]

What makes you think that?

Sorry, I put that reply together in a bit of a hurry.

It was more an implicit comment on how bloody ridiculous it is that : -

• there is such a thing as a charge for 'Causing death by careless driving',
• the bar for proving beyond reasonable doubt that the standard of driving was dangerous is set so high.

If the chap in your instance was done for careless driving there would appear to be a reasonable chance that had someone died as a result then the charge would have been 'causing death by careless driving'. The only difference in that instance is that someone died. The nature of the driving wasn't any different. Therefore, if it was only thought to be worthy of a careless driving charge as things turned out, then, given the hideously slack way that our entire enforcement/prosecution/justice system seems to work in these sort of cases, I think it entirely probable that the charge would have been 'causing death by careless driving'.

Got ya and I guess yes I see your point. 

[caerau]

All this makes my last "stopped by police" even more ludicrous. Pulled over when driving the landy. Why? You were "driving extremely cautiously through town, sir, and I wondered if you were under the influence of something."

When I pointed out that A) That part of town was notorious for drunks staggering out on the road and tourists wandering out not realising it wasn't pedestrianised and B) the landy was large with no soft crumple zones and a very hard bumper the police officer turned crimson with embarrassment and couldn't apologise enough.

But how absolutely effing ridiculous. If I'd driven carelessly on the edge of the speed limit he wouldn't have pulled me over.

I dunno, at least they were doing something.  And slow and over-cautious (not that yours was - I'm not saying that) is what they look out for often to spot drunk drivers. 


The cops pulled over a lady in a car who'd closely overtaken me twice in flipping enormous queue on my commute a few weeks ago - I was pleasantly surprised, I didn't stop to find out why but lord knows what else it could have possibly been.


I'd take that as showing that at least when they *are* out they do something.  Which is a positive for me.  There should be more - as has beens said, far more are killed on the roads than murdered etc.

[Jaded]

I feel the problem lies in the process of charging and trying, whether by magistrates or a jury.

The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendants driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver

I fear that the problem is that a competent and carful driver uses their phone, speeds, doesn't indicate, fiddles with the radio, has misted windows etc.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I feel the problem lies in the process of charging and trying, whether by magistrates or a jury.

The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendants driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver

I fear that the problem is that a competent and carful driver uses their phone, speeds, doesn't indicate, fiddles with the radio, has misted windows etc.

Appropriate typo!

[Jaded]

 

[caerau]

I didn't take it as a typo - it's a good point well made

[Cudzoziemiec]

I did wonder if it was deliberate.

[caerau]

Dangerous drivers who kill could face life in prison
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38199720

Not holding my breath but am not displeased either

[Cudzoziemiec]

No one's ever received the present maximum sentence so I wonder if it will make any difference.

[spindrift]

Dominic Lawson in the Mail:

Only last Friday, a lorry driver called Keith Mees was sentenced for killing two men by smashing his 38-tonne HGV into the back of their car.
Mees had been spending 14 minutes on a phone call to tell his girlfriend he was dumping her, and then immediately before impact started browsing Facebook to send messages to an ex-partner with whom he wanted to rekindle a relationship.
Mees had previously been banned for drink-driving.
His immediate reaction when told at the crash site that the occupants of the car he hit were dead was: ‘For f***’s sake, I’ve only had my [HGV] licence for a few weeks.’

[Gattopardo]

Dominic Lawson in the Mail:

Only last Friday, a lorry driver called Keith Mees was sentenced for killing two men by smashing his 38-tonne HGV into the back of their car.
Mees had been spending 14 minutes on a phone call to tell his girlfriend he was dumping her, and then immediately before impact started browsing Facebook to send messages to an ex-partner with whom he wanted to rekindle a relationship.
Mees had previously been banned for drink-driving.
His immediate reaction when told at the crash site that the occupants of the car he hit were dead was: ‘For f***’s sake, I’ve only had my [HGV] licence for a few weeks.’

So what did he get?

[spindrift]

Now, bear in mind that in 2004 Parliament had increased the maximum penalty for death by dangerous driving from ten to 14 years.
It would be hard to think of a more disturbing case than that of Keith Mees.
Yet he was sentenced to . . . six years.