Careless Driving: MCN petition and home office review...

[lynw]

MCN are starting a petition to address careless driving after the sentencing in the Richard Sholl case (biker who lost his foot to uninsured, untaxed, unlicensed driver). Saw it in last weeks MCN that Ive got round to reading.

The home office has begun a review of bad/careless driving sentencing, and this is a subject very close to my heart this week, having found out today van man will be charged Friday.

Anyone who wants to make their views heard can leave their comments direct with the home office by going to the link below and following the instructions:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/consult_roadtraffic.htm

or you can use the form in the MCN itself and send it in.

I urge people to do this because if we make ourselves heard maybe in the future the drivers that injure and kill will face more severe penalties. If people dont, then its likely sentences will remain light.

I am extremely lucky and I keep in mind what happened to Richard Sholl -the driver got 2 months, 1 suspended and paid 300 pounds compensation after driving away with the guys severed foot in his bumper. If you find that shocking - as the thread about that indicated most people did - do something and tell the home office things need to change.

Lyn

[hall13uk]

good post :thumbsup:

[SPUD]

*******

[454697819]

email in support sent,

as follows

Dear Sir or Madam

I would like to keep this as brief as possible, and apologise if some of this appears to be waffle, but I would like to make my views on this subject known.

Firstly I would like to say I am glad to hear that the government is considering tougher punishments for those who do drive dangerously, and while this is a complex
issue which I am sure will have teething problems in the initial stages, I am sure will be appreciated by all of those victims effected by an act such
as dangerous driving.

This topic was first bought to my attention when a colleague of mine was applying for he magistrates courts, and in a conversation he stated that the hardest thing would be
judging people for the crime not the outcome.

Personally, I feel very strongly that this is where our legal system fails to carry out justice, where I understand that an accident is an accident, if it is proved that the person was driving dangerously and
their actions causes death or any injury to another person, this should be taken into account during sentencing.

After all, a road going vehicle can be a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands and tragically can prove fatal in some circumstances, so why is it that if someone uses this potentially lethal
weapon in such a way that causes injury or death, they appear to get off the hook with a slapped wrist,

Yet is any other potential weapon was used to cause injury or death a harsher sentence would be given??

In my opinion it would be in the interest of the general public and the victims of such incidents that the injuries and or implications of the actions of the guilty on the third party
should be taken into account when issuing a sentence.

I understand that there is obviously the risk of undefined careless driving which could lead to un just sentencing, and so am pleased to see that one of the considerations is
• defining careless driving in statute
Thank you for your time and this is a subject I shall be following with great interest.

Best Regards
Alex Matter

Building Services
Draughtsman
West Suffolk Hospital
Hardwick Lane
Bury St. Edmunds
IP33 2QZ

Tel: 01284 712922
Email: <mailto:Alexander.Matter@wsh.nhs.uk>

[Ken McCulloch]

Good to see a campaign like this getting started. It may be useful to know that there's a junior minister in the Home Office (Hazel Blears) who is a keen biker herself so we may well be pushing at an open door here. (Hazel's main responsibility is for policing - I'm not sure if that includes traffic matters).

[Biker Biggles]

This is a very complicated matter and Im not sure I agree.I believe we should punish the crime and resist the temptation to exact revenge for the unpleasant outcome.If I get drunk and drive home and a pedestrian walks in front of me there are a range of outcomes.I might kill the ped and go to prison for five years.I might miss the ped but get nicked for DD and lose my licence and get fined.The crime was driving while drunk in both cases.If that is a serious enough crime to cop five years then fair enough because of the potential for causing death,but that should apply to every drunk driver.Theres probably a few on here who would be inside today if that was the case.A real life example is the bloke who fell asleep and caused the Selby train crash.He got six years which i thought was harsh considering that most long distance drivers,if they are honest,will confess to a sleepy moment or two.
My point is be carefull what you wish for,cos you might just get it,and it might come back to get you.None of us are perfect and I mean none of us.

[Viney]

I aint signing that, they'll end up baning Volvos, and as i own one.....;)

[Couerdelion]

This is a very complicated matter and Im not sure I agree.I believe we should punish the crime and resist the temptation to exact revenge for the unpleasant outcome.If I get drunk and drive home and a pedestrian walks in front of me there are a range of outcomes.I might kill the ped and go to prison for five years.I might miss the ped but get nicked for DD and lose my licence and get fined.The crime was driving while drunk in both cases.If that is a serious enough crime to cop five years then fair enough because of the potential for causing death,but that should apply to every drunk driver.Theres probably a few on here who would be inside today if that was the case.A real life example is the bloke who fell asleep and caused the Selby train crash.He got six years which i thought was harsh considering that most long distance drivers,if they are honest,will confess to a sleepy moment or two.
My point is be carefull what you wish for,cos you might just get it,and it might come back to get you.None of us are perfect and I mean none of us.

I pretty much agree with this.

It should be the crime that is punished not the outcome.

The Richard Scholl was an unfortunate accident. But the driver shouldn;t have been on the road or left the scene of the accident. Those are the real crimes. Let's introduce 2 years in prison for driving without insurance/tax etc and 5 years for leaving the scene of an accident. Or even increase the punishment available for driving without due care. The laws are already there it's just that the punishments don't always fit the crime.

[Ceri JC]

My point is be carefull what you wish for,cos you might just get it,and it might come back to get you.None of us are perfect and I mean none of us.

Yes, I've "abstained" on this matter for that reason. One area of the law I see as unduly harsh is the idea of punishment for the outcome, rather than the crime. If you hit a big burly bloke at 35 in a 30 and they survive with only very minor injuries, is it any less of a crime than hitting a small child at 35 in a 30 and killing them? The only difference is the other party, something that you have no control over and, unless it was an intentional crash, were not able to factor into your decision to do 35 in a 30. As such, it's something that I feel it's unfair to punish people on, so I feel they should both be treated in a similar manner.

I would like a narrower "band" of possible punishment for such offences, blind justice and all that... :)

[454697819]

Not gonna argue and i respec ut opinions, however
take this example, u have agun (for argument sakes is legal in this country in a range) u have 2 choices . 1. take it to a range and us it safely, 2. use it in ur back garden and end up killing a passer by.
A car is a dangerous wepon, u have a choice to drive carefully and safely, or u can drive like an idiot and accdently kill sum 1. boith accidents, but both coused by mistreating a dangerous wepon, both caused death through neglagence, that is unnacceptable imho.

in the construction injury, u can now be taken to court and done for manslaughter if u neglect the health and safety of others and a fatal accident occurs. yet on our roads it would appear a sympathy card to the vitims family and a slap on the wrist fine is aceptable,

hope this clarifies my opinion better,

Alex

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Not gonna argue and i respec ut opinions, however
take this example, u have agun (for argument sakes is legal in this country in a range) u have 2 choices . 1. take it to a range and us it safely, 2. use it in ur back garden and end up killing a passer by.
A car is a dangerous wepon, u have a choice to drive carefully and safely, or u can drive like an idiot and accdently kill sum 1. boith accidents, but both coused by mistreating a dangerous wepon, both caused death through neglagence, that is unnacceptable imho.

in the construction injury, u can now be taken to court and done for manslaughter if u neglect the health and safety of others and a fatal accident occurs. yet on our roads it would appear a sympathy card to the vitims family and a slap on the wrist fine is aceptable,

hope this clarifies my opinion better,

Alex

Sorry but that is not a good analogy. If you kill If you accidently shoot someone while plinking away (legally) in your back garden then thats obviously dangerous. If it's legal like you say though, what do you charge them with?

If you drive like an idiot and kill someone you will be charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Yes the punishment must fit the crime, but a crime must be commited, and be proven to have been commited, before the punishment can be adminsitered.

[Biker Biggles]

This often becomes an issue because reasonable people are dissatisfied with the hotch potch of legal outcomes that we see.The ones mentioned here are great examples.Man causes crash and drives off without stopping to help.To give the media an angle he has bikers foot still attached to car.He probably caused the crash by making a genuine error of judgement,like most crashes,but he became a real danger to society who needs locking up by his subsequent actions.

The Selby rail crash was the exact opposite.Man makes bad error by falling asleep at the wheel,but as soon as it happens he does what he can to stop the train by calling 999 on his mobile.Too late.

The first bloke is a pretty malicious character who would probably do the same again. The second bloke apears to have some decency in him even if he screwed up big time.I know which one Id rather see inside doing six years.Not the one who actually is.

[454697819]

Not gonna argue and i respec ut opinions, however
take this example, u have agun (for argument sakes is legal in this country in a range) u have 2 choices . 1. take it to a range and us it safely, 2. use it in ur back garden and end up killing a passer by.
A car is a dangerous wepon, u have a choice to drive carefully and safely, or u can drive like an idiot and accdently kill sum 1. boith accidents, but both coused by mistreating a dangerous wepon, both caused death through neglagence, that is unnacceptable imho.

in the construction injury, u can now be taken to court and done for manslaughter if u neglect the health and safety of others and a fatal accident occurs. yet on our roads it would appear a sympathy card to the vitims family and a slap on the wrist fine is aceptable,

hope this clarifies my opinion better,

Alex

Sorry but that is not a good analogy. If you kill If you accidently shoot someone while plinking away (legally) in your back garden then thats obviously dangerous. If it's legal like you say though, what do you charge them with?

If you drive like an idiot and kill someone you will be charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Yes the punishment must fit the crime, but a crime must be commited, and be proven to have been commited, before the punishment can be adminsitered.


true... i did think about this earlier,

this is one of those debates that coud go on and on for ever,

basically, i feel that a the punishment should fit the crime, so if ur dangerous driving but no injuries, points and fine or whatever,

however if u cause death or injury by dangerouse driving the penalty should be harsher than the just driving dangerously charge.

this is sommt me and kitten were discussing when me car went pop, cant remeber if we finished discussing it or not!! 8) so i must have one!

[lynw]

It should be the crime that is punished not the outcome.

The Richard Scholl was an unfortunate accident. But the driver shouldn;t have been on the road or left the scene of the accident. Those are the real crimes. Let's introduce 2 years in prison for driving without insurance/tax etc and 5 years for leaving the scene of an accident. Or even increase the punishment available for driving without due care. The laws are already there it's just that the punishments don't always fit the crime.

Which is the entire point of the campaign. As last weeks MCN printed it does not matter what the result of the careless driving is accident wise ie injury or no injury, the result is the driver will only be charged with a minor offence regardless. So the guy in the Sholl case could ONLY be charged with driving without due care and attention...

And its this that the campaign is aiming to change in line with the review... so those who drive carelessly but cause no injuries etc would be charged with the minor offence currently in the statutes but there would be provision for more serious offences to be laid should injuries result to a victim from that driving without due care with appropriate sentencing guidelines to reflect the fact the result of the careless driving is more serious.

At present the laws are a joke. You can practically do anything and walk away virtually scott free. That is what this is trying to address. That where serious injury results from peoples carelessness then they be charged with an appropriate charge with appropriate sentencing guidelines.

Until the message goes out to people that if you drive without due care you will be charged and you will get hammered sentence wise, people will not change. As with drink drivers there will be a hard core that never change their habits but at present the system is not providing incentive for people to drive safely. And that has to change. People need to be taught that if you get in a car, on a bike whatever you have to take responsiblity for your actions.

The driver on the Selby train crash - harsh sentence perhaps but he CONTINUED to drive while tired. That stupidity and selfeshness cost lives and frankly he deserved a custodial sentence.

The Sholl case, the guy walked away but clearly he should have had a custodial sentence.

When something happens to you and you see the person who put you or your wife or child in a wheelchair walk out of court with a suspended sentence and pay you 100 pounds compensation, come back and tell me you still dont think this campaign to change that was right.

[Biker Biggles]

All Im saying is that its very easy for us to sit here with a holier than thou attitude shouting "off with his head" at every nasty incident.We really should differentiate more between malicious and intentional criminals and those who make one off mistakes.We already send more people to prison than any other similar country,so where are we going with this?