Careless Driving: MCN petition and home office review... - SV650.org

29-03-05, 05:59 PM

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/c...oadtraffic.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

29-03-05, 06:01 PM

good post

29-03-05, 07:04 PM

*******

30-03-05, 10:01 AM

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>

30-03-05, 10:15 AM

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 · 30-03-05, 02:26 PM

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 · 30-03-05, 02:30 PM

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

30-03-05, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

30-03-05, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

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...

30-03-05, 03:12 PM

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

29-03-05, 05:59 PM	#1
lynw Guest Posts: n/a	Careless Driving: MCN petition and home office review... 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/c...oadtraffic.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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Crash.NET - Pedrosa: Home pole, home win?	NewsBot	News	0	03-11-07 07:30 PM
Asleep at the wheel only careless, not dangerous?	MiniMatt	Bikes - Talk & Issues	5	05-06-07 07:16 PM
Small Office/Home Network Types (Suggestions Needed)	Demonz	Idle Banter	21	13-10-06 08:30 PM
Anti-speed bike petition, Sign the Petition!!!!!	Jimmy2Feet	SV Talk, Tuning & Tweaking	46	29-08-06 07:54 PM
Careless Driving Conviction	coombest	Bikes - Talk & Issues	60	03-05-05 07:22 PM

30-03-05, 10:01 AM	#4
454697819 Guest Posts: n/a	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>

30-03-05, 10:15 AM	#5
Ken McCulloch Guest Posts: n/a	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).

30-03-05, 02:26 PM	#6
Biker Biggles Member Mega Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Barnet Herts Posts: 5,068	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.

30-03-05, 02:30 PM	#7
Viney Member Mega Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the shadows to the left Posts: 7,700	I aint signing that, they'll end up baning Volvos, and as i own one.....

30-03-05, 03:12 PM	#10
454697819 Guest Posts: n/a	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