Dangerous drivers to get harsher punishment

bails87

Wallace1492 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Well its a start I guess.

Raising the minimum car driving age to 21, including a psychological profile in the driving test, and restricting the number of passengers that may be carried by drivers with less than two years experience are additional measures that should be considered.

Disagree! Why 21? If you're old enough to die for your country, legally produce offspring, vote etc. etc. it seems ridiculous to say you aren't responsible enough to drive. And psychological profiling?! Profiled by who? In what way? There's all kinds of concerns around that and potential for abuse.

The main issue seems to me to be that the existing laws aren't enforced robustly / consistently, with sentencing another concern.

Enforcing laws and sentences come after the event. Is it not better to stop the tragedy than to sentence the perpetrators.

Too many people get let loose on the roads without being competant to drive. There is also a dispropionate of young drivers involved in terrible accidents.

1. Far harder driving test.
2.Increase age limit (and do that for breeding too, far too many teenage pregnancies, these then become drain on society)
3. Far easier to get a ban. Driving is a privilidge and not a right. Start with a 1 month ban, then increase, and this for minor violations. Cars are dangerous, lets start treating them as such.
3.

The bit in bold.......right.......... :roll:

As for preventing incidents before they happen, increasing the likelihood of being punished is the best way to prevent crime. Think about mobile phone use at the wheel. it went from zero punishment if caught to points/fine/ban/whatever if caught. But has there been a massive drop in the number of mobile using drivers? No.

However, how many people knowingly speed past speed cameras? The knowledge that breaking the law here and now WILL result in a punishment (of any severity) is enough of an incentive to make drivers (of which I am one) 'behave'. 100 yards up the road, the penalty if caught speeding by a police officer are exactly the same, but the chance of being caught is massivley lower, so drivers speed up.

More education won't help. Are you a driver? Do you want to retake your test, or is this only for the 'yoofs'? Incidentally, I wonder what the average age of the drivers involved in the collisions mentioned in this thread are?

Wallace1492

bails87 wrote:

Too many people get let loose on the roads without being competant to drive. There is also a dispropionate of young drivers involved in terrible accidents.

1. Far harder driving test.
2.Increase age limit (and do that for breeding too, far too many teenage pregnancies, these then become drain on society)
3. Far easier to get a ban. Driving is a privilidge and not a right. Start with a 1 month ban, then increase, and this for minor violations. Cars are dangerous, lets start treating them as such.
3.

The bit in bold.......right..........

As for preventing incidents before they happen, increasing the likelihood of being punished is the best way to prevent crime. Think about mobile phone use at the wheel. it went from zero punishment if caught to points/fine/ban/whatever if caught. But has there been a massive drop in the number of mobile using drivers? No.

However, how many people knowingly speed past speed cameras? The knowledge that breaking the law here and now WILL result in a punishment (of any severity) is enough of an incentive to make drivers (of which I am one) 'behave'. 100 yards up the road, the penalty if caught speeding by a police officer are exactly the same, but the chance of being caught is massivley lower, so drivers speed up.

More education won't help. Are you a driver? Do you want to retake your test, or is this only for the 'yoofs'? Incidentally, I wonder what the average age of the drivers involved in the collisions mentioned in this thread are?[/quote]

Bit in bold tongue in cheek.....

However, far harder driving test will equate to better educated drivers and hopefully a reduction in the "idiots" out there. For me this is a start. IMHO education will help, as will peer pressure. Look at the campaign for drink driving in the 70's, that was education and it worked.

Airline pilots are extremely well trained, so well that they virtually never have an accident. would the threat of punishment curb their behaviour? No. Education, education, education. If you cannot be educated to drive properly, then you should not be driving.

Yes I am a driver, I have not advocated re-taking of tests, but more short term bans, bring them in for less points. Point in case - I have a mate that drove like an idiot, no-one would get in a car with him, he got 10 points, now drives like an angel, the threat of ban checked his behaviour.

Beeblebrox

MatHammond wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

Well its a start I guess.

Raising the minimum car driving age to 21, including a psychological profile in the driving test, and restricting the number of passengers that may be carried by drivers with less than two years experience are additional measures that should be considered.

Disagree! Why 21? If you're old enough to die for your country, legally produce offspring, vote etc. etc. it seems ridiculous to say you aren't responsible enough to drive. And psychological profiling?! Profiled by who? In what way? There's all kinds of concerns around that and potential for abuse.

The main issue seems to me to be that the existing laws aren't enforced robustly / consistently, with sentencing another concern.

A similar scheme to motorbiking might be better - certain restrictions on engine power (which is currently done haphazardly by insurers having high premiums - would be cheaper for individuals and safer for everyone to do this through law), times of days driving and passenger numbers until 20/21. People tend to drive like idiots when they have their friends egging them on.

bails87

Wallace1492 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

1. Far harder driving test.
2.Increase age limit .

Are you a driver? Do you want to retake your test, or is this only for the 'yoofs'?

.

Yes I am a driver, I have not advocated re-taking of tests,

So the 'far harder' test would only apply to new drivers then. And crap drivers over the age of 21 wouldn't benefit from any of the education?

When you learn to drive you are taught how to drive properly. It's not really that easy to pass. If everyone drove like they did on their tests, the world would be a far safer place. It's the change of attitude that takes place once drivers are 'free' that's the problem.

And yes, airline pilots are safe. But if a pilot crashes a plane, he won't walk away, and claim for a new wing panel (pun not intended) off his insurance. He'll probably be dead. As cyclist's, I'm sure we're all aware that that's a pretty big incentive to avoid a collision with another vehicle.

Wallace1492

bails87 wrote:

So the 'far harder' test would only apply to new drivers then. And crap drivers over the age of 21 wouldn't benefit from any of the education?

When you learn to drive you are taught how to drive properly. It's not really that easy to pass. If everyone drove like they did on their tests, the world would be a far safer place. It's the change of attitude that takes place once drivers are 'free' that's the problem.

And yes, airline pilots are safe. But if a pilot crashes a plane, he won't walk away, and claim for a new wing panel (pun not intended) off his insurance. He'll probably be dead. As cyclist's, I'm sure we're all aware that that's a pretty big incentive to avoid a collision with another vehicle.

I think it is quite easy to learn how to drive, it is doing it safely and consistantly that is the hard bit. It is a bit like passing exams, it can be done parrot fashion, doesn't mean they retain the knowledge, that is why gaining a driving licence should be much tougher.

It is a lethal weapon that people are being let loose on, and should be given far higher respect than it currently has.

I am only airing suggestions to try and cut down the death rate on our roads, and I do believe that getting it right, and engendering correct behaviour and attitudes from the very start is a good starting point.

bails87

Wallace1492 wrote:

I think it is quite easy to learn how to drive, it is doing it safely and consistantly that is the hard bit. It is a bit like passing exams, it can be done parrot fashion, doesn't mean they retain the knowledge, that is why gaining a driving licence should be much tougher.

It is a lethal weapon that people are being let loose on, and should be given far higher respect than it currently has.

I am only airing suggestions to try and cut down the death rate on our roads, and I do believe that getting it right, and engendering correct behaviour and attitudes from the very start is a good starting point.

Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed and agreed!


I just think that changing the test won't do a massive amount, few people drive at the standard required to pass the current test anyway.

The change is needed on a social level, I suppose like drink-driving, you have a valid point there (I don't know anyone my age who drink-drives, and I'd tell them they were an idiot if they did) but telling someone that they're an idiot because they drive at 35mph is seen as picky.

As for a higher standard of driver....
I know a paramedic who thinks, despite me trying to tell her otherwise, it's illegal to ride 2 abreast, and was taught on the blue-light driving course that cars must get onto the pavement to let emergency vehicles through. Oh, and also, no 'blameless' cyclist has ever been killed or injured. According to a member of the frontline emergency services, if you get hurt it's your own fault.

And she's allowed to drive as fast as she wants (pretty much), don't even get me started on the skid mark competitions they have on public roads......

In some cases education might just be polishing a turd. I think I agree with seriously cutting down on the numbers who are allowed to drive, you've convinced me! :P

MadammeMarie

bails87 wrote:

And she's allowed to drive as fast as she wants (pretty much), don't even get me started on the skid mark competitions they have on public roads......

I've seen that happening on Clapham Road! I could not believe it, they had the sirens on and they were racing, 2 ambulances! :x

Porgy

bails87 wrote:

[Oh, and also, no 'blameless' cyclist has ever been killed or injured. According to a member of the frontline emergency services, if you get hurt it's your own fault.

If so - it explains a lot. :evil:

Porgy

bails87 wrote:

In some cases education might just be polishing a turd. I think I agree with seriously cutting down on the numbers who are allowed to drive, you've convinced me! :P

It's time we got back to driving being a privelage and not a fecking right! :x

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

bails87 wrote:

In some cases education might just be polishing a turd. I think I agree with seriously cutting down on the numbers who are allowed to drive, you've convinced me! :P

It's time we got back to driving being a privelage and not a fecking right! :x

Err, it is a privilege, isn't it? You need to hold a driving licence.

If it were a right, you wouldn't have to.

What am I missing?

(FWIW, I'd be in favour of handing out 5 year licences. Retake or you're off the road. If I couldn't pass a retake, then I shouldn't be driving. Simples).

northstar

What am I missing?

Nothing, I think he means a majority of people see driving as a right.

As with most things, it comes down to attitude.

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

bails87 wrote:

In some cases education might just be polishing a turd. I think I agree with seriously cutting down on the numbers who are allowed to drive, you've convinced me! :P

It's time we got back to driving being a privelage and not a fecking right! :x

Err, it is a privilege, isn't it? You need to hold a driving licence.

If it were a right, you wouldn't have to.

What am I missing?

(FWIW, I'd be in favour of handing out 5 year licences. Retake or you're off the road. If I couldn't pass a retake, then I shouldn't be driving. Simples).

I'm referring to attitudes of drivers rather than technicalities - yes it is a privelege. do drivers realise that? almost certainly no.

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

Err, it is a privilege, isn't it? You need to hold a driving licence.

If it were a right, you wouldn't have to.

What am I missing?

:shock:
Why so aggressive all the time

are you this unpleasant in real life?

did mummy take your dummy away too early - is that what makes you so tewwibly tewwibly agressive and unpleasent all the time?

Or is it just me you've got a problem with?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Err, it is a privilege, isn't it? You need to hold a driving licence.

If it were a right, you wouldn't have to.

What am I missing?

:shock:
Why so aggressive all the time

are you this unpleasant in real life?

did mummy take your dummy away too early - is that what makes you so tewwibly tewwibly agressive and unpleasent all the time?

Or is it just me you've got a problem with?

My mother died during childbirth.

Thanks for bringing it up.

At Christmas time.










Kidding. She's still going strong.

That wasn't aggressive. You've got your "everything G66 says is aggressive" specs on.

Chill dude.

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Err, it is a privilege, isn't it? You need to hold a driving licence.

If it were a right, you wouldn't have to.

What am I missing?

:shock:
Why so aggressive all the time

are you this unpleasant in real life?

did mummy take your dummy away too early - is that what makes you so tewwibly tewwibly agressive and unpleasent all the time?

Or is it just me you've got a problem with?

My mother died during childbirth.

Thanks for bringing it up.

At Christmas time.










Kidding. She's still going strong.

That wasn't aggressive. You've got your "everything G66 says is aggressive" specs on.

Chill dude.

end of

dilemna

Wallace1492 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

LoL!!!!!!! RoFL ................. If only it would be true.


No driver, even if they mowed down everyone in a bus queue or a peloton would ever be sentenced to anything more than 2 months maximum if they were even prosecuted let alone found guilty!!! Re the driver who rounded a bend and skidded on "ice" colliding with several cyclists in a peloton killing them. His car had bald tyres as well. The police and CPS did f*uck all. The killer of Eilidh Cairns not prosecuted, the killer truck driver Andrew Stubbs who killed Tony Spink, Major Rhys Evans knocked down and killed by a young bimbo and countless others. There should be a national outcry as it's a disgrace. The media are also complicit in not reporting the daily death toll of 7-8 people killed every day on the roads.

So what's the point in increasing the maximum tarif from the current 2 years to 5 years? It is a total irrelevance. The criminal justice system is soft on prosecuting and punishing drivers who kill, SMIDSY, momentary loss of concentration, TSWIME (The Sun Was In My Eyes) and especially on those drivers who kill cyclists. No this is purely policitical. The Government and the courts are soft on drivers who KILL. Period.

The best way to bump some one off you don't like is to kill them using a car preferably when they are not a passenger .............. doh!

Please, less of the sensationalism. If these people were not prosecuted, there will be reasons why. Without in depth knowledge and expert winess statements it is nothing more than sensationalist to quote these cases. In at least one of the cases you mention the person was found not guilty by a jury.

That said, I do agree that the sentences are not tough or appropriate enough. The punishment should fit the crime. There should be more lifelong bans where careless driving has caused serious accidents.

I don't think so. You are wrong. In the case against Andrew Stubbs' he was found guilty of driving without due care and attention. His 2 year sentence was for PtCoJ.

Sorry, I will re-phrase, he was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. You seem to have found him guilty of this. Let me be clear though, he deserved more for the crime he was found guilty of.

Lets not find people guilty without a proper trial and evidence being provided. Naming cases where you percieve there has been injustice does not help.

Changing society's acceptance of bad driving is what counts.

I don't think I did. Re-read my post. My comment was regarding the leniency of sentencing in cases where cyclists have been killed by drivers and the frequency of fatalities that do not result in any prosecution of the driver. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the police and CPS declined to prosecute the driver whose car had a bald tyre(s), skidding on ice as he rounded a bend, losing conrol and colliding with several cyclists out on a New Year group ride?

How would you enforce your proposed non-breeding regime for teenagers to reduce the high number of teenage pregnancies?

Wallace1492 wrote:

1. Far harder driving test.
2. Increase age limit (and do that for breeding too, far too many teenage pregnancies, these then become drain on society)
3. Far easier to get a ban. Driving is a privilidge and not a right. Start with a 1 month ban, then increase, and this for minor violations. Cars are dangerous, lets start treating them as such.

The Chingford Skinhead

northstar wrote:

What am I missing?

Nothing, I think he means a majority of people see driving as a right.

As with most things, it comes down to attitude.

I think a lot of courts think it is a right. When was the last time you heard of anyone convicted of multiple offences of dangerous driving or even causing death getting a life-time ban? I certainly never have. Often it's a couple of years maximum.

Stone Glider

The problem with harsher punishment and lifetime bans is the possibility of leaving no way back for someone who has changed their ways. Approximately 6% of all drivers have no insurance (12% in London?). If large numbers of drivers are banned for long periods there is every likelihood that the number of dangerous drivers will increase!

The best way to ensure obedience of the rules of the road is active enforcement. Unfortunately this costs a great deal of money. Something that British taxpayers are reluctant to provide. Driving in the USA is a revelation, they are very obedient; there is also the Highway Patrol, Local Sherriffs Officers, Federal Law Officers and others watching and waiting for transgression. It works but is oppressive and expensive. The Dukes of Hazard are fiction, Sherriff Roscoe P. Coaltrain is behind every billboard.

Wallace1492

dilemna wrote:

I don't think I did. Re-read my post. My comment was regarding the leniency of sentencing in cases where cyclists have been killed by drivers and the frequency of fatalities that do not result in any prosecution of the driver. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the police and CPS declined to prosecute the driver whose car had a bald tyre(s), skidding on ice as he rounded a bend, losing conrol and colliding with several cyclists out on a New Year group ride?

How would you enforce your proposed non-breeding regime for teenagers to reduce the high number of teenage pregnancies?

I believe that the driver was prosecuted, got fined £180 and got 6 points.
He was not prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving, I do not think the CPS or the Police believed his actions were "careless" enough to warrent this, and that the tyres had no effect whatsoever on the incident, according to them. It is a very tragic case indeed.

I am all for tough sentences where a driver has caused a death by their actions of lack of them, but I would like to see the guilty parties found guilty.

As I mentioned previously the age limit for breeding was tongue in cheek.

roger_merriman

dilemna wrote:

I don't think I did. Re-read my post. My comment was regarding the leniency of sentencing in cases where cyclists have been killed by drivers and the frequency of fatalities that do not result in any prosecution of the driver. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the police and CPS declined to prosecute the driver whose car had a bald tyre(s), skidding on ice as he rounded a bend, losing conrol and colliding with several cyclists out on a New Year group ride?

his tires are a red herring tread does zip on ice. studs yes tread no.

dilemna

Wallace1492 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I don't think I did. Re-read my post. My comment was regarding the leniency of sentencing in cases where cyclists have been killed by drivers and the frequency of fatalities that do not result in any prosecution of the driver. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the police and CPS declined to prosecute the driver whose car had a bald tyre(s), skidding on ice as he rounded a bend, losing conrol and colliding with several cyclists out on a New Year group ride?

How would you enforce your proposed non-breeding regime for teenagers to reduce the high number of teenage pregnancies?

I believe that the driver was prosecuted, got fined £180 and got 6 points.
He was not prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving, I do not think the CPS or the Police believed his actions were "careless" enough to warrent this, and that the tyres had no effect whatsoever on the incident, according to them. It is a very tragic case indeed.

I am all for tough sentences where a driver has caused a death by their actions of lack of them, but I would like to see the guilty parties found guilty.

As I mentioned previously the age limit for breeding was tongue in cheek.

There in lies the problem, most police forces and the CPS, do not see the actions of drivers as sufficiently "careless" as you put it, although the correct definition of descriing a driver's driving in terms of the driving offences from careless, reckless to dangerous is on a decreasing scale of driving stanard ie the driving fell, below, substantially below, was so bad that no reasonable or prudent driver would have contemplated such a maneouvre.

dilemna

roger merriman wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I don't think I did. Re-read my post. My comment was regarding the leniency of sentencing in cases where cyclists have been killed by drivers and the frequency of fatalities that do not result in any prosecution of the driver. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the police and CPS declined to prosecute the driver whose car had a bald tyre(s), skidding on ice as he rounded a bend, losing conrol and colliding with several cyclists out on a New Year group ride?

his tires are a red herring tread does zip on ice. studs yes tread no.

Are you saying that the driver's driving was so bad that whether one or all of his tyres were bald would have made no difference what so ever? I thought that if a driver lost control of their vehicle and went into the back of another vehicle or collided with some one, it was totally their fault. Given that it was winter and the weather forecast had been poor you would have thought that the reasonable and prudent driver would have made allowance for this and adjusted their driving style accordingly and most importantly making sure that their vehicle was not defective in any way. The punishment beggars belief really, but is just another example of the strength of car culture that we as cyclists face. If he had lost control and ploughed into a bus queue of kids or a line of stationary traffic killing some one I bet he would have faced a causing death by dangerous driving prosecution. There is a really worrying pattern emerging that any collision where the injured party is a cyclist, the authorities do their best to do bugger all or dilute the severity of the charges against a driver IMHO.

Wallace1492

dilemna wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I don't think I did. Re-read my post. My comment was regarding the leniency of sentencing in cases where cyclists have been killed by drivers and the frequency of fatalities that do not result in any prosecution of the driver. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the police and CPS declined to prosecute the driver whose car had a bald tyre(s), skidding on ice as he rounded a bend, losing conrol and colliding with several cyclists out on a New Year group ride?

his tires are a red herring tread does zip on ice. studs yes tread no.

Are you saying that the driver's driving was so bad that whether one or all of his tyres were bald would have made no difference what so ever? I thought that if a driver lost control of their vehicle and went into the back of another vehicle or collided with some one, it was totally their fault. Given that it was winter and the weather forecast had been poor you would have thought that the reasonable and prudent driver would have made allowance for this and adjusted their driving style accordingly and most importantly making sure that their vehicle was not defective in any way. The punishment beggars belief really, but is just another example of the strength of car culture that we as cyclists face. If he had lost control and ploughed into a bus queue of kids or a line of stationary traffic killing some one I bet he would have faced a causing death by dangerous driving prosecution. There is a really worrying pattern emerging that any collision where the injured party is a cyclist, the authorities do their best to do bugger all or dilute the severity of the charges against a driver IMHO.

I am not aware what information the driver had prior to setting off, I do not know what the forecasts were on that day or if the driver was aware it was freezing or not, and whether there was the chance of black ice. Should the driver have anticipated it? I have no idea. Should he anticipate it if it was spilled diesel? Ice can appear on roads in dips when the surrounding area is clear, perhaps the driver should have considered this.

However, I agree that bad driving gets let off too lightly, and that standards are sometimes below what should be expected.

I do not think there is any anti cylist biast. I think drivers in the wrong get off to lightly no matter what the other party is, be they on bicycle, foot or in another car, ot even if no other car in involved.

jal frezie

It amazes me how some people can make such profound conclusions based on the most minuscule amount of evidence.
In the case of Andrew Stubbs, the jury found him unanimously not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. There fore that he was not responsible for the cyclists death. He was found guilty of careless driving (not causing death by careless driving) by a majority of 2-10. Which would suggest that the conviction was not totally clear cut, as some would suggest. Also the conviction that he was jailed for was attempting to pervert the course of justice, which he vehemently denied, the only evidence put forward by the prosecution was that of one sole police officer. There were no eye witnesses whatsoever.
So maybe before people start calling for the death sentence they should carefully consider All the facts and not just hearsay!

Wallace1492

jal frezie wrote:

It amazes me how some people can make such profound conclusions based on the most minuscule amount of evidence.
In the case of Andrew Stubbs, the jury found him unanimously not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. There fore that he was not responsible for the cyclists death. He was found guilty of careless driving (not causing death by careless driving) by a majority of 2-10. Which would suggest that the conviction was not totally clear cut, as some would suggest. Also the conviction that he was jailed for was attempting to pervert the course of justice, which he vehemently denied, the only evidence put forward by the prosecution was that of one sole police officer. There were no eye witnesses whatsoever.
So maybe before people start calling for the death sentence they should carefully consider All the facts and not just hearsay!

Was there not Tachograhical evidence also? It proved he had stopped in the layby from which the panniers were disposed of. Denial has nothing to do with it. He was convicted by a majortity, that is good enough.

Why are you suddenly resurecting this and defending Stubbs with your first post?
What is your motive?

jal frezie

When was stopping in a layby a criminal offence?

the_hundredth_idiot

I confess I'd forgotten about this case until jal frezie brought it up. From the news reports, Andrew Stubbs sounded like a very unpleasant piece of work. He tried to deny knowing anything about it and only got traced through eye witness descriptions. A decent person who ran over a person with a lorry would have stopped rather than tried to escape.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 332527.stm

Feels to me like jal frezie is someone with a personal interest in the case who did a bit of googling, came across this thread and joined up to post this one message. It's not even like this thread mentioned the particular incident in much detail - most of the thread was about the general concept rather than the Andrew Stubbs case in particular.

I think my favourite bit was, "Also the conviction that he was jailed for was attempting to pervert the course of justice, which he vehemently denied". Oh well, he must be innocent then.

jal frezie

The hundredth idiot? Does that mean you didn't make it into the top ten?
This is exactly my point! Your not interested in facts! Just speculation. Is a person guilty simply because he says he isn't?

rjsterry

And conversely, is a conviction meaningless because the person convicted refuses to admit guilt? Got anything useful to add or just more school boy insults?

W1

jal frezie wrote:

The hundredth idiot? Does that mean you didn't make it into the top ten?
This is exactly my point! Your not interested in facts! Just speculation. Is a person guilty simply because he says he isn't?

Your dad/mate/drinking buddy got found guilty. That's what makes him guilty.

Go on then, give us some facts.

And it's "you're".