Dangerous drivers to get harsher punishment

the_hundredth_idiot

Difficult to know the facts, I guess, given Stubbs made such an effort to hide the evidence. For which he was convicted of perverting the course of justice.

You're not so hot on thinking skills yourself, jal frezie. Whether or not a person says he is innocent is not the most reliable indicator. Which is why we have courts.

PBo

Ad hominem attacks aren't cool - but I'll make an exception for you Jal.

You join up to post that drivel, AND throw in an insult? He's the Hundreth Idiot because he was beaten by you, Stubbs and 97 of your mates!

Welcome to the forums btw.

ndru

Can you just explain to me how you can drive without due care, killing someone in the process and not be convicted for causing death by dangerous driving? Isn't driving with due car dangerous?

lost_in_thought

DNFTT.

:roll:

deptfordmarmoset

lost_in_thought wrote:

DNFTT.

:roll:

But I just fed myself some Jalfrezi. Where does that leave me?

lost_in_thought

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DNFTT.

:roll:

But I just fed myself some Jalfrezi. Where does that leave me?

Under the bridge.

deptfordmarmoset

lost_in_thought wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DNFTT.

:roll:

But I just fed myself some Jalfrezi. Where does that leave me?

Under the bridge.

Oh well, that will have to do then. At least it's out of the rain.

dondare

For some reason "causing death by careless driving" is regarded as a less serious offence than "causing death by dangerous driving". It would seem logical to me that driving carelessly enough to cause death was by definition, dangerous.
The most fitting sentence for anyone who causes death by careless, dangerous or reckless driving would be to remain in jail for just as long as their victim stays dead.

EKE_38BPM

Any driver involved in a collision (without external circumstances such as a kid running out from between parked cars) is at fault. You can't blame the road condition, the tyres, the sun being in your eyes etc. You have to drive within the condition of your vehicle, the road and the weather.

I actually think that 17 is about the right age to drive, but its stupid that you can jump straight into a Veyron the day after you pass your test.
Motorbikes have it about right. As you get older and more experienced, you're allowed a more powerful vehicle.
Cars should have the same type of system but based on power to weight ratio. A 2 litre car today (e.g. a Mundaneo) is much more powerful now than a few decades ago (a Cortina). The extra safety features also make modern cars weigh more, so if it was just done on engine size, kids would get daddy to buy them smaller engined but light (old) cars.
I also think that no road car needs an engine bigger than 2 litres, but that is a different discussion.

I would propose:
Less speed cameras but more police on the roads as it makes everyone drive slower everywhere rather than just past a camera.
Make the driving test harder.
Retest every 5 years sounds about right to keep standards high (increasing to annual retests for over 70s).
Make it easier to lose your licence (booze, speed etc).
Reduce the amount of booze allowed in the blood.
Increase speed on motorways to 99mph. You get caught doing 100+, bye bye licence for a year at least. Again, cars have improved so much since the 70mph limit was introduced in 1965 that it means very little. Better tyres, better brakes, better aerodynamics, better chassis, ABS, ESP etc all mean today's cars are better than those of 45 years ago in primary safety terms. Roadside barriers are better too (there were none on early motorways, hence the pile-ups on both carriageways).
Changing from the registration plate we have now to something like the Yank system where it is renewed every year or two. You get a new plate when you MOT your car and you automatically get 3rd party insurance (I think they do something similar in NZ)
More school buses.
You should be allowed to turn left on red lights (obviously looking out for cyclists).
No driver should be allowed to drive whilst wearing a hat.
No road car needs more than 4 exhausts.

I think I should be minister of transport.

pst88

I don't think retesting every 5 years will really help. It's not that these people are incapable of driving properly, they either choose not to, are tired, distracted etc. Any one who's passed once can put on a show for the examiner then go straight back to driving however they want once the test is over. It's the fact that they're being watched that changes people's behaviour. Retesting every 5 years would achieve nothing. For real improvements to driving standards we need more police out there watching people drive all the time.

ndru

This again boils down to driving a car as a right. If it was super easy to loose your license, and I mean super easy like 2 strikes and you're banned. Everyone would drive really really carefully. Plus what's been done in Denmark - in a bicycle vs car collision cars are always at fault unless they were stationary and the person on a bike rode into them.

Other more controversial thing - the safety of todays cars - the more safe the cars are the faster and less carefully people drive. But then again proposing to make the cars less safe for their passengers would be nonsense.

Wallace1492

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

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.

Well, Stubbs was sentenced to 2 years, that was a year ago. What with time off for good behaviour etc. it is very likely he is now out and about. Maybe Jal Frezie and Stubbs are one and the same..... Quite a scary thought really, as this person does not seem to care that an innocent cyclist has been killed.

Any normal person would be wracked with guilt wondering what they could have done differently to save this mans life, rather than try and defend the indefensible.

Be gone Jal Frezie, we do not want your poison round here!

W1

Wallace1492 wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

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.

Well, Stubbs was sentenced to 2 years, that was a year ago. What with time off for good behaviour etc. it is very likely he is now out and about. Maybe Jal Frezie and Stubbs are one and the same..... Quite a scary thought really, as this person does not seem to care that an innocent cyclist has been killed.

Any normal person would be wracked with guilt wondering what they could have done differently to save this mans life, rather than try and defend the indefensible.

Be gone Jal Frezie, we do not want your poison round here!

"Normal person" - that's where you're gone wrong here. A normal person wouldn't run over a cyclist and then try and dispose of the evidence. I would hope that they would actually care about what they had done.

W1

ndru wrote:

Can you just explain to me how you can drive without due care, killing someone in the process and not be convicted for causing death by dangerous driving? Isn't driving with due car dangerous?

They are seperate offenses. Driving without due care isn't the same as dangerous driving (in legal terms). I see your point, but how would you differentiate between those who are careless and those who are actively dangerous? Or do you not think there needs be a distinction?

ndru

W2 wrote:
They are seperate offenses. Driving without due care isn't the same as dangerous driving (in legal terms). I see your point, but how would you differentiate between those who are careless and those who are actively dangerous? Or do you not think there needs be a distinction?

I don't know if there should be a distinction. It seems to me that if you are driving without due care you're driving in a dangerous way. There's hardly a difference in the outcome of ones action where they mow down a child because they were on the phone while driving or when they just wanted to mow down the child. If you are in a 2-ton metal machine capable of killing someone you ought to be careful at all times. This is of course not viable as they would have to drive at 10mph and the car journeys would take too long in the city and... oh... wait...

W1

ndru wrote:

W2 wrote:
They are seperate offenses. Driving without due care isn't the same as dangerous driving (in legal terms). I see your point, but how would you differentiate between those who are careless and those who are actively dangerous? Or do you not think there needs be a distinction?

I don't know if there should be a distinction. It seems to me that if you are driving without due care you're driving in a dangerous way. There's hardly a difference in the outcome of ones action where they mow down a child because they were on the phone while driving or when they just wanted to mow down the child. If you are in a 2-ton metal machine capable of killing someone you ought to be careful at all times. This is of course not viable as they would have to drive at 10mph and the car journeys would take too long in the city and... oh... wait...

Right, but you agree there's quite a distinction in intent between someone being careless and someone being dangerous? And intent is a key part of justice (whether or not it should be is equally arguable, but the fact remains that it is). That's why there is a distinction.

The problem is that most drivers have done careless things which only by luck have not resulted in the death or serious injury of others. Many cyclists equally will have near misses that could otherwise have been quite serious accidents. The concept of "there by the grace of god" tends to impinge on judicial consideration of driving issues, because driving is by far and away the most normal day-to-day activity that most people undertake that could have serious consequences for others.

ndru

True.

However one can argue that
1) speaking on the phone
2) speeding
etc, are actions, which people undertake while fully aware that by doing so they pose a danger to others. If you decide to ride a residential road at speed be prepared to face consequences when a child steps out on your way. If you are talking on the phone while driving a lorry and crush a cyclist because you didn't have time to look in your mirrors, face the consequences. You were driving in a dangerous manner. When you take an action that can endanger others and you are fully aware of it you might as well just run them over intentionally.

W1

ndru wrote:

When you take an action that can endanger others and you are fully aware of it you might as well just run them over intentionally.

Not sure I can agree with that. There is also a distinction between doing something which is unlawful (such as speeding) and something which is dangerous (which speeding can be, but isn't always - such is the nature of a "speeding" offence that it is in fact only a breach of an arbitrary number which is used as a convenient baseline).

Quite rightly in my view, those who intend to kill someone get a greater punishment than those who did so simply by being careless, due to a differing degree of intent/recklessness.

Driving/riding any vehicle at any speed provides a forum for accidents to happen. There is (and has to be) an "allowance" for the fact that people make mistakes even if they are driving perfectly within the law. But I also agree that factors that evidence a lack of care should be taken into account (and they are). Where I don't agree is that a lack of care and actively intending harm deserve the same punishment.

bails87

ndru wrote:

When you take an action that can endanger others and you are fully aware of it you might as well just run them over intentionally.

But driving a car (or even riding a bike) 'safely' can endanger others. And you're aware of it, or at least I am, which is why I make an effort to keep myself and others safe, often simply by paying attention.

I know what you're getting at, but almost any action can potentially endanger others.

ndru

Fair points gentlemen.

What I think worries me the most is leniency with which the care with which people drive is judged. I made at least two hundred thousand miles in a car and now I realize that my driving was sometimes careless, sometimes dangerous and sometimes reckless. The thing is I thought it was OK. And most people think like that until there's and accident. And there is no message from the court saying - being able to drive a car is not a god given right. If you show lack of responsibility you shouldn't be driving.
I don't want to go into extremes but it's sort of like carrying a gun. You can carry a gun, no problem, but if you are careless with it, you can take someone's life, and you have to be aware of it. Which is why you need a license and psychological tests to get a gun.

ndru

Double post

W1

ndru wrote:

Fair points gentlemen.

What I think worries me the most is leniency with which the care with which people drive is judged. I made at least two hundred thousand miles in a car and now I realize that my driving was sometimes careless, sometimes dangerous and sometimes reckless. The thing is I thought it was OK. And most people think like that until there's and accident. And there is no message from the court saying - being able to drive a car is not a god given right. If you show lack of responsibility you shouldn't be driving.
I don't want to go into extremes but it's sort of like carrying a gun. You can carry a gun, no problem, but if you are careless with it, you can take someone's life, and you have to be aware of it. Which is why you need a license and psychological tests to get a gun.

I think those are fair points. The difference is - you carry a gun to defend yourself, or to attack another. There is no other "day to day" purpose.

Driving a car is very different. Firstly almost anyone can (and does) do it. Secondly it's primary purpose is not to injure others - it is to get from A to B. Thirdly the "leniency" is (as I mentioned earlier) is because a fatal accident can potentially happen to anyone, but the gravity of a minor mistake is amplified by the fact that it happens behind the wheel - that doesn't make the mistake itself any worse, and whilst I think that the consequences must be taken into account the actual action of the driver needs to be put into context, perhaps putting further to one side the consequences when compared to (say) a violent attack that is actually fatal.

Finally it's worth noting that (I would like to think) drivers generally don't intend to injure or kill anyone (particularly though carelessness). The burden of someone's death on your hands remains regardless of the judicial punishment. If the punishment for death by careless driving was life imprisonment I doubt it would make much difference to the stats - it's jut not an offence which people intend to commit.

mybreakfastconsisted

Re the Rhyl deaths:


At the scene, before the investigation had even begun, the police announced that the driver was innocent.


Harris could have been charged with driving without due care and attention in relation to the bald tyres.

Such charges, however, must be laid down within six months of an accident but the police failed to announce the tyres were defective until 26 weeks after the crash, by which time it was too late.

The cops cocked up the investigation from beginning to end, because the dead men were only cyclists.

EKE_38BPM

I have a friend who tunes cars (think The Fast and The Furious) and is now getting quite a name in that field. He used to drive like an absolute idiot and for years I wouldn't drive with him (the final straw was doing 130+ mph down an unlit motorway without headlights as "the flip up headlights cause drag"), but he's calmed down a hell of a lot now. He may even have stopped texting whilst driving at double the speed limit in residential areas. I don't think he's ever had any major accidents, but if he carried on the way he was going it would only have been a matter of time.

Anyway, as part of his tuning he can control how much power an engine can deliver no matter what other things (exhausts, cams, turbos etc) has been done to the car. He now routinely limits the power he allows younger drivers to have and will increase the power incrementally over time. Very sensible IMHO.
The problem with that is 'older' drivers (25+, its a young man's game) usually get full power straight away and once, when I was out on a test drive with him and one of his customer's, the customer was driving at 120+mph down the hard shoulder of the M25.

I was hoping the police would stop us and that I could appear as a witness for the prosecuction. What a dick! He should have done time and lost his licence. On the plus side, something went on his engine that cost around £500 to repair (about a quarter the value of the car).

We need more traffic police, better investigation of accidents & other car crimes and harsher punishment when found guilty. The problem is, speed cameras make money, traffic police cost money.

dilemna

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I have a friend who tunes cars (think The Fast and The Furious) and is now getting quite a name in that field. He used to drive like an absolute idiot and for years I wouldn't drive with him (the final straw was doing 130+ mph down an unlit motorway without headlights as "the flip up headlights cause drag"), but he's calmed down a hell of a lot now. He may even have stopped texting whilst driving at double the speed limit in residential areas. I don't think he's ever had any major accidents, but if he carried on the way he was going it would only have been a matter of time.

Anyway, as part of his tuning he can control how much power an engine can deliver no matter what other things (exhausts, cams, turbos etc) has been done to the car. He now routinely limits the power he allows younger drivers to have and will increase the power incrementally over time. Very sensible IMHO.
The problem with that is 'older' drivers (25+, its a young man's game) usually get full power straight away and once, when I was out on a test drive with him and one of his customer's, the customer was driving at 120+mph down the hard shoulder of the M25.

I was hoping the police would stop us and that I could appear as a witness for the prosecuction. What a dick! He should have done time and lost his licence. On the plus side, something went on his engine that cost around £500 to repair (about a quarter the value of the car).

We need more traffic police, better investigation of accidents & other car crimes and harsher punishment when found guilty. The problem is, speed cameras make money, traffic police cost money.

You mean you .................

If indeed this is your friend, who needs friends like this ...........?

You didn't report him then for his dangerous driving ................?