Really . . .

FSR_XC

I don't want to antagonise the drivers V cyclists argument, but in one of the latest deaths the driver pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. The sentence: 1yr ban, 100 hours of unpaid work and £85 in costs . . . . really . . . . Is that what a life is worth?

You probably get more for drink driving or speeding

snoopsmydogg

FSR_XC wrote:

I don't want to antagonise the drivers V cyclists argument, but in one of the latest deaths the driver pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. The sentence: 1yr ban, 100 hours of unpaid work and £85 in costs . . . . really . . . . Is that what a life is worth?

You probably get more for drink driving or speeding

Unfortunately you do.

Someone I know was caught to be over the limit going to work the day after a night out. Got an 18 month ban and over £250 fine including costs.

Buckie2k5

careless driving. If he was done for reckless/dangerous driving it would have been jail time. Member of my family few years back was done for dangerous driving after seriously injuring the other driver, he was givin 12 months.

smidsy

The real shocking thing about the OP is where did they find someone in the legal profession to do anything for £85 let alone a whole case.

Everytime I send an email, or make a phone calll or receive a letter from my solicitor it costs me £100. Most decent legal folk charge £200+ per hour. :evil:

turnerjohn

smidsy wrote:

The real shocking thing about the OP is where did they find someone in the legal profession to do anything for £85 let alone a whole case.

Everytime I send an email, or make a phone calll or receive a letter from my solicitor it costs me £100. Most decent legal folk charge £200+ per hour. :evil:

....never known any DESCENT legal folk !....£200 an hour takes the p*ss !

Ber Nard

FSR_XC wrote:

I don't want to antagonise the drivers V cyclists argument, but in one of the latest deaths the driver pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. The sentence: 1yr ban, 100 hours of unpaid work and £85 in costs . . . . really . . . . Is that what a life is worth?

You probably get more for drink driving or speeding

Perhaps in some cases prosecutors go after the lesser charge, almost guaranteeing a conviction, rather than pushing for dangerous driving and risk losing the case? I'm no legal eagle though.

Rob

Sussed out

Not condoning driving in a way that could kill someone but I reckon killing someone, being honest about it and having that knowledge for the rest of your life is a very strong sentence. A drink driver if they get away with it or even if they get caught doesn't have the consequences of taking a life hanging round their neck forever.

elderone

That does seem such a little punishment for a life lost,but has as been said,the drivers own conscience is the real sentence.If he/she thinks,"f**k",got of lightly there,then they deserve life,if on the other hand the driver spends the rest of there life feeling guilty for the death then no prison/fine/ban woud make a toss of difference.
For the family who lost a loved one ,my heart goes out to them and no punishment would problem fix there anger and grief.
Very sad when this happens.

amaferanga

Compare that to the sentence that someone would get for killing someone with a single punch (e.g. just a punch, person falls badly and hits their head and dies). It's really no different. Quite why killing someone with a car, whether careless or dangerous, isn't actually manslaughter is something that has always puzzled me. Why is there a lesser offence and sentencing guidelines just because the weapon is a car? Of course the motorist is likely to feel remorse for the rest of their life, as would the guy who threw the out-of-character punch that killed someone, but that's no substitute for a spell behind bars.

amaferanga

I did some jury service recently. Guy with no past convictions or anything, never done anything wrong in his life, hit a guy in a nightclub with a bottle. A moment of madness you could say - sliced the victims' neck and came within millimetres of killing him. It didn't though and the victim is now fine. Guilty verdict - 12 years. That makes a 1 year driving ban for killing someone through careless use of a weapon seem utterly ridiculous.

diy

Its very simple - we punish the intent not the result.

Look at it another way:

1. driver approaches a junction, fails to look properly and pulls out on to a road causing an oncoming cyclist to brake hard.
2. driver approaches a junction, fails to look properly and pulls out on to a road causing an oncoming cyclist to crash (minor injuries).
3. driver approaches a junction, fails to look properly and pulls out on to a road causing an oncoming cyclist to crash he hits his head awkwardly and dies at the scene.

In all 3 cases its the same act of carelessness. I don't get how a possible minor lapse in concentration with devastating results is the same as bottling someone?

Briggo

amaferanga wrote:

I did some jury service recently. Guy with no past convictions or anything, never done anything wrong in his life, hit a guy in a nightclub with a bottle. A moment of madness you could say - sliced the victims' neck and came within millimetres of killing him. It didn't though and the victim is now fine. Guilty verdict - 12 years. That makes a 1 year driving ban for killing someone through careless use of a weapon seem utterly ridiculous.

It may have been a moment of madness but in that moment he tried to cause harm, who's to say he wont have further moments of madness.

Careless driving isn't an attempt to harm someone.

elderone

amaferanga wrote:

I did some jury service recently. Guy with no past convictions or anything, never done anything wrong in his life, hit a guy in a nightclub with a bottle. A moment of madness you could say - sliced the victims' neck and came within millimetres of killing him. It didn't though and the victim is now fine. Guilty verdict - 12 years. That makes a 1 year driving ban for killing someone through careless use of a weapon seem utterly ridiculous.

In this case the person deliberately attacked the person with the weapon,so was intentional.
Totally different to what the OP posted.

ElLawro

amaferanga wrote:

I did some jury service recently. Guy with no past convictions or anything, never done anything wrong in his life, hit a guy in a nightclub with a bottle. A moment of madness you could say - sliced the victims' neck and came within millimetres of killing him. It didn't though and the victim is now fine. Guilty verdict - 12 years. That makes a 1 year driving ban for killing someone through careless use of a weapon seem utterly ridiculous.

12 years, really? What charge was he found guilty of? Just have an interest in this area.

amaferanga

Ok, I know it's different. The guy did deliberately attack someone, but there was no suggestion that he was trying to kill him. I don't know the details of the case the OP refers to, but often blatant dangerous driving leads to a conviction for only careless driving.

I believe that we're far too forgiving when it comes to motoring offences. Sure we all make mistakes, but if you're in control of a dangerous weapon then you should be punished if you make a 'careless' mistake that leads to someone dying.

amaferanga

ElLawro wrote:

12 years, really? What charge was he found guilty of? Just have an interest in this area.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

diy

There has to be more to that abh story for him to have got 12 years. But it would be wrong for you to discuss it in fact you have already said more than you should.

unixnerd

Personally I'd rather see driver's have to pay compensation from their own pocket to the cyclist or their family rather than go to jail.

Critch

amaferanga wrote:

ElLawro wrote:

12 years, really? What charge was he found guilty of? Just have an interest in this area.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

You cannot get more than 5 years for ABH and even then that has to be in Crown Court. Hell, these days you don't even get more than ~5 years for GBH with intent for early guilty pleas and that can carry a life sentence at the discretion of the Judge. The British Justice System is a complete and utter joke when it comes to crime and punishment. 50% reduction in sentences for early guilty pleas and then getting out early for good behaviour.... You should serve the full sentence then get out ON TIME for good behaviour. Thats why so many victims are pissed, and quite rightly too. The criminal justice system needs a massive overhaul.

diy

So why plead guilty and save the state and victim a huge amount of bother? There has to be an incentive to 'fess up to the crime. There has to be something that helps a person accept he has done wrong and look to fix it. There also has to be a balance of the amount of people who get locked up. In the US they lock up 6 times as many people as a percentage than the UK and they have no better crime rates.

lotus49

The thing about careless driving is that it means a minor mistake. Sadly, minor mistakes sometimes result in serious consequences as in this case but one shouldn't ignore the fact that the mistake itself was minor.

Like any driver, I make mistakes. I never do anything clearly irresponsible (eg overtaking around a blind bend, driving the wrong way down a motorway etc) and I have been fortunate that my minor mistakes have never resulted in an accident.

I did once come very close to killing a cyclist. I was joining a main road from a minor road in my car doing 40MPH (which was the limit). The junction was laid out like a motorway slip road so I had to look over my shoulder to see. It was dusk but definitely not dark and no street lighting and there was a cyclist with no lights whom I didn't see. I looked but the light was poor and I was tired. My two passengers screamed at me to stop so I did. If I had been on my own, I would have hit him full on at 40 and probably killed him. Should I have been sent to prison for that? I don't think so. Fortunately, I was not on own so there was no accident but don't forget how close a minor lapse of concentration can get you to a serious accident sometimes.

Dangerous driving is very different to careless driving and is rightly treated as such. It's also worth pointing out that speeding and drink driving are deliberate acts. Careless driving isn't.

diy

Drink driving definitely.. Speeding, I don't think I agree.

When you set out to drive and then have a drink knowing you are driving home, you are making a conscious decision drink drive. Speeding can be a momentary lapse, it can also be something that is entirely safe for the conditions and circumstances, particularly in roads with artificially low limits set for peak situations (e.g. Surrey) where the avg dual carriage way has a 50 limit and the avg. single A road is a 40 limit. You can always tell for example when you have crossed the county line into berks/hampshire, as the speed limit will often go up.

If you taped over the speedo on a persons car, it should not affect how safe they drive.

entershikari

IKilling someone in a car is one of the few offences where intent has nothing to do with the sentence you're given, which I've always thought was a serious anomaly in our legal system. Think about it, if you were driving at 80mph through a town and you were caught then you would receive an instant band and a fine. But if someone had stepped out in front of you and you had run over them and killed them you'd be facing 'causing death by dangerous driving' and would therefore be facing prison time. But in both instances your intent was exactly the same, you just wanted to get wherever you were going fast. Just something that I always thought was odd and thought I'd share.