Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you seriously think he is going to bother getting insured?
and the site receives a small commission
Should Driver like this face tougher sentencing and Lifetime Driving Ban
- Thread starter simonblue
- Start date
Do you seriously think he is going to bother getting insured?
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
This will undoubtetly get me some "time off" but you are the most argumentative, self righteous p***k on this forum. You think 138 in a 70 is ok. You think 60+ in a 30 wiping out a small boy is ... well.. an accident? No. It's not an accident. you may accidentally do 32 in a 30, but not 60+/
It's not manslaughter, it's not attempted murder... causing death by dangerous driving... hmmm that fits.. More so than careless!
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I get the logic and approve but I'd go the other way. It's the act I'd punish never the outcome.
Maybe because I'm a car person and not worked in a morgue. Because of the low odds of a collision due to excess speed therefore a low chance of death I'd not imprison anyone for causing death by dangerous driving. I don't believe jail is where motorists who've been silly and then been unlucky belong. So regardless of the offence and outcome I'd not jail someone for a motoring offence not matter what the outcome.
I'd keep the points and ban tariffs the same. Driving while disqualified would be the only exception where jail could happen.
This is just my view.
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
OK question for you Bernie174 and also for you ST4.....
"Supposing it was your child who was 'mown down'in the circs given above.... would YOU be happy with the sentence?"
NO if's no but's just a yes or a no.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some people fail to read properly. You are one. The act is dangerous driving. He didn't intend (or it cannot be proven) he planned on killing that child at that time. So that's your murder conspiracy gone. Sorry. The definition of an accident to paraphrase is when something happens that you don't intend on. The word accident is hence appropriate and in the English language colloquialisms we have often used in this context. Sorry if that concept alludes you.
Therefore what we have is someone driving inappropriately quickly for the conditions and an accident happens.
I've previously quoted parts of the criteria used to ascertain what dangerous driving is? Did you read that or just hit the keyboard in tour best attempt to act clever? If you read it you'd have a good concept of how dangerous driving is assessed and why the driving in question (not mine I hasten to add so why my actions are included beats me) meets head on the dangerous driving criteria.
The crime is therefore dangerous driving and as someone died due to that dangerous driving it is causing death by dangerous driving.
I believe and the courts believe the sentence to be a fair one. Actually I don't, if he hasn't hit anyone he wouldn't go to jail. I don't believe in punishing the outcome only the act and intent so I'd ban him but not jail him.
Ps I got a pm from you about you not having a problem with 138 in a 70. I'm now really confused.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If it were any family member yes. Why as I am intelligent enough to realise it was not intended.
And even if I wasn't, I'd recognise abs respect it as its passed down through the courts.
Lynton
awkward customer
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes you did... and if I remember it mentioned empty, straight, good conditions... when you can show me a pedestrian crossing (zebra, pelican or any other animal type crossing) on a motorway.. I will happily retract that...
Being completely honest.. being "naughty" on a motorway has potentially far less consequences than naughty in a 30.
Forgive me if I am completely wrong, however I was taught to drive by an ex traffic cop.. chatting away, he said they were taught under training to obey everything under national (unless blues and twos) but on an open road... push it. think they also had the wall of shame as to who was clocked where through gatso's.
However we are going to completely disagree on the original subject of the thread.. Personally if it were , Sam, my son, I would be doing "time" for "physical justice" and I am the most non-violent person you could ever meet!!
Shall we just agree to disagree and move on?
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And if we extrapolate what were you done for? Just for the sake of completeness eh...
You in your earlier post mentioned attempted murder.
This may jog your memory.
Can you please back this post up with proof it was attempted murder. In your answer I am looking for proof you knew this person was set on killing this child. I'd recommend you get in touch with the cps too with your "facts".
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,227
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes he didn't deliberately run over the child but he did the next worst thing driving at double the limit in a 30 not caring if he hit a pedestrian
and if I got the right end of the stick he tried to drive away without stopping so didn't care that he had just run over a child
as I said earlier this nearly happened to me a child ran into the road but I was driving just below the speed limit so was able to stop
to be honest I just don't understand how anyone can defend his actions it wasn't a decent guy driving carefully and making a mistake he was driving recklessly not caring about anyone else
and if I got the right end of the stick he tried to drive away without stopping so didn't care that he had just run over a child
as I said earlier this nearly happened to me a child ran into the road but I was driving just below the speed limit so was able to stop
to be honest I just don't understand how anyone can defend his actions it wasn't a decent guy driving carefully and making a mistake he was driving recklessly not caring about anyone else
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It happens to us all having to stop quickly in an urban area. Listen I'm not disputing that the driving wasn't dangerous. All I am saying is the courts and cps got the sentence and charge right
Pete, re the decent guy part. You have to apply the law equally and fairly to everyone. Consider the posts by bernie and consider your view if it was a suit in a BMW who did this.
The act was driving dangerously and he's been punished as such. I'm defending nothing bar the crowns charge and the sentence.
Pete, re the decent guy part. You have to apply the law equally and fairly to everyone. Consider the posts by bernie and consider your view if it was a suit in a BMW who did this.
The act was driving dangerously and he's been punished as such. I'm defending nothing bar the crowns charge and the sentence.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, accidents can be avoided. Here by driving safely but he didn't he drove dangerously. That's the actual crime here, nothing more, nothing less.
We're disputing an olde English colloquialism here. However I'll follow your logic through re collisions and accidents.
The driving standard here fell far below that of a careful competent driver. Therefore this meant the odds of a collision were greater and the speed of impact caused the death and meant the driver couldn't react to a hazard or event that would be reasonably predicted (by a careful competent driver).
The dangerous driving is the act, the crime, the death of the child is the unintended outcome. Even if the child was never there the driving is still dangerous and merits some time off the road to reflect on ones bad behaviour.
The correct charge was applied to the driver of the car and the sentence was within the sentencing guidelines. I fail to see the problem. I actually think jail time is a little harsh but I get I'm in a minority. I truly believe the outcome of an action should never be punished only the crime itself.
Off topic I feel murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder should all be sentenced exactly the same. It's the intent that matters to me, not the outcome.
If someone stabs someone else in the chest and they miraculously survive the stabber should still get a whole life term.
Here the crime is dangerous driving and the tariffs for its punishment are clear. I don't even think we have a life time disqualification period.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You must be getting tired of repeating this, but as far as I can see you are absolutely correct here, so long as we stick to the facts.
However...
That's the nub of it. Accepting that the crime is driving dangerously, what should the appropriate punishment be (even if no injury or death is caused)?
There's no right or wrong answer, except insofar as society decides what it thinks is appropriate. Unfortunately that's not particularly helpful because currently our legal framework is totally irrational in this area. As I pointed out previously, defining a crime as "causing death by dangerous driving" is absurd.
It's interesting to note that our legal framework does have some offences where the definition includes being reckless as to whether life is endangered, and it seems to me that that might be a reasonable comparison. "Arson - reckless as to whether life endangered" typically carries sentences of 2 to 4 years. "Criminal damage being reckless to endanger life" also carries sentences of 2 to 4 years. The key issues there are mainly about the act rather than the outcome. I think it could be argued that dangerous driving, or at least some dangerous driving, falls into a similar mould. That would imply jail sentences for people who drive in a manner which is "reckless as to whether life is endangered" - even if there is no collision and nobody is hurt. It would be interesting to see how many people would go along with that.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think it is absurb to attribute death to someone elses dangerous driving. In my mind, the sentence feels about right.
Certain cases of victimless dangerous driving have seen jail sentences:
http://kingstoncourier.co.uk/content/2014/02/21/jail-term-drivers-who-used-m4-race-track
Although personally, I don't see jail as a suitable punishment for any motoring related crime.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thats why it is dealt with as a speeding offence or a dangerous offence for more serious transgressions of road traffic law. Speeding doesn't mean you plan on killing someone.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Maybe one day you'll take your head out the sand and see the bigger picture which you've failed to see. Bernie and I explained the logic, you have just given hysterical bile
Your point is what. My life is great actually. Not all of us are hysterical anti car moaners.
Last edited:
You have no idea what the change of events that happen after a serious road accident,that people have to go in and clear up the mess it leaves,maybe just one day you might see it but you wont.
Your just a very immature little boy,who will never grow up.
Bye
Your just a very immature little boy,who will never grow up.
Bye
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It (the death) is still un-intentional. What part of that don't you get? Your personal remarks show me what sort of person you are, so I will ignore them and advise you to find a job you are more suited too.
BTW it is you're, not your.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have absolutely no idea. I don't know what sort of a character he will be once he finishes his jail time.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's how it is. Had he been caught on camera at 61mph in that street at that time but hasn't collided into the child no way he would be behind bars.
The disqualification of five years would probably be 1 year maybe 2 if a section 2 charge was pursued. In Scotland sec2 would be pursued in E&W not sure. If it were dealt with as a speeding offence ban could be less than 12months.
The "compensation" has formed a significant chunk of the sentence. The fact the sentence is so great is wholly down to the fact someone was killed, albeit unintentionally but negligently.
It must be hard to send someone to prison for a crime that had no malice behind it, yet at the same time is wholly contributable to the loss of life of someone.
I guess it's how you assign cause and effect and the proportion the punishment according to the cause (dangerous driving) and the effect (death of an innocent bystander)
I am unusual in I would assign no level to the effect only punish cause. However no legal system has been based on this. A level of recompense is perceived as being due to the victims family, they'll see it as a travesty their sons killer is out of jail within a decade and on the roads too. However they need to realise it was not intended and this should correct his behaviour so he doesn't do it again. Sentencing is there to rehabilitate not just to punish.
Hence my feelings towards crimes of malice like attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder are to me the same as murder. Thinking, planning it to do it, is the same as doing it. IMHO
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Lyton
Firstly you have pre supposed I agree with the sentence. As it happens I don't.
I think along with all offences, the sentencing guidlines have taken away the ability to judge every offence on it's merits alone. For that, there is only you, the public to blame. Your whining because you can't break the law when you want to is the reason why he has been sentenced to such a low level.
However, at present it is what it is. Even if it changes, no one gets the maximum sentence on first like offence. Theft was, as I know still is, for example 10 years. I can't recall anyone, even on the 20th try getting anywhere close to that for straight theft!
As I keep saying, sentencing is rightly devoiced from emotion. It has to be. Given the guidelines it's the best that can be achieved. Would I be happy about it? Makes no difference to me, he's been convicted, he's being punished. It makes no real difference if he gets 1 year or 10, he's still being punished, it just cost me less with a shorter term.
Some questions can't be answered yes and no. Perhaps having been involved in the judicial system makes me able to accept things better than most.
Firstly you have pre supposed I agree with the sentence. As it happens I don't.
I think along with all offences, the sentencing guidlines have taken away the ability to judge every offence on it's merits alone. For that, there is only you, the public to blame. Your whining because you can't break the law when you want to is the reason why he has been sentenced to such a low level.
However, at present it is what it is. Even if it changes, no one gets the maximum sentence on first like offence. Theft was, as I know still is, for example 10 years. I can't recall anyone, even on the 20th try getting anywhere close to that for straight theft!
As I keep saying, sentencing is rightly devoiced from emotion. It has to be. Given the guidelines it's the best that can be achieved. Would I be happy about it? Makes no difference to me, he's been convicted, he's being punished. It makes no real difference if he gets 1 year or 10, he's still being punished, it just cost me less with a shorter term.
Some questions can't be answered yes and no. Perhaps having been involved in the judicial system makes me able to accept things better than most.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's not quite right. As I pointed out previously, there are a few crimes in the UK which are defined in terms of the act rather than the consequences.
"Arson - reckless as to whether life endangered" typically carries sentences of 2 to 4 years. "Criminal damage being reckless to endanger life" also carries sentences of 2 to 4 years. So it would be quite consistent and logical for "Dangerous driving - reckless as to whether life is endangered" to be treated in the same way.
I think the reason it isn't treated like that is probably that lots of people like driving, lots of people like driving fast, and there is a tendency to think that an "accident" is just bad luck. Plus, the UK's roads are amongst the safest in the world and getting safer every year, so there would undoubtedly be (spurious) arguments that we don't need to crack down harder on dangerous driving. So the public probably wouldn't support it, and without public support no politician would dare to suggest it.
Still - it would be logical. If people like @simonblue want to campaign for a change in the law, I suggest that it might be a good tactic to argue for defining an offence of "Dangerous driving - reckless as to whether life is endangered" instead of "Causing death by dangerous driving". Punish the act, not the consequences.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The endangering life is implicit in Dangerous driving, so there's no need to add on the -life is endangered. It differs from the offences under the Criminal Damage act in that for example, setting fire to an empty house, which you know to be empty has to be differentiated from setting fire to a bin next to a house with people in it that subsequently sets that house alight. Hence the 2 separate offences.
Simon
I have gone in and cleaned up the mess after fatals. No, it's not pleasant, nor is the longest walk in the world up someones garden path to deliver the news. But, although perhaps badly put, ST has some very valid points. It is the act, not the consequence that is the offence. The result is, apart from the fact it's a constituent part of the offence isn't the crime itself, if that makes sense. I think that is what ST is trying to say.
You therefore are punished for the offence and not the consequence per sae.
You have to separate the emotion you keep showing, it hasn't a place in the judicial system, hard though that is to accept.
Simon
I have gone in and cleaned up the mess after fatals. No, it's not pleasant, nor is the longest walk in the world up someones garden path to deliver the news. But, although perhaps badly put, ST has some very valid points. It is the act, not the consequence that is the offence. The result is, apart from the fact it's a constituent part of the offence isn't the crime itself, if that makes sense. I think that is what ST is trying to say.
You therefore are punished for the offence and not the consequence per sae.
You have to separate the emotion you keep showing, it hasn't a place in the judicial system, hard though that is to accept.
Yves Geza
Urchin
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bernie, may I ask your opinion of Gary Hart's conviction and imprisonment after the Great Heck Rail crash? Even at the time, I thought that he surely was being punished for the tragic consequences rather than for his driving?
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jonathan
He was convicted of 10 counts causing death by dangerous driving, and sentenced to 5 years, and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, I assume thats 10 lots of 5 years to re concurrently.
I can't recall or see anything that supports what you say about cause and consequence, especially when you compare the sentence with the driver that sparked this threads.
He was convicted of 10 counts causing death by dangerous driving, and sentenced to 5 years, and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, I assume thats 10 lots of 5 years to re concurrently.
I can't recall or see anything that supports what you say about cause and consequence, especially when you compare the sentence with the driver that sparked this threads.
Yves Geza
Urchin
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Allowing for the semantic truth that the consequences his driving caused the ten deaths of the ten people who were train passengers, the question I'm asking is, how dangerous would his driving have been deemed if he had fallen asleep at the wheel, left the road, and landed anywhere else but fortuitously on a railway line?
Surely he was punished for the consequence of the offence, not the severity of the offence per se?
Surely he was punished for the consequence of the offence, not the severity of the offence per se?
- Messages
- 10,534
- Name
- Suz
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's the intent and probability of an accident. Staying up all night and setting off in the early hours to do a motorway drive is pretty much 100% likely to lead to falling asleep at the wheel or being incapable. He chose to stay up all night talking and then chose to drive. He didn't choose to get some sleep or arrange to meet later that day. It was a likely consequence of his choices. The only unfortunate part is falling onto the railway track. He could have wiped out a bus queue, rammed a broken down car or mowed down a stray sheep. He didn't. He killed 10 and injured 70.
I know, he still to this day makes up excuses.
1/ It was fate they were all meant to be their,and it was time for those 10 people to die
2/The crash happen 700 yards after hitting his car,how could it be his fault
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jonathan, be sensible. If he'd fallen asleep elsewhere and not killed anyone, he couldn't have been guilty of causing death by reckless could he!
The offence, which in his case was causing death by reckless, not dangerous, is what he was sentenced for. It's very simple really.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
He shouldn't have got jail time. A late night doesn't automatically mean you'll fall asleep driving nor is it intentional to fall asleep and no way to he intend on that train crash happening. It's to me undue care and attention, maybe careless.
The guilt and feeling of shame has to be punishment enough.
The guilt and feeling of shame has to be punishment enough.