# Is this all a cyclists life is worth



## Sterlo (12 Oct 2021)

Delivery driver killed cyclist while high on drugs - BBC News 

7 years for killing someone when you're high on drugs and in charge of a vehicle, probably out in less than 4!


----------



## I like Skol (12 Oct 2021)

Passing sentence Judge Richard Mansell QC said:
"Cyclists take their life in their hands when they go out on just about any road in our country now."



That just about sums it up. Too many drivers intoxicated or obsessively distracted by their phones (or both).


----------



## cyberknight (12 Oct 2021)

dont forget the good percentage that just dont give a flip either about anyone else on the road


----------



## Alex321 (12 Oct 2021)

Sterlo said:


> Delivery driver killed cyclist while high on drugs - BBC News
> 
> 7 years for killing someone when you're high on drugs and in charge of a vehicle, probably out in less than 4!


According to the article, he pleaded guilty to Causing Death by Careless driving - for which the maximum sentence is 5 years, so I don't think that is right.

It must have been causing death by dangerous driving (usual sentence range 5-7 years), or he was also given a consecutive sentence for driving under the influence of drugs.

But yes, although the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years, the standard range without significant aggravating or mitigating factors is 5-7 years. It make no difference whether the victim was a cyclist, a pedestrian, or another motorist.


----------



## numbnuts (12 Oct 2021)

> He also banned him from driving for 11 years


That should be for life


----------



## Cycleops (12 Oct 2021)

And it's not only cyclists, this woman deliberately drove the wrong way down a motorway slip road and killed a teacher in another car. Got just over four years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-58841536
Sentencing guidelines need to be reviewed.


----------



## Drago (12 Oct 2021)

It's a disgrace. This came about as a result of the drivers deliberate actions and choices. 

Cause the death of another through deliberate or wilfully reckless behaviour and you should serve life, if only to protect the rest of us.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (12 Oct 2021)

How long would someone get if the wilfully reckless behaviour that caused the death was not driving connected

For example may a builder taking a massive shortcut with a heavy load which dropped and killed someone??

Is it the same or not??

genuine question - I've often wondered and never got round to finding out


----------



## numbnuts (12 Oct 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> How long would someone get if the wilfully reckless behaviour that caused the death was not driving connected
> 
> For example may a builder taking a massive shortcut with a heavy load which dropped and killed someone??
> 
> ...


From google


> The offence of "gross negligence manslaughter" (GNM) is committed where the death is a result of a grossly negligent


----------



## a.twiddler (12 Oct 2021)

How can you be four times over the legal limit for cocaine? As an illegal recreational drug there is no therapeutic dose to use as a guideline so any dose is illegal, surely. This suggests that if you drive with a little cocaine in your system that's all right then, if stopped you just get sent on your way, OK matey, take care now. Try not to have a psychotic episode on the way home. And that's before you even consider the cannabis.

On hearing that the driver was actually on bail for drugs offences when this collision occurred makes you think that some people are just too stupid to live. Unfortunately it was the cyclist who died due to this fellow's stupidity. The charge of careless driving sounds like he splashed him while driving through a puddle, or bumped his mirror while passing rather than taking his life with his vehicle while off his head.

A bit of further reading came up with the following.
There is a scale for certain prescribed drugs which might affect your driving following a change in the law to clarify matters in 2015. Prior to this these presciption drugs were lumped together with illegal drugs. The limit for Illegal drugs remains at practically zero.

Alcohol although being a legal drug similarly has no therapeutic dose, but its limits related to driving have been established and enforced for many years.


----------



## Landsurfer (12 Oct 2021)

I like Skol said:


> Passing sentence Judge Richard Mansell QC said:
> "Cyclists take their life in their hands when they go out on just about any road in our country now."
> 
> 
> ...


As a Cyclist and Motorcyclist i’ve never been worried about losing my life to a virus .... but I am genuinely worried about a drugged, drunk or phone obsessed HGV, Taxi or School Run Mum taking me out ...!!!


----------



## Lozz360 (13 Oct 2021)

a.twiddler said:


> How can you be four times over the legal limit for cocaine? As an illegal recreational drug there is no therapeutic dose to use as a guideline so any dose is illegal, surely. This suggests that if you drive with a little cocaine in your system that's all right then, if stopped you just get sent on your way, OK matey, take care now. Try not to have a psychotic episode on the way home. And that's before you even consider the cannabis.
> 
> On hearing that the driver was actually on bail for drugs offences when this collision occurred makes you think that some people are just too stupid to live. Unfortunately it was the cyclist who died due to this fellow's stupidity. The charge of careless driving sounds like he splashed him while driving through a puddle, or bumped his mirror while passing rather than taking his life with his vehicle while off his head.
> 
> ...


Cocaine is also used as a legal medical treatment. Although I understand it is only used in a clinical setting, so it is unlikely that anyone would be driving around with a prescribed legal dose.


----------



## mjr (13 Oct 2021)

a.twiddler said:


> How can you be four times over the legal limit for cocaine? As an illegal recreational drug there is no therapeutic dose to use as a guideline so any dose is illegal, surely.


I wonder if it was sloppy phrasing and the amount detected was four times the detection error threshold, which might be the level which can be produced by environmental exposure to shoot on banknotes and so on plus maximum expected measurement error.


----------



## icowden (13 Oct 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> How long would someone get if the wilfully reckless behaviour that caused the death was not driving connected
> For example may a builder taking a massive shortcut with a heavy load which dropped and killed someone??
> Is it the same or not??
> genuine question - I've often wondered and never got round to finding out



For all of these the answer is the same.
The Judge refers to the sentencing guidelines for the offence that the defendant has been found guilty of. He/she then takes into account mitigating and aggravating factors to determine the sentence. 

In the UK we have a rehabilitative / restorative justice system. The sentence is less about deterrent and more about rehabilitating the offender / keeping the streets safe. If you want punitive justice, look to the USA who have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Obviously it works really well as the USA is one of the lowest crime countries in the world...

Oh hang on....

The majority of crimes are petty and usually linked to poor education, poor mental health, addiction etc. @Cycleops mentions the woman who deliberately drove the wrong way up the motorway to end her own life and ended up ending the life of a perfectly innocent driver. She pled guilty, she wrote to the Judge specifically, not out of contrition necessarily but to say that she recognised that what she had done was awful and that she deserved any sentence the Judge cared to pass. This will have mitigated her sentence. It won't bring back the deceased or help their family, but equally it doesn't make financial sense to keep someone locked up if they are not a danger to the public. She is likely to be assisted with her mental health. 

Sentencing does have a deterrent element but most sentences are not deterrents (see the death penalty in the US, or vast life sentences for minor drug infractions in the same country). 

In the case of the guy with drugs in his system, his offence is aggravated by his drugs charge and the fact that he was on drugs. Hence he is now sevrving 11.5 years in prison (from 2020). 

He will be eligible for parole after 2/3rds of his sentence is complete, and this will be dependent on his fitness for the same. It should also be noted that being released on Parole is not the same as being released and finishing your sentence. Liberty is still curtailed, he will have regular check ins with his parole officer and certain activities may be restricted. It isn't the walk in the park that the Daily Mail et al would have you believe. 

As usual I recommend @thesecretbarrister if you want to learn more about the law, and also how it is broken.


----------



## Alex321 (13 Oct 2021)

icowden said:


> Sentencing does have a deterrent element but most sentences are not deterrents (see the death penalty in the US, or vast life sentences for minor drug infractions in the same country).



Yes, various studies have shown that high expectation of getting caught has far more deterrent effect than the level of sentence when(if) you do.

And in fact, this is quite obvious when driving nowadays on roads where there are average speed cameras. People stick to the posted limits for those *far* more rigorously than anywhere lese on the roads, because they know they are very likely to be done if they don't.


----------



## I like Skol (13 Oct 2021)

I agree that the action of cycling is not one of taking risk. The danger is purely due to the tolerated lawlessness that exists on the roads and an apparent total lack of any kind of enforcement.
Every time I venture out on the roads by car or bicycle I see dozens of obvious driving offences, both vehicle faults and drivers actions. Usually there are multiple infringements related to a single vehicle (reckless/dangerous driving in a vehicle that has several obvious faults).
If I were a police officer I reckon I could easily fill an entire shift just actioning these crimes and remove many dangerous drivers and vehicles from the roads.
These are the metaphorical 'low hanging fruit', the easy pickings, and give one of the biggest paybacks in terms of making the public feel safer. As it is, people don't even feel safe crossing the road with any certainty that traffic will stop for a red light.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (13 Oct 2021)

I like Skol said:


> I agree that the action of cycling is not one of taking risk. The danger is purely due to the tolerated lawlessness that exists on the roads and an apparent total lack of any kind of enforcement.
> Every time I venture out on the roads by car or bicycle I see dozens of obvious driving offences, both vehicle faults and drivers actions. Usually there are multiple infringements related to a single vehicle (reckless/dangerous driving in a vehicle that has several obvious faults).
> If I were a police officer I reckon I could easily fill an entire shift just actioning these crimes and remove many dangerous drivers and vehicles from the roads.
> These are the metaphorical 'low hanging fruit', the easy pickings, and give one of the biggest paybacks in terms of making the public feel safer. As it is, people don't even feel safe crossing the road with any certainty that traffic will stop for a red light.


It may be 'low hanging fruit' and if it was applied fully across the whole country it would probably have an effect over time
and it would require a lot of Police officers to do it
but it would eventually save lives

But the headlines in 'those' newspapers about a "war on the motorist" would be deafening (can a headline be deafening??)

and the politicians and senior Police people would come under a lot of pressure to "solve proper crimes" rather than handing out fines to 'innocent' motorists that just slipped over the speed limit for a minute (i.e. was driving at 90 for an hour always does that so it is normal)
and people would say that the officers should be diverted to make the streets safer for women (or other group currently in the news) which is just a diversion as they should be funded to do both

and, of course, the reduction in death and injuries would only be clear after you had stats from several years 
by which time the political pressure would have forced the Police to make the effort far shorter than would have a permanent effect.


----------



## I like Skol (13 Oct 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> It may be 'low hanging fruit' and if it was applied fully across the whole country it would probably have an effect over time
> and it would require a lot of Police officers to do it
> but it would eventually save lives
> 
> ...


So let's not do anything because it is going to be unpopular with the vocal minority?

The cry that this 'will take lots of police and resources' is nonsense. All it needs is one dedicated unit per police district out on the roads using their eyes and stopping the vehicles that clearly have 'something not right'. It would remove a lot of dangerous vehicles from the road along with identifying a number of unlicensed and uninsured drivers. The police units would be very busy!

This is not about persecuting the motorists, or a cyclist vendetta against cars (let's face it, most of us are drivers too), but an effort to enforce basic laws and send a strong message that flagrant disregard of the law will not be ignored.
This makes the streets safer for us all, not just cyclists. Members of vulnerable groups should be reassured that the police are there to uphold the law and not just tidy up when something horrible happens.


----------



## Drago (13 Oct 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> and it would require a lot of Police officers to do it


There would be a lot more coppers to do this if, like my friend who shall remain nameless (Hi Ray!) is having to do this week they didn't pack them off on a 2 day course to teach them about white privilege. Yes, seriously.

I thought it was bad in the latter years of my time in with some of the ridiculous courses they wasted time and resources on, but apparently its getting daft now. You'd have thought they'd have learned when the fully able bodied diversity advisor got sacked for misconduct for parking in a disabled bay, but seemingly not...they think this is more important that spending those officer/hours patrolling the streets.


----------



## T4tomo (13 Oct 2021)

Drago said:


> There would be a lot more coppers to do this if, like my friend who shall remain nameless (Hi Ray!) is having to do this week they didn't pack them off on a 2 day course to teach them about white privilege. Yes, seriously.
> 
> I thought it was bad in the latter years of my time in with some of the ridiculous courses they wasted time and resources on, but apparently its getting daft now. You'd have thought they'd have learned when the fully able bodied diversity advisor got sacked for misconduct for parking in a disabled bay, but seemingly not...they think this is more important that spending those officer/hours patrolling the streets.


Given events elsewhere, its clear there are a significant minority of the police that do need educating about diversity and white male privilege. 

Its policy of how things are policed and decline in serving officer numbers in general, making the police less visible, not doing the odd bit of training which is part and parcel of almost every job.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (13 Oct 2021)

Drago said:


> There would be a lot more coppers to do this if, like my friend who shall remain nameless (Hi Ray!) is having to do this week they didn't pack them off on a 2 day course to teach them about white privilege. Yes, seriously.
> 
> I thought it was bad in the latter years of my time in with some of the ridiculous courses they wasted time and resources on, but apparently its getting daft now. You'd have thought they'd have learned when the fully able bodied diversity advisor got sacked for misconduct for parking in a disabled bay, but seemingly not...they think this is more important that spending those officer/hours patrolling the streets.


TWO DAYS!!!

You know when the government says that all teachers will receive training in some subject such as allergies or spotting sexual abuse or whatever
When I was a teacher we had something like that pretty much every year - sometimes 2-3 a year
generally amounted to someone talking *at* all staff for an hour after school on a Tuesday
and that sort of stuff can save lives

Although a lot of coppers seriously need some training in diversity (etc) if you seperated out all the different topics (white privilidge being a good example) and dedicate 2 days to each one - you could probably get to your 30 years pension point after only spending 2 weeks on the streets!


----------



## I like Skol (13 Oct 2021)

Let's not turn this into a police bashing exercise. We are only where we are due to dire mismanagement at a high level and political interference.


----------



## Sterlo (13 Oct 2021)

I meant nothing political when I started it, just wanted to make people aware. It's was a general abhoration at the lack of sentence.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Oct 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> and the politicians and senior Police people would come under a lot of pressure to "solve proper crimes" rather than handing out fines to 'innocent' motorists




Follow some of the road policing accounts on Twitter and you'll see that many criminals are caught through enforcement of 'minor' road traffic offences. A simple stop for a minor violation can reveal more serious crimes, possession of drugs, offensive weapons, wanted criminals. 

Peter Sutcliffe was caught because a couple of beat cops noticed his car registration number didn't match the tax disc displayed.


----------



## Drago (13 Oct 2021)

T4tomo said:


> Given events elsewhere, its clear there are a significant minority of the police that do need educating about diversity and white male privilege.
> 
> Its policy of how things are policed and decline in serving officer numbers in general, making the police less visible, not doing the odd bit of training which is part and parcel of almost every job.


The training does nothing whatsoever to empower him to do his job.

The irony here is that Ray is a nice Jew boy like me, so under the governments own BAME guidance should be considered a minority group anyway, and not lumped in with 'white'. We both disagree on that, but thats what the government tell us, so thats they way they can have it. He saving that revelation for mid morning to see what excuse they come up with.

Lets take this little sideshow over to the Phantom Zone, which is a more appropriate place for it I guess. I'll ge registered.

Going back to topic, my best blag was someone wanted for rape and attempted murder. Sat behind his car in traffic and (being ex RPU) it struck me as odd that what appeared to be a new car had illegal plates - the font and all that was fine, but the makers name and postcode was missing from the bottom, and no dealer would allow this because of the big fines they face...and as such it made my spidey senses tingle.

I stopped him, reg checked on PNC, came back fine. Still not happy I checked the VIN, came back as a different Mondeo. Nicked suspicion TOMV, got him back to the shed and livescanned his prints and his true identity was revealed. Naughty boy.

That wouldn't have happened had I been in a classroom being lectured to. You gotta be in it to win it, not bored and switched off in a small room while someone talks down to you about something I wasn't responsible for anyway.


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Oct 2021)

Alex321 said:


> According to the article, he pleaded guilty to Causing Death by Careless driving - for which the maximum sentence is 5 years, so I don't think that is right.



Chances are it's a cock up on the reporting front.

However, he might have pleaded guilty to death by careless, then the Crown went to trial on death by dangerous, leaving a jury to decide whether the driving was careless or dangerous.

Either way, he was sentenced for death by dangerous.

The sentence strikes me as a touch light, given the aggravating feature of being drugged.

It is consecutive to his recently imposed drugs sentence, so the judge may have taken the death by dangerous down a little to take account of the total he will serve.

Automatic parole for a lot of longer sentences is now only after two thirds (it was like that 20 years ago but abolished to assist overcrowding), so this bloke may have two thirds of the total of 11 to serve.

The final piece of arithmetic is the driving ban.

Judges now take into account likely time in custody and 'extend' the ban to prevent prisoners serving their ban in jail.

Eleven years quoted in the story suggests the judge was aiming for a meaningful ban of five years.

He will have to take an extended driving test once the ban has expired, which I'm told it's very rare for anyone to pass first time.


----------



## I like Skol (13 Oct 2021)

Alex321 said:


> various studies have shown that high expectation of getting caught has far more deterrent effect than the level of sentence when(if) you do.


This is possibly the key statement in this thread so far. People are taking incredibly stupid risks because they simply do not believe they will mess up or get caught.

The only solution is to start policing the roads, and as @Drago anecdotally suggests, if you start at the bottom and give the tree a shake it can often be surprising what else falls out of the branches at the same time.


----------



## T4tomo (13 Oct 2021)

I like Skol said:


> This is possibly the key statement in this thread so far. People are taking incredibly stupid risks because they simply do not believe they will mess up or get caught.


absolutely, this is why you can stand at any road junction as spot countless people texting and driving. Witness cars not moving in slow moving queues etc as the drivers are on their phones. The must be an instruction in the police somewhere to not waste there time policing this as no-one ever gets done for it unless there is an accident. so people continue t do it as there is no fear of being caught.


----------



## a.twiddler (13 Oct 2021)

It does seem to be a truism that people involved in illegal activities are less likely to waste their time on such tedious trivialities as having a Road Fund Licence, MOT, insurance or even a driving licence when even with the prevalence of ANPR they have a pretty good chance of not being detected. So spending more money on road policing is likely to be opening the door to detection of much more than strictly traffic related offences.

Whether increased training on awareness of modern issues is seriously affecting the ability of police forces to put boots on the ground or not, and continuous updating is a necessity for any profession, the important point is (and maybe I risk being redirected to NACA) that there are just not the resources available due to cost cuts over the last decade or maybe longer which needs to be remedied.


----------



## Archie_tect (13 Oct 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> The final piece of arithmetic is the driving ban.
> 
> Judges now take into account likely time in custody and 'extend' the ban to prevent prisoners serving their ban in jail.
> 
> ...


If he bothers taking the test at all and just resumes driving regardless.


----------



## dutchguylivingintheuk (13 Oct 2021)

I think the op raises an interesting question, Would the sentence be any higher if the victim was on a (illigal) (e)scooter, wheelchair, car, or was walking? And would they have made a difference if the victim was also high as a kite? and if so why? 
The law seems to be made so complicated that a judge can always find an excuse for a lenient sentence. It also always seems to put the offender first, the offender says albeit this being the 28th time in 16 months(random example) this time he's really gonna learn from it and the judge dishes out an ''discount for good intentions a guess? 
It's time that it is turned around that they look at the victim first, then decide if any ''discount'' should be applied.


----------



## kayakerles (13 Oct 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> I rather agree with Michael Hutchinson's take on this on twitter here
> 
> _The whole "they're taking their life in their hands" narrative is part of why the police and criminal just system don't take it seriously. Cycling is seen as a reckless thing to do, and if bad things happen to you, you shouldn't complain._​


DT, Ming, makes you wonder how this mindset embedded in those within the legal system can ever get turned around. I'm quite sure this is never going to happen in my lifetime. But that being said, even with those in power being nonchalant about our lives, I’m still going to ride (as safely as I can) every chance I get. Even my wife knows that if I get flattened she can say, “at least he died doing something he loved to do.” At 65 now, I’ve enjoyed the better years of my life already anyway.

Seems odd, doesn’t it, that surviving bike rides is probably one of the biggest challenges of our lives today? 🚙 🚴‍♂️ 🚕 🚛 🚗


----------



## Poacher (13 Oct 2021)

a.twiddler said:


> It does seem to be a truism that people involved in illegal activities are less likely to waste their time on such tedious trivialities as having a *Road Fund Licence*, MOT, insurance or even a driving licence when even with the prevalence of ANPR they have a pretty good chance of not being detected. So spending more money on road policing is likely to be opening the door to detection of much more than strictly traffic related offences.
> 
> Whether increased training on awareness of modern issues is seriously affecting the ability of police forces to put boots on the ground or not, and continuous updating is a necessity for any profession, the important point is (and maybe I risk being redirected to NACA) that there are just not the resources available due to cost cuts over the last decade or maybe longer which needs to be remedied.


WTAF is a Road Fund Licence? Are you posting from the 1930s?


----------



## simongt (13 Oct 2021)

Someone once said that getting any sort of licence is a privelige, not an automatic right.
There's too many folk who think, especially with a driving licence, that it is their right to be able to drive.


----------



## Milzy (13 Oct 2021)

Cycleops said:


> And it's not only cyclists, this woman deliberately drove the wrong way down a motorway slip road and killed a teacher in another car. Got just over four years.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-58841536
> Sentencing guidelines need to be reviewed.


What a piece of crap. A lad near me wanted to end his life so hit a bridge at about 100mph. You don’t just aim at another car & take them out too. Unbelievable.


----------



## mjr (13 Oct 2021)

simongt said:


> Someone once said that getting any sort of licence is a privelige, not an automatic right.
> There's too many folk who think, especially with a driving licence, that it is their right to be able to drive.


Yes, whereas the original intention was that someone should be able to drive before getting the licence that permits it unsupervised!

There are far too many drivers stunningly ignorant of recent changes to the law. And by "recent" I mean "in the last 50 years". I've written in another post today about the majority of drivers being ignorant of the 5-year-old-now cycle-zebras. I suspect that most are also ignorant that flashing bike lights were legalised 16 years ago (I think). A minority still believe cyclists should dismount to use Toucan crossings (introduced about 30 years ago) and enough of those will lean out of the window and shout at people that it's still noticeable!


----------



## kayakerles (13 Oct 2021)

I like Skol said:


> …As it is, people don't even feel safe crossing the road with any certainty that traffic will stop for a red light.


Ain’t that the truth, ILS!


----------



## kayakerles (13 Oct 2021)

I agree completely DT, on both counts. But I’m not about to give up something I’ve loved and done all of my life. I'll continue to head out with my born in NYC SpiderMan senses tingling until my final day comes.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (13 Oct 2021)

One of the reasons I have several lights at each end of my bike - plus reflectors and reflective tape and a hi-vis jacket and bright helmet

is not solely in the hope of being spotted (although not by the woman this afternoon!!!) but also so that in court the please of "I didn;t see him" can be made to sound stupid and show how little due care and attention they actually were applying
In the hope that no one gets away with a 20p fine and 0.5 points for knocking me off - because they have ADHD+dyslexia+stress+$anythingelsetheirlawyercancomeupwith and has 15 kids that need them


(note - the above conditions do exists and are serious - I'm not saying they are not - just that sometimes lawyers seem to come up with a cocktail of them for every offense!)


----------



## a.twiddler (13 Oct 2021)

Poacher said:


> WTAF is a Road Fund Licence? Are you posting from the 1930s?


Also known as Vehicle Excise Duty it is what replaced Road Tax in, oh let me see 1936? So if it was 1930 it would be called Road Tax. What year are you posting from?


----------



## a.twiddler (13 Oct 2021)

In an ideal world everyone would drive as if the person with whom they were likely to collide was the sole support of 19 kids under the age of 16 and they would immediately assume responsibility for the support of these kids if their sole provider became unable to work due to the collision.
The ultimate deterrent. Unfortunately it isn't an ideal world.


----------



## Poacher (13 Oct 2021)

a.twiddler said:


> Also known as Vehicle Excise Duty it is what replaced Road Tax in, oh let me see 1936? So if it was 1930 it would be called Road Tax. What year are you posting from?


Wikipedia is your friend! Between 1920 and 1936 the vehicle licence (tax disc) was officially known as the "Road Fund Licence".
Road Fund - Wikipedia


----------



## BoldonLad (13 Oct 2021)

T4tomo said:


> absolutely, this is why you can stand at any road junction as spot countless people texting and driving. Witness cars not moving in slow moving queues etc as the drivers are on their phones. * The must be an instruction in the police somewhere to not waste there time policing this *as no-one ever gets done for it unless there is an accident. so people continue t do it as there is no fear of being caught.



No need for an instruction, they cannot Police it if they are not there to see it. I drove from Devizes to Newcastle-upon-Tyne on Saturday last, on a mixture of "A". roads and Motorways. I did not see one marked Police Car. There may of course been unmarked cars.


----------



## I like Skol (13 Oct 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> There may of course been unmarked cars.


When was the last time you saw an unmarked car on the hard shoulder making a pull?
As a driver in the 90s and early 00s I used to live in fear of being copped by an unmarked motorway cop!


----------



## a.twiddler (13 Oct 2021)

Poacher said:


> Wikipedia is your friend! Between 1920 and 1936 the vehicle licence (tax disc) was officially known as the "Road Fund Licence".
> Road Fund - Wikipedia


That'll teach me to rush into print without double checking. Yes, the original Road Fund was a tax which unusually was to be paid by motorists and was to be spent exclusively on roads rather than going into a central treasury fund. This became part of general taxation, rather than being ring fenced, from 1937. It has had several names since, yet Road Fund Licence is still a current term in general use particularly within motoring organisations for example. So I believe my use of the term in my original post is valid. Vehicle Excise Duty is probably the most up to date term, though Road Tax and Car Tax are widely understood.

A legacy of the original Road Fund Licence is that those who paid it became very possessive about the road system, claiming that motorists had a special status and "owned" the roads that their taxation had paid for, to the detriment of non powered road users. This mythology still pervades the motoring community despite the fact that since 1937 this has not been factually true, though some credence has been given to it since 2015 when VED has been channeled into motorway and trunk road costs. However, everybody pays for the local road network through Council Tax whether they own a vehicle or not, so motorists are actually being subsidised by the rest of us. 

Something to bear in mind the next time some young petrolhead (who probably lives with his mum, so doesn't pay council tax) screams "I pay road tax" as an excuse for close passing.


----------



## icowden (14 Oct 2021)

dutchguylivingintheuk said:


> The law seems to be made so complicated that a judge can always find an excuse for a lenient sentence. It also always seems to put the offender first, the offender says albeit this being the 28th time in 16 months(random example) this time he's really gonna learn from it and the judge dishes out an ''discount for good intentions a guess?



Actually, it's a good deal simpler than you think. The Judge looks at the sentencing guidelines for the offence, which are fairly clear.
As mentioned above, the maximum sentence for careless driving is 5 years, so he can't have been done for that. So lets look at causing death by dangerous driving.

The Judge must decide whether the offence is Level 1, 2 or 3. 3 = significant risk of danger. 2 = substantial risk of danger, 1 = most serious (flagrant disregard for rules of the road, apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others). Each of these has a starting point and a range. So 3 = 3 years, 2 = 5 years, 1 = 8 years as a starting point.

The Judge then considers aggravating factors and mitigating factors. In this case the aggravating factors are previous convictions and consumption of drugs before driving. Mitigating factors are things like "i was driving because it was an emergency" or "i didn't know that I still had drugs in my system, or someone spiked my drink". 

If the defendant pleads guilty from the get go, then they get a reduction of one third of the sentence. 
Ancillary orders are considered and the sentence has to be proportionate to the offending behaviour (totality guideline). 

So in this case, the Judge may have started at level 1 (8 years) increased to 10 years for the aggravating factors but then applied a 1/3 discount for an early guilty plea - which would result in a 7 year sentence. Or started at level 2 pushed up to the maximum and denied the reduction for a guilty plea as the defendant was already on bail for another custodial offence.


----------



## brommieinkorea (23 Dec 2022)

> British legal system may be crazier than ours.... The real question should be , why do killers get a free pass because they use a car ? Why does "dangerous driving" or vehicular homicide even exist in the legal system ? Why do people who cause a fatal crash with a car, walk away from the scene ? And yes it's worse here in the USA because our automotive companies are more powerful.


----------



## icowden (23 Dec 2022)

> British legal system may be crazier than ours..


Nope. The US system is beyond stupid and believes only in punishment. That's why the USA has the highest proportion of incarcerated people in the world. It does not have the lowest crime rate thus indicating that it doesn't work.


> The real question should be , why do killers get a free pass because they use a car ?


They don't.


> Why does "dangerous driving" or vehicular homicide even exist in the legal system ?


Because it covers a range of offences that fall between careless driving and murder.


> Why do people who cause a fatal crash with a car, walk away from the scene ?


Cars are quite tough and designed to protect the occupant.


----------



## brommieinkorea (24 Dec 2022)

icowden said:


> Nope. The US system is beyond stupid and believes only in punishment. That's why the USA has the highest proportion of incarcerated people in the world. It does not have the lowest crime rate thus indicating that it doesn't work.
> 
> They don't.
> 
> ...



Missed the point you did. Homicide is murder, yet when "vehicular" gets thrown in it carries a much less consequence, so killers who use a car get a pass. The US's legal system is modeled after the British system, and when it comes to car crime we seem to have the exact same problems. Of course lack of enforcement is a real problem. And people who cause fatal crashes should leave the scene in the back of a police cruiser NOT walk away.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> Homicide is murder



No, murder is one category of homicide. There are other homicides that do not constitute murder.



brommieinkorea said:


> The US's legal system is modeled after the British system



There isn’t a British legal system.


----------



## Alex321 (24 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> Missed the point you did. Homicide is murder,


No it isn't.

Murder is homicde, but so is manslaughter.





brommieinkorea said:


> yet when "vehicular" gets thrown in it carries a much less consequence, so killers who use a car get a pass. The US's legal system is modeled after the British system, and when it comes to car crime we seem to have the exact same problems. Of course lack of enforcement is a real problem. And people who cause fatal crashes should leave the scene in the back of a police cruiser NOT walk away.



Actually, that is just false. Causing death by dangerous driving carries very similar sentencing to manslaughter. Admittedly, it is only fairly recently that sentences have been raised to that level, but that is what they are now.

Causing death b careless driving carries sentences around or just below the minimum for manslaughter, but for t to only be careless driving, it is a level of negligence that probably would not be high enough to be done for manslaughter at all.


----------



## brommieinkorea (26 Dec 2022)

Alex321 said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> Murder is homicde, but so is manslaughter.
> 
> ...



Kill someone with a weapon, it's what ? Anything you can bash someone with, including a car, is a weapon.


----------



## Alex321 (26 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> Kill someone with a weapon, it's what ? Anything you can bash someone with, including a car, is a weapon.



If *deliberately* kill them, then it is murder.

If you kill them unintentionally, then it *may* be manslaughter, depending on the degree of culpability. It could still be murder, if you intended causing them serious harm and they ended up dying. Or it could be nothing at all against you, if you couldn't avoid it.


----------



## brommieinkorea (27 Dec 2022)

Alex321 said:


> If *deliberately* kill them, then it is murder.
> 
> If you kill them unintentionally, then it *may* be manslaughter, depending on the degree of culpability. It could still be murder, if you intended causing them serious harm and they ended up dying. Or it could be nothing at all against you, if you couldn't avoid it.



Open highway, daylight . How do we know it wasn't deliberate ? Just because the perpetrator stops and says " I didn't see him" or some other such drivel, doesn't make it true.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> Open highway, daylight . How do we know it wasn't deliberate ? Just because the perpetrator stops and says " I didn't see him" or some other such drivel, doesn't make it true.



The difficulty is proving intent and that’s the prosecution’s burden. 

You can’t convict someone of murder on the basis of ‘how do we know it wasn’t’.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> Open highway, daylight . How do we know it wasn't deliberate ? Just because the perpetrator stops and says " I didn't see him" or some other such drivel, doesn't make it true.



Very few people will deliberately set out to kill a stranger.

And for a charge of murder to stick, a jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate action intended to cause serious harm or kill. Not just "we don't know it wasn't deliberate".

And there was nothing in the report to suggest it might possibly have been deliberate.

There is no reason this particular case should be treated any differently to manslaughter in general - and while there have been proposals to increase the "starting point" for manslaughter offences, the average sentence for manslaughter by gross negligence since 2010 has been 4 years, so he go a fair bit more than that.


----------



## brommieinkorea (27 Dec 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The difficulty is proving intent and that’s the prosecution’s burden.
> 
> You can’t convict someone of murder on the basis of ‘how do we know it wasn’t’.



Sure could have been an accident (negligence). However , only when the weapon is an automobile do the courts feel any need to prove intent.
You've definately got the legaleese down but clearly there is almost no concern over the killing of people not in cars. This exists in the UK and US very similarly.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> only when the weapon is an automobile do the courts feel any need to prove intent.



This is utter nonsense.

The rules on evidence are the same for all crimes. Please at least educate yourself on the basics.


----------



## brommieinkorea (27 Dec 2022)

glasgowcyclist said:


> This is utter nonsense.
> 
> The rules on evidence are the same for all crimes. Please at least educate yourself on the basics.



People have been convicted of murder without a body (possibly not in the UK recently). Yet, if you go 'mall sniping' it is pretty much assumed that you meant to kill the people you shot.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> People have been convicted of murder without a body (possibly not in the UK recently). Yet, if you go 'mall sniping' it is pretty much assumed that you meant to kill the people you shot.



I have no idea what point you are trying to make here or how this relates to the post it was replying to.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> Sure could have been an accident (negligence). However , only when the weapon is an automobile do the courts feel any need to prove intent.
> You've definately got the legaleese down but clearly there is almost no concern over the killing of people not in cars. This exists in the UK and US very similarly.



This is just complete and utter rubbish.

Intent ALWAYS has to be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) for a charge of murder to stick.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> People have been convicted of murder without a body (possibly not in the UK recently). Yet, if you go 'mall sniping' it is pretty much assumed that you meant to kill the people you shot.



And?

I don't know what point you think that makes, but you are wrong, it is making no point at all.

If all the evidence suggests that there is no reasonable doubt that you intentionally killed somebody, then you can be convicted of their murder, regardless of whether a body has actually been found.


----------



## brommieinkorea (27 Dec 2022)

Alex321 said:


> And?
> 
> I don't know what point you think that makes, but you are wrong, it is making no point at all.
> 
> If all the evidence suggests that there is no reasonable doubt that you intentionally killed somebody, then you can be convicted of their murder, regardless of whether a body has actually been found.



No body = reasonable doubt. And the whole argument isn't about the law, it's about the mindset that establishes a dual standard that excuses all kind of horrible actions by people riding in cars.


----------



## Alex321 (27 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> No body = reasonable doubt.



Absolutely not true. Not even close.




brommieinkorea said:


> And the whole argument isn't about the law, it's about the mindset that establishes a dual standard that excuses all kind of horrible actions by people riding in cars.



False.

You started this whole subthread by saying "yet when "vehicular" gets thrown in it carries a much less consequence, so killers who use a car get a pass. " and that was in regard to the legal consequences of killing somebody.

You may believe in that "mindset", but the facts say otherwise, and it has bveen getting more so with the introduction of more severe penalties, and new offences such as causing death by careless driving. Which is a situation where you would NOT get charged with manslaughter - mere carelessness is not enough for that, it has to be gross negligence - which would result in "causing death by dangerous driving" if it were in a car.

I would agree that the situation 20 years ago was largely as you suggest, motorists were treated far more leniently than those causing death in other ways. But it is just not true any more.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> No body = reasonable doubt.



Citation needed (and an episode of Perry Mason doesn’t count).




brommieinkorea said:


> And the whole argument isn't about the law



I’m afraid it is.


----------



## boydj (28 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> No body = reasonable doubt.


There is now plenty of case law to show that this is not the case and several killers in jail where the body has never been found. In the papers recently was a story about a killer applying for parole and one of the arguments against approval was that he never revealed the location of the body.


----------



## simongt (30 Dec 2022)

brommieinkorea said:


> Homicide is murder, yet when "vehicular" gets thrown in it carries a much less consequence,


Interesting point. Many years ago, my late ex said that if she wanted to kill someone, all she had to do was run them down / over in a car and she'd get off with a light setence as oppose to 'sorting' said victim with say, a gun or knife.


----------

