# Woman admits A32 Wickham cyclist death



## mad despot (16 Aug 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-37097783

Just 60 hours of community work...


----------



## guitarpete247 (16 Aug 2016)

What is a life worth?


----------



## Sixmile (18 Aug 2016)

That is a shockingly poor sentence for taking a young man's life. 

There are people who do 60 hours community work every month as regular decent citizens.


----------



## numbnuts (18 Aug 2016)

Life time ban minimum, I now wonder how many more will use the “sun as a get out of free jail card”


----------



## classic33 (20 Aug 2016)

numbnuts said:


> Life time ban minimum, I now wonder how many more will use the “sun as a get out of free jail card”


If one more uses it, it's too many.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Aug 2016)

numbnuts said:


> Life time ban minimum, I now wonder how many more will use the “sun as a get out of free jail card”




Here is a small list, arrived at from some very cursory googling:


*Anthony Maynard, died 3 July 2008. *Struck from behind by van. Driver was dazzled by low sun, CPS did not press charges.

*Peter Stubbs, died 4 May 2010.* Struck from behind by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, two juries failed to reach a verdict, judge filed formal not guilty verdict.
*David Noble, died 20 October 2010.* Struck from behind by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, wasfound not guilty.
*Arthur Lakin, died 25 October 2010.* Struck by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, was found not guilty.
*Christian and Nicholas Townend, died 5 December 2010.* Struck from behind by coach. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, was found not guilty of both the original charge and of causing death by careless driving.
*Maria Micklethwaite, died 13 January 2012.* Struck by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, was found not guilty.
*Ray Elsmore, died 5 December 2012.* Struck by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, jury failed to reach a verdict (Update, June 2014: After two retrials, the CPS dropped all charges).
*David Irving, died 17 December 2012.* Struck from behind by minibus. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, was found not guilty.
The common factors in all of these cases, just to be clear, are these:


the victim died as a result of being hit by a car whose driver claimed not to have seen them
the reason the driver gave for not having seen the victim was low sun (even if this was the case only at or immediately before the moment of collision and the victim was quite visible shortly beforehand)
the driver was either not found guilty of any charges, or was never even charged
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/01/31/at-the-going-down-of-the-sun/


----------



## Mrs M (20 Aug 2016)

That's so sad.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Aug 2016)

It's not just cyclists, this was a couple of miles from my house:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/driver_who_injured_child_at_norwich_crossing_is_cleared_1_4653997

She ploughed over a line of children crossing with a lollipop lady, the child got a smashed face and broken leg.


----------



## Drago (20 Aug 2016)

Blinded by the low sun, yet continued to plough forth doggedly despite being unable to see. The punishment is derisory.

Can't see? Then stop immediately and potentially save a life.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Aug 2016)

None of those Kent drivers got fined, the massive shunt on the Sheppey Bridge. When I saw the headline "100 Kentish drivers collide with each other" I thought it was a spelling mistake:


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

mad despot said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-37097783
> 
> Just 60 hours of community work...



With no details of the actual piece of bad driving that led to this outcome, it's impossible to comment. Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.

Case 1 - driver stops, looks both ways, looks again, still fails to see approaching motorcyclist, pulls out in front of him resulting in his death.
Case 2 - driver drives for two hours at double the speed limit well over the legal alcohol limit, ignores red lights and priorities, but as luck would have it only property damage is done.

Who would you like to see receive the stiffer sentence?


----------



## jefmcg (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> With no details of the actual piece of bad driving that led to this outcome, it's impossible to comment. Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.



You might be right in theory, but are drivers getting community service orders when no one is killed? I'm not seeing it, and if it's not happening, then yes, community orders are the price of a life.



Karlt said:


> Case 1 - driver stops, looks both ways, looks again, still fails to see approaching motorcyclist, pulls out in front of him resulting in his death.
> Case 2 - driver drives for two hours at double the speed limit well over the legal alcohol limit, ignores red lights and priorities, but as luck would have it only property damage is done.
> 
> Who would you like to see receive the stiffer sentence?



Honestly? Take both their licenses away. Neither should be on the road. If you are a bad driver because of carelessness and lack of responsibility, or you are a bad driver because you can't see or can't look properly, but your heart is in the right place, what's the difference? If I am under their front wheels, it's a subtle point.


----------



## Starchivore (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> With no details of the actual piece of bad driving that led to this outcome, it's impossible to comment. Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.
> 
> Case 1 - driver stops, looks both ways, looks again, still fails to see approaching motorcyclist, pulls out in front of him resulting in his death.
> Case 2 - driver drives for two hours at double the speed limit well over the legal alcohol limit, ignores red lights and priorities, but as luck would have it only property damage is done.
> ...



I appreciate your point but Driver 1 would have to be incompetent and not suitable for operating a vehicle if he can look twice and still fail to see what's in front of him. So I would say both should get banned. Yes case 2 might be considered worse but they are both a big danger to other road users.


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

Case 1 - driver has a 45 year driving record with no incidents. Or do we believe it is impossible for a normally excellent and safe driver to drop the ball, with potentially disastrous results? I know it is, because I've seen it, fortunately with no-one injured. This is one reason I look forward to more automation and driverless cars, because I do not believe that anyone is such a good driver that this couldn't happen to them. Humans are fallible.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.



If the outcome is to be ignored then why do we have offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving with substantially different maximum penalties?

GC


----------



## Starchivore (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Case 1 - driver has a 45 year driving record with no incidents. Or do we believe it is impossible for a normally excellent and safe driver to drop the ball, with potentially disastrous results? I know it is, because I've seen it, fortunately with no-one injured. This is one reason I look forward to more automation and driverless cars, because I do not believe that anyone is such a good driver that this couldn't happen to them. Humans are fallible.



It's a fair point.

For me, both should get the full driving ban (for life). But only the second (drunk, doubling speed limit) should get criminal charges.


----------



## Profpointy (23 Aug 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If the outcome is to be ignored then why do we have offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving with substantially different maximum penalties?
> 
> GC



Not quite sure which point you're making here, but "death by dangerous" is considered much more seriously than "death by careless" for the reasons Karlt mentions.

Fair enough, "death by" versus "dangerous but nothing happened", but even so "dangerous" is rightly treated more seriously than "careless".

That said, I can't help believing that the "low sun" excuse is now a standard get-out-of-jail excuse that's simply bollocks. Solicitors doubtless trundle it out, regardless of whether they client actually claimed any such thing.


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

Starchivore said:


> It's a fair point.
> 
> For me, both should get the full driving ban (for life). But only the second (drunk, doubling speed limit) should get criminal charges.



Right. OK. That's me, my father and my wife all with life bans (it wasn't motorcycles, but it could have been). How many people do you think would actually have licences under your regime?

And how do you revoke a licence without criminal charges?


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If the outcome is to be ignored then why do we have offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving with substantially different maximum penalties?
> 
> GC



Because people get very upset when consequences aren't taken into account and that has to be taken into account when setting policy. Me, I'm not convinced it should be so big a factor. Two drivers can do exactly the same thing, by the Grace of God only one causes a death, and the penalty for exactly the same action can be wildly different.

The point I'm getting at here is that "looked but failed to see" happens hundreds of times per day. In 90% of cases, probably, evading action avoides a collision. In another 9.9% there is a property damage only collision. In a tiny proportion there is an injury, and in a tiny proportion of that tiny proportion a death. And the outcome has very little to do with the degree of failure of the driver. If we are to say that every bit of careless driving should result in a life ban, there'll be no-one on the roads. If we focus almost entirely on outcome, then it's a lottery whether you get a life ban or no penalty at all beyond an increase in premiums. Steering a line between these is a difficult task.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Right. OK. That's me, my father and my wife all with life bans (it wasn't motorcycles, but it could have been). How many people do you think would actually have licences under your regime?
> 
> And how do you revoke a licence without criminal charges?



So what acceptable reason is there for driving in front of anybody? What is the thing that links yours, your fathers, and your wife's driving attitudes, as I don't believe it's just chance.


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> So what acceptable reason is there for driving in front of anybody? What is the thing that links yours, your fathers, and your wife's driving attitudes, as I don't believe it's just chance.



Human fallibility. "acceptable reason" isn't the phrase I'd use. "Explanation" is. My father especially is an extremely careful, patient and cautious driver. But he's not infallible. No-one is. What links us is being human. But feel free to assume we must all be nutters. I'm out of here if it's going to get personal like that.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Human fallibility. My father especially is an extremely careful, patient and cautious driver. But he's not infallible. No-one is. What links us is being human.


So why do you have some many accidents caused by driving in front of other traffic in your immediate family. Yet nobody in my immediate family is?

If it was all random distribution of "being human", then I'd expect a more even spread. Yet what you actually see, is the same people involved in multiple incidents, and close family also involved in incidents. There's more to it imo.


----------



## Profpointy (23 Aug 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> So what acceptable reason is there for driving in front of anybody? What is the thing that links yours, your fathers, and your wife's driving attitudes, as I don't believe it's just chance.



Are you claiming you have never made a mistake driving, or not seen something despite looking?

The question may only apply if you do drive and have driven a reasonable distance - let's say a few 100,000 miles.

Of course, this isn't an excuse for not seeing hazzards, but to pretend to perfection, isn't normally a good recipe for improvement. My observation skill improved a lot after doing motorcycle training, where a very systematic approach was pushed. But even so I can still make mistakes - usually caught as I'm more systematic, but still, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm perfect


----------



## Starchivore (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Right. OK. That's me, my father and my wife all with life bans (it wasn't motorcycles, but it could have been). How many people do you think would actually have licences under your regime?
> 
> And how do you revoke a licence without criminal charges?



No, I meant people who actually properly hit someone after pulling out and did serious damage to them. That can't be that significant a % of drivers.

Ok, I meant more "further" punishment, I'm not very up on legal speak. As in sentences and whatnot.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Not quite sure which point you're making here, but "death by dangerous" is considered much more seriously than "death by careless" for the reasons Karlt mentions.
> 
> Fair enough, "death by" versus "dangerous but nothing happened", but even so "dangerous" is rightly treated more seriously than "careless".
> 
> That said, I can't help believing that the "low sun" excuse is now a standard get-out-of-jail excuse that's simply bollocks. Solicitors doubtless trundle it out, regardless of whether they client actually claimed any such thing.




I wasn't comparing death by careless with death by dangerous.
I'm suggesting that where we have, say, careless driving (and for simplicity let's take Karlt's example 1), there can be two outcomes: death or no death. The level of carelessness is the same but the outcome is different and determines a different range of punishment. I see no reason why this should be restricted to deaths and not non-fatal injuries caused.

GC


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> So why do you have some many accidents caused by driving in front of other traffic in your immediate family. Yet nobody in my immediate family is?
> 
> If it was all random distribution of "being human", then I'd expect a more even spread. Yet what you actually see, is the same people involved in multiple incidents, and close family also involved in incidents. There's more to it imo.



Except that each of us has only had the one such incident, in years of driving. There is no "multiple accidents" in our case. I do know what you're getting at, and I know people whose attitude to driving causes me concern, and yes, it can run in families. I'm asking you to accept at least provisionally that this is most certainly not true in our case.


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

Starchivore said:


> No, I meant people who actually properly hit someone after pulling out and did serious damage to them. That can't be that significant a % of drivers.



Why are those who cause an injury so much more blameworthy than those who make exactly the same mistake but by chance do not do so?


----------



## Profpointy (23 Aug 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I wasn't comparing death by careless with death by dangerous.
> I'm suggesting that where we have, say, careless driving (and for simplicity let's take Karlt's example 1), there can be two outcomes: death or no death. The level of carelessness is the same but the outcome is different and determines a different range of punishment. I see no reason why this should be restricted to deaths and not non-fatal injuries caused.
> 
> GC



Ok makes sense, and there's some sense in the argument, yet I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel unease if the "death by" scenario is treated very leniently, and similarly it would seem harsh if a "minor" (a loaded word maybe) mistake without harm done led to a 2 year prison sentence say.

I do think dangerous driving, in the legal sense, should be treated much more seriously, especially where it's willfull stupidity


----------



## Starchivore (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Why are those who cause an injury so much more blameworthy than those who make exactly the same mistake but by chance do not do so?



They aren't but the consequences do have to be taken into account. And how else would it even come to light that someone had made the error, unless there was an accident that got reported? 

There is some bad luck involved, I agree. Some people make the error/do the bad thing but get away with it and no one gets hurt. Such is life.


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Ok makes sense, and there's some sense in the argument, yet I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel unease if the "death by" scenario is treated very leniently, and similarly it would seem harsh if a "minor" (a loaded word maybe) mistake without harm done led to a 2 year prison sentence say.



Aye. This is quite the legal conundrum. I think the issue is that driving, perhaps more than any other activity that people regularly indulge in, can so easily turn a minor error into a very serious outcome, and yet at the same time appalling incompetence can sometimes - most times indeed - have little consequence. It's the disconnect between degree of incompetence, or deliberate action, and the outcome, that makes this so terribly difficult.



> I do think dangerous driving, in the legal sense, should be treated much more seriously, especially where it's willfull stupidity


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Aug 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Are you claiming you have never made a mistake driving, or not seen something despite looking?
> 
> The question may only apply if you do drive and have driven a reasonable distance - let's say a few 100,000 miles.
> 
> Of course, this isn't an excuse for not seeing hazzards, but to pretend to perfection, isn't normally a good recipe for improvement. My observation skill improved a lot after doing motorcycle training, where a very systematic approach was pushed. But even so I can still make mistakes - usually caught as I'm more systematic, but still, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm perfect



I'm not pretending perfection. But I have covered 180k miles since I passed my test in a car and on a bike without crashing into other traffic. I have made mistakes before, and not noticed something. But I have never pulled out of a junction in front of traffic, or drove into the back of somebody.

I'd agree, I did my bike test 1 year after my car. And my attitude to roads did change. Mainly because your own mortality seems to make you far more aware than when you only drive a car.

But it still doesn't cover that if the distribution of accidents was random, then you wouldn't expect incidents to gather around certain statistics like it does.


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

Starchivore said:


> They aren't but the consequences do have to be taken into account.



Indeed. But at the moment the consequences can mean the difference between a small fine and a long ban and prison sentence, at least in theory. I'm not sure the balance is quite right.



> And how else would it even come to light that someone had made the error, unless there was an accident that got reported?



Indeed, but the disconnect in penalties doesn't happen at the reported/not reported disconnect - it happens at the person killed/person not killed disconnect.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Why are those who cause an injury so much more blameworthy than those who make exactly the same mistake but by chance do not do so?



That happens in a lot of cases, not just in car accidents.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Because people get very upset when consequences aren't taken into account and that has to be taken into account when setting policy. Me, I'm not convinced it should be so big a factor. Two drivers can do exactly the same thing, by the Grace of God only one causes a death, and the penalty for exactly the same action can be wildly different.
> 
> The point I'm getting at here is that "looked but failed to see" happens hundreds of times per day. In 90% of cases, probably, evading action avoides a collision. In another 9.9% there is a property damage only collision. In a tiny proportion there is an injury, and in a tiny proportion of that tiny proportion a death. And the outcome has very little to do with the degree of failure of the driver. If we are to say that every bit of careless driving should result in a life ban, there'll be no-one on the roads. If we focus almost entirely on outcome, then it's a lottery whether you get a life ban or no penalty at all beyond an increase in premiums. Steering a line between these is a difficult task.




To be clear here, I don't support a life ban for every bit of careless driving. Someone else must have suggested that but not me!


GC


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'm not pretending perfection. But I have covered 180k miles since I passed my test in a car and on a bike without crashing into other traffic. I have made mistakes before, and not noticed something. But I have never pulled out of a junction in front of traffic, or drove into the back of somebody.
> 
> I'd agree, I did my bike test 1 year after my car. And my attitude to roads did change. Mainly because your own mortality seems to make you far more aware than when you only drive a car.
> 
> But it still doesn't cover that if the distribution of accidents was random, then you wouldn't expect incidents to gather around certain statistics like it does.



Actually, you would. Clumping is a common counter-intuitive artefact of randomness - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_clumping


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> To be clear here, I don't support a life ban for every bit of careless driving. Someone else must have suggested that but not me!
> 
> 
> GC



You're right; I think I got carried away and answered two points in one post.


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> That happens in a lot of cases, not just in car accidents.



That it happens doesn't mean I can't question the justice of it.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Indeed. But at the moment the consequences can mean the difference between a small fine and a long ban and prison sentence, at least in theory. I'm not sure the balance is quite right..


I agree. The penalties for causing an accident should be more severe regardless of the outcome.

The guy who drove his HGV trailer over the bonnet of my better halfs car at a junction got away with nothing. Police merely just checked paperwork and let him go.

What if that was a cyclist, or a motorcyclist at the junction?


----------



## Starchivore (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Indeed. But at the moment the consequences can mean the difference between a small fine and a long ban and prison sentence, at least in theory. I'm not sure the balance is quite right.
> 
> Indeed, but the disconnect in penalties doesn't happen at the reported/not reported disconnect - it happens at the person killed/person not killed disconnect.



Right, it is more tough when the difference is the chance of how severely someone's injured. it's a tough one for usre.


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'm not pretending perfection. But I have covered 180k miles since I passed my test in a car and on a bike without crashing into other traffic. I have made mistakes before, and not noticed something. But I have never pulled out of a junction in front of traffic, or drove into the back of somebody.
> 
> .



Yet. It took my father 40 years and a good half million miles before the right - or rather wrong - combination of traffic and human fallibility got him.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> That it happens doesn't mean I can't question the justice of it.


If you push a 18 year old in the street.

Then another person does the same push on a 90 year old guy who falls and hits his head resulting in death.

The penalty should be the same as the offence was identical?


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I agree. The penalties for causing an accident should be more severe regardless of the outcome.
> 
> The guy who drove his HGV trailer over the bonnet of my better halfs car at a junction got away with nothing. Police merely just checked paperwork and let him go.
> 
> What if that was a cyclist, or a motorcyclist at the junction?



Indeed, but this is where the practicalities come in. There's a law in statistics, can't recall the name, but it's basically that the more extreme the outcome the smaller proportion of events have that outcome. Common sense really. Which means that for every bit of careless driving that does result in injury (and will probably end up in court) there are ten that don't. I'm not sure we have the resources to do it. It's unlikely that doing so would pay for itself in deterrence, because there's seldom a deliberate point of decision that you could expect someone to be rationally deterred from - very few people think "Oh, I'll plough into the back of that Zafira; it'll probably not go to court if no-one's injured".


----------



## Karlt (23 Aug 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> If you push a 18 year old in the street.
> 
> Then another person does the same push on a 90 year old guy who falls and hits his head resulting in death.
> 
> The penalty should be the same as the offence was identical?



No, because pushing a 90 year old is a different action to pushing an 18 year old. The difference in likely outcomes is quite obvious before the fact.

And now I am leaving, because I think I've said everything that I needed to say.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> No, because pushing a 90 year old is a different action to pushing an 18 year old. The difference in likely outcomes is quite obvious before the fact.



What if you push the same person twice, but they fall and die the 2nd time? After all, it was the same as the first push that did nothing.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> driving, perhaps more than any other activity that people regularly indulge in, can so easily turn a minor error into a very serious outcome



I see a large part of the problem as being the daily normality of the act of driving in most people's minds. They don't pause to consider that they are in control of a heavy and potentially lethal machine, which with even a moment's inattention can cause serious damage to people or property. This normalisation (there's a better word but it escapes me) numbs them to the possibilities and that's why we have people doing other normal but stupid things whilst driving like texting, applying makeup, eating ice-cream etc.

Until we have proper enforcement, and enough cops on the streets to achieve that, we'll be forever at the mercy of crappy drivers and juries with the view that there but for the grace of god...

GC


----------



## Drago (23 Aug 2016)

Took Woman to an early Hospital appointment this morning, when suddenly the low sun poked me in the face and blinded me completely. Fortunately I'd been paying attention and driving at an appropriate speed, so was able to safely stop to the left. A quick wile of the screen and a rummage about for my Randolphs and I was safely on my way again.

So easy and took seconds, and I just can't get my head round why the killer driver that motivated this post couldn't be arsed to also behave sensibly. To carry on driving when you can't see is clearly an highly deliberate and considered act, and the law should allow for a much more serious penalty for someone who chose to drive in that manner. It was no 'accident' as her brief implies, but the result of a wilful and deliberate disregard for both the law and the safety of those around her.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Aug 2016)

Is there an increase in cyclists riding into things when there's a low sun? I've never heard of it.


----------



## Drago (23 Aug 2016)

Dammit man. Day after day you're saying stuff that has me nodding sagely in agreement. Where's our Glenn, and what have you done with him?


----------



## Drago (23 Aug 2016)

Bloody Hell, now I'm agreeing with User.

I need a Doctor...


----------



## theclaud (23 Aug 2016)

Karlt said:


> Right. OK. That's me, my father and my wife all with life bans (it wasn't motorcycles, but it could have been). How many people do you think would actually have licences under your regime?
> 
> And how do you revoke a licence without criminal charges?



Apologies if I'm not reading this right, but are you telling us that you've killed someone with a motor vehicle?


----------



## Spud Murphy (23 Aug 2016)

Drago said:


> Blinded by the low sun, yet continued to plough forth doggedly despite being unable to see. The punishment is derisory.
> 
> Can't see? Then stop immediately and potentially save a life.


Totally agree.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Aug 2016)

theclaud said:


> Karlt said:
> 
> 
> > Right. OK. That's me, my father and my wife all with life bans (it wasn't motorcycles, but it could have been). How many people do you think would actually have licences under your regime?
> ...


+1. I just plowed through 4 pages of this to see if this had been clarified.

(and the way I read it, that's three people who have killed in accidents they were at fault in)


----------



## theclaud (23 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> +1. I just plowed through 4 pages of this to see if this had been clarified.
> 
> (and the way I read it, that's three people who have killed in accidents they were at fault in)


Thanks for that. As no-one appeared to be reacting to this breathtaking revelation, I thought there must be some obvious alternative explanation I was missing. If we're wrong, I hope @Karlt will clarify...


----------



## fossyant (23 Aug 2016)

Sorry Mate I Did't See You is apparently an acceptable excuse, and so is low sun.

Too many drivers get away with killing people or badly injuring them.


----------



## Drago (23 Aug 2016)

fossyant said:


> Sorry Mate I Did't See You is apparently an acceptable excuse, and so is low sun.



That's how Adrian makes people disappear.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2016)

this is now officially disturbing. @theclaud and I both interpreted a posting from @Karlt the same way. He had been responding to pretty well every posting in this thread (15 responses in 4 pages - is that a record for anyone who didn't start the thread?), then suddenly went silent.

@Karlt have you killed someone? I am totally ready to back down, but you need to answer this.


----------



## Buddfox (10 Sep 2016)

jefmcg said:


> this is no officially disturbing. @theclaud and I both interpreted a posting from @Karlt the same way. He had been responding to pretty well every posting in this thread (15 responses in 4 pages - is that a record for anyone who didn't start the thread?), then suddenly went silent.
> 
> @Karlt have you killed someone? I am totally ready to back down, but you need to answer this.



I was asking myself the same question as well, so that makes three of us!


----------



## Karlt (12 Sep 2016)

jefmcg said:


> this is now officially disturbing. @theclaud and I both interpreted a posting from @Karlt the same way. He had been responding to pretty well every posting in this thread (15 responses in 4 pages - is that a record for anyone who didn't start the thread?), then suddenly went silent.
> 
> @Karlt have you killed someone? I am totally ready to back down, but you need to answer this.



No, I haven't. Nor have any of us. However, I can see how it _could _happen as a result of a fairly minor error on the part of a driver, which was my point - there's not necessarily correlation between the error committed by the driver and its outcome. I stopped responding because I have a lot on my plate and didn't have the emotional spoons to carry on at that point.

It can even happen as a result of a momentary lapse of concentration which it was stated further upthread would not meet the bar for careless driving. 

I'm also not implying that this is the case in many of the cases we discuss on here, but in this particular case we don't have enough information about the incident to know.

The whole thing is a response to the first reply in this thread, really, "how much a life is worth". Sentencing for CD offenses, like manslaughter offences (which they strongly resemble, and indeed were brought in to replace because of lack of convictions for manslaughter) is largely focused on the culpability of the offender - how serious the action they took was. It's not _meant_ to reflect the value of a life.


----------



## Buddfox (12 Sep 2016)

Karlt said:


> The whole thing is a response to the first reply in this thread, really, "how much a life is worth". Sentencing for CD offenses, like manslaughter offences (which they strongly resemble, and indeed were brought in to replace because of lack of convictions for manslaughter) is largely focused on the culpability of the offender - how serious the action they took was. It's not _meant_ to reflect the value of a life.



But many of us feel like it should, and I'm not sure you've made a convincing argument that it shouldn't. An outcome is always relevant in considering a criminal prosecution, and if driving is unique in the distortion between error and outcome, so what?

As has been pointed out - driving is a right, not a privilege; having your licence taken away is not the significant inconvenience many believe it to be; more people than not want a justice system that recognises outcome as relevant, and this is even considered today through victim impact statements being read in court.

I'd be happy with a punishment scale for death by careless that included a life time ban from driving at any seriousness of offence. Maybe it works as a deterrent, maybe it doesn't. The only downside is a few 100 people losing their licences each year. That's a price I'd be happy to pay to find out if it meant driving standards potentially improved.


----------



## Tin Pot (12 Sep 2016)

Change the law.


----------



## Karlt (13 Sep 2016)

Buddfox said:


> But many of us feel like it should, and I'm not sure you've made a convincing argument that it shouldn't.



It's because two drivers can do _exactly the same thing_ - for example pull out without looking properly. In one case there's a death and you're talking lifetime ban and years in prison; in another case where the driver did exactly the same thing, but there was no death, it's a fine and points. It seems like there's too much disconnect between both the _mens rea_ and _actus rea_ of the driver and the penalty imposed. Indeed, it's worse than that - if we focus on the _outcome_ then the driver above whose pulling out causes a death receives a heavier penalty than a reckless drunk who drives through residential streets twice over the limit for a couple of hours at double the speed limit but miraculously perhaps hurts no-one. That does not seem just to me.



> I'd be happy with a punishment scale for death by careless that included a life time ban from driving at any seriousness of offence. Maybe it works as a deterrent, maybe it doesn't. The only downside is a few 100 people losing their licences each year. That's a price I'd be happy to pay to find out if it meant driving standards potentially improved.



They won't, because no-one sets out to cause death by careless driving so no-one will be driving thinking that your new policy will ever apply to them. 

You will achieve far more by taking more seriously the far more numerous (and therefore in drivers' minds far more likely to involve them) non-injury collisions and the tailgating, close passing, speeding, distracted driving etc. that gives rise to them. Start throwing automatic three month bans out for using a phone whilst driving and I think you would achieve an improvement in driving standards. Making an example of the ones whose driving by pot luck (or rather lack thereof) results in a death won't.


----------



## Buddfox (13 Sep 2016)

Karlt said:


> It's because two drivers can do _exactly the same thing_ - for example pull out without looking properly. In one case there's a death and you're talking lifetime ban and years in prison; in another case where the driver did exactly the same thing, but there was no death, it's a fine and points. It seems like there's too much disconnect between both the _mens rea_ and _actus rea_ of the driver and the penalty imposed. Indeed, it's worse than that - if we focus on the _outcome_ then the driver above whose pulling out causes a death receives a heavier penalty than a reckless drunk who drives through residential streets twice over the limit for a couple of hours at double the speed limit but miraculously perhaps hurts no-one. That does not seem just to me.



You did this up thread, and have done it again - you keep using the word "exactly", but they are not exactly the same thing, because in one case someone died and in the other they didn't. And I'm not talking years in prison in the instance you describe either. But a lifetime ban for killing someone on the road seems fair and reasonable (irrespective of how likely it is to happen). Whilst the number is too high, there are a bit less than 2,000 deaths on our roads all told each year. A bit less than 2,000 driving bans for these deaths? Not a problem.

And I'm not just focussing on the outcome, but in order for there to be some kind of action, a driver needs to be caught doing something. Unfortunately, killing someone is just such evidence. The drunk driver who didn't hurt anyone was lucky, and got away with it. But this is true of all crime - you only get punished if you get caught.



Karlt said:


> They won't, because no-one sets out to cause death by careless driving so no-one will be driving thinking that your new policy will ever apply to them.



Again I ask, so what? Even if you don't set out to do it, that does not mean you should be protected from punishment. The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions. But I am convinced that if people knew they would lose their licence if they killed someone on the roads, then at least some people will take more care and attention, a worthy outcome.



Karlt said:


> You will achieve far more by taking more seriously the far more numerous (and therefore in drivers' minds far more likely to involve them) non-injury collisions and the tailgating, close passing, speeding, distracted driving etc. that gives rise to them. Start throwing automatic three month bans out for using a phone whilst driving and I think you would achieve an improvement in driving standards. Making an example of the ones whose driving by pot luck (or rather lack thereof) results in a death won't.



You also seem to treat these as mutually exclusive. Why not do both? I completely agree with you that tackling low level offending would probably be more effective in reducing the number of incidents on our roads. My suggestion for driving with a mobile phone? A £1,000 fine and 9 points on your licence, for example.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Sep 2016)

Repeated acts of carelessness (such as pulling out without looking properly) that cause no harm accrue in the minds of drivers who, seeing no negative result of their 'minor' misjudgements, continue to drive that way so that it becomes their norm.

Then they're so shocked when they finally kill someone that they use the _'could've happened to anyone'_ mitigation at trial.

Drivers have to take responsibility for, and acknowledge, the serious danger any error on their part poses to the people around them. If the penalty for careless or dangerous driving were to reflect the level of injury caused, I believe this would focus the minds of many to curb their risky behaviour.

We shouldn't have to wait until they kill someone before passing meaningful sentences.

GC


----------



## Markymark (13 Sep 2016)

I do think people should be given a little slack. For example, when I'm firing my machine gun at the target across the street in a neighbour's front garden I always try and make the paths and road is clear before I shoot across them. But we're all human and sometimes I only have a quick glance. Very lucky today and I fired just a few cm away from a kids head! I've never killed anyone and pretty much never came close to killing anyone. I know that if I'm texting whilst firing all over the place I might be liable to a £90 fine and some points but, you know, I make sure I'm only do it if it's an important text and then only fire a few shots.


----------

