Blameless

[Tony]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7178120.stm


So even when they kill after "forgetting to renew their insurance" it's OK.

 

[Pete]

I don't see how I could easily 'forget to renew my insurance' seeing as my insurers automatically take the premium from my account each year by direct debit. Maybe all insurance companies should do likewise - at least for those customers with bank accounts. Cancelling - or changing insurers - is only a phone call away, but I'd still have to make that phone call...

As for leniency in Careless Driving cases - no, I won't buy into that. I myself have been a cyclist victim - albeit not seriously - of 'carelessness' or 'lapse of concentration' - call it what you will - by a motorist. So, I'm sure, have most people on here, at one time or another. And - as a driver, many years ago - I have myself lapsed in concentration resulting in vehicle damage but luckily no injury. If it had been worse I would have deserved to face the penalty. We cannot afford to allow motorists to ease up in this matter - absolute concentration at all times is paramount.

This does not mean that driving cannot be relaxing: these two conditions are not incompatible. Indeed - for all that I often don't enjoy driving, it depends on the journey - I can feel relaxed and unstressed, but still be fully attentive to road conditions all the time. If I can at my age, why not all other drivers?

 

[wafflycat]

As we have long known, if you want to kill someone and get away with it, use the car as the instrument of death. Murder/manslaughter by car is socially acceptable, after all, it could happen to anyone/it was an accident/the fool collided with the car/the driver has suffered enough etc., etc., etc.. Sometimes it isn't the fault of the driver, but here we've gone too far down the road of leniency towards motorists - and I say that as a motorist.

 

[MartinC]

Here we go again. The general population want people to be accountable for killing people with cars. Parliament has recently changed the law specifically to achieve this because the courts weren't applying the penalties they could under the previous legislation. But...... the legal system has decided not to implement this because it's not in the interests of white, male, middle class, middle aged people like them. So much for democracy.

 

[snorri]

It's rather worrying that the BBC (Jeremy Vine on R2 today) are still giving the oxygen of publicity to SS.
The statement from their spokesperson on the proposed change in English legislation was so garbled it was difficult to tell if they were for or against the change.

 

[spindrift]

Email Vine the "Avoid" pages and ask if he really wants to be associated with such a grubby little outfit.

 

[snorri]

I did it earlier.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7178120.stm


So even when they kill after "forgetting to renew their insurance" it's OK.

Having prosecuted a fair number of people for driving with no insurance, I can assure you that I felt sorry for a number of them who had obviously been lied to by dodgy insurance companies and brokers. Also, please bear in mind that a lot of no insurance cases occur when some one has a policy in force, but it did not cover the driving activity in question. One company had a little publicised exclusion for driving to and from work which caught a lot of people out.

 

[Pete]

One company had a little publicised exclusion for driving to and from work which caught a lot of people out.

I seldom drive to work, but when I do I should bloody well hope I'm covered! Perhaps I'd better check!

Thinking about this, is this a misrepresentation by the company - selling a product which is 'not fit for purpose' for many customers, and not making it clear to the purchaser? Is Caveat emptor a valid defence when there has been an deliberate intent to deceive? I would be inclined to 'name and shame' and get the Trading Standards guys involved...

On the other hand, many companies bump their cover right down to third-party-only whenever you do something out of the ordinary. This is quite legal, I suppose, though it may come as a shock when you try to make a claim. As happened to me once...

 

[wafflycat]

The other thing to remember with motor insurance is that if you use your vehicle whilst on business, you need to tell the insurance company, as this affects the premium. If you don't and then you need to claim on the insurance as the result of an 'accident' whilst out on business, you can find that your failure to fully inform the insurance company has invalidated your insurance so you are effectively without insurance cover...

 

[Smokin Joe]

I can't disagree with the sentiments expressed by the Sentencing Body. We all make mistakes on the road and elsewhere, and it is possible for many types of momentary error to lead to someones death, whether behind the wheel, at home or at work. In such a case a community sentence is appropriate, prison should be reserved for the wicked and the persistant who need to be locked up for all our sakes.

How many people on here can say they have never made an error of judgement when driving? The fact that you didn't kill someone was no more than good fortune that there wasn't anyone in the way.

 

[freakhatz]

IMO Smokin Joe's attitude is precisely the problem faced in trying to reduce road casualties.

You can't treat driving like walking down the high street, the stakes are too high. Unfortunately the in-car environment makes it all too easy to forget the implications of making an error and without the consequence of a stiff sentence it is inevitable that standards of driving care will fall.

 

[wafflycat]

That's about it. Driving is increasingly seen as some sort of *right* never to be taken away, and well, if you happen to kill someone, then it's an 'accident' or a 'dangerous road'. As I said originally, it isn't always the fault of the driver, but currently, we are too far the other way where it's viewed as almost never the fault of the driver, but it's a 'momentary lapse' or 'accident' or 'the kids were shouting' or 'sorry, mate, I didn't see you' I would suggest that rarely are 'momentary lapses' truely momentary, but rather an excuse for not actually paying enough attention to the task at hand. We tend to forget that when we're driving we're in charge of a tonne or more of metal that can and does kill due to a 'momentary lapse' Try walking down the road with a loaded gun and have a mometary lapse of concentration, it goes off and kills someone and see if the courts let you off with a fine. I'm thinking you probably won't be...

As for the comments about driving - I include myself in this. I *hope* I never but never hurt or kill anyone. And I'd like to think that if it ever happened, I can hand on heart say it wasn't my fault and not be in the position of trying to use the excuse of 'momentary lapse'. If it was, then yes, I'd deserve to go to jail.

 

[Nortones2]

The insurance companies require that you tell them everything about the uses to which the car is put: uberimae fidei. This is not novel. Those who can't be bothered to research their contracts, or accidentally on purpose omit an important fact, have to take the consequences. Unlike the law on death by careless driving there isn't a CPS involved in insurance who take the view that drivers need not be vigilant

 

[Smokin Joe]

IMO Smokin Joe's attitude is precisely the problem faced in trying to reduce road casualties.

You can't treat driving like walking down the high street, the stakes are too high. Unfortunately the in-car environment makes it all too easy to forget the implications of making an error and without the consequence of a stiff sentence it is inevitable that standards of driving care will fall.

In my opinion yours woud do absolutely bugger all to reduce road accidents and merely clog the prisons up with people who would be better off serving their sentence by doing community work and putting something back, in addition to paying taxes instead of being a drain on resourses.

Prison is for the evil and persistant offenders, not those who are merely guilty of human failings.