Hit & Run Offences

[spen666]

There seem to be a rising number of hit and run offences, not just affecting cyclists, but also where motorists or pedestrians are victims as well.

Why do people leave the scene?
There could be several reasons, including, being not insured, over the drink drive limit, being a disqualified driver 9and many more reasons)

What is the Penalty?
Currently Six months imprisonment and / or a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale. (level 5 fine in Mags court his a maximum of £5000)
Obligatory endorsement - licence endorsed five to ten penalty points
Contrary to section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988



This it seems is insufficient to deter an increasing number of people from leaving the scene of an accident.



What can be done to change this?
I would suggest we could do worse than to look at the legislation and practice surrounding drink driving. There, a person who refuses or fails to provide a specimen is treated for punishment purposes in the same way as a drink driver.

I would therefore suggest that we treat motorists who fail to stop at the scene of an accident in the same was as the most serious motoring offences

ie if the maximum penalty is the same as for causing death by dangerous driving - ie a maximum penalty of 14 years


This would provide that there was no incentive for anyone to leave the scene of an accident and indeed would be a disadvantage to the motorist if they were to be sentenced as if they had committed an offence that carries a maximum of 14 years. If they had remained at the scene, they may only be guilty of careless driving and perhaps no insurance - both non imprisonable offences.

 

[Ganymede]

Hi Spen666

I share your horror at hit-and-runs but is there actually an increase? or are we just seeing a cluster? After all, a lot of the recent cycle deaths we have seen have not been hit-and-runs. I am a bit surprised at the figures you give for penalties - they are very low considering that the difference between stopping to see if someone's ok and not stopping can be life or death.

 

[spen666]

Hi Spen666

I share your horror at hit-and-runs but is there actually an increase? or are we just seeing a cluster? After all, a lot of the recent cycle deaths we have seen have not been hit-and-runs. I am a bit surprised at the figures you give for penalties - they are very low considering that the difference between stopping to see if someone's ok and not stopping can be life or death.

Yes, hit and run offences are increasing.

"hit & run" relates to all offences where motorists fails to stop, not just fatalities. My thoughts long predatee this recent spate of accidents (most of which were not hit and run offences incidentally)

The figures from the police and from the MIB generally suggest there are more hit and run offences these days.

There is virtually no situations in English law when people are under a positive duty to assist a victim. For example you are involved as a motorist in an accident when other party is totally to blame - eg they drive head onto your car when they are on the wrong side of the road. you can sit there and watch them bleed to death and are committing no criminal offence as long as you remain at scene and give your details to anyone who reasonably requests them

 

[Ganymede]

Thanks for the reply - interesting (and depressing). In France they have a law which means you have to give assistance - presumably they take into account the fact that you can't always do so if there is danger to yourself.

 

[Koga]

Here a very actual and practical example of a Hit & Run court case : http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/m...t_convicted_of_two_driving_offences_1_3015570

 

[oldstrath]

Here a very actual and practical example of a Hit & Run court case : http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/m...t_convicted_of_two_driving_offences_1_3015570

But bizarrely she is still at liberty and able to continue driving.

 

[spen666]

But bizarrely she is still at liberty and able to continue driving.

I'm not sure what is bizarre about it at all.

She recieved a relatively servere punishment for the offences she was convicted of by current sentencing standards.

She was not convicted of any offence relating to the standard of her driving

 

[Peter Armstrong]

I think its to do with fight or flight, some poeple just shoot themselves that much they flee, this flee response overwelms any other emotion that would have made them stop.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I think its to do with fight or flight, some poeple just s*** themselves that much they flee, this flee response overwelms any other emotion that would have made them stop.

I think that's my main reservation about @spen666 's proposal. Upping the penalty, if handled wrongly, may increase the likelihood of the flight response kicking in. And when a ban does not stop a driver getting behind the wheel and causing an accident, the flight response will be stronger. For it in principle, though, just concerned primarily about what will make the roads safer.

 

[oldstrath]

I'm not sure what is bizarre about it at all.

She recieved a relatively servere punishment for the offences she was convicted of by current sentencing standards.

She was not convicted of any offence relating to the standard of her driving

I wasn't thinking about the legal issues, but it seems to me that her behaviour ought to call in question her fitness to drive, even though the court did not (could not?) consider it directly.

 

[spen666]

I think that's my main reservation about @spen666 's proposal. Upping the penalty, if handled wrongly, may increase the likelihood of the flight response kicking in. And when a ban does not stop a driver getting behind the wheel and causing an accident, the flight response will be stronger. For it in principle, though, just concerned primarily about what will make the roads safer.

I'm not sure you have understood the post

The only penalty I have suggested is raised is the penalty for failing to stop.

At present there is an incentive to fail to stop. I have in the past represented a client who left the scene of an accident. If he had remained he would have faced a penalty of 5 years (as it was then) for causing death whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. He left the scene and could only be done for failing to stop and careless driving as by the time he handed himself in the drugs had left his system.

I remember advising him the morning after the crash what the penalties would be if he handed himself in that day or a week later when he had no trace of drink or drugs in him


The maximum penalties for death by dangerous etc already are 14 years. The penalty for failing to stop is only 6 months. There is an incentive to leave the scene now.

By making the maximum penalty for leaving the scene 14 years, you remove the incentive on motorists to leave the scene





Please explain how you think raising the penalty for failing to stop will give the motorist an incentive to leave the scene of an accident

 

[spen666]

I wasn't thinking about the legal issues, but it seems to me that her behaviour ought to call in question her fitness to drive, even though the court did not (could not?) consider it directly.

There is no "fitness to drive" other than the driving test

Should drivers have to pass a mental fitness/ mental attitude test? I would not disagree with the principle, but it would be hard to define and hard to administer

 

[ComedyPilot]

I think its to do with fight or flight, some poeple just s*** themselves that much they flee, this flee response overwelms any other emotion that would have made them stop.

To me 'fight or flight' is a subconscious thing you have no control over - it's instantaneous. Running into someone, then driving off requires the assessment of the situation and deliberate action in the vehicle (gear changing, accelerating, steering, route planning) to get away.

Hardly a spontaneous act IMO - more akin to a total lack of care for the victim, and a selfish need to save their own arse.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Please explain how you think raising the penalty for failing to stop will give the motorist an incentive to leave the scene of an accident

Well, to rework an old reggae favourite of mine, ''The harder the fall, the faster they run.'' If the penalty for not stopping is increased, it ups the stakes, and the driver has more to lose. Are you sure that your client would have handed himself in quite so readily if there had been no advantage (or a smaller disadvantage) to be gained from doing so?

 

[spen666]

Well, to rework an old reggae favourite of mine, ''The harder the fall, the faster they run.'' If the penalty for not stopping is increased, it ups the stakes, and the driver has more to lose. Are you sure that your client would have handed himself in quite so readily if there had been no advantage (or a smaller disadvantage) to be gained from doing so?

1. Re my client - yes, I do know. I represented him and discussed matter at length and he did hand himself in when the drugs were out of his system

2. The driver only has more to lose by leaving the scene. imagine this, a minor bump - possibly carelss driving at worst - non imprisonable offence with a fine and 4 points on his licence if he remains at the scene or 14 years imprisonment if he leaves the scene?

You think that will increase the likelihood of a driver fleeing the scene?