The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[roubaixtuesday]

Oh, I hadn't realised that it was a thread for widdling into the wind. I made the mistake of thinking that we were trying to have meaningful discussion.
We can all suggest law changes on the basis of nothing. I'm just not sure how useful it is. The Tories were very fond of it.

I have no idea what you're so cross about. Genuinely, it's a mystery to me.

I've explained why I feel the sentence is unjustifiable. How that is "widdling into the wind" and the "basis of nothing", who knows?

I don't think the points you've made upthread are unreasonable, and I don't think my responses to them are unreasonable either.

If that's not a "meangful discussion", what is? Wholehearted agreement with everything you write?

 

[lazybloke]

it is the Judge's job to work out the best way of sentencing the offender within the guidelines.

There have been so many examples of sentencing that demonstrate leniency or inconsistency; do you not see this?

Maybe if a driver has personally benefitted from lax sentencing they might defend the status quo, what's your excuse?
Most of us can see the sentencing needs to punish and to deter. Justice is supposed to protect society, after all.

 

[icowden]

I have no idea what you're so cross about. Genuinely, it's a mystery to me.

I'm not cross about anything?

I've explained why I feel the sentence is unjustifiable. How that is "widdling into the wind" and the "basis of nothing", who knows?

Fair enough. I've explained why and how it is justified based on the law and the guidance provided. You said that you felt the sentence was unduly lenient, but not why, nor what you think the correct sentence should be.

I looked at the sentencing guidelines which suggest that the sentence is not unduly lenient. Remember that the only thing that can be proven is tha there was a moment's inattention. The Judge has to work with that, not the unproven supposition that the guy was playing with his phone.

 

[icowden]

There have been so many examples of sentencing that demonstrate leniency or inconsistency; do you not see this?

Well no, because every one that I have looked at seems to follow the sentencing guidelines

Maybe if a driver has personally benefitted from lax sentencing they might defend the status quo, what's your excuse?
Most of us can see the sentencing needs to punish and to deter. Justice is supposed to protect society, after all.

My excuse is that I like to think that some of the most senior Judges in the land might have some idea of what they are doing.
You can't deter someone from making a mistake - which is what tends to fall under careless driving offences. These are very different from dangerous driving offences where the driver has made a choice to drive dangerously.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Remember that the only thing that can be proven is tha there was a moment's inattention.

We fundamentally disagree on that, as I wrote above

the unproven supposition that the guy was playing with his phone

It' incontrovertible that something more than "momentarily inattention" is necessary to drive into incoming traffic, in my opinion.

 

[mjr]

I'm not cross about anything?

Fair enough. I've explained why and how it is justified based on the law and the guidance provided. You said that you felt the sentence was unduly lenient, but not why, nor what you think the correct sentence should be.

I looked at the sentencing guidelines which suggest that the sentence is not unduly lenient. Remember that the only thing that can be proven is tha there was a moment's inattention. The Judge has to work with that, not the unproven supposition that the guy was playing with his phone.

When we see more reports about this case, it will be interesting to see if the defence offered any explanation for why you tube was playing on the killer driver's phone. Without that, evidence that the phone it was in a place visible to the driver and you tube was playing seems like pretty good evidence that the phone's owner was watching a video, instead of the boring(!) bendy tree-lined two-laned single-carriageway road through Thetford Forest.

The penalty for being caught on your phone, of just a fine and six points, doesn't seem to be sufficient to deter offending, or much of a punishment given the possible consequences, as you can see from reports like this of a 500% increase in offences in the Bristol area:
Sharp rise in drivers caught using phones in Bristol - Bristol Live – https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/sharp-rise-drivers-caught-using-9753213

 

[Drago]

Don't be driving a dangerous kinetic weapon if you're prone to bouts of momentary inattention.

After all, I wouldn't be granted my shotgun licence if I suffered such lapses, so why should those in charge of dangerous machinery in a public place be allowed to do so?

 

[lazybloke]

Well no, because every one that I have looked at seems to follow the sentencing guidelines

And you don't see that a sentence can be within guidelines AND lenient at the same time?

What do you think of people who get excited by shop sale signs saying 'up to 90% off' ? You're demonstrating the same misunderstanding, and you're arguing the point!

My excuse is that I like to think that some of the most senior Judges in the land might have some idea of what they are doing.

Evidence is always complete and accurate? Charges aren't ever downgraded for a 'better chance of success'?
The accused can't spin a convincing mitigation/lie?
Convictions aren't ever overturned?

And most relevant of all: the appeals court never decide a sentence is unduly lenient?

What about repeated failures to apply the totting up principle?

I imagine judges do a reasonable job, but not a perfect job. They also have to work within certain constraints, eg capacity of prisons.

You can't deter someone from making a mistake - which is what tends to fall under careless driving offences.

A mistake is using the wrong flour in your yorkshire puddings.

Careless driving is not a mistake, it's a criminal offence.

You can deter criminal acts (including carelessness) with education, enforcement, and appropriate application of justice.

Why do you seek to diminish and excuse criminal behaviour & actions when the results are so painful & tragic?

 

[Dogtrousers]

In the Bassam case I'm sure the sentencing was as per guidelines, and so on, community service and so on. That may be reasonable I don't know. Without any knowledge of what sentences are handed out for other offences, I can't comment.

What is galling is that his licence will be returned to him, with no requirement for retraining or retesting after 18 months.

So we are returning to the road a person whose control of a vehicle is so tenuous that he might find himself driving into oncoming traffic at any moment, with no explanation. No attempt to rectify the root cause.. Just bung a clearly incompetent driver back into the pool so he can do it again.

Indeed the judge was baffled and said it was "to this day unknown" why Bassam drove into oncoming traffic. It's an impenetrable mystery. It just happened. Poor Mr Bassam was unfortunate enough to fall prey to the "momentary inattention" fairy that magically placed his car on the wrong side of the road. It could happen to any of us, eh?

It should be fairly obvious that retraining is required in a case like this. Maybe it would be effective, maybe not. But to just hand him back his car keys after 18 months as if nothing had happened, so he can do it again, doesn't seem sensible.

 

[grldtnr]

It is very simple, to my mind, there is a law against use of mobile phones whilst driving, a cut & shut case of at the very least careless driving,and not a momentary lapse of attention.
I see a glaring difference between having a You Tube vid playing, or listening to a Radio broadcast or Sat Nav instruction, I fail to see the distinction between having a video playing in view, or not, plainly it has being watched, and the action of which was the probable cause of momentary inattention.
The fact the defendant pleaded guilty, most likely reduced the sentence,which was very likely a ploy to mitigate it.
The crux of the matter is someone died, and no matter what any one can do ,they are dead, can't bring them back, it doesn't matter how much they are fined, disqualified, imprisoned, that dead person is dead.
If the defendant hadn't been using the phone ,that victim may not have been killed.
What wevwantbisvpeople not using phones whilst driving, and unfortunately some have to be made and exemplary example to deter

 

[Stinboy]

This is completely perverse.

Nobody drives into incoming traffic due to a moment's inattention. It's beyond any credibility.

This is the problem: a cultural acceptance of the unacceptable.

Motonormativity.

I'd be amazed if this hasn't been posted somewhere on CC - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/...the-bias-that-stops-us-seeing-driving-clearly

 

[Drago]

It has been discussed on these hallowed pages, and you are wise to mention it.

The problem is too many people treat driving like sliding on pair of comfortable slippers and give the activity no active thought. How many times have you arrived at your destination and had a realisation that you do not remember any of the journey?

However, motornomtivity can be  easily overcome by anyone with the will and mindset to do so. The drills in advanced driving systems formally demonstrate that the phenomenon is neither an inevitable state or remotely difficult to negate.

But you don't even need such training. Simply the will to remain actively engaged with the task and the mental fortitude to stick at it are all that's needed but that sadly requires discipline and effort, two things the typical motorist struggles with. Thus we end up with the scenario I desdribe in paragraph 2.

 

[grldtnr]

It has been discussed on these hallowed pages, and you are wise to mention it.

The problem is too many people treat driving like sliding on pair of comfortable slippers and give the activity no active thought. How many times have you arrived at your destination and had a realisation that you do not remember any of the journey?

However, motornomtivity can be  easily overcome by anyone with the will and mindset to do so. The drills in advanced driving systems formally demonstrate that the phenomenon is neither an inevitable state or remotely difficult to negate.

But you don't even need such training. Simply the will to remain actively engaged with the task and the mental fortitude to stick at it are all that's needed but that sadly requires discipline and effort, two things the typical motorist struggles with. Thus we end up with the scenario I desdribe in paragraph 2.

Drago, I have a driving mojo every time I get behind the wheel, or on the Mobo,, I actively pay attention to what's going on around me.
It's no effort on my part, I am very aware of the dangers of being too close or speeding.
Not even had advanced instruction, I do wonder if I should , but alas that will take up valuable funds,.....I am time rich and pocket poor!

 

[Drago]

You can learn a lot just reading around the topic.

The mere fact that you're even thinking about it puts you ahead of 90% of the driving population.

 

[Alex321]

We fundamentally disagree on that, as I wrote above

I take it you were in court then, and heard all the evidence.

The rest of us in this thread weren't and can only go by what has been reported.

It' incontrovertible that something more than "momentarily inattention" is necessary to drive into incoming traffic, in my opinion.

Your opinion has nothing to do with what the people in court decided occurred here.

Nor, TBH, much to do with reality.