The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[postman]

125mph is pretty much a missile if it all goes wrong. Bloody car should be crushed and a decent ban.

Crushed with the driver still sat in it.

 

[mjr]

Nobody is suggesting it should be accepted.

Just that there is a difference in degree of cuplability, and that sentencing should reflect that - which it does, but one poster here is suggesting there is no difference. It isn't @Profpointy turning it into a false dichotomy, he is responding to the false dichotomy created by another.

If you read back to post #15, I'm pretty sure that @Drago is trying to restore the true dichotomy: careless or not; while a few including you and Profpointy seem to be suggesting strongly that some decisions to drive while incompetent, or plough on in car parks while unsure where the vehicle edges are, are merely "errors" or "mistakes" that should be excused to some degree and not regarded as careless driving.

 

[mjr]

In his defence - have you been to Corby? I'd want to bypass it pretty quickly....

Well, you can, pretty easily. Corby has the old bypass that's now restricted to 50mph because stroad-like features have encroached on it, and also the bypass's bypass where that clown did 125mph which looks like a 125mph road with shoulders, mahooosive run-off areas fringed with scrubby shrubs and thin trees to slow people down less abruptly than a stout oak, armoured legs on the three bridges (just three in 5 miles), and it tilts up at the north end to help you slow before the terminal junction. It basically follows the line of a 90mph railway for most of its length. It looks like it's safe to drive on it faster than many full motorways in the Midlands. The main things designed like a 70mph road are the layby entries and exits, which are normal length but look short on a road where almost everything else is super-sized.

As others note, this isn't the first extraordinary speeder on that bit of the A43. I use it about half the time when visiting family in the West of England at times when rail doesn't work well (Christmas most often) and it's unusual to drive along it at 70mph and not have a few drivers pass you so fast that a small car rocks. In theory, it's legal to cycle on that shoot, but unsuprisingly I've yet to see anyone do it. People should be asking Highways England what the fark they were thinking with that design and pressing them to make the road look 70mph before too many people die.

 

[Profpointy]

If you read back to post #15, I'm pretty sure that @Drago is trying to restore the true dichotomy: careless or not; while a few including you and Profpointy seem to be suggesting strongly that some decisions to drive while incompetent, or plough on in car parks while unsure where the vehicle edges are, are merely "errors" or "mistakes" that should be excused to some degree and not regarded as careless driving.

You are dishonestly misrepresenting what I have said

 

[mjr]

You are dishonestly misrepresenting what I have said

Please don't post such lies as if they are fact. I am honestly and sincerely stating how I interpret this and later posts:

There's a difference in culpability between an error and being a complete cock surely even if the outcome is tragically the same?

What did you mean by that, if not that someone making an error (aka driving while incompetent) is not culpable?

I might have misinterpreted it, but it is an honest and (I suggest) easily understandable one.

 

[Alex321]

If you read back to post #15, I'm pretty sure that @Drago is trying to restore the true dichotomy: careless or not; while a few including you and Profpointy seem to be suggesting strongly that some decisions to drive while incompetent, or plough on in car parks while unsure where the vehicle edges are, are merely "errors" or "mistakes" that should be excused to some degree and not regarded as careless driving.

NOBODY is suggesting they should be excused.

And there is no "true dichotomy", that is the problem with what Drago is saying.

Careless driving should always be punished, and nobody is suggesting otherwise, but the level of carelessness (and hence degree of culpability) DOES vary, and the punishment should reflect that (and does, if the sentencing guidelines are followed).

Drago is saying that it is a binary situation, either carelss or not, and there is no variance in level. He has specifically stated that.

The law agrees with us rather than him, otherwise there wouldn't be a range of sentencing, there would be a single, fixed sentence. And sentencing guidelines would not be necessary.

 

[Alex321]

Please don't post such lies as if they are fact. I am honestly and sincerely stating how I interpret this and later posts:

Well you should learn to interpret a bit better then.

What did you mean by that, if not that someone making an error (aka driving while incompetent) is not culpable?

He means that the LEVEL of culpability is different. Not that anybody is not culpable at all.

A difference in culpability does not mean either fully culpable or not culpable at all. It is not a binary choice.

I might have misinterpreted it, but it is an honest and (I suggest) easily understandable one.

I think what Profpointy wrote is easily understandable, and is harder to interpret the way you have than to interpret the way he obviously ( to me) meant it.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

A few cases a year are clearly serious cases but from a much older driver who immediately gives up driving as they realise they are no longer safe

In these cases then there is zero chance of any future offences of a similar nature

to some extent the purpose of courts is to create a situation where future offences are prevented.
If education or probation or monitoring will do this then this is preferred to prison

In the same way if the offender has already taken action that totally prevents any further offence can happen then what is the point in further punishment??

That at least is the concept - it misses out the concept of deterrence which should be taken into account
and also the feeling of the victim and/or their relatives - especially if the consequences are serious

The courts are required to balance these point - but preventing further offences is always the major consideration as far as I know

 

[roubaixtuesday]

A few cases a year are clearly serious cases but from a much older driver who immediately gives up driving as they realise they are no longer safe

In these cases then there is zero chance of any future offences of a similar nature

to some extent the purpose of courts is to create a situation where future offences are prevented.
If education or probation or monitoring will do this then this is preferred to prison

In the same way if the offender has already taken action that totally prevents any further offence can happen then what is the point in further punishment??

That at least is the concept - it misses out the concept of deterrence which should be taken into account
and also the feeling of the victim and/or their relatives - especially if the consequences are serious

The courts are required to balance these point - but preventing further offences is always the major consideration as far as I know

There are five purposes of sentencing the courts must bear in mind when dealing with the vast majority of adult offenders. These purposes are set out in s.57 of the Sentencing Code.

• To punish the offender – this can include going to prison, doing unpaid work in the community, obeying a curfew or paying a fine.
• To reduce crime – by preventing the offender from committing more crime, and putting others off from committing similar offences.
• To reform and rehabilitate offenders – changing an offender’s behaviour to prevent future crime, for example by requiring them to have treatment for drug addiction or alcohol abuse.
• To protect the public – from the offender and from the risk of more crimes being committed by them. This could be by putting them in prison, restricting their activities or supervision by probation.
• To make the offender give something back – for example, by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice. Restorative justice gives victims the chance to tell offenders about the impact of their crime and receive an apology.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/how-sentencing-works/

 

[Drago]

Funny how protect the public onky makes number 4 on the list.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Funny how protect the public onky makes number 4 on the list.

In a way 2 (half of it), 3 and 4 all protect the public as they stop them doing it again

In the case I mentioned, where the driver has realised they have to give up driving, then all these are already satisfied

 

[boydj]

I can see you sincerely believe what you are saying, but surely you'd can see a fundamental difference betwen, say taking your eyes off a toddler whilst distracted, leading to a tragic outcome, compared to leaving a toddler alone all weekend whilst you go out clubbing?

Criminal law has the notion of "mens rea", the intent to do evil, which as an ex policeman you'll be familiar with. I don't think I'm being particularly radical in suggesting the same notion for negligent driving

Negligent driving is more often the result of 'mens absentia' than 'mens rea' - i.e the driver, instead of keeping his mind on his driving, goes into autopilot and lets his mind wander instead of keeping his mind fully on the task of driving. I suspect that deliberately negligent driving happens less frequently, but the driving is much worse and more dangerous, but the driver is much more aware of what he's doing, though maybe underestimates the risks and overestimates his abilities.

 

[Drago]

The nature of the negligence is irrelevant. It's negligence, and it gets people killed.

Offenders shouldn't be rewarded by way of a lighter punishment for simply being careless instead of malicious.

In any case...

instead of keeping his mind on his driving, goes into autopilot and lets his mind wander instead of keeping his mind fully on the task of driving.

...you use the key word. It's a deliberate conscious state, induced as it is by insufficient effort or will to drive diligently.

 

[raleighnut]

I think the modern cars are partly to blame, at one point if you were doing 70mph you knew about it now not so much. Cars today seem to isolate the driver.

 

[mjr]

A few cases a year are clearly serious cases but from a much older driver who immediately gives up driving as they realise they are no longer safe

In these cases then there is zero chance of any future offences of a similar nature

Zero chance of any future offences of a similar nature? Then why do they keep happening? There's basically no incentive to stop driving before you commit a serious offence if you can get out of jail free by surrendering your licence.

I realise the deterrence effect is limited but letting driving offenders off scot-free seems unfair and twisted. Even shoot parking is treated more harshly, with fines being routine.