The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[Alex321]

A remimder for those that need it as to what this thread is about...

The thread title tells us that. But it will always be discussion around that topic.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

The question is about whether the courts should be concentrating on whether or not there is a rsk of further offending and the possibility of rehabilitation
or on punishment

personally if there is no risk of further offending and the prospect of rehabilitation is high then the main problems are sorted
OK the offender should have some kind of punishment on top but the main point is to stop them causing the same problem again


now if they get caught driving again while banned then all that goes out of the window and every book in the law library should be thrown at them

but initially it is prevention of further harm that should be top of the list

 

[grldtnr]

I'd be happier commenting that sentence seems a bit harsh, over what are the judiciary thinking off.
Very much the point of this thread, nothing so far fits that point of view, but it seems sentencing of offenders is too lenient, but I guess that's always the case.
The idea that sentencing might deter such boorish behaviour , plainly isn't working.
We need to have a return of public information broadcasts, to reinforce that , speeding and other misdemeanors are not acceptable, we now have a wealth of avenues for this to be broadcast

 

[TheDoctor]

Locked pending a possible clear-up.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Mod Note:
Some harsh words have been edited out, the thread is now reopened.
Enjoy!

 

[boydj]

There seems to be a general agreement in the cycling community that sentencing guidelines err on the lenient side for driving offences, particularly where people are injured or killed. that may well be the case, but for me there are two problems.
1. Magistrates or judges sentencing towards the bottom end of the guidelines consistently, even for persistent offenders.
2. Undercharging - particularly charging careless rather than dangerous, because careless is easier to prove. Or, as often happens, accepting a guilty plea to careless instead of going to trial on dangerous.

Clearly guidelines need to be updated to properly reflect the danger that drivers bring to the community, this being done in tandem with some awareness/training for magistrates and judges. Also the law needs to merge careless/dangerous laws to a single offence with the onus on the prosecution to convey the seriousness of the offence to the magistrate/judge.

 

[sheddy]

I searched 'Lifetime Ban' and (apart from tabloid wailing) found very little

"Of the 63,342 driving bans imposed in England and Wales in 2018, only 5 were lifetime bans.
Courts are reluctant to impose long-term bans because many disqualified motorists continue to drive anyway"

https://www.eta.co.uk/news/why-no-automatic-lifetime-ban-for-causing-death-by-dangerous-driving

 

[icowden]

I searched 'Lifetime Ban' and (apart from tabloid wailing) found very little
"Of the 63,342 driving bans imposed in England and Wales in 2018, only 5 were lifetime bans.
Courts are reluctant to impose long-term bans because many disqualified motorists continue to drive anyway"

If you think about it, it makes sense. If you are banned for 5 years, then you can count down to when you can get your license back. If you are banned for life, the response is more likely to be to drive anyway - after all what's the punishment going to be? A ban? You're already banned with no prospect of getting the license back.

 

[grldtnr]

If you think about it, it makes sense. If you are banned for 5 years, then you can count down to when you can get your license back. If you are banned for life, the response is more likely to be to drive anyway - after all what's the punishment going to be? A ban? You're already banned with no prospect of getting the license back.

Then , if that's the case, the expectation if caught , a much more serious response would be required , financial , custodial or community service.
I'd favour imposed community service tied into an imaginative administration such as having to provide services to victims of the offence,which would drive home the point forcibly.
Custodial or financial penalty would only have limited effect.

 

[sheddy]

European fines (minimum) comparison

Cellphone €867 Norway
Seatbelt €350 Greece
Drunk €4500 France

https://vignetteswitzerland.com/european-countries-with-the-strictest-driving-penalties/

 

[grldtnr]

A recent report on the 'interweb', a driver had his licence stripped for driving at 153 mph on the A338 near Bournemouth, a 50 mph road limit.
The driver in question ,was a 23 yrs old man , recently passed his driving test, in a BMW 235 coupe, 3 weeks he has held his licence, given a jail sentence, of 6 months , suspended for 2 years , a ban for 2 yrs 6 months, and automatically will need to retake the tests , extended of course, no reported fine.
Given that he was a inexperienced road driver, and driving a relatively high performance vehicle, a fine would probably been a minor inconvenience, but likely appropriate too,
But if the driver could be so flippant about his responsibility, I hardly think he is unduly worried about the situation it seems that's the reality out there.
Of course there's nothing to stop him from driving unlicensed, uninsured or taxed, as chances are he is unlikely to be caught, but he will risk a jail sentence should he do so
This is the problem we are up against, obviously more money than he knows what to do with.

 

[grldtnr]

There seems to be a general agreement in the cycling community that sentencing guidelines err on the lenient side for driving offences, particularly where people are injured or killed. that may well be the case, but for me there are two problems.
1. Magistrates or judges sentencing towards the bottom end of the guidelines consistently, even for persistent offenders.
2. Undercharging - particularly charging careless rather than dangerous, because careless is easier to prove. Or, as often happens, accepting a guilty plea to careless instead of going to trial on dangerous.

Clearly guidelines need to be updated to properly reflect the danger that drivers bring to the community, this being done in tandem with some awareness/training for magistrates and judges. Also the law needs to merge careless/dangerous laws to a single offence with the onus on the prosecution to convey the seriousness of the offence to the magistrate/judge.

I fully support the ida of a single law on careless / dangerous driving, if it was 'single' charge then there cannot be a lesser charge , I don't see a problem with that .
Of course Icowden & Alex 321 may disagree, I fully expect they will.

 

[icowden]

I fully support the ida of a single law on careless / dangerous driving, if it was 'single' charge then there cannot be a lesser charge , I don't see a problem with that .
Of course Icowden & Alex 321 may disagree, I fully expect they will.

Actually I agree. I think a loophole that needs to be closed is the "pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid being tried for the greater charge". One way of doing that would be for there to be a single charge with a much greater range of sentencing.

 

[grldtnr]

I love in hope,

 

[Drago]

I fully support the ida of a single law on careless / dangerous driving

I agree. You're either obeying the laws of the road, or you're not.