The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[grldtnr]

A maximum sentence would because good start, maybe it might just act as a deterrent , but there's little show that it would.
Mitigation of course has it's place, but plea bargaining, admitting guilt to a lesser charge to escape a more serious offence, and consequent sentencing , should not be considered.
Mitigation in my view cannot be proved or disproved , except to say they they did it.
Culpability maybe is the better angle to take, in the case being discussed of pavement riding above, the modified bike certainly bears more blame over the other, even if it was low or discharged of power, it is more likely had that modified bike been able to move under power ,that they would have, likewise the non powered cyclist should not have been on the pavement either, had both been pedestrians ,would it be the same outcome, likely not.
6 of one, 7 of the other in this case.

 

[icowden]

Mitigation of course has it's place, but plea bargaining, admitting guilt to a lesser charge to escape a more serious offence, and consequent sentencing , should not be considered.

That doesn't exist in the UK. The problem lies is that the CPS will tend to prosecute a charge at the level where they can definitely win, rather than potentially lose. There seems to be little scope for prosecuting two charges - hence the suggestion upthread that careless and dangerous driving charges be merged is actually quite sensible and would give a Judge a much better range of sentencing.

 

[Drago]

A maximum sentence would because good start, maybe it might just act as a deterrent , but there's little show that it would.

That's OK. At least the rest of us are safe while they're dropping the soap.

 

[boydj]

Evidence for that?

@Drago liked the post. Evidence enough?

Or are you saying that these costs don't exist? There are plenty of stats available to look up for yourself - start with .gov sites..

 

[Alex321]

@Drago liked the post. Evidence enough?

Or are you saying that these costs don't exist? There are plenty of stats available to look up for yourself - start with .gov sites..

I'm not saying the costs don't exist, but I do not believe it likely they are sufficiently higher as a direct result of driving to significantly outweigh the revenue generated, and thus say it is "heavily subsidised".

I don't believe driving is any more subsidised than living in general is, and it is certainly less subsidised than public transport.

 

[Jenkins]

I'm not saying the costs don't exist, but I do not believe it likely they are sufficiently higher as a direct result of driving to significantly outweigh the revenue generated, and thus say it is "heavily subsidised".

I don't believe driving is any more subsidised than living in general is, and it is certainly less subsidised than public transport.

Does fuel excise duty not having been increased since 2011 AND actually being reduced by 5p/litre in 2022 count as a subsidy?

 

[Alex321]

Does fuel excise duty not having been increased since 2011 AND actually being reduced by 5p/litre in 2022 count as a subsidy?

No.

 

[grldtnr]

Time to rename this thread as the Environment thread, rather than Road maniac and pathetic punishment , as was,

 

[Bristolian]

EVs are mainly just a blind to kid people that they somehow need not to worry and can keep doing exactly what they are doing now, and even kid themselves that they are part of the solution.

The myth perpetrated by the marketing departments of the very influential car manufacturers.

Have you also noticed that in all of the beautifully crafted adverts for new cars they are being driven on empty roads - no other traffic, cyclists or pedestrians in sight? They offer the illusion of freedom whilst actually providing the exact opposite.

 

[mjr]

If you go for a blast behind the wheel just before Christmas while at least double the drink limit, screw up a handbrake turn and demolish the front of a healthcare building, then flee and dump the car in a terraced side street between a church hall and a school (bet he would have reported it stolen if not caught so soon because he left the number plate in the clinic), what punishment do you get? Just 12 months ban, 20 days rehab and a suspended sentence.

Drink driver did handbrake turn before smashing into clinic causing £37k damage
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/25039179.drink-driver-caused-37k-damage-norwich-physio-clinic/?ref=rss

I wonder what he would have gotten if someone had been in the demolished part of the clinic.

 

[icowden]

If you go for a blast behind the wheel just before Christmas while at least double the drink limit, screw up a handbrake turn and demolish the front of a healthcare building, then flee and dump the car in a terraced side street between a church hall and a school (bet he would have reported it stolen if not caught so soon because he left the number plate in the clinic), what punishment do you get? Just 12 months ban, 20 days rehab and a suspended sentence.

So what sentence do you think he should have been given.
Bear in mind that he pled guilty at the earliest opportunity and was reportedly genuinely remorseful.

 

[grldtnr]

We could all be Genuinely remorseful , if we thought it would help.
But was he?
The point is we all know that driving double the limit is going to have consequences ,anyone that has half a brain cell anyway, especially at the run up to Christmas, when 'Plod' are extra vigilant for drink driving
I think there would have to be a very special set of circumstance to warrant what happened there.
Regardless wether he was remorseful or pled guilty to it, he should have had the book chucked at him,band then some. Remember this was a premeditated thought to go out drink driving, he could have just left the keys and gone home In a taxi.
As he probably did anyway after this incident.
The I've been a norty, norty boy arguement , and tremendously sorry ,doesn't wash !
We discussed further up thread that the distinction between careless & dangerous needs replacing , a prime case here.

 

[mjr]

So what sentence do you think he should have been given.
Bear in mind that he pled guilty at the earliest opportunity and was reportedly genuinely remorseful.

I bow to your knowledge of how genuine his remorse was, but 12 months is the minimum ban, yet several aggravating factors were present, including carrying passengers, evidence of an unacceptable standard of driving, being involved in an accident and fleeing the scene. Even under the current guidelines, it looks to me like he should have lost his driving licence and been required to take an extended retest, but I'd have been comfortable with them crediting the early guilty plea by scaling down the fine and suspending the imprisonment. As it is, he'll be driving again before next Easter, won't he?

 

[icowden]

I bow to your knowledge of how genuine his remorse was,

Not mine. The reporting from Mr Morgans his mitigator.

John Morgans, mitigating, said it had been a "moment of utter stupidity" by Malo who "takes full responsibility for it".
Mr Morgans insisted Malo was "genuinely remorseful" and wanted to seek help for his "entrenched drinking" and other issues.

but 12 months is the minimum ban, yet several aggravating factors were present, including carrying passengers, evidence of an unacceptable standard of driving, being involved in an accident and fleeing the scene. Even under the current guidelines, it looks to me like he should have lost his driving licence and been required to take an extended retest, but I'd have been comfortable with them crediting the early guilty plea by scaling down the fine and suspending the imprisonment. As it is, he'll be driving again before next Easter, won't he?

True. Bear in mind that the reported has not included the full summing up or the mitigating and aggravating factors listed by the judge / magistrate.

 

[grldtnr]

Which mitigating factors might they be, he was drunk to his eyeballs, swimming in the stuff, got in the car, with a 'mate' , then proceeded to smash the town up ! Were there any aggravating circumstances , er let me see ,NO !
At the very least his passenger should said , come on your pissed to the gills ,don't get on the car !
He or she should be charged with accessory to the crime, unless he/ she was just as pissed which is very likely.