It's because two drivers can do exactly the same thing - for example pull out without looking properly. In one case there's a death and you're talking lifetime ban and years in prison; in another case where the driver did exactly the same thing, but there was no death, it's a fine and points. It seems like there's too much disconnect between both the mens rea and actus rea of the driver and the penalty imposed. Indeed, it's worse than that - if we focus on the outcome then the driver above whose pulling out causes a death receives a heavier penalty than a reckless drunk who drives through residential streets twice over the limit for a couple of hours at double the speed limit but miraculously perhaps hurts no-one. That does not seem just to me.
You did this up thread, and have done it again - you keep using the word "exactly", but they are not exactly the same thing, because in one case someone died and in the other they didn't. And I'm not talking years in prison in the instance you describe either. But a lifetime ban for killing someone on the road seems fair and reasonable (irrespective of how likely it is to happen). Whilst the number is too high, there are a bit less than 2,000 deaths on our roads all told each year. A bit less than 2,000 driving bans for these deaths? Not a problem.
And I'm not just focussing on the outcome, but in order for there to be some kind of action, a driver needs to be caught doing something. Unfortunately, killing someone is just such evidence. The drunk driver who didn't hurt anyone was lucky, and got away with it. But this is true of all crime - you only get punished if you get caught.
They won't, because no-one sets out to cause death by careless driving so no-one will be driving thinking that your new policy will ever apply to them.
Again I ask, so what? Even if you don't set out to do it, that does not mean you should be protected from punishment. The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions. But I am convinced that if people knew they would lose their licence if they killed someone on the roads, then at least some people will take more care and attention, a worthy outcome.
You will achieve far more by taking more seriously the far more numerous (and therefore in drivers' minds far more likely to involve them) non-injury collisions and the tailgating, close passing, speeding, distracted driving etc. that gives rise to them. Start throwing automatic three month bans out for using a phone whilst driving and I think you would achieve an improvement in driving standards. Making an example of the ones whose driving by pot luck (or rather lack thereof) results in a death won't.
You also seem to treat these as mutually exclusive. Why not do both? I completely agree with you that tackling low level offending would probably be more effective in reducing the number of incidents on our roads. My suggestion for driving with a mobile phone? A £1,000 fine and 9 points on your licence, for example.
