Changing the definition of dangerous driving

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Currently death by dangerous driving (or death by driving under the influence of drink or drugs) can land you up to 14 years inside. Death by careless driving up to 5 years.

The threshold for proving dangerous driving is high, the standard of driving must fall far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous.

This is vague and notoriously hard to prove, so the CPS often go with the lesser careless driving which is driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

With 5 years being the maximum, very often there is no jail time at all for death by careless driving, if it does get imposed it is minimal.

Cycling UK is calling for the definition of dangerous driving to be changed in the upcoming Police & Crime bill to:

Driving which is so sub-standard that it would result in an immediate failure if committed during a driving test.


And careless driving changed to:

Driving that was only substandard enough to warrant a points deduction.



Sounds fair?

 

[maomao]

I'm all for it but the difficulty with the new definition would be that a very high proportion of driving would meet the new definition of dangerous driving.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I'm all for it but the difficulty with the new definition would be that a very high proportion of driving would meet the new definition of dangerous driving.

And that is a bad thing because..?

 

[cupid_stunt]

Need a poll!

But, yeah, that sounds reasonable to me.

 

[maomao]

And that is a bad thing because..?

Well it's not but you'd have to prosecute a large proportion of it or it would be meaningless. Or does it only come into play when you actually kill or maim someone?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Well it's not but you'd have to prosecute a large proportion of it or it would be meaningless. Or does it only come into play when you actually kill or maim someone?

Prosecute all dangerous drivers. Obviously not all go to prison, dangerous driving in itself doesn't mean jail, but does lend itself to higher points & bans.

 

[discokermit]

i asked an ex copper once the best way to murder someone and quick as a flash he said run them over.

 

[platinumsage]

I don't think the "careless" criteria is reasonable. It's basically requiring everyone to drive at all times to a much higher standard than required by the driving test, given that you're allowed numerous points deductions before you fail the test.

 

[salem]

With 5 years being the maximum, very often there is no jail time at all for death by careless driving, if it does get imposed it is minimal.

I struggle with this bit, if they reduce the charge to careless driving and someone has died then surely they should be hitting the top of that sentencing range?

 

[Badgers]

Prosecute all dangerous drivers. Obviously not all go to prison, dangerous driving in itself doesn't mean jail, but does lend itself to higher points & bans.

Literally as I was reading this thread a car came down a residential street at 50-60mph and side swiped about 3 parked cars.

He did stop. For five seconds to check his motor then wheelspun away. Luckily the family with a pushchair were protected by the cars.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I struggle with this bit, if they reduce the charge to careless driving and someone has died then surely they should be hitting the top of that sentencing range?

What then the same crash that kills more than one person?

 

[maomao]

Are the consequences of crashes taken into account when sentencing anyway? It never feels like it.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I struggle with this bit, if they reduce the charge to careless driving and someone has died then surely they should be hitting the top of that sentencing range?

There should always be a presumption that if you've caused death through dangerous or careless driving you get a custodial sentence, with appropriate minimum starting points.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Are the consequences of crashes taken into account when sentencing anyway? It never feels like it.

Yes, but they are restricted by the charges put before the court and sentencing guidelines. In the UK consecutive sentences are exceedingly rare, so a careless driver who kills a family of 4 would face no more than 5 years, a dangerous driver who did the same no more than 14 years.

 

[maomao]

Yes, but they are restricted by the charges put before the court and sentencing guidelines. In the UK consecutive sentences are exceedingly rare, so a careless driver who kills a family of 4 would face no more than 5 years, a dangerous driver who did the same no more than 14 years.

What's needed is sentences for dangerous driving when it doesn't cause death. Jail time or at least lengthy driving bans for speeding instead of three lousy points.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

What is also needed is the 'exceptional hardship' excuse to avoid bans.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

What's needed is sentences for dangerous driving when it doesn't cause death. Jail time or at least lengthy driving bans for speeding instead of three lousy points.

I agree - the approach needs to be harsher for people who behave like dickheads behind the wheel, and fuck them if they then lose jobs or whatever - they should have thought of that before they behaved the way they did. It annoys me when the courts hand down ridiculously short driving bans - they should be much longer

 

[maomao]

What is also needed is the 'exceptional hardship' excuse to avoid bans.

All the bans are a joke. Causing death by driving should be an automatic lifetime ban with prison time for those who break the ban. It's ridiculous that you can kill people and be legally back in charge of a car a couple of years later.

But the exceptional hardship clause is particular bollocks. Not as fucking hard as losing a family member.

 

[sleaterkinney]

What is also needed is the 'exceptional hardship' excuse to avoid bans.

More than 10,000 drivers are on the road with over 12 points.

 

[kabbes]

The proposed ‘careless driving’ definition is too severe. The implication is that every time somebody is less than perfect — no matter how infrequently, what the context and even arguably how safe — it is careless by definition. I broadly support the concept though, particularly of heavily reducing the threshold for dangerous driving.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

btw, this is one of the cunts that is driving Cycling UK's campaign:

Motorist texting at the wheel jailed for nine years after causing death of cyclist

A MOTORIST has been jailed for nine years after he admitted causing the death of a Basingstoke cyclist near Bentley.

www.basingstokegazette.co.uk

Killed a cyclist whilst texting, having been done EIGHT times previously for using his phone whilst driving and avoided bans due to exceptional hardship. Cheeky fucker tried to appeal his sentence too.

 

[BillRiver]

Vast amounts of evidence shows that threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent for most crimes, and indeed actually being sent to prison increases the odds of someone re-offending after release.

So while I do think dangerous driving should be treated much more seriously, I can't see increasing prison sentences as a positive or useful step.

 

[a_chap]

I don't think the "careless" criteria is reasonable. It's basically requiring everyone to drive at all times to a much higher standard than required by the driving test, given that you're allowed numerous points deductions before you fail the test.

The Driving Test simply checks that someone can achieve a minimum safety standard.

Of course everyone should drive to at least that standard at all times.

 

[kabbes]

The Driving Test simply checks that someone can achieve a minimum safety standard.

Of course everyone should drive to at least that standard at all times.

No, that’s not the proposal. The proposal is “Driving that was only substandard enough to warrant a points deduction [in a driving test].”

So that’s anything at all that would earn a minor point in a test. To pass the test, you merely have to avoid accumulating three minor points in any category.

 

[platinumsage]

The Driving Test simply checks that someone can achieve a minimum safety standard.

Of course everyone should drive to at least that standard at all times.

Did you even read my post?

 

[a_chap]

Vast amounts of evidence shows that threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent for most crimes,

The threat (or should I the likelihood) of being caught is the deterrent.

Therefore we need more and better ways to enforce safe driving.

 

[a_chap]

No, that’s not the proposal. The proposal is “Driving that was only substandard enough to warrant a points deduction [if in a driving test].”

So that’s anything at all that would earn a minor point in a test. To pass the test, you merely have to avoid accumulating three minor points in any category.

I know that.

I was replying to Platinumsage who was complaining that the "careless" criteria is unreasonable because it requires everyone to drive to a basic safety standard (the Driving Test level) at all times.

 

[kabbes]

I know that.

I was replying to Platinumsage who was complaining that the "careless" criteria is unreasonable because it requires everyone to drive to a basic safety standard (the Driving Test level) at all times.

No, he was saying that the careless criteria require people to drive beyond the standard of the test at all times. And this is true.

 

[a_chap]

No, he was saying that the careless criteria require people to drive beyond the standard of the test at all times. And this is true.

People should drive beyond that basic standard. And this is true too.

 

[kabbes]

People should drive beyond that basic standard. And this is true too.

Not to that extent. Good luck to anybody trying to avoid a single negative mark in a one hour drive.