Changing the definition of dangerous driving

[platinumsage]

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

Should. But you want to imprison people if they drive well above the standard but make one minor fault that results in a death.

 

[kabbes]

It also doesn’t make any sense in terms of consistency of approach. When a learner takes the test, if they make a single mark of error, they shouldn’t then be given a licence under those rules, they should be prosecuted.

 

[Spymaster]

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.

Cycling UK are a silly bunch of cunts, as are the vast majority of cyclists, but they've got this about right. Instant fails on the test are by definition "dangerous" and are defined as something like 'putting the vehicle occupants, other road users, or pedestrians in danger' and are known as "major faults".

Most dangerous driving is committed by cyclists who have been let loose in a car for a bit, so yes, they absolutely should feel the full weight of the law.

 

[BillRiver]

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

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

Evidence shows that most people aren't deterred, most people just don't believe they will be caught. Hence crime rates!

 

[a_chap]

Evidence shows that most people aren't deterred, most people just don't believe they will be caught. Hence crime rates!

Which is why I used the word "likelihood".

If people think they are likely to be caught they are less likely to offend.

 

[BillRiver]

Which is why I used the word "likelihood".

If people think they are likely to be caught they are less likely to offend.

Yes, and most people don't think they are likely to be caught, as I said.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I think the driving test is a lot of the problem. It's far too easy, which results in too many shit drivers on the road.

 

[Spymaster]

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

Can you post some of it? I'd be interested in how "most" is defined in this case,

There's a large body of evidence that refutes this in relation to many crimes. In very general terms it seems that crimes committed 'on the spur of the moment' are usually not deterred by harsher sentencing, whilst those requiring planning and forethought often are.

 

[a_chap]

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

Incurring one negative mark, as you said so yourself upthread, won't cause you to fail a Driving test.

Anyway, I'm going to bail out of this conversation as we're both hair-splitting.

The point of the thread is that dangerous and careless driving ought to be easier to prosecute which I hope we both agree with.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Which is why I used the word "likelihood".

If people think they are likely to be caught they are less likely to offend.

Have said it before; on a speed awareness course we were shown footage of a pedestrian death in Guildford by a woman driving her son's car at 45 in a 30. The ped ran right in to her car at night without looking at all, killed outright. The limit was 30. Had the same outcome happened but she was doing 30 she wouldn't have been done for anything at all, as it was she got 6 years. Her business ruined, her house lost, everything she had worked for gone in that moment. THAT showed me that I have better slow down. So yeah, it does work, as the likelihood of being caught in such a situation is nearly 100%.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Incurring one negative mark, as you said so yourself upthread, won't cause you to fail a Driving test.

Depends what category it's in.

 

[Badgers]

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.

Was probably the bloody cyclists fault as usual

 

[kabbes]

Incurring one negative mark, as you said so yourself upthread, won't cause you to fail a Driving test.

Anyway, I'm going to bail out of this conversation as we're both hair-splitting.

The point of the thread is that dangerous and careless driving ought to be easier to prosecute which I hope we both agree with.

The proposed criteria for careless driving explicitly does not require the mistake to be something that by itself would cause you to fail a test. a mistake that by itself causes a test failure is their proposed criterion for dangerous driving, not careless driving. That is made totally clear, no hair-splitting required

 

[farmerbarleymow]

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.

At least he got a fairly hefty driving ban, but it's never really clear if they run from the date of sentencing or the date of release. I'd hope it's the latter as it's pointless banning someone from driving if they're in jail.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

At least he got a fairly hefty driving ban, but it's never really clear if they run from the date of sentencing or the date of release. I'd hope it's the latter as it's pointless banning someone from driving if they're in jail.

It was changed to start when you finish jail, yet the reports on this guy state the ban was backdated to 2016, so not really sure of anything anymore

 

[IC3D]

I shouldn't have driven last night, was fine until I was diverted of the A12 at Colchester but so tired I really struggled not to bump into into someone.
How could they prove I wss careless if I had a crash.
If I wss on my push bike I would have been too tired to even get stsrted.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Making everyone sit the driving test annually would help improve standards, and make speed limiters mandatory in all vehicles (except emergency services obvs).

 

[maomao]

At least he got a fairly hefty driving ban, but it's never really clear if they run from the date of sentencing or the date of release. I'd hope it's the latter as it's pointless banning someone from driving if they're in jail.

It's from date of sentencing but they changed it so they have to add half the prison sentence time to the ban so they get the full ban iyswim. Personally I would extend lifetime bans to all drivers invilved in fatal crashes regardless of culpability.

 

[kabbes]

Making everyone sit the driving test annually would help improve standards, and make speed limiters mandatory in all vehicles (except emergency services obvs).

They don’t have anywhere near enough examiners to get everybody to retake their tests every year.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

They don’t have anywhere near enough examiners to get everybody to retake their tests every year.

Then it'd be a great solution to boost employment rates by recruiting more examiners. It'll only be a matter of time before robots take over the role anyway.

 

[Teaboy]

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.

I think you're right in general but I wonder whether motoring might be a special case, an exception of sorts.

Of course there is a lot of crossover between motoring criminality and other criminality but there are also an awful lot of people who will go through their entire lives and the only time they come into conflict with the police will be through motoring offences.

How many people here have never been arrested? Never charged with anything but have been given points on their licence or sent to an awareness course? Quite a few I'd wager.

So many people go about their day to day and have never and will never be involved in crime until they get behind the wheel. The prospect of prison for people like this will be a lot different then general criminality where the risk of going to jail is just one of those things. It won't work for everyone but it might work for a lot of these people.

I'm more speculating here though, I dunno.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Making everyone sit the driving test annually would help improve standards, and make speed limiters mandatory in all vehicles (except emergency services obvs).

It's also a ridiculous suggestion.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Cycling UK are a silly bunch of cunts, as are the vast majority of cyclists, but they've got this about right. Instant fails on the test are by definition "dangerous" and are defined as something like 'putting the vehicle occupants, other road users, or pedestrians in danger' and are known as "major faults".

Most dangerous driving is committed by cyclists who have been let loose in a car for a bit, so yes, they absolutely should feel the full weight of the law.

Just once, can we please have a thread that doesn’t end up like this?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Making everyone sit the driving test annually would help improve standards, and make speed limiters mandatory in all vehicles (except emergency services obvs).

Once a year is a bit OTT, but something like a mandatory refresher course/test every 5 years or so would be worthwhile.

As for speed limiters, absolutely. GPS linked.

 

[maomao]

Five-yearly tests going to yearly from 70-ish. With the cost of examiners to be raised through examination fees.

 

[hash tag]

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

Very easily caught but a "light" sentence would follow by comparison to a charge for murder.

 

[kabbes]

33 million drivers in the UK (1) means about 7 million tests per year if drivers have to redo it every five years. Examiners perform 7 tests per day (2). With about 220 working days a year, we would need about 4300 examiners. There are currently only about 1600 (3). So we need shout 2.5-3x s as many as we currently have. Becoming an examiner is quite an onerous test in its own right, which would require people to train and test these examiners, which is also a resource we currently don’t have. And examiners are disqualified if they have three points on their licence, which provides an ironic negative feedback on the system.

It would certainly be possible to get to point where we can re-examine drivers every five years, but it wouldn’t be trivial to manage it.


(1) https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility
(2) Driving Test Examiners—Everything You Need To Know | PassMeFast
(3) Driving examiner (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia

 

[maomao]

but it wouldn’t be trivial to manage it.

Road deaths aren't trivial either and while it involves effort it can be entirely self-funding.

 

[Teaboy]

As for speed limiters, absolutely. GPS linked.

Speed limiters seem to be one of those things that would be pretty easy to make happen now. The tech must be there already?

 

[youbeauty]

How about a re-test if you get any points at all? How many drivers would that affect a year? (Yes, I'll google it)