It still doesn't making driving a 'right'.
I've commented on this story before - so will just post the same thing. The original link was to a Daily Mail article, but a motorbiking website will carry the same bias.
GeX said:
Mow down a pedestrian on the pavement whilst on your mobile...
- Thread starter blueboy2001
- Start date
It still doesn't making driving a 'right'.
I've commented on this story before - so will just post the same thing. The original link was to a Daily Mail article, but a motorbiking website will carry the same bias.
true, but we all know that wont happen.
Surely that depends on the circumstances - if it's 100% not their fault then why should the innocent driver be punished for it?
Agree with that!
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
Legs are meant to carry you and your family?
Not really. Like it or not, we live in the modern world, where there are expectations which we all have to fulfil, such as council tax, a whole raft of other taxes, employment etc.
To that end people have no choice but to pay these, and therefore the government has an onus (no matter how tenuous) to ensure that people can meet their civic responsibilities.
Read my post again, I didn't say that it was for people who went on rampages/were *****/drunk/drugged etc, I was speaking in general.
And as for the person baying for blood above me ('harry), you say they should get a lifetime ban for killing someone. What about for just severely maiming them? What's the issue with killing?
Eg I think the circumstances and reasons are more important than the result.
Driver A, gets drunk and drugged up, drives like a loon and smashes into someone crippling them. Prior records
Driver B makes a mistake never done before, and kills someone.
Should driver B get a lifetime ban? Believe it or not, most people don't set out with the intention of killing and maiming people, its down to human error and odds.
Its a case by case basis rather just an outright ban for killing.
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
Gah, left this tab to do some work and missed this when I clicked submit.
Still I reckon my point still stands. People make genuine errors in judgement. I reckon the average decent person who make this mistake and ended up killing someone, will have quite enough on their conscience.....let alone do it again!
Presumably these people made their own choice to live in the "back of beyond"? If it came to it they would have to move closer to work and downsize on the house etc.
Why would you choose to live in the back of beyond if you need to work or whatever in somewhere that is not in the back of beyond if you don't have access to a car? And if you need a car to live where you do, and you are banned from driving because you kill someone, say, then yeah, tough.
Yet another of these stories, and yet again I find myself pointing out a few things:
1) She was found guilty of Driving Without Due Care and Attention. She received a fairly hefty sentence for that crime. She was not found guilty of manslaughter (see later) and thus should not be given a sentence for that.
2) In the UK, with rare exceptions, you are convicted of the crime you actually committed, not what might follow on from it (unless the things that follow could clearly be forseen - not true in this case). Again I will trot out my old analogy: you drop a piece of litter, someone slips on it, falls, and dies of a fractured skull. Should you go to prison? Of course not; the crime you committed was littering.
3) The whole reason that manslaughter charges are almost never brought in driving cases is because juries almost never convict. That's why there are special offences of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving etc. There was an attempt to bring in "Causing Death whilst Driving Without Due Care and Attention", but nothing (rightly) came of it. The same would apply if heavy sentences were handed out in case like this.
1) She was found guilty of Driving Without Due Care and Attention. She received a fairly hefty sentence for that crime. She was not found guilty of manslaughter (see later) and thus should not be given a sentence for that.
2) In the UK, with rare exceptions, you are convicted of the crime you actually committed, not what might follow on from it (unless the things that follow could clearly be forseen - not true in this case). Again I will trot out my old analogy: you drop a piece of litter, someone slips on it, falls, and dies of a fractured skull. Should you go to prison? Of course not; the crime you committed was littering.
3) The whole reason that manslaughter charges are almost never brought in driving cases is because juries almost never convict. That's why there are special offences of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving etc. There was an attempt to bring in "Causing Death whilst Driving Without Due Care and Attention", but nothing (rightly) came of it. The same would apply if heavy sentences were handed out in case like this.
The argument I've heard is that jurors won't convict because they know themselves that they aren't saints when it comes to driving, and that it could just as easily be them who killed someone because they were texting or whatever.
That's about the truth of the matter, it was like when that guy got away for killing a cyclist by opening his car door without looking. In this case though I would be surprised that they couldn't get a conviction as is using a mobile whilst driving still viewed as being acceptable thing to do amongst the public? Was it definitely not a handsfree job?
Edit: Ah, reading a text message.
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,898
Manslaughter is irrelevant because nobody died.
The littering analogy is a poor one, but I get your point. Not looking where you're going on a 60mph dual carriageway to the extent you lose control of your car is a reckless act, littering is not and that scenario would be an unfortunate accident because it could not reasonably be foreseen. They stopped referring to car crashes as accidents and started calling them collisions because most collisions are caused by a negligent act.
Anyone see the story about the little girl left with severe brain damage and on a ventilator for life on Police, Camera Action or some such program tonight? It was a head on collision on a residential street due to dangerous driving with excessive speed (70+mph). The driver got a 21 month prison sentence (released after 6) and a 5 year ban.
Clearly a stronger sentence than the story above but that little girl has in essence lost her life, and - harsh though it may sound - the fact she survived will mean the family will never be able to move on while she will be using vast sums of NHS resources (think tens of millions of pounds) with hugely expensive medical equipment and specialist 24 hour care for the rest of her 'life'.
Clearly a stronger sentence than the story above but that little girl has in essence lost her life, and - harsh though it may sound - the fact she survived will mean the family will never be able to move on while she will be using vast sums of NHS resources (think tens of millions of pounds) with hugely expensive medical equipment and specialist 24 hour care for the rest of her 'life'.
FIXED
If it was reckless, she could be tried for manslaughter. She wasn't, therefore it wasn't a reckless act. It was Driving Without Due Care and Attention. Again: it's what the court finds her guilty of which counts, not what people reading half a story in the press think. Also: pavement on a 60mph dual carriageway? Not impossible, but rare. Are you sure?
And also again: the results of the act have to be foreseeable. Are you trying to tell me that in all your times driving you've never taken your eyes off the road? We all do it, and the vast majority of the time nothing bad happens. So the time something does happen are very very rare, and thus not foreseeable. She was guilty of (surprise) Due Care and Attention, plus bad luck. The next time you take your eyes off the road, do think that's enough to send you to prison? Because that's what you are saying. Or are you suggesting we should punish people for being unlucky?
A friend of my wife, their partner was knocked down and killed in a hit an run a in November last year. It was late at night when he was killed. The driver never stopped nor did he come forward but was eventually traced by the police. He got 7 months for driving without due care and attention ( or some lesser charge ). Most of that has already been served whilst on remand. Its an absolute joke !
Last edited: