Lenient sentences

[TonyR]

Newsbeat obtained information from all 45 police forces in the UK.

The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged with killing a cyclist.

Of those found guilty, 44% went to prison.

The average sentence given out was less than two years, while the average length of driving ban was 22 months. For 26% of drivers, no ban was imposed.

[....]

A 26-year-old who is being taken to court for knocking down a cyclist and who cannot be named for legal reasons, said it was wrong to penalise those who kill or injure a cyclist in what could be seen as unfortunate accidents.

"I don't think it's fair because I wasn't driving dangerously, I wasn't driving erratically," he said. "I just failed to see someone who was on the road."




http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/28345522

[iviehoff]

A 26-year-old who is being taken to court for knocking down a cyclist and who cannot be named for legal reasons, said it was wrong to penalise those who kill or injure a cyclist in what could be seen as unfortunate accidents.
"I don't think it's fair because I wasn't driving dangerously, I wasn't driving erratically," he said. "I just failed to see someone who was on the road."

Further, the AA said "The courts already have a wide range of sentences that they can give to drivers who kill cyclists, whether it's through careless or dangerous driving. The judge will look at all the different circumstances in that case before deciding what sentence to give."

The article also said: "The average overall figure in England and Wales for those imprisoned for causing a death on the road, including pedestrians and other drivers, is about 60%." Judges are more lenient when it comes to killing a cyclist.

The trouble is that the law is deficient and gives the judge the opportunity to agree with the faulty thinking of the 26-yr-old above. We do actually need for the law to set out in enforceable terms that failing to see what is there to be seen is driving dangerously. Because you can only avoid accidents if you see what you have to avoid.

[thirdcrank]

Our legal system was designed for a different age. It's become so difficult to deal with minor matters through the criminal justice system that the authorities have largely given up trying and bad driving has become the norm for many; when that results in harm it's hardly surprising that there's often no answer and bleating about injustice no matter what the sentence.

The legal profession seems to be in overdrive to preserve things as they are while there's increasing spin to convince everybody that things are somehow working.

Remember that detection and punishment after a serious collision is a failure of the system to protect life and property.

[jezer]

The comment made by the 26 year old beggars belief. He appears totally unprepared to accept responsibility for his bad driving. If that's the case he should be banned until his attitude improves

[iviehoff]

The comment made by the 26 year old beggars belief.

You probably find it unacceptable, but it's a very common attitude, popularly known as SMIDSY. Many motorists have made based their defence in court on SMIDSY, and it often works very well for them. That is why we need an explicit law which makes not seeing what was reasonably there to be seen, and not being prepared for the possibility of slow/stationary obstructions ahead in case of poor visibility, explicitly illegal.

[yakdiver]

The trouble with SMIDSY it puts the blame on us for NOT being more visible.

[PRL]

The trouble with SMIDSY it puts the blame on us for NOT being more visible.

Whilst not accepting that the most visible clothing is dark blue with silver details !

[iviehoff]

The trouble with SMIDSY it puts the blame on us for NOT being more visible.

Indeed, as things stand, if a driver claims he was taking due care but the cyclist was easy to overlook, then to argue against it you have to be able to put witnesses up in court to say "I was there, you couldn't have missed him if you were looking even vaguely in the right direction" or "I saw the driver watching a film on his iPad so he wasn't paying due care". There was a case where a car drove a cyclist down from the rear, when it was a straight road with excellent visibility in broad daylight without any issue of being blinded by something, and it still took the CPS a lot of effort with witnesses demonstrating the cyclist was easily visible and expert witnesses analysing the situation to get a causing death by careless verdict.

This should not be necessary. There ought to be a presumption that you must see what is there to be seen, and take precaution against what you know you cant' see. So in that case unless you have a very good excuse as to why you didn't see and further couldn't tell that you were unsighted so you didn't slow down in case there was something you couldn't see, you were driving without due care (at the very least) if you just drive a cyclist down. But this requires a change in the law to change the burdens of responsibility.

[Thermostat9]

There ought to be a presumption that you must see what is there to be seen, and take precaution against what you know you cant' see. So in that case unless you have a very good excuse as to why you didn't see and further couldn't tell that you were unsighted so you didn't slow down in case there was something you couldn't see, you were driving without due care (at the very least) if you just drive a cyclist down. But this requires a change in the law to change the burdens of responsibility.

Yeah, that.

But for ALL road users, from pedestrians up. Or am I the only person who is fed up with pedestrians (with the iPhone of invincibility usually) stepping into a cycle lane without looking?

[kwackers]

But for ALL road users, from pedestrians up. Or am I the only person who is fed up with pedestrians (with the iPhone of invincibility usually) stepping into a cycle lane without looking?

But knowing they're prone to doing that you'll be watching out and taking care. So all is good.

[Grandad]

First part of this programme.........
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... s-who-kill

[Vladimir]

It's my personal opinion, as wrong as it may be - that if you cause death on the road, you should never be allowed back on it... yes I know that some drivers will be banned for life for "no good reason" but for the majority it's a fitting punishment. In fact, why are there so few instances of lifetime driving bans? Even ignoring my views on it - if someone was found guilty in court of causing death by careless/dangerous driving, surely they should never be allowed back on the road (behind the wheel of a car)?

[Thermostat9]

In fact, why are there so few instances of lifetime driving bans? Even ignoring my views on it - if someone was found guilty in court of causing death by careless/dangerous driving, surely they should never be allowed back on the road (behind the wheel of a car)?

People who are 'banned for life' will tend to ignore it and drive illegally.

Until there is an effective way of preventing access to motor vehicles to people who are not licensed (insured, sober) there will be those blatantly who flout the system.

[Vladimir]

In fact, why are there so few instances of lifetime driving bans? Even ignoring my views on it - if someone was found guilty in court of causing death by careless/dangerous driving, surely they should never be allowed back on the road (behind the wheel of a car)?

People who are 'banned for life' will tend to ignore it and drive illegally.

Until there is an effective way of preventing access to motor vehicles to people who are not licensed (insured, sober) there will be those blatantly who flout the system.

ahh "entitled to drive" no matter what the courts say. Great. What is the penalty for breaking such a ban?

[Vladimir]

Until there is an effective way of preventing access to motor vehicles to people who are not licensed (insured, sober) there will be those blatantly who flout the system.

Again, this might be a consequence of my fantastic view of how the world should be, coupled with the fact that my wife, sister-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law have impeccable driving skill as well as etiquette (no phones, no excessive talking/distracting, etc, etc), BUT:

I think the penalties for even minor offences are far too lax. Using a phone while driving - on the spot fine of £30 (excuse me if this figure is slightly wrong). Big F-ing whoop! What's £30, especially these days? Increase the on-the-spot fine to £500+ and send out a contingent of cops (equip them with GoPros for evidence purposes) to enforce it and watch it all disappear within a matter of weeks... (again, I realise this is just me rambling and exaggerating - i.e. it will never happen, but a man can dream, right?)