Why long prison sentences are not the answer

[horizon]

In my personal opinion it is the lack of any clear punishment that is the major cause of careless/dangerous driving, and the fear of being banned for ever would be the most effective punishment for any driver.

Yes, in one sense I agree with that. If the killing of a cyclist merited a minium life sentence (or whatever), motorists might work out for themselves what might prevent such an occurrence. OTOH, in most incidences, the punishment would not be upheld, as indeed it isn't today even though severe punishments theoretically exist (indeed juries would fail to convict at all on the basis that the punishment is inappropriate just as in former times men were spared hanging for the stealing of a sheep).

The reason for this is that the accused would argue, just as they do now, that they did nothing wrong - they drove as they were taught to drive, that all people drive, that they were tested on and which is upheld broadly in the social interpretation of what law there is. Harsh punishment would therefore in their view be just a lottery and bear no relationship to their decision making. Police, prosecutors and juries agree with that and therefore do not punish.

[iviehoff]

The most effective deterrent to any sort of law breaking is the likelihood of being caught and punished. A harsh punishment has little or no deterrent effect if the chances of being caught are low or even nil. The answer is not long prison sentences but effective law enforcement, followed by a compulsory driving assessment and training for those caught driving badly.

What Pete says in his first two sentences has been clearly demonstrated by careful study, it isn't opinion spouted.

The legal systems of civilised countries exist precisely to make sure that people involved in road accidents aren't found hanging from lamp-posts. You might feel as though you want that result, but it is better for us all that it doesn't happen.

[horizon]

The legal systems of civilised countries exist precisely to make sure that people involved in road accidents aren't found hanging from lamp-posts. You might feel as though you want that result, but it is better for us all that it doesn't happen.

iviehoff: I don't think you were referring to my post because that is precisely what I don't want - I agree with you.

The main point I am making is that enforcement is impossible if people (police and motorists) don't know what is being enforced:

1. Act, non-act or misconduct
2. Observation and enforcement
3. Punishment (and deterrence)

We know what 1. is, most of the population don't. The DforT has chosen not to make it explicit so people drive as though there is nothing to be adhered to.

[thirdcrank]

When the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was established and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed, some of the effects were either not anticipated or anticipated but insufficiently understood. In terms of traffic enforcement, I'm referring to the continued use of the existing criminal justice system for the enforcement of summary traffic offences. There was some anticipation eg the introduction of the Extended Fixed Penalty System and Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme (VDRS) but the option remained open to an alleged offender to refuse the offer of a fixed penalty and invite the prosecution to prosecute them.

In the context of this thread, the fixed penalty system was only extended to careless driving within the last year, ie 30 years too late because a whole generation had got accustomed to the idea that drivers involved in collisions would rarely be prosecuted. The significance of collisions is that historically, most careless driving prosecutions followed a crash.

One of my best examples of the mess things are in is the case which I linked in this thread which was started by a cyclist who was reported for an alleged offence and not offered the option of a fixed penalty. In the linked case, a deputy judge of the High Court who was alleged to have jumped a red light at 64 mph in a 30 zone, brought the system to a virtual standstill with legal argument.

viewtopic.php?p=586007#p586007

IMO, one of the marks of a good legal system is public satisfaction with the way it operates. It's my impression and nothing more that the system used in many European countries achieves higher levels of public satisfaction. OTOH, it's also my impression that the harsh sentences available in the US legal system result from difficulties convicting anybody and the resulting public dissatisfaction.

If relatively minor offences which might cause death or injury but didn't do so inevitably attracted sanctions, then there might be fewer crashes which did cause death or injury and successful prosecutions might be easier.

I think disqualification from driving is relevant here. The present system is intended to punish serious or repeated bad driving which results in a conviction ie is proven to the criminal standard, rather than as a means of only allowing good drivers on the road (which ought to be a way of reducing bad driving.) A side effect may be that some bad drivers are kept off the road and some are deterred. It's never going to happen, of course, but this should be an administrative matter in which the candidate driver demonstrates not only their fitness to drive, ie driving test, but continuing fitness eg absence of crashes and absence of penalties for driving offences.

[niggle]

I still think you are up against the assumption made by most drivers that their driving is OK, therefore they are not going to have an 'accident' involving hitting a vulnerable road user, so therefore are not at risk of being caught or punished. Of course for the vast majority this is correct and they never do hit anyone, and those who do will not have seen a difference between their driving and many other people's, because there is not any difference, it is just by chance they have the 'accident' and not someone else.

IMO Bicycler made a good point about maintaining good standards of driving across the board through low level but consistent action for poor driving standards, that have not actually resulted in a collision, and education, rather than not bothering with that and only (unwillingly and inconsistently) punishing those who happen to cause severe injury or death through averagely poor driving.

Maybe an increase in spending on enforcement re 'minor' driving infringements which have not caused injury or death (but could have) plus public information campaigns would be cost effective by improving general driving behaviour and thereby reducing the number of incdents with serious injuries and fatalities, seeing as those are so costly to investigate and process through the courts etc.?

[blackbike]

I think the way forward is lifetime driving bans.

We punish paedophiles with a sentence of imprisonment or whatever the judge deems appropriate. We then ban that person from working with children for life, not as punishment, but as a sensible precaution.

Using the same precautionary principle I think it'd be a good idea to ban people from driving for life once they accumulate enough points for a ban under the current totting up procedure.

[thirdcrank]

But the current focus on sex offences, including offences against children, is quite recent, which is part of the reason why so many scandals are emerging, which in turn leads to more public interest. Abusing children is abhorrent, but it's only recently that it's attracted much attention. The media like it because it sells papers, politicians have latched onto it too.

OTOH, if there's any mileage in the road safety issue for the media and politicians, it's not in anything which might be characterised as bashing the motorist. On the contrary, cyclists make good scapegoats.

This is your thread about the contrasting attitudes to two professional footballers convicted of serious offences, all over again.

[Edwards]

I have been in the position of sitting by a bed with my wife in it on the Nero Surgical ward not carrain if she would ever be able to walk again.

So I can give my personal feelings on this. A long prison sentence would not have prevented the driver hitting her, it was not a deliberate action on his part. It was a mistake we do not know why he did not look properly but we do know from somebody who knows him that he was in a right state emotionally about it, for over a year to my knowledge.
I feel that anybody who thinks that they never make a mistake when driving and would never hit a pedestrian or cyclists is deluding them selves.
I drive and ride with the above thought in mind.
He did not set out to hurt anyone and was doing his best to drive in a way not to hurt or kill.
My wife elected for the driver improvement program with the thought that education was the best option.
If he had been locked up or banned then after ? months or years his driving standard would be the same or worse.

Some may think this attitude wrong but I agree with her. However for people who offend repeatedly speeding and so on I am of the opinion that education has not worked and they need to be kept of the roads.
I do not care how we can lock them up for a long time or just break their legs and set them backwards. I want to see them never driving again especially when banned.

[reohn2]

An opinion FWIW.
I'm not in favour of jail sentences or lifetime bans for anything but extreme offences.
Jail's useless without rehabilitation.
A lifetime ban offers no chance of rehabilitation.
Someone aged 50 definitely isn't the same person they where at 18.That said,some people never grow up and some persistent offenders will show by their actions that they're just not fit or can be trusted to drive.

I agree with Pete75's point,no progress can be made on anything until there's a threat/concern/fear of being caught,and when caught knowing that the punishment will hurt both in the pocket and in loss of their licence* or in extreme cases their liberty.

But we need a police presence to deter and detect,until that happens and punishment fits the crime we're sunk.

Once that's in place there should be no possibility of squirming out of offences by claims of loss of job,or other snakelike excuses.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
It's that simple.
Something radical needs doing regarding speeding and mobile phone use and should cost offenders dearly when caught.
Also there needs to be some definition of the difference between careless and dangerous driving and punishments enforced when convicted,as clearly ATM they most certainly aren't.
As for juries I'm not convinced they're reliable in motoring cases for reasons discussed elsewhere on the forum.
Perhaps for more serious road crime three judges may be better,who knows
There should a simple formula for offence to punishment relationship without room to squirm,simple as.
One things for sure,leniency for serious motoring crime is ridiculous bordering on lunacy,where the punishment seldom fits the crime.

*IMHO more short term bans need to be implemented,and anyone losing their licence for 9 months or more should have to resit their driving test,any persistent offender or who commits serious offences,should have to serve probationary terms after regaining their licence.

[gplhl]

I agree, for motorists who are not under the influence of drink or drugs or are not on the phone, all if which should get long prison sentences, they are making a choice to potentially kill and mame not only cyclists but anyone who's unlucky to be hit by them.

The onus should be on the government & authorities to make all road users more aware. There were ad campaigns for "think bike" for motor cyclists, but nothing for cyclists since the 80's when there was a doddery old man shown in a cartoon.

Gary
www.longbikeride.co.uk

[jamesbradbury]

When someone is banned from driving, should they also be banned from cycling, impractical through that may be, from an enforcement POV?

On the one hand, having to cycle may give errant drivers a new perspective, but on the other, they may give "real" cyclists a bad name... :-/

[[XAP]Bob]

No, because cyclists don't pose anywhere near the same risks to others than motorists do.

I'd like to see graded licenses - so you get a license for a low powered vehicle, then take higher tests and prove competence before being allowed larger vehicles.

Then infractions drop you down a level again...

[Psamathe]

When someone is banned from driving, should they also be banned from cycling, impractical through that may be, from an enforcement POV?

On the one hand, having to cycle may give errant drivers a new perspective, but on the other, they may give "real" cyclists a bad name... :-/

No. For a whole range of reasons e.g. if you make the punishment totally restrictive, people are more likely to get off with nothing using excuses about the impact on their lives (e.g. I live in the countryside, no viable bus service and without transport I would not be able to buy food). As you say, the driver will have an opportunity to appreciate the problems and benefits of cycling. "Giving cyclists a bad name" is not a real risk as there are already a wide range of cyclists including a visible few who can already do that, plus the banned driver is more likely to act in self preservation rather than being a complete hooligan.

Ian

[Psamathe]

No, because cyclists don't pose anywhere near the same risks to others than motorists do.

I'd like to see graded licenses - so you get a license for a low powered vehicle, then take higher tests and prove competence before being allowed larger vehicles.

Then infractions drop you down a level again...

Good idea. Maybe even an option where move up a level after e.g. 10 years of driving with no points and no insurance claims (less sure about that though).

I always thought the French system for new drivers was a good plan (not perfect but good). As I understood it, on passing your test you were much more restricted in what you could do (e.g. lower speed limits, half the number of points gets you banned, etc. for 3 years?). I always thought it good in the regard that it got new drivers in the habit of driving more carefully rather than the hooligan who passes their test and can "go mad".

Ian

[Thermostat9]

All this talk about 'banning' people for driving errors is all well and good, if the people banned actually stopped driving.

I suspect all that would happen is the numbers of illegal drivers would rise. It would be far, far better (and probably cheaper) to return to a positively engaged road safety policy* rather than one that depends on cameras to 'detect' those who are transgressing some imaginary bit of legislation. Those that are caught are fined, educated, have to take retests and (ultimately) banned. That way we would eventually get better skilled road users, and that is the most important way to get the numbers injured and killed, reduced.

*I like this one! It would be like shooting fish in a barrel in most of our towns and cities too.

[youtube]lEM52Cvxmq8[/youtube]