Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
daveg
Posts: 388
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 10:46pm
Location: Chapel Allerton. Leeds

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by daveg »

karlt wrote:That does mean that if someone is caught doing 70 down a 30 zone they should receive the same penalty as if they'd killed someone, which is an easily foreseeable result of driving in that manner.


I can agree with that, but then it's detection that fails. Personally, I wouldn't be against technology being put in place to impose penalties when speed limts (for instance) are exceeded but can you imagine the outcry from the law abiding public?
If it wasn't for cars, there wouldn't be the amount of tarmac that there is.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by meic »

To protect the general public from machines handing out such automatic penalties we have a Judiciary that apply their discretion, to protect the guilty from the prescribed penalties which would cause them enough discomfort to make them actually change their behaviour.
Yma o Hyd
karlt
Posts: 2244
Joined: 15 Jul 2011, 2:07pm

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by karlt »

meic wrote:
karlt wrote:There is precious little evidence that harsher sentences have a deterrent effect either on offenders or on the population at large. Probability of being caught does. Given that in 99.9% of these cases there is no intent to cause harm, the problem is that it's widely expected that a prosecution is only likely if harm does occur; the driver does not expect he will cause harm because he normally gets away with these acts of careless driving and therefore he is not deterred.

I do not believe in sentencing by outcome. To my mind two drivers who both drive blinded by the sun are equally guilty and deserving of the same punishment even if one does kill someone and the other has no negative outcome at all; otherwise one is either rewarding one driver for good luck or punishing the other for bad luck - I don't see that as justice. There's a limited amount that can be done to catch people when there is no outcome, but that would be the ideal. What it does mean is that sentencing should be based on the potential of the driving to cause harm, not the harm that was actually caused.

That does mean that if someone is caught doing 70 down a 30 zone they should receive the same penalty as if they'd killed someone, which is an easily foreseeable result of driving in that manner.


Lack of evidence just shows they werent looking. However as Kwackers always points out you also need a fair possibility of the sentence being applied for it even to be an issue.
These cases are showing a lethal combination of very improbable, very light sentence.
No wonder nobody makes the effort.

As for evidence, I am aware of an experiment in the USA where a publicised severe penalty for pulling out in front of motorcyclists had a very pronounced but temporary effect.
Also the severity of drink driving sentences does have a very good effect on the population as a whole.


It's all very well to say that if they didn't find evidence they weren't looking, but policy should be based on evidence that exists, not evidence you think should exist.

Drink driving dropped when there was a massive drive to make it socially unacceptable by publicising the results - not the penalties, the results. I'd expect any behaviour to drop when there's publicity - as in the USA case - but as soon as the publicity stops the reduction is reversed unless a sustained change in societal attitudes has been achieved. Neither of these cases show that harsh sentences had a deterrent effect but they do indicate that publicity does make people more aware of dangers. When a deterrent effect of sentencing is specifically looked for it is absent or at best very, very weak.

The deterrent is likely to be even lower in motoring cases because the intent isn't there. In this case, the driver didn't set out to kill. He didn't set out to be dangerous, even. If he'd thought "this could kill someone" when he drove into the sun, I'm willing to bet he wouldn't have done it - very few people are sufficiently sociopathic to think along the lines of "it's OK, if I kill someone I won't get much of a penalty, so I'll carry on", as some people on here seem to imply. The issue is, and remains, a lack of awareness of how dangerous these behaviours are.
snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by snibgo »

I'm encouraged that insurance companies are recognising the association between minor offences and subsequent claims, so are loading premiums accordingly. For example: getting 3 points for speeding can increase a premium by £70; 3 points for using a mobile phone can be £500. Compare this annual charge to the one-off FPN of £60.

Perhaps these indirect penalties will discourage the behaviours.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by meic »

The issue is, and remains, a lack of awareness of how dangerous these behaviours are.


I dont actually agree with this, people know it is dangerous and take a gamble that it is unlikely to happen. However if we take it as the case then these Judges and their lenient sentences are doing their best to reinforce that perception and setting it in a solid concrete foundation.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by squeaker »

meic wrote:
The issue is, and remains, a lack of awareness of how dangerous these behaviours are.


I dont actually agree with this, people know it is dangerous and take a gamble that it is unlikely to happen.


I have to disagree. We all know about 'red mist': sat down in front of the approach to a blind bend (for example) I suspect that most would appreciate the danger of taking it on the wrong side of the road, but when driving, especially when 'making good progress' (how I hate that phrase!) other factors tend (to a greater - the numpties? - or lesser - the more cautious? - extent) take over. I'm not convinced that 'the gamble' is, in many cases, a concious decision, so I tend to side with karlt: the issue is that of raising awareness at the time of the action. (Is there a psychologist in the house :?: )
"42"
karlt
Posts: 2244
Joined: 15 Jul 2011, 2:07pm

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by karlt »

squeaker wrote:
meic wrote:
The issue is, and remains, a lack of awareness of how dangerous these behaviours are.


I dont actually agree with this, people know it is dangerous and take a gamble that it is unlikely to happen.


I have to disagree. We all know about 'red mist': sat down in front of the approach to a blind bend (for example) I suspect that most would appreciate the danger of taking it on the wrong side of the road, but when driving, especially when 'making good progress' (how I hate that phrase!) other factors tend (to a greater - the numpties? - or lesser - the more cautious? - extent) take over. I'm not convinced that 'the gamble' is, in many cases, a concious decision, so I tend to side with karlt: the issue is that of raising awareness at the time of the action. (Is there a psychologist in the house :?: )


Things like "only a fool breaks the two second rule" and the concept of the "amber gambler" stick in the mind and are easily recalled by drivers when in the relevant situations. Not unlike the old three lane roads where those who wanted to live remembered "the left lane takes you there, the right lane brings you back, the middle lane takes you to the mortuary."

Personally I bemoan the decline in these public information films like the ones I mentioned above. A film showing, I don't know, 30 seconds of footage of some likeable but lively lads taking the bends on the Cat and Fiddle road, laughing and joking, getting away with a couple of dodgy overtakes, then crossing the white line to overtake an old bloke in one of those cars that looks like a miniature hearse (you know the ones) straight into a sheep lorry. Followed by a sweeping silent shot of a scene of utter carnage.

Perhaps I've missed my calling.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by thirdcrank »

squeaker wrote: ... We all know about 'red mist': ...
In the context of this discussion, things done on the spur of the moment and in a rage, be they bad driving or direct personal violence are the least likely to be deterred by deterrent sentencing. The point about driving, however, is that people can only do it when licensed to do so. Technical competence is only one element of being a good driver, but we only make half-hearted attempts to prevent people driving in an inadequate physical condition (eg poor eyesight) and virtually none if they are psychologically unfit (eg prone to fits of rage or risk taking.)
nez
Posts: 2080
Joined: 19 Jun 2008, 12:11am

Re: Pat Kenny - update and sentence

Post by nez »

thirdcrank wrote: Technical competence is only one element of being a good driver, but we only make half-hearted attempts to prevent people driving in an inadequate physical condition (eg poor eyesight) and virtually none if they are psychologically unfit (eg prone to fits of rage or risk taking.)

I couldn't agree more. Driving isn't a god given right. Some years ago at a dinner party a newspaper journalist moaned to me that she was breathalyzed and banned while taking kids to school on the morning school run, a legacy of a couple of bottles of wine the night before. I said that seemed fair enough and was treated as a bit of a leper (But it's so unfair). Nowadays I reckon most people would agree with me. Maybe other attitudes to driving can make the same transformation.
Post Reply