Dangerous driving -- about time dont you think

[BEERSHZ]

A major review of the way dangerous drivers who kill on the roads are prosecuted is to be unveiled.

 

Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald QC is launching a study of the way the Crown Prosecution Service handles "bad driving" cases.

 

The consultation will examine how the CPS makes decisions on taking offenders to court, as well as whether levels of support offered to victims and witnesses can be improved.

 

Hundreds of killers on the roads walk free each year because of difficulties faced by prosecutors in bringing death by dangerous driving charges.

 

The offence carries up to 14 years' imprisonment but prosecutors frequently opt for the lesser charge of careless driving or driving without due care and attention.

 

These are easier to prove but only carry a maximum fine of £2,500.

 

The new Road Safety Act, which won Royal Assent last month, will introduce a new offence of causing death by careless driving, carrying up to five years' imprisonment.

 

The DPP announced plans for the review earlier this year because of public concerns that too many drivers were escaping with a non-custodial sentence.

 

 

Campaigners and members of the public will be invited to submit their views on the subject to the CPS.

 

Road safety campaign group Roadpeace said 90 per cent of road traffic cases involving a death are dealt with in the magistrates' courts where the average fine is £250.

[BEERSHZ]

my sons 15 year old mate was killed last year by three numpteys driving a stolen car no ins etc, last month the driver got 22 months his accompolices got 11 months, wheres the justice in that.

[Daston]

I think that is a bloody good idea

[Class One]

I don't think it goes far enough.

 

The problem with current legislation is proving intent and showing the danger caused, not the consequence.

[Snooze]

The problem with current legislation is proving intent and showing the danger caused, not the consequence.

 

Exactly this. Using the consequence to define the crime makes the crimes very easy to prove, but can lead to some real injustices.

 

For example, if you slam down hard just on "causing death" cases, the problem you get is the one safe driver who makes a single mistake (nobody drives without EVER making a mistake) and, because of circumstances, causes a death, whereas the driver who drives recklessly all the time, but their accident injures (not kills) 10 people, gets away with a lesser charge.

 

I blame the complexity of the law and the evil, money-grabbing lawyers. The justice system has to rely on known consequences (even the most expensive lawyer can't deny a death) to define law, because the lawyers are allowed to get away with nit-picking through 1000's of pages of law and citations to get their clients out of any less-clear-cut offences.

 

In my opinion, it's not the "causing death" cases that they need to crack down on specifically. It's ALL "dangerous driving" cases. ANYONE who is caught "driving dangerously" could potentially cause a death and the punishment should be the same whether a death is actually caused or not.

[Terminator]

In my opinion, it's not the "causing death" cases that they need to crack down on specifically. It's ALL "dangerous driving" cases. ANYONE who is caught "driving dangerously" could potentially cause a death and the punishment should be the same whether a death is actually caused or not.

 

I think the human rights lobby would have something to say about that. I know of a case where Dangerous Driving was the charge and the conviction. However the police report from the following unmarked car stated that the driver slowed down to legal speeds when approaching other vehicles, treated all junctions appropriately etc. So whilst driving at excessive speeds the drive was clearly taking account of other hazards and only driving above the limit when there were no other cars in proximity. I know the potential was there for a serious incident to occur, but this can hardly compared with someone who has no regard for other vehicles and treats them as obstacles impeding their progress. If the the new penalties were applied to that case, the driver would now be in prison. I suspect, so would quite a few members of this club.

 

I thought that speeds in excess of 100 was considered dangerous driving. I just wonder how they cope on the autobahns? I suspect that most drivers doing more than that are concentrating much harder than someone on a mobile phone whilst driving. How long has the law regarding use of mobiles phones while driving been in force? I see many drivers with phone pressed to their ear every day. Head sets are as cheap as chips, so it totally unnecessary.

 

I don't think this is off topic as some dangerous driving can be attributed to frustration with prevailing traffic conditions, which is wrong but possible understandable. I can not understand why, in this century, with all the technology available, that all major routes all don't have variable speed limits. Traffic would flow much better and journey times decreased during peak periods with a lower speed limit and better driver education about safe distances between vehicles. I know there has been quite a bit of research done into the brake light ripple effect, where following traffic actually come to a halt due to drivers following too close, with each car braking harder and harder, while original vehicle starting the ripple effect never came to rest. I try to stick rigidly to the old "Two second rule" , for braking, however this is often seen a space ripe for undertaking and to driving into.

 

If automatic speed limit variability was introduced I think accidents would decrease. Also the upper limit could be raised, on these roads to enable faster travel when roads are little used. If continental drivers can cope with high speeds, why cant we. 150 mph on an an empty motorway is nowhere near as dangerous as someone cutting in and out of lanes at 70.

 

I fear that inevitably there will be many cases of wrongful conviction. I am not against the sentiment of the legislation, as I have suffered first hand the death of a very close relative at the hands of a "dangerous driver"( fell asleep because they were too tired). Also suffered the frustration of seen their brief limbo dance and get her off with a £200 fine and 6 points. Whilst the case mentioned previously above was given a banned and fortunately was not imprisoned as the actual speeds were knocked down a a bit, by the the unmarked car. I guess he was taking account that the driver was responding in a appropriate manner to the conditions of the road.

 

Unfortunately this country always seem to try to penalise rather than educate, I believe there is a widely held misconception that speed is the major factor in fatal accidents. I believe the most likely casue is insufficient concentration on driving.

 

I remember I good bit of advice I was given in a bike handling course I went on when I got my first big bike years ago. "Never over take a car until you have seen the whites of the drivers eyes in the vehicle mirror." As then you know that the driver is actually concentrating on driving. This advice came from a advanced police biker who trained members of the force. So I assume that concentration was an issue 30 years ago, it certainly is still an issue today.

[Snooze]

I think the human rights lobby would have something to say about that. I know of a case where Dangerous Driving was the charge and the conviction. However the police report from the following unmarked car stated that the driver slowed down to legal speeds when approaching other vehicles, treated all junctions appropriately etc. So whilst driving at excessive speeds the drive was clearly taking account of other hazards and only driving above the limit when there were no other cars in proximity. I know the potential was there for a serious incident to occur, but this can hardly compared with someone who has no regard for other vehicles and treats them as obstacles impeding their progress. If the the new penalties were applied to that case, the driver would now be in prison. I suspect, so would quite a few members of this club.

 

You're quite correct, of course, and despite very rarely driving genuinely dangerously, I too have probably performed manouvers (deliberate drifting, high-speed driving, etc.) which, although performed safely (IMO), would be considered "dangerous driving" under current legislation.

 

Whilst I hold with the fact that "dangerous driving" and "causing death by dangerous driving" should carry the same penalty, I would thoroughly agree that the current definition of dangerous driving is ludicrously lax. If it were going to carry a serious penalty (which I believe it should), it should be only enforcible where multiple officers could testify to witnessing the offender driving in such a way that caused a genuine high risk of injury and possible fatalities, not just because they happened to be diriving 101mph on an empty motorway (which, of course, could cause an accident, but is actually low risk).

[JohnK]

I dont have a problem with most of it however, If what I heard on the news is correct about undertaking on a motorway being classed as dangerous could be taking things too far.

 

I dont generally do it but there are times when you get someone hogging the middle lane doing ~50mph.

 

In that case its the lane hogger that should be prosocuted.