Drunk drivers could potentially face life in prison

[Hibrandenburg]

Been a long time coming.

https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/14/drivers-who-kill-may-now-face-life-sentence

[lapsedhibee]

Been a long time coming.

https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/14/drivers-who-kill-may-now-face-life-sentence

:hmmm: That's not an article about drivers drinking, it's about drivers killing.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Been a long time coming.

https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/14/drivers-who-kill-may-now-face-life-sentence

Quite right too, I was having a conversation with my old man about this a couple of weeks ago and we both came to the conclusion that if you wanted to kill someone and receive a relatively light sentence a car seemed to be the weapon of choice (we're not planning on killing anyone anytime soon)! :-)

[Hibrandenburg]

:hmmm: That's not an article about drivers drinking, it's about drivers killing.

But it encompasses drink drivers. If you get behind the wheel of a car drunk or intoxicated, you've made a conscious decision to risk the lives of others for your own convenience. That's premeditated and if you actually kill someone then there is now a sentence available to take that premeditation into account. Same for those using their phones.

[lapsedhibee]

But it encompasses drink drivers. If you get behind the wheel of a car drunk or intoxicated, you've made a conscious decision to risk the lives of others for your own convenience. That's premeditated and if you actually kill someone then there is now a sentence available to take that premeditation into account. Same for those using their phones.

Agree, just think it's always a mistake to suggest, emphasise or even slightly hint that alcohol in the blood = unsafe driver and no alcohol in the blood = safe driver. The punishments for killer drivers who have had no alcohol in the blood have in the past been scandalous - let's hope these new powers are well used.

[JeMeSouviens]

But it encompasses drink drivers. If you get behind the wheel of a car drunk or intoxicated, you've made a conscious decision to risk the lives of others for your own convenience. That's premeditated and if you actually kill someone then there is now a sentence available to take that premeditation into account. Same for those using their phones.

I've never really understood why there's such a focus on the outcome rather than the behaviour itself? Surely the offence of recklessly endangering life while driving drunk is the same whether or not you actually hit someone and kill them?

Or attempted murder, you get a lesser sentence bonus for being crap at murdering.

[lapsedhibee]

I've never really understood why there's such a focus on the outcome rather than the behaviour itself? Surely the offence of recklessly endangering life while driving drunk is the same whether or not you actually hit someone and kill them?

Or attempted murder, you get a lesser sentence bonus for being crap at murdering.

Or recklessly endangering life while driving not drunk. Otherwise :agree:.

[heretoday]

People need to be far more aware of the dangers on the road. I cannot believe some of the behaviour out there and not just drunks or phone users. It's mostly blokes of course. I'm sure a lot of them would be appalled if they could see themselves.

[lord bunberry]

I remember watching something a while ago that talked about drivers behaviour, it basically said that people drive the way they do now because they feel so safe behind the wheel of their car. Years ago before things like airbags and other safety features, people drove much more sensibly as a crash was far more likely to leave the driver injured or killed. There was a name for it, but I can’t remember what it was. Obviously this was talking about normal driving, rather than drink driving.

[lapsedhibee]

I remember watching something a while ago that talked about drivers behaviour, it basically said that people drive the way they do now because they feel so safe behind the wheel of their car. Years ago before things like airbags and other safety features, people drove much more sensibly as a crash was far more likely to leave the driver injured or killed. There was a name for it, but I can’t remember what it was. Obviously this was talking about normal driving, rather than drink driving.

Risk compensation? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation)

[lord bunberry]

That’s the one.

[RyeSloan]

I remember watching something a while ago that talked about drivers behaviour, it basically said that people drive the way they do now because they feel so safe behind the wheel of their car. Years ago before things like airbags and other safety features, people drove much more sensibly as a crash was far more likely to leave the driver injured or killed. There was a name for it, but I can’t remember what it was. Obviously this was talking about normal driving, rather than drink driving.

Yet I think the number of road fatalities has fallen dramatically has it not?

Seems disingenuous to suggest that people are driving significantly more dangerously now than before when the long term trend seems to be down and deaths are about a quarter of what it was in the 60's despite a massive increase in traffic.

The stats can be disputed due to them being stats so they are only as good as the method of collection but none the less the perception that people drove much more sensibly before safety features and much more recklessly now just doesn't bear any scrutiny when looking at death or casualty figures.

A government report (admittedly from 2013 but the trend has continued down since then) claims:

Since 1990:

66% reduction in deaths

62% reduction in casualties


And before we think that it's just cars protecting people the number of pedestrian deaths and injuries have more than halved in the last two decades.

So in other words despite the rise and rise of traffic the roads have become safer for all users.

That's not to say that some of the sentences for dangerous driving have been too light but on the flip side there is not a huge rise in such driving so there is a question as to what the life sentence approach is trying to address...

[lord bunberry]

Yet I think the number of road fatalities has fallen dramatically has it not?

Seems disingenuous to suggest that people are driving significantly more dangerously now than before when the long term trend seems to be down and deaths are about a quarter of what it was in the 60's despite a massive increase in traffic.

The stats can be disputed due to them being stats so they are only as good as the method of collection but none the less the perception that people drove much more sensibly before safety features and much more recklessly now just doesn't bear any scrutiny when looking at death or casualty figures.

A government report (admittedly from 2013 but the trend has continued down since then) claims:

Since 1990:

66% reduction in deaths

62% reduction in casualties


And before we think that it's just cars protecting people the number of pedestrian deaths and injuries have more than halved in the last two decades.

So in other words despite the rise and rise of traffic the roads have become safer for all users.

That's not to say that some of the sentences for dangerous driving have been too light but on the flip side there is not a huge rise in such driving so there is a question as to what the life sentence approach is trying to address...
The reduction in the number of deaths has been put down to things like seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones etc. I’m sure the thing I watched mentioned the number of deaths of cyclists had risen significantly since the introduction of all these safety features.
Im not saying I agree with it, but it was interesting viewing.

[lapsedhibee]

there is a question as to what the life sentence approach is trying to address...

Possibly hoping to undermine the whole notion of road traffic "accidents", and make it clearer that deaths are almost always not chance events at all but rather a direct consequence of bad driving.

[RyeSloan]

Possibly hoping to undermine the whole notion of road traffic "accidents", and make it clearer that deaths are almost always not chance events at all but rather a direct consequence of bad driving.

Fair enough but I suppose the 14 years you can already go down for the offence might already suggest that?

Ach I'm not against someone being put down for a long time for being a drunk driver and a killer I suppose I'm just wary of politicians using higher sentencing as some sort of solution.

Seems to me it's more like the courts are simply giving too light a sentence for these offences already and if they are the equivalent of manslaughter then why not just charge people with that already? The cynic in me thinks that maybe the PF or the CPS go for the driving offence because it saves the effort of having to go for the tougher conviction?

Then again now that I think about it maybe it does then make sense just to level the sentences 🤣

[RyeSloan]

The reduction in the number of deaths has been put down to things like seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones etc. I’m sure the thing I watched mentioned the number of deaths of cyclists had risen significantly since the introduction of all these safety features.
Im not saying I agree with it, but it was interesting viewing.

Cool ''tis indeed maybe the case then [emoji106]

[snooky]

The reduction in the number of deaths has been put down to things like seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones etc. I’m sure the thing I watched mentioned the number of deaths of cyclists had risen significantly since the introduction of all these safety features.
Im not saying I agree with it, but it was interesting viewing.

I would suggest that the increase in cyclist deaths is more likely due to the increase in the no. of cyclists using the roads.

[lapsedhibee]

I would suggest that the increase in cyclist deaths is more likely due to the increase in the no. of cyclists using the roads.

Risk compensation. Cars are getting so safe internally that drivers are having to take to the road on bikes to get the same chance of dying they had before.

[lord bunberry]

I would suggest that the increase in cyclist deaths is more likely due to the increase in the no. of cyclists using the roads.
Would the number of cars on the road not have increased by a similar amount?

[snooky]

Would the number of cars on the road not have increased by a similar amount?

It's a good point however, the safety measures, speed restrictions and volume are IMO, the reasons for that not being the case. I'm quite sure the volume of cyclist has increased dramatically without any speed restrictions or safety measures imposed. Except of course, the wearing of a helmet (which I don't think is mandatory yet), However, I believe having a working bell on your bike is. :wink:

[McD]

It's a good point however, the safety measures, speed restrictions and volume are IMO, the reasons for that not being the case. I'm quite sure the volume of cyclist has increased dramatically without any speed restrictions or safety measures imposed. Except of course, the wearing of a helmet (which I don't think is mandatory yet), However, I believe having a working bell on your bike is. :wink:


I *think* the bell situation is that the shop/supplier have to sell it to you with a working bell, the owner/user is at liberty to remove this without penalty however.

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[CropleyWasGod]

I *think* the bell situation is that the shop/supplier have to sell it to you with a working bell, the owner/user is at liberty to remove this without penalty however.

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

C'rect :agree:

https://www.eta.co.uk/cycling-and-the-law/

I've always used my bell, but it's often ineffective when other road or path-users are plugged-in, hard of hearing, or just not listening. Indeed, many have expressed surprise that I have a bell at all; that says to me that bells are not the norm.

[Scouse Hibee]

Would the number of cars on the road not have increased by a similar amount?

You could say the same about petrol stations yet loads have disappeared.

[Scouse Hibee]

I *think* the bell situation is that the shop/supplier have to sell it to you with a working bell, the owner/user is at liberty to remove this without penalty however.

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Nearly every bike I see has a bell end on the saddle.😅

[RyeSloan]

I would suggest that the increase in cyclist deaths is more likely due to the increase in the no. of cyclists using the roads.

Using a 'per billion miles' metric cycling deaths have shown a similar trend to everything else.... down massively from around 160 in the late 60's to around 30 now.

The same for KSI stats although recently they did tick up a touch but still dramatically down over the last few decades.

In other words despite roads being busier and traffic heavier the long term trend has been that they have become safer for all and dramatically so.

[McD]

Nearly every bike I see has a bell end on the saddle.😅



:agree::greengrin

[Aldo]

On the subject of driving whilst using a hand held mobile phone/device..... I’m of the opinion that the fines and points given are not enough given the serious outcome/consequences should it go terribly wrong!

The young driver who was sentenced to 6 years in jail for losing control of his vehicle whilst texting and in doing this killing the 2 or 3 year old and seriously injuring another.

He will be out after 3 and yes will have to live with it the rest of his life but at least he will get to live the rest of his life.

1 mistake has ruined so many lives yet drivers still don’t get it.

I for one welcome the changes but I think it will take a while before we see any changes in driver attitudes!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree:

Next time you're out and about have a conscious look at how many people are using mobiles whilst driving.

[Mibbes Aye]

Risk compensation. Cars are getting so safe internally that drivers are having to take to the road on bikes to get the same chance of dying they had before.

:greengrin

[Steve-O]

Quite right too, I was having a conversation with my old man about this a couple of weeks ago and we both came to the conclusion that if you wanted to kill someone and receive a relatively light sentence a car seemed to be the weapon of choice (we're not planning on killing anyone anytime soon)! :-)

You’d be wrong then. If you INTENDED to kill someone, weapon used is largely irrelevant.

[Steve-O]

I've never really understood why there's such a focus on the outcome rather than the behaviour itself? Surely the offence of recklessly endangering life while driving drunk is the same whether or not you actually hit someone and kill them?

Or attempted murder, you get a lesser sentence bonus for being crap at murdering.

So if you speed you should be sentenced to life imprisonment because you could’ve killed someone?

Sorry, but it’s absolutely ludicrous to say the outcome makes no difference.

[lapsedhibee]

So if you speed you should be sentenced to life imprisonment because you could’ve killed someone?


Speeding and recklessly endangering life are not the same though.

[Steve-O]

Speeding and recklessly endangering life are not the same though.

Why not? “Speed kills” is common mantra used by traffic police is it not?

Is there even a “recklessly endangering life” charge??

[lapsedhibee]

Why not? “Speed kills” is common mantra used by traffic police is it not?

Is there even a “recklessly endangering life” charge??

If you drive a car on to a busy pavement you are recklessly endangering life, whether or not someone actually dies as a result. If you drive at 24mph along Melville Drive the worst you are doing is holding up traffic. Two entirely different sins imo.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

You’d be wrong then. If you INTENDED to kill someone, weapon used is largely irrelevant.

Depends if intent could be proven but, folk seem to get lighter sentences if they kill someone using a car. I dinnae really want a debate about it as I cannae drive anyway.

[jockodile]

As an expat of a decade or so I was utterly shocked at the standard of driving in Scotland when I was over for the cup final. I hired a car at Edinburgh airport and was all over the country on the trip from east coast, to Ayrshire, Glasgow and up to the Highlands. Whether people are drinking or not I was amazed at some of the risks people take - trying to overtake on blind bends, last minute changes of decisions and indicators going unused. Maybe I've just gotten older and more sensible, less rushed, and it was always like that but it seemed much worse.

On the alcohol side, there's no doubt anyone who sinks 6 pints then decides to drive home deserves to get the book thrown at them, but you'd have to imagine there won't be a lot of that. more likely booze busts will have on tough and go morning after stuff when people need to make a deadline for going to work.

How has the reduction in the limit worked out in Scotland, my anecdotal take on it was people had become utterly paranoid. It's ironic as the limit is the exact same here in NSW and it is not viewed as the same, for a couple of major reasons - firstly guidance - all drinks bottle or draft have a standard unit of alcohol and the authorities give you advice on what is likely to keep you under the limit - 2 units in the first hour, 1 unit thereafter and secondly governance - the 6 pint guy would also get the book thrown at them but should you be just over 0.05 but below 008 (England) then fines and demerit points can be given, it's not immediately a ban. I understand this is not the case in Scotland a bawhair over the limit is still a fail?

The other thing I've wondered on - for those country pubs where you'd get couples going for a meal and having a pint with it - but that pint might throw you over so not worth the risk, in NSW we have the schooner glass which is 2/3rds of a pint. I thought this would be a good marketing opportunity for country pubs to offer schooners so diners can enjoy a beer with their meal in comfort they would not be over the limit, and crucially more than a half pint which hardly seems worth the bother at all.

[lapsedhibee]

Whether people are drinking or not I was amazed at some of the risks people take - trying to overtake on blind bends, last minute changes of decisions and indicators going unused. Maybe I've just gotten older and more sensible, less rushed, and it was always like that but it seemed much worse.

There was a series of tellybox programmes not that long ago where young drivers were being assessed for their readiness to have a car of their own and I couldn't believe what was regarded by the assessors as acceptable. It often seemed like if you didn't actually hit anything you were considered a satisfactory driver. Imo there is way too much emphasis in this country on whether you have a trace of alcohol in your system and not nearly enough on the quality of your driving.

I don't know anyone now who calculates what proportion of a glass of wine they can have before they reach .05. It's not worth the trouble (even if you did carefully calculate, there would be others tut-tutting around you and giving it 'there's no safe level of alcohol in the system, you murderer').

[Swedish hibee]

A work colleague of mine was caught drink driving in Norway and was sentenced to jail. It was not the "hardcore" jail, but jail none the less. Zero percent policy is the only way to be. I'm proud of this law in most of Scandinavia.

[The Tubs]

Nearly every bike I see has a bell end on the saddle.��


Funny, many cars I see have people shaped like bells behind the wheel.

[Steve-O]

Depends if intent could be proven but, folk seem to get lighter sentences if they kill someone using a car. I dinnae really want a debate about it as I cannae drive anyway.

They get lighter sentences because there is almost always no intent to injure, let alone kill, a person. The sentence is for the driving offence, and the consequences of that driving offence are taken into account at sentencing.

What good does it really do to keep someone in prison for multiple years who has killed someone accidentally, albeit through some driving error. There is a world of difference between that and someone who has intentionally murdered someone.

Unfortunately, no sentence of any length is going to change the fact that the victim is dead.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

They get lighter sentences because there is almost always no intent to injure, let alone kill, a person. The sentence is for the driving offence, and the consequences of that driving offence are taken into account at sentencing.

What good does it really do to keep someone in prison for multiple years who has killed someone accidentally, albeit through some driving error. There is a world of difference between that and someone who has intentionally murdered someone.

Unfortunately, no sentence of any length is going to change the fact that the victim is dead.

Thats all very good but, as I said in my initial post if you did intend to kill someone a car would be the weapon of choice if you were looking for a comparitively light sentence.

[lapsedhibee]

Nearly every bike I see has a bell end on the saddle.😅

Absolutely outrageous restriction on personal liberty here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41830304). Fascists.

[Steve-O]

Thats all very good but, as I said in my initial post if you did intend to kill someone a car would be the weapon of choice if you were looking for a comparitively light sentence.

Not so, unless you managed to convince the Police / Judge / Jury that it was an accident. If it could be shown it was deliberate, you'd be charged with murder, not causing death via reckless driving or the like.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Not so, unless you managed to convince the Police / Judge / Jury that it was an accident. If it could be shown it was deliberate, you'd be charged with murder, not causing death via reckless driving or the like.

Aye, I know.