Carryfast:
Acorn:
Carryfast:
Acorn:
The life sentence is the headline, the real concern is imprisonment for causing serious injury by driving without due care & attention. Serious injury has a quite low threshold such as breakages or a precautionary overnight in hospital, and due care also has a very low threshold. That’s what should be really waking folks up as to the consequences.The real concern is that thresholds and definitions are being manipulated turning accidental unintended death and injury into the types of penalties imposed for intentional.For obvious politically motivated reasons to intimidate drivers off the roads.
To the point where physical attacks resulting in death and injury have been given less than life sentences and reduced sentences because intent wasn’t proven.The classifications for ‘serious’ injury has been in place for years, as has the level for careless driving. The consequences has rarely been considered.
For some, it needs to be a real wake up call to think about how they have always driven, and so far been lucky. Driving up the chuff of the veh ahead may help slip streaming, may have all sorts of perceived benefits, but the driver can’t have a clear view of the road ahead … that, in anyone’s books is a starter for poor driving, or as the law describes it, careless driving.The 'intent ’ about driving was removed many years ago, because that is not relevant, the word to think about now is careless. No one goes out intent on having a collision, and if they did and said as much then there are other offences that come into play. Drivers would bro well to ask themselves, 'if there was an impact, would someone see that I was careless in anyway? whether that was going too quick for the conditions, too close to take avoiding action (remember the good old 2 second rule), braking/turning/ other too late, and so forth.
If the definition of intent doesn’t apply to drivers that means drivers are not being treated as equal under the law.
It’s being applied in a discriminatory way effectively making all fatal road accidents an act of murder subject to the same penalty as murder.
As opposed to a violent attacker getting a lesser sentence because death wasn’t proved as being intentional.
As I said a politically motivated injustice with the intention of intimidating drivers of motor vehicles off the road.
Have a look at the legislation, very few offences need intent, sticking with speeding - the offence is there regards less of driver’s intent to speed or intent to keep within the limit, simply going over the prescribed limit is sufficient. It has nothing to do with politics.
In this case, the top elf injury to be ‘serious’ is relatively small, and folks need to be aware of that, as well as carelessness is a very low threshold. Both things have been around for a very long time, and neither of them are politics.