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.
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.
Noremac:
Essentially life imprisonment equates to 15-20 years. This is a fairly good deterrent, but I fear the people likely to commit a dangerous driving offence probably aren’t the type of people to really follow the news and even less likely to change their actions based on what they see or read.
The fact is those types of sentence are reserved for fatality and injury where intent has been shown.
Ironically I’d support offering any such convict the choice of the death penalty on humane grounds I’d certainly prefer that to being given a life sentence for a bleedin traffic accident.
That’s the reality of this Draconian and stupid politically motivated witch hunt.
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.
Acorn:
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.
It’s about penalties not offences.
Exactly what other type of offence carries a life tariff other than murder or GBH with intent ?.
As for speeding, limits which have been established for decades are now being artificially reduced for political reasons to disincentive road use.Just like the idea of attaching a murder penalty to the results of a road traffic accident.
There is another piece about it in ‘The Transport Network’ saying Transport firms should mark August 28th on their calenders. transport-network.co.uk/Tra … dars/17743
“There are wider considerations for the haulage industry generally, including the impact this will have on the ability to attract new drivers when the consequences for occupational mistakes are now far more severe. At a time when operators are looking to make the job more attractive, legislators have turned the screw another notch tighter.”
I have no problem whatsoever with drivers who kill others through dangerous or reckless driving receiving punitive sentences. Too many people have a blasé attitude towards driving and mistakenly consider their vehicle to be some kind of suit of armour within which they can do whatever TF they want.The police are only policing the roads in a reactive as opposed to a proactive manner so something needs to change pretty ■■■■ quickly.
The simple truth is that if you want to drive a vehicle, any vehicle on a public highway you need to display 100% concentration for 100.% of the time. I’m sure I’m not alone here but if I do 8,9,or 10 hours driving then I’m exhausted. Not physically, but mentally because of the sheer concentration required to avoid killing wuckfits everywhere.
the maoster:
I have no problem whatsoever with drivers who kill others through dangerous or reckless driving receiving punitive sentences. Too many people have a blasé attitude towards driving and mistakenly consider their vehicle to be some kind of suit of armour within which they can do whatever TF they want.The police are only policing the roads in a reactive as opposed to a proactive manner so something needs to change pretty ■■■■ quickly.
It’s clear that the law has been deliberately downgrading the penalties already available to it in many of the worst cases.
To create the pretext and excuse for this imposition of what is effectively a murder penalty just for a mistake.
Be careful what you wish for the next time that wuckfit might be a crash for cash scammer/s stitching you up like a kipper for a fatal crash which they’ve deliberately staged and caused.
As for cash for crash scammers, I’m sure it happens just the same as meteor strikes happen, and like meteor strikes I’ve never seen it. But there is a surefire way to avoid both; keep your distance and stay alert. You’re welcome…