According to this official government report the law is soon set to change regarding death and serious injury due to careless or negligent driving…
So it should be!
Coming s/b on the M6 past Todhills Saturday morning, came up behind a Stobart truck wandering across the hard shoulder and lane 1 at 45 mph.
As I passed him, he was steering with both elbows and punching out a text on his phone!
An accident looking for somewhere to happen!
It’s about time.
About 15 years ago a driver I worked with was coming down the M5 on the Thursday before the Easter bank holiday. He was driving with both feet under his bum in the seat and was holding a map in the steering wheel. He got way too close to the truck in front, got a wobble on because of the turbulence and wandered on to the hard shoulder where he clipped a camper van that was broken down. The shock of his mirror smashing in through the passenger window caused him to swerve to the right, with both his feet unable to get to the peddles he was effectively a passenger while the truck veered across all 3 lanes, then the centre barrier, then the 3 northbound lanes and he ended up in a ditch with minor injuries. Unfortunately he killed 3 people when he crossed the northbound lanes.
After the legal process was complete, he got 5 points on his licence and a derisory fine.
The relatives of his victims got no justice at all.
In the following years I never once saw him show any remorse.
Mental decision.
Life sentence for a non intentional major mistake or miss judgment.
Careless now on the level of manslaughter.
We should start giving out proper sentences for murder with intent first! Knife thugs getting off with murdering a stranger under diminished responsibility, acid attract scaring someone for life getting a couple of years… It doesn’t add up!!
Whats wrong under the current system is we give drivers their licenses back for serious rta’s after a couple of years when what’s needed is lifetime bans. What good is jailing a individual who is no threat bearing in mind we jail people in the UK for the public’s safety and rehabilitation NOT as a punishment.
ajt:
Mental decision.
Life sentence for a non intentional major mistake or miss judgment.
Careless now on the level of manslaughter.
It’s the line between just being involved in a fatal road accident and then receiving a penalty that could well exceed the present typical ones given out for GBH or attempted murder,possibly even murder,which could be the scary devil in the detail here.As so often many drivers acting like turkeys voting for Christmas and following the establishment line like sheep based on the example of needlessly excessively lenient penalties imposed for the worst examples.Almost as if those penalties were made deliberately lenient so as to use them as an example to push this seemingly frightening much wider agenda.
If you run somebody over, just get out and stab them. You’ll get a lesser sentence!
ajt:
Mental decision.
Life sentence for a non intentional major mistake or miss judgment.
Careless now on the level of manslaughter.We should start giving out proper sentences for murder with intent first! Knife thugs getting off with murdering a stranger under diminished responsibility, acid attract scaring someone for life getting a couple of years… It doesn’t add up!!
Whats wrong under the current system is we give drivers their licenses back for serious rta’s after a couple of years when what’s needed is lifetime bans. What good is jailing a individual who is no threat bearing in mind we jail people in the UK for the public’s safety and rehabilitation NOT as a punishment.
Absolutely agree.
Just another knee jerk reaction to pacify and appease the middle class Guardian reading types,.who are up in arms about all these ‘‘Drunken juggernaut drivers on their phones running up the back of families’’ .
There is no consistency in the law, you can get more time in jail for defrauding the establishment than for violence towards a defenceless old person, there has never been a corrolation between the seriousness of a crime and the punishment for it,.and this is the latest example.
So anybody who thinks this is a good idea, be careful what you wish for, as you too could be in the firing line here.
‘‘Careless or negligent driving’’ 
Do you drive all your 9 hours with a 100% total concentration ? I know I don’t, because I can’t., . I reckon it’s humanly impossible.
Anyone of us who has a lapse of concentration on ‘autopilot’ and has a ■■■■ disastrous outcome, could find ourselves sharing a cell with another ‘lifer’ , maybe some scum who has murdered his baby, …or on reflection maybe not, that’s about 10 years now aint it? 
So how are they going to make room for all these careless drivers, no doubt put a load of muggers and burglars back on the street.
A dramatic ott opinion maybe, but you get my point.
robroy:
Just another knee jerk reaction to pacify and appease the middle class Guardian reading types,.who are up in arms about all these ‘‘Drunken juggernaut drivers on their phones running up the back of families’’ .There is no consistency in the law, you can get more time in jail for defrauding the establishment than for violence towards a defenceless old person, there has never been a corrolation between the seriousness of a crime and the punishment for it,.and this is the latest example.
So anybody who thinks this is a good idea, be careful what you wish for, as you too could be in the firing line here.
‘‘Careless or negligent driving’’
Do you drive all your 9 hours with a 100% total concentration ? I know I don’t, because I can’t., . I reckon it’s humanly impossible.
Anyone of us who has a lapse of concentration on ‘autopilot’ and has a [zb] disastrous outcome, could find ourselves sharing a cell with another ‘lifer’ , maybe some scum who has murdered his baby, …or on reflection maybe not, that’s about 10 years now aint it?So how are they going to make room for all these careless drivers, no doubt put a load of muggers and burglars back on the street.
A dramatic ott opinion maybe, but you get my point.
^ This.
Not sure about knee jerk more like car/truck hating zealots going on a witch hunt.As I said probably using intentionally lenient sentencing for the worst case examples,as a false flag basis for it.On that note they’ve very rarely if ever used the 14 year sentence available for the worst cases.So why now the sudden jump to life for everyone.
Carryfast:
more like car/truck hating zealots going on a witch hunt.
Sorry to kick your tin foil covered soap box but…
part of government action to make roads safer for all and stop devastation caused by dangerous drivers and cyclists
Whilst I can see both sides of the argument I can’t help wishing it was already enforced when this le coq suckler was in court… telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 … udge-says/
Reef:
Carryfast:
more like car/truck hating zealots going on a witch hunt.Sorry to kick your tin foil covered soap box but…
part of government action to make roads safer for all and stop devastation caused by dangerous drivers and cyclists
Whilst I can see both sides of the argument I can’t help wishing it was already enforced when this le coq suckler was in court… telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 … udge-says/
Fair enough, but was that not put on as an after thought?
A tragic case but a bit of a (high profile) one off nevertheless.
I have been saying for years that causing a death when driving should be treated as manslaughter especially as that gives judges the greatest flexibility when sentencing
ROG:
I have been saying for years that causing a death when driving should be treated as manslaughter especially as that gives judges the greatest flexibility when sentencing
^
This
Anyone taking the life of a fellow human being whilst driving dangerously should expect severe penalties.
robroy:
Reef:
Carryfast:
more like car/truck hating zealots going on a witch hunt.Sorry to kick your tin foil covered soap box but…
part of government action to make roads safer for all and stop devastation caused by dangerous drivers and cyclists
Whilst I can see both sides of the argument I can’t help wishing it was already enforced when this le coq suckler was in court… telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 … udge-says/
Fair enough, but was that not put on as an after thought?
A tragic case but a bit of a (high profile) one off nevertheless.
Not quite a one off.
Captain Caveman 76:
robroy:
Fair enough, but was that not put on as an after thought?
A tragic case but a bit of a (high profile) one off nevertheless.Not quite a one off.
Ok one off is maybe the wrong phrase, but certainly more high profile than any other I have seen or heard about, so it attracted more attention among the public.
It was all over the papers, tv and radio.
ROG:
I have been saying for years that causing a death when driving should be treated as manslaughter especially as that gives judges the greatest flexibility when sentencing
Judges already have the flexibility now to impose up to 14 years and don’t usually use it even in the most serious cases.While we all know that the real agenda here is carte blanche to corrupt the definition of unfortunate accident with the worst type of dangerous driving examples.Just like they conveniently removed the definition of ‘Road traffic Accident’ to suit their own ends of going out to deliberately criminalise drivers who are guilty of nothing but unlucky circumstance.IE a driver indicates left and the indicator auto cancels and a cyclist takes that as an invitation to undertake through a junction before the driver can re apply it.That’ll be a life sentence then.
robroy:
Captain Caveman 76:
robroy:
Fair enough, but was that not put on as an after thought?
A tragic case but a bit of a (high profile) one off nevertheless.Not quite a one off.
Ok one off is maybe the wrong phrase, but certainly more high profile than any other I have seen or heard about, so it attracted more attention among the public.
It was all over the papers, tv and radio.
Since when was a reasonable,let alone maximum,penalty for GBH one year ?.Seems to fit an agenda of deliberate lenient sentencing under existing powers to create an excuse to impose a more draconian regime.
I’d like to see an end to aggressive truckers up my arse through roadworks, and undertaking me on roundabouts. 
The ones on their phones are clearly guilty of “undue care and attention” since they don’t even lower their hands when another vehicle passes their window 
Perhaps the police might offer “commissions” for private dashcam footage proving offences?
Winseer:
I’d like to see an end to aggressive truckers up my arse through roadworks,
In which case wouldn’t we expect to see the 14 year sentence for causing death by dangerous/careless extended to cover just dangerous driving regardless and then enforced and used.When it’s more likely that the law will selectively just enforce the often unrealistic speed regime using cameras and unmarked vehicles than go for tailgaters etc.
Or the whole offence changed to dangerous use of the public highway so that it also covers cyclists.Bearing in mind that GBH seems like the wrong charge even in that cases let alone the silly lenient sentence applied in that example.
As opposed to the worst of all worlds situation of effectively applying the type of penalties on drivers usually imposed for criminals who seriously wound or kill with intent.Possibly in the case of someone who’s just the victim of circumstance in the case of a simple road ‘accident’ that unfortunately results in a fatality.That situation obviously being more likely on roads increasingly populated by cyclists and urban micro cars with little crash resistance,being used in high speed road situations.With the agenda already obviously being loaded and corrupted in that regard by the emotive term ‘drivers who kill’ which infers intent.When prevention is better than draconian unrepresentative penalty regime.In which case the present powers of 14 years max,also then applied to all dangerous highway use offences regardless,not just those resulting in fatality,as opposed to simple accident resulting in fatality,would be a realistic and fairer solution.