Careless Drivers

What I've bleated on about here far too often.

It's a licenced activity.  There is a fairly objective standard for judging this (driving test).  Just link the two already!  You can always give the judiciary / jury other "how long's a piece of string" parts to this (sentencing is clearly one) or make cross-examining a driving test examiner a thing if that's what we thing is most consistent with our legal system, but bring in some objectivity for goodness sakes.  (Even if magistrates / judges / juries go right on listening to their own biases initially...)

The problem is that most bad drivers would have no problem passing a test. Wow, one day a year you have to show up sober and drive to the letter of the law and the HC.

It would be a bit like testing people who've committed assault in the past by having them show up for a test where they pass if they don't punch somebody for two whole hours.

HoarseMann wrote:

I reckon there should be a fixed penalty for inconsiderate driving of £50 and 1 point, with a much lower bar for prosecution than careless (classed as a fault/fail in a driving test) - ideally could be handed out by a civil enforcement organisation so the police and courts are not burdened. 

A fine of £50 means that it's only law for poor people. I'd prefer something like a months driving ban.

Yes.  But ...  that only works if people think they'll get caught if they flout the ban.  And we seem not to have so many coppers these days *.  Also the punishment for breaching bans currently seems to be "more ban".

What I'm saying is how quickly can you get that automatic driving-checker black box device combined with a driving licence-reader and ignition cut-off?

* Under years of ... (checks notes) Conservative government...

chrisonatrike wrote:

What I'm saying is how quickly can you get that automatic driving-checker black box device combined with a driving licence-reader and ignition cut-off?

A good way to bring that into law in a way that does not upset current (voting) drivers may be to make it only apply to new drivers yet to pass their test in a similar way (legal) smoking is being phased out in some countries. 

Current drivers will be pleased there will be less new dangerous drivers to crash into them and can feel smug it doesn't apply to them. One obvious downside is that in 70 years time when all the current drivers are gone driver controlled vehicles will be gone too.

Don't forget the 1 point, that will add up!

I'm sure there are some rich people who would be unfazed by the fine, but a lot of wealthy people are also very tight and would definately begrudge it.

Plus don't forget at lot of people are not doing this on purpose, sometimes they literally have no idea they made a mistake. Getting just a single point on their licence might make them read the relevant sections of the highway code.

I would also prefer a ban, but that would involve a court and we all know how reluctant they are to impose driving bans. I'd rather focus on getting something, anything, in way of enforcement than increasing penalties that are already rarely applied.

It'd be a start if "death by dangerous driving" guidelines were tweaked so that it applied to the scenarios it should - ie, conscious decisions (mobile phone use, speeding, ect) instead of being some impossibly high bar that you have to be doing God-knows-what sort of insane shit to qualify for.

*Inb4 this week's news story where a driver kills a cyclist by driving down the wrong side of the road, at three times the speed limit, on his phone, whilst drunk, and somehow manages to only get done for "death by careless driving".

I thought manslaughter is for killing without intent to kill? It can be due to gross negligence or for causing death whilst performing another illegal act (e.g. bank robbing). Prior intent would surely be classed as murder?

Maybe I'm being too simplistic but manslaughter is "an alternative verdict that can be returned on a prosecution for murder"

The without intent to kill still requires another crime to have been committed which is the intent side of things as I see it.

hirsute wrote:

Maybe I'm being too simplistic but manslaughter is "an alternative verdict that can be returned on a prosecution for murder"

The without intent to kill still requires another crime to have been committed which is the intent side of things as I see it.

From quiff's link, the second and third bullet points would not involve intent:

Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

1. Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
2. Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
3. Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").

The term "involuntary manslaughter" is commonly used to describe manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as "voluntary manslaughter".

Yep. The second and third variants don't require intent to kill / injure. But the third one does require intent to commit some other unlawful act.

The alternative verdict bit means the jury can convict of manslaughter if they're not persuaded the defendant intended to kill.

Jimnm wrote:

That's absolutely correct, I thank you for that Peter 🚴

You're welcome.

I'm not convinced that a longer prison sentence would work as a deterrent as most people don't believe that they'll have a tragic collision (until they do). What I'd much rather see is a lifetime driving ban if a driver is found at fault (wholly or partially) for a collision that takes someone's life or inflicts life-changing injuries. That way the judge can give them 200 hours community service, but at least they'll never be on the roads again.

Murder requires intent to kill or injure, but mansalughter doesn't necessarily - there is 'involuntary manslaughter':  https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter [EDIT - hawkinspeter got there first]

As for the original post, the maximum sentence for death by careless driving is already 5 years (though I accept it's rarely given). If you started charging mansalughter instead, the maximum would be 18 years, but the real change in practice would likely be the starting point (minimum one year rather than the non-custodial sentences available for death by careless driving). 

Weren't "Causing death by dangerous driving" and "Causing death by careless driving" brought in precisely because of difficulties getting convictions using murder / manslaughter?  Because the average jurist / juror held that those were for actual criminals and evil people.  Whereas driving is a normal, everyday activity - me, my family and friends do it all the time, with almost no issues.  We also know though that maybe we're not as conscientious as we could be when driving.  We accept that people can get distracted, don't remember to look sometimes, maybe even have "isolated" moments of anger.  Plus "accidents happen"?

It's a complicated situation as the law stands currently.  It does seem to me - when reading the court cases - that some kind of "need to show a degree of intent" has definitely crept back in to these charges.  Despite (I think?) part of the idea being to remove that?

We could do with someone - maybe a longtime poster here - reminding everyone of the need for some kind of legal review of this area...

Yes, I think you are right, and if "I didn't mean to be careless/dangerous" is not successful in resisting the charge, it does seem to be a mitigation in sentencing, or the omnipresent "I was only careless for a moment so that doesn't count."