[News] Just 3 years for killing a boy through dangerous driving

[portlock seagull]

My favourite documentary of the last 12 months is Class Action Park.

One of the contributors said:-

"Nobody should be the second person to die in that wave pool"



Nobody should be the second person to be killed by a car, walking on the pavement.


The fact that this poor little mite is the hundred thousandth (or whatever) makes it all the more horrifying.
But not as horrifying as the acceptance of such 'accidents'.

Agree. Also amazed at the sheer volume of people who drive off after accidents now. Of every kind. When did such degenerates learn this standard behaviour?

 

[portlock seagull]

The problem for me is probably not the sentencing of drivers who have ended up killing someone, I can see arguments on all sides for that one. It's all those incidents of terrible driving that don't result in an incident and people get away with day after day after day until such time as they don't and then someone gets killed. Get cameras in as many cars as possible and then shop them constantly - Give out serious bans for each indiscretion. It would stamp out this culture in no time. It'll never happen of course cos everyone wants to drive how they like and consider and idea to clamp down as nanny statism......

I was out yesterday on very busy motorway and was good to see the selfish twats are still with us after getting rather used to empty lanes during lockdown. Tailgaters, speeding undertakers continually weaving through and cutting others up including me at one point. Yep, the idiots are still out there causing accidents which is ok, as long as they get where they’re going screw everyone else’s safety.

 

[Weststander]

My favourite documentary of the last 12 months is Class Action Park.

One of the contributors said:-

"Nobody should be the second person to die in that wave pool"



Nobody should be the second person to be killed by a car, walking on the pavement.


The fact that this poor little mite is the hundred thousandth (or whatever) makes it all the more horrifying.
But not as horrifying as the acceptance of such 'accidents'.

Totally agree.

The vast majority of folk have no interest in a news item, where a 1.5 tonne lump of steel has killed someone (cyclist, pedestrian, passengers or other car occupants), where the driver was speeding, on their mobile, drink or drug drug driving.

No interest whatsoever.

Whereas a stranger murder perks interest.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I'm not too fussed about jail sentences for dangerous drivers. What I don't get is why they are allowed to drive again. The woman mentioned in the OP was probably borderline whether she was careless or dangerous, based on the story as reported, but hit-and-run makes the incident that much more serious.

But why not life bans for dangerous drivers? The worst I ever heard was probably getting on for twenty years ago now, but it involved a driver who was fed up of waiting in a traffic jam, so he drove onto the grass verge, while making a phone call, and killed a girl who was pushing her bike. It was his third dangerous driving conviction and he got 5 years in jail and a 10 year driving ban.

Why only 10 year driving ban? Clearly that man is utterly unfit to drive a car. Certainly a second conviction for dangerous driving, especially if one of the convictions involves death, ought to result in a life ban. Possibly the first offence should be a life ban. With the certainty of a jail sentence for the offender if he ever gets behind the wheel again.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm not too fussed about jail sentences for dangerous drivers. What I don't get is why they are allowed to drive again. The woman mentioned in the OP was probably borderline whether she was careless or dangerous, based on the story as reported, but hit-and-run makes the incident that much more serious.

But why not life bans for dangerous drivers? The worst I ever heard was probably getting on for twenty years ago now, but it involved a driver who was fed up of waiting in a traffic jam, so he drove onto the grass verge, while making a phone call, and killed a girl who was pushing her bike. It was his third dangerous driving conviction and he got 5 years in jail and a 10 year driving ban.

Why only 10 year driving ban? Clearly that man is utterly unfit to drive a car. Certainly a second conviction for dangerous driving, especially if one of the convictions involves death, ought to result in a life ban. Possibly the first offence should be a life ban. With the certainty of a jail sentence for the offender if he ever gets behind the wheel again.

Driving bans are worse than useless. The driver in Worthing, already mentioned, was already banned.

 

[portlock seagull]

I'm not too fussed about jail sentences for dangerous drivers. What I don't get is why they are allowed to drive again. The woman mentioned in the OP was probably borderline whether she was careless or dangerous, based on the story as reported, but hit-and-run makes the incident that much more serious.

But why not life bans for dangerous drivers? The worst I ever heard was probably getting on for twenty years ago now, but it involved a driver who was fed up of waiting in a traffic jam, so he drove onto the grass verge, while making a phone call, and killed a girl who was pushing her bike. It was his third dangerous driving conviction and he got 5 years in jail and a 10 year driving ban.

Why only 10 year driving ban? Clearly that man is utterly unfit to drive a car. Certainly a second conviction for dangerous driving, especially if one of the convictions involves death, ought to result in a life ban. Possibly the first offence should be a life ban. With the certainty of a jail sentence for the offender if he ever gets behind the wheel again.

I’d be waiting at the prison gate for his release if victim was my daughter, knowing he’ll just do it again and again. In situations like that I really don’t understand our justice system. Scumbag has demonstrated doesn’t care and doesn’t learn. What use is it giving him further chances. Get rid. Feed him to the pigs, Errol...

 

[dsr-burnley]

Driving bans are worse than useless. The driver in Worthing, already mentioned, was already banned.

A driving ban is not useless if it is backed up by the certainty of jail if breached. They can't drive while in a secure prison.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A driving ban is not useless if it is backed up by the certainty of jail if breached. They can't drive while in a secure prison.

Unfortunately, it isn't a deterrent. There are many banned drivers on the road, uninsured as well.

 

[Uter]

I'm not too fussed about jail sentences for dangerous drivers. What I don't get is why they are allowed to drive again. The woman mentioned in the OP was probably borderline whether she was careless or dangerous, based on the story as reported, but hit-and-run makes the incident that much more serious.

But why not life bans for dangerous drivers? The worst I ever heard was probably getting on for twenty years ago now, but it involved a driver who was fed up of waiting in a traffic jam, so he drove onto the grass verge, while making a phone call, and killed a girl who was pushing her bike. It was his third dangerous driving conviction and he got 5 years in jail and a 10 year driving ban.

Why only 10 year driving ban? Clearly that man is utterly unfit to drive a car. Certainly a second conviction for dangerous driving, especially if one of the convictions involves death, ought to result in a life ban. Possibly the first offence should be a life ban. With the certainty of a jail sentence for the offender if he ever gets behind the wheel again.

Crazy isn't it? Our society effectively treats driving as a right so precious that it can only ever be removed temporarily even for the most egregious of cases.

 

[Stat Brother]

We can't be trusted to use cars safely, that genie is out of the bottle, so therefore we need better protection from drivers and motor vehicles.
'We' don't think beyond making cars safer for the user.


I was reading about a perfectly normal 'left hook' (driver overtaking cyclist only to instantly turn left).
All the usual outrage, how terrifying it must have been for the cyclist, how we've all been in that position, etc, then someone popped up and said:-

'A car shouldn't be able to turn left at comparatively high speed'.


Now there's a genius.


The junction in question was on some bog standard light industrial estate, built any time from post war to now.
In that same time cars have gone from pissy little engined, drum brake, poor excuses for transport on two inch width of rubber tyres.

To 0 - 60 in 9 seconds, 2 litre turbo, ABS, family tourers with 3 foot of rubber planting them safely on the road at any speed.

Yet the roads and environment around them has remained exactly the same, while the capacity on them has exploded.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Unfortunately, it isn't a deterrent. There are many banned drivers on the road, uninsured as well.

But if driving while banned carried an automatic jail sentence, then the ones who were caught would not do it again because they were in jail, and at least some of the ones not caught would have the intelligence to realise it wasn't worth it.

As for driving wothout insurance, I have a solution for that as well. Automatic fine of five times the money you saved by not having insurance. So if you drove for 2 years with no insurance and it should have cost £2k per year, fine = £2k x 2 x 5 = £20,000. BUT - apart from inpounding and selling the car, paying the fine is optional If the driver decides that it isn't worth it, then all that happens is that he or she loses his or her licence until it is paid. Which may be a lifetime, or they may get the money later in life. And of course if they continue to drive while subject to the ban, then off they go to jail with the other banned drivers.

 

[Weststander]

Unfortunately, it isn't a deterrent. There are many banned drivers on the road, uninsured as well.

The numbers have fallen from 1.72m (the 2005 peak) to 1m now - insurance industry stats. I put that down to ANPR in many police cars and also mounted on gantries/posts in various places.

Still too high of course.

The rest may well included tossers on cloned plates.


Aside from that criminal rump, there are millions of drivers who text and use Instagram etc whilst driving. All sorts - lorry and van drivers, females and males on the school run. It’s a disgrace. Academics have studied driving competence whilst doing so, it’s possibly worse than drink and drug driving because there are literally no eyes on the road.

A few times recently I’ve seen delivery drivers in vans on their phones whilst navigating corners and junctions, the telltale sign was no indicating .... not enough hands!

A minimum ban of 18 months, no ifs, buts, “I live in the countryside”, should do the trick.

I recall when faux libertarians thought wearing seat belts was an anathema.

 

[Weststander]

We can't be trusted to use cars safely, that genie is out of the bottle, so therefore we need better protection from drivers and motor vehicles.
'We' don't think beyond making cars safer for the user.


I was reading about a perfectly normal 'left hook' (driver overtaking cyclist only to instantly turn left).
All the usual outrage, how terrifying it must have been for the cyclist, how we've all been in that position, etc, then someone popped up and said:-

'A car shouldn't be able to turn left at comparatively high speed'.


Now there's a genius.


The junction in question was on some bog standard light industrial estate, built any time from post war to now.
In that same time cars have gone from pissy little engined, drum brake, poor excuses for transport on two inch width of rubber tyres.

To 0 - 60 in 9 seconds, 2 litre turbo, ABS, family tourers with 3 foot of rubber planting them safely on the road at any speed.

Yet the roads and environment around them has remained exactly the same, while the capacity on them has exploded.

I’m just a recreational/fitness hybrid bike rider, on the roads. 40 minute rides around the very steep hills in this part of Brighton and the Downs.

I’ve always been very aware of the driving style of cutting across and left, so I simply adapt my cycling by assuming that every **** might do it. I don’t bomb down streets at 25mph regardless. Yes, I know I’d be in the right by law, but it’s only me who’d face life changing injuries or worse.

Mobile phones are the worrying game changer. You could be taken out from behind at any moment.

 

[sydney]

Worthing herald was reporting about the sentencing of a man from Worthing who hit and killed a young father of two, he was arrested but denied any involvement released on bail and went into hiding missing his court date he was found in Crawley charged he then changed his plea to guilty Killing a man through careless driving while not having a driving licence or insurance his sentence 18 months in prison and 3 year driving ban!!!!!!!!!!

****sake .....that is pathetic but if you get caught with an ounce of sniff or a kilo of weed you'll do 3 years .....absolute joke these sentences for killing people whilst driving under the influence.

 

[sydney]

Complete bullshit!, and you probably know it.

Have a look around at sentences for causing death by dangerous driving. The results will shock you. As will all other driving related sentencing.

It's a car culture dictating these sentences. Not race.

It's you that's playing the race card here.

can you imagine the absolute outrage if it was a white driver and an asian kid .......as it is the honkeys just take it in their stride and carry on.....just saying , 3 years for taking a childs life and driving away is a ****ing travesty of justice regardless of racial dynamics.......pathetic sentence.

 

[Uter]

Aside from that criminal rump, there are millions of drivers who text and use Instagram etc whilst driving.

Sadly I see multiple drivers using their phones every single day when I walk my daughter to school. A lot of people have them on their laps, but glancing down repeatedly is such a giveaway. Depressingly, a large proportion of people will flout the law if they think they will get away with it. And they do get away with it.

The one-off risk maybe small, but when this happens hundreds of thousands of times a day, maybe even millions, it means many more completely avoidable deaths and serious injuries.

A new low was seeing a women driving whilst looking looking at a laptop open on the passenger seat next to her last week. I was tempted to get my phone out and take a video, but by the time I've adjusted the brightness to compensate for not having my glasses the traffic has usually moved on. Makes me so angry.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Hard to argue that isn't a possibility. Only a possibility though - no more than that.

Funny how people can't help having a certain thought when black people are involved. It says everything about them and nothing about anything else, though, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sadly I see multiple drivers using their phones every single day when I walk my daughter to school. A lot of people have them on their laps, but glancing down repeatedly is such a giveaway. Depressingly, a large proportion of people will flout the law if they think they will get away with it. And they do get away with it.

The one-off risk maybe small, but when this happens hundreds of thousands of times a day, maybe even millions, it means many more completely avoidable deaths and serious injuries.

A new low was seeing a women driving whilst looking looking at a laptop open on the passenger seat next to her last week. I was tempted to get my phone out and take a video, but by the time I've adjusted the brightness to compensate for not having my glasses the traffic has usually moved on. Makes me so angry.

I assume you were a pedestrian at the time, right?

 

[Stat Brother]

This would save so many lives:-

[tweet]1378365615606542341[/tweet]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The numbers have fallen from 1.72m (the 2005 peak) to 1m now - insurance industry stats. I put that down to ANPR in many police cars and also mounted on gantries/posts in various places.

Still too high of course.

The rest may well included tossers on cloned plates.


Aside from that criminal rump, there are millions of drivers who text and use Instagram etc whilst driving. All sorts - lorry and van drivers, females and males on the school run. It’s a disgrace. Academics have studied driving competence whilst doing so, it’s possibly worse than drink and drug driving because there are literally no eyes on the road.

A few times recently I’ve seen delivery drivers in vans on their phones whilst navigating corners and junctions, the telltale sign was no indicating .... not enough hands!

A minimum ban of 18 months, no ifs, buts, “I live in the countryside”, should do the trick.

I recall when faux libertarians thought wearing seat belts was an anathema.

Indeed. Althought it seemed more male gammon than John Locke and Thomas Paine to me at the time. This was only a few years after the 'my driving actually improves a bit after a few pints, and I know my limits' song. It's known as 'push back'. Unfortunately we have a PM who is very sensitive to libertarian push back presently.