Coventry driver escapes jail after killing cyclist on pedestrian crossing

chadders wrote:

Think yet again its time to look at "manslaughter whilst in charge of a motor vehicle". Ok you didn't mean to kill anyone but the fact is you did, then let a jury decide based on the evidence.
Whats the difference between careless and dangerous driving, a careless act can be dangerous just by its nature so get rid of them and replace with one charge.
Another poor sentence by a person who if complained about will be "judged" by fellow members of the old boys club.

Well essentially you do have manslaughter while driving a vehicle. It's just that you have a two specific categories for it that are informed by behaviour on the road.

And there is an obvious and clear difference between Careless driving and dangerous driving. It's a factor of what the law defines as "mens rea" state of mind or , intent.

If you are racing on the road, deliberately running red lights, excessively speeding, cutting people up ie deliberately doing things that any reasonable person would regard as dangerous then you are driving dangerously.

if you are not paying sufficient attention to what you are doing. ie you are not intending to drive dangerously then albeit your actions may pose a danger that is not your intent. Then you are driving carelessly.

The first is deliberate commission of something that the driver knows is dangerous.
The second is omission of something (due care) without intent to cause danger.

If you kill someone whilst driving dangerously the max sentence is 14 years
If you kill someone whilst driving carelessly the max sentence is 5 years.

There's a very good reason wht they are separate and that is because it is most certainly not the same crime because there is no intent to cause danger in the second.

Lumping it all together is utterly utterly counterproductive. A perfectly normal person who usually is a good driver but for one reason or another is distracted or momentarily lacks attention and ends up caulsing a collision in which someone is killed has comitted and offence. A serious one. But they are completely differnt in nature to someone that steals a fast car and decides to go joy riding at lethal speed knowing that someone could easily be killed. That's something else entirely.

Mart wrote:

Can someone please start a campaign for a mandatory life ban for anyone found guilty of causing death by dangerous or careless driving.
I don't care what organisation champions it, car, bike or political, it is just in the interest of all persons in the UK for this to happen. There are elections coming up and now is the time.
My vote is for sale to the political party that champions it.

No. For a start these are two different crimes. Across the spectrum that's everything from someone not checking a mirror on a moped to using an HGV as an offensive weapon to mow down a bus queue.

If you ask whether the sentences should be stiffer. I'll agree.
If you ask whether the CD by DD should have a sentencing starting point of 10 years (ie only mitigating factors reduce that) then I'll agree.
I'm perfectly happy with 10 15 or even 20 year bans and even lifetime bans in some cases.

But what you've asked for is that a teenager on a moped would be banned for life as a matter of course for making a mistake that resulted in a fatality.

There's a reason wht Careless and Dangerous driving are treated differently. One is generally omission and the other generally commission having no regard for the circumstances and the facts of a case, the intent or otherwise of the accused is just silly.

Leodis wrote:

I've given up on justice in the UK, time after time we hear the same old pathetic judgements made.

No wonder so many people refuse to cycle on UK roads, they are not safe and whats worse the justice system actively defends through lenient sentences drivers who kill.

Keep safe brothers & sisters on the roads.

Cycling in the UK is generally safe. Just over 100 or so cyclists are killed per year (118 in 2012) According to the CTC Around 8% of the population (3 million people) cycle 3 times a week or more. The mileage cycled in the UK is up 20% over the last 15 years from 4 billion kms in 1998 to 5 billion kms in 2012. On average you need to ride 42 million km to get a fatality.

Even serious injuries are quite rare (and newsworthy) The number of seriously injured cyclists in 2012 was 3,222.

On the same calculation on average you need to ride around a million and a half km to get seriously injured. I've been riding the roads properly since 1973 and I doubt I am anywhere near a fraction of that sort of mileage.

And remember those figures are skewed by the high proportion of kids in the figures and the fact that all cyclist deaths and injuries are included. Even when that includes racing and even when they aren't on the road.

My worst cycling injuries were in races and had nothing to do with motorists. I broke my collarbone jumping a bunker on Queens Park Golf Course in Bournemouth in 1972. Nowt to do with any racing or any motorists.

Cycling is safe (unless you are 11 and just watched Evil Kneivel on World of Sport and decide to have a go at it yourself).

Please don't add any more fuel to the cycling is dangerous mood. For most people it isn't. It really isn't.

Cycling is safe.

That's one fatality for

antonio wrote:

'Jail the Judge'

Ok facts of life for you and several others here. The judge does not make up the sentence. He/she applies a set of guidelines on sentence to the person convicted. There is a maximum sentence, there is also a starting point for sentencing usually about half way between maximum and minimum. The judge then looks at the aggravating and mitigating factors.

So if the judge goes outside these guidelines the sentence can be appealed.

I get the anger about sentencing. I am annoyed that sentences for this kind of thing are so lenient. BUT the issue is not so much the judge being lenient it is the fact that the sentences that they can apply and the guidelines used are so lenient. And the whole thing is muddied by the CPS not prosecuting properly on the bigger charge and bringing a more minor charge to assure a conviction. What that means is that all to often dangerous drivers get careless driving convictions. The sentences are quite different. The judge can only sentence you for the crime you are convicted of.

What's my point. Stop blaming the police and the judges. Start getting the law changed and the sentences increased. (and you may find the police and the judges actually support that).

antonio wrote:

'Jail the Judge'

Probably more appropriate to jail the CPS. They are the ones who are so reluctant to charge people with "death by dangerous..." rather than "careless".

Though perhaps one should jail the juries that the CPS think won't convict on the former charge, or the politicians who came up with this stupid (and rather odd) careless/dangerous distinction, or the voters who elect those politicians.

The blame gets spread and dissipated until nobody is to blame yet the pointless and unnecessary killings continue.

I'm curious how average sentences sit within the range given by the guidelines. If judges disagree with the situation the sentences they give would presumably be knocking up against the upper end of the range. If, on the other hand, they are averaging at the lower end, one could conclude judges are part of the problem.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

antonio wrote:

'Jail the Judge'

Probably more appropriate to jail the CPS. They are the ones who are so reluctant to charge people with "death by dangerous..." rather than "careless".

Though perhaps one should jail the juries that the CPS think won't convict on the former charge, or the politicians who came up with this stupid (and rather odd) careless/dangerous distinction, or the voters who elect those politicians.

The blame gets spread and dissipated until nobody is to blame yet the pointless and unnecessary killings continue.

I'm curious how average sentences sit within the range given by the guidelines. If judges disagree with the situation the sentences they give would presumably be knocking up against the upper end of the range. If, on the other hand, they are averaging at the lower end, one could conclude judges are part of the problem.

The CPS are definitely timid. It looks very much like an accountancy function where the cost of prosecution (roughly the same) is weighed against the likelihood of conviction which is higher for Careless than Dangerous because the threshold of evidence is lower.

On the matter of judges, this particular judge completely disallowed the defence that tried to share blame with the victim.

The maximum sentence for this offence is 5 years imprisonment that would be with a full panoply of aggravating factors. So drugs or alcohol use, previous convictions, a level of carelessness that fell not much short of dangerous driving, not being insured, not having a licence, attempting to evade the scene, not cooperating with the police, making false statements, showing no signs of remorse.

This lady was a first time offender, had no previous, was insured, did not flee the scene, cooperated with the police, siad she was remorseful. The sentence was completely in line with the guidelines.

Should the sentences be tougher? I think they should. Could the judge have given a tougher sentence under the current guidelines? Probably not without it being appealed.

The problem isn't really the sentence, 5 years for careless and 14 years for Dangerous don't seem too light to me considering what you get for your regular missionary position plain old vanilla murder It's the sentencing guidelines that give too much emphasis to mitigating factors and the CPS being too focused on cost benefit and hence risk averse in prosecution charges.

pz1800 wrote:

Please, if you kill someone while driving and it is your fault, you should never drive again. Then let's discuss custodial sentences.

Exactly. And anyone feeling genuine remorse would surely never want to drive again.

TheSpaniard wrote:

As usual, write to whichever body you have to write to to appeal an overly lenient sentence...

I've written to my MP in the past. Reply was the understandable refusal to comment on individual cases, plus the bllx about a 'general review of sentencing', to be completed on the 15th of Never. Rough translation - we won't upset the cager vote.

oldstrath wrote:

TheSpaniard wrote:

As usual, write to whichever body you have to write to to appeal an overly lenient sentence...

I've written to my MP in the past. Reply was the understandable refusal to comment on individual cases, plus the bllx about a 'general review of sentencing', to be completed on the 15th of Never. Rough translation - we won't upset the cager vote.

It is more effective to write to your MP asking them to write on your behalf to the Secretaries of State at the relevant government departments. The reply will be written by a civil servant and will come from a junior minister (unless your MP is a privy counsellor or other senior figure). MPs do pay attention to their post bag as do Ministers. A number of well argued individual letters (not round robin or standard form campaign letters, which are only seen by civil servants) will be noticed.

I would suggest asking your MP to write to the Home Office and MoJ about:

* lack of policing / disregard of road traffic law and sentancing policy (mention the dangers of plod having opted out of policing traffic and the wider threat to civil society about the law falling into disrepute); and,

Department of Transport about poor facilities, road design etc.

The key to this is that a number of well written individual letters will be noticed. Also, share replies with your local media and with the CTC and roadpeace (perhaps including as cc. to your original letter.)