Drug driver told to expect jail for killing cyclist

Valbrona wrote:

his driving ban, probably about four years, will probably run concurrent with his four years or therabouts prison sentence. (And yes I know he never even had a driving licence in the first place).

That bit changed a year or so back. Now driving bans start after 50% of the prison time served (as most only serve 1/2 the prison time).

Valbrona wrote:

Gee ... there's a liberal everywhere you turn on this website.

The irony is that his driving ban, probably about four years, will probably run concurrent with his four years or therabouts prison sentence. (And yes I know he never even had a driving licence in the first place).

Ban killers from the road for life. Mandatory prison sentence if a banned driver is ever caught driving. And then if they were driving while banned they would at least be bloody careful.

Not everyone who disagrees with a katie hopkins style short-sighted knee-jerk reactionary dogmatism is a liberal you know - I would certainly be pro capital punishment if it was reserved for sanctimonious bigots in an attempt to weed out the hypocritically stupid among us.

Valbrona wrote:

So I get it. You think as long as this man has done his prison sentence and comes out of prison and applies for a provisional licence and passes his test and acts like a good boy and becomes a Pizza Hut delivery driver or a mini-cab driver ... that is okay. Me, I'd rather such individuals receive a lifetime ban from the roads; which of course still gives people like this the opportunity of driving illegally as any imbecile with half a brain would be able to work out. Better the opportunity of these people on day being legally able to drive taken away from them for life.

you seem to put a lot of faith in the free will of the individual - surely the whole point is to get him to "act like a good boy"?

unfortunately, most issues of road safety and the culture of disaffected youth are systemic problems, so an overly punititve approach to individuals will only serve to further alienate and criminalise them - do you really want to promote a culture where people such as this really feel they have nothing left to lose?

beezus fufoon wrote:

unfortunately, most issues of road safety and the culture of disaffected youth are systemic problems, so an overly punititve approach to individuals will only serve to further alienate and criminalise them - do you really want to promote a culture where people such as this really feel they have nothing left to lose?

The reason I don't entirely agree with you is that I think there are other issues involved. One can be entirely unenthusiastic about an 'overly punitive approach to individuals' _in general_, but still be unhappy about the general message being sent when certain categories of crime are treated noticably more leniently than are others.

Not only is it very much my subjective impression that offences are treated far more softly when the weapon involved is a car, it has been shown to be the case in at least one academic study that sentences for such offences have gotten shorter over the same time that sentences for other offences have gotten longer.

It's similar to how it makes one suspicious as to what is the underlying message when violent sexual offences against women get shorter sentences than do non-violent cases of theft or fraud. (I don't think this problem is quite as bad as it used to be in previous decades, but I'm not sure its gone away yet ).

What one thinks about punitive sentences in general is a different subject from what different standards of sentencing says about society's biases, and people can get upset about that.

Its also a different subject from what one thinks might be the best way to solve the problems caused by our transport system. Which isn't going to be fixed by locking up bad drivers one-at-a-time (and, sadly, "kill them all, let God sort them out" doesn't seem to be politically possible, so infrastructure it is then)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

unfortunately, most issues of road safety and the culture of disaffected youth are systemic problems, so an overly punititve approach to individuals will only serve to further alienate and criminalise them - do you really want to promote a culture where people such as this really feel they have nothing left to lose?

The reason I don't entirely agree with you is that I think there are other issues involved. One can be entirely unenthusiastic about an 'overly punitive approach to individuals' _in general_, but still be unhappy about the general message being sent when certain categories of crime are treated noticably more leniently than are others.

Not only is it very much my subjective impression that offences are treated far more softly when the weapon involved is a car, it has been shown to be the case in at least one academic study that sentences for such offences have gotten shorter over the same time that sentences for other offences have gotten longer.

It's similar to how it makes one suspicious as to what is the underlying message when violent sexual offences against women get shorter sentences than do non-violent cases of theft or fraud. (I don't think this problem is quite as bad as it used to be in previous decades, but I'm not sure its gone away yet ).

What one thinks about punitive sentences in general is a different subject from what different standards of sentencing says about society's biases, and people can get upset about that.

Its also a different subject from what one thinks might be the best way to solve the problems caused by our transport system. Which isn't going to be fixed by locking up bad drivers one-at-a-time (and, sadly, "kill them all, let God sort them out" doesn't seem to be politically possible, so infrastructure it is then)

yes, I agree with you in the main - in any situation where you let minimally trained people operate heavy machinery, unsupervised, and around a lot of others with little or no protection, then it's pretty obvious what the result will be - the focus on individuals here simply avoids this issue, although it does give us all a reason to feel morally superior and pontificate on the matter.

It is desirable to have consistency with sentencing, however, as you point out, the underlying message reinforces existing social biases - my point is that these biases go completely unnoticed and unquestioned by this fabrication of moral outrage directed against individual perpetrators as if they are abberations rather than symptomatic of the wider issues here.

Stumps wrote:

After sitting in Crown Court on many an occasion this is something that most judges say to defendants, its not an out of the ordinary remark to be honest.

Obviously if you hear or read it for the first time its quite surprising considering he killed a man.

 

Surprising is about right. Would have been nice to hear 'prepare never to be free again', but I suppose that's too much too hope for, after all he only killed one person.

Valbrona wrote:

Lifetime ban.

That's not going to make much difference to somebody who was driving without a licence already...

PaulBox wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Lifetime ban.

That's not going to make much difference to somebody who was driving without a licence already...

Why not?

As a start anyone who has done what this person has should be banned from driving for the rest of their lifetime.

Note that even a driver who does not hold any type of driving licence, either full/provisional, can receive a driving ban. The thought of this man one day obtaining a provisional/full friving licence and taking to the roads is a worrying one.

Not sure what you don't get about that.

Valbrona wrote:

PaulBox wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Lifetime ban.

That's not going to make much difference to somebody who was driving without a licence already...

Why not?

As a start anyone who has done what this person has should be banned from driving for the rest of their lifetime.

Note that even a driver who does not hold any type of driving licence, either full/provisional, can receive a driving ban. The thought of this man one day obtaining a provisional/full friving licence and taking to the roads is a worrying one.

Not sure what you don't get about that.

Because quite clearly this offender does not feel having a licence or insurance is necessary to drive, so banning him will not affect his behaviour at all.

Once he is out he will be driving again, the system needs a means of enforcing driving bans because at the moment the chances of being stopped while driving illegally are too low.

I don't believe for a second this was the first time he was driving illegally.

Valbrona wrote:

PaulBox wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Lifetime ban.

That's not going to make much difference to somebody who was driving without a licence already...

The thought of this man one day obtaining a provisional/full friving licence and taking to the roads is a worrying one.

Petrifying: he might get in a car and kill someone with it. Good job he's not taken to the roads already.

Valbrona wrote:

PaulBox wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Lifetime ban.

That's not going to make much difference to somebody who was driving without a licence already...

Why not?

As a start anyone who has done what this person has should be banned from driving for the rest of their lifetime.

Note that even a driver who does not hold any type of driving licence, either full/provisional, can receive a driving ban. The thought of this man one day obtaining a provisional/full friving licence and taking to the roads is a worrying one.

Not sure what you don't get about that.

maybe he should also receive a ban from doing illegal drugs?

beezus fufoon wrote:

I'm amazed at the phrase, "cyclists should not be expected to take their lives in their hands every time they set out on the roads” - the councillor seems to have not noticed the everyday conditions outside of his own mind... 

I agree with him. Cyclists should not be expected to take their lives in their hands every time they set out on the road.

Where I don't agree with him and believe that he is being incredibly naive though is when he comments "It is pleasing that the person has admitted it and I am sure he will be suitably punished". I am equally sure that they won't be suitably punished.

psling wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

I'm amazed at the phrase, "cyclists should not be expected to take their lives in their hands every time they set out on the roads” - the councillor seems to have not noticed the everyday conditions outside of his own mind... 

I agree with him. Cyclists should not be expected to take their lives in their hands every time they set out on the road.

Where I don't agree with him and believe that he is being incredibly naive though is when he comments "It is pleasing that the person has admitted it and I am sure he will be suitably punished". I am equally sure that they won't be suitably punished.

sure, by taking it out of context it does make sense, especially in an area with so many boy racers - but that's not what he intended, rather, he seems to believe that the road conditions for cyclists in that area are ordinarily quite acceptable, which is almost the exact opposite of what you said here.