Late for work van driver who killed cyclist already had 11 points on his licence for speeding

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

It is nigh on impossible to police driving whilst disq. 

Imagine person A gets disq for say 2 years. He then gets in a car owned by person B, how will the Police be able to tell if that person is disq or not. The registration wont flag up on any ANPR so person A continues to drive in the hope that they 1: dont get stopped for a minor traffic offence 2: be involved in an accident.

If someone wants to drive they will. The only way to stop this is imprisonment on second conviction. 

I'm not talking about months or years just maybe 2 weeks or similar with a gradual increase depending on number of times caught. 

Unfortunatley this or any other govt would'nt have the balls to do it so we might as well wish for the death penalty for all the good it would do. 

Coupled with punishment for person b for giving them the car.
If it were a legal requirement for all drivers to be named on insurance and the insurance companies could check a list of disqualified drivers, then there could be no doubt.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

It is nigh on impossible to police driving whilst disq. 

Imagine person A gets disq for say 2 years. He then gets in a car owned by person B, how will the Police be able to tell if that person is disq or not. The registration wont flag up on any ANPR so person A continues to drive in the hope that they 1: dont get stopped for a minor traffic offence 2: be involved in an accident.

If someone wants to drive they will. The only way to stop this is imprisonment on second conviction. 

I'm not talking about months or years just maybe 2 weeks or similar with a gradual increase depending on number of times caught. 

Unfortunatley this or any other govt would'nt have the balls to do it so we might as well wish for the death penalty for all the good it would do. 

Coupled with punishment for person b for giving them the car. If it were a legal requirement for all drivers to be named on insurance and the insurance companies could check a list of disqualified drivers, then there could be no doubt.

You can't get motor insurance if you are disqualified from driving. Either as a policy holder or as a named driver. The car owner (person B) would be permitting no insurance and aiding and abetting disqualified driving. Or they report the car stolen, which is what ktache was alluding to.

vonhelmet wrote:

It’s not charged as manslaughter because juries don’t convict on manslaughter for driving offences. Now they don’t convict for dangerous or careless, but that’s another matter.

As for fleeing the scene... he can’t flee the scene of an accident if he isn’t aware of there having been an accident.

So you're taking the word of a killer driver, I guess you believe that criminal slag who claimed to have hit a sack of potatoes when she mowed down Michael Mason too! He drove on after obviously striking something with enough kinetic energy to launch a human being 100feet ffs. If you can't notice that then I don't know what you would.

His bullshit is there to see, why did he bother to return to the scene if all he had was a flat tyre and wasn't aware of having hit something/one??

Please don't ever use the word 'accident' when discussing these types of incidents, it's incorrect and somewhat offensive.

As for not charging on manslaughter, CPS were happy enough to charge Charlie Alliston with it on the back of the deceased stepping into his path whilst he was doing 10mph trying to avoid her and steering away from her.

Sorry but it's yet another case of bias and yet another light sentence.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

It’s not charged as manslaughter because juries don’t convict on manslaughter for driving offences. Now they don’t convict for dangerous or careless, but that’s another matter.

As for fleeing the scene... he can’t flee the scene of an accident if he isn’t aware of there having been an accident.

So you're taking the word of a killer driver, I guess you believe that criminal slag who claimed to have hit a sack of potatoes when she mowed down Michael Mason too! He drove on after obviously striking something with enough kinetic energy to launch a human being 100feet ffs. If you can't notice that then I don't know what you would.

His bullshit is there to see, why did he bother to return to the scene if all he had was a flat tyre and wasn't aware of having hit something/one??

Please don't ever use the word 'accident' when discussing these types of incidents, it's incorrect and somewhat offensive.

As for not charging on manslaughter, CPS were happy enough to charge Charlie Alliston with it on the back of the deceased stepping into his path whilst he was doing 10mph trying to avoid her and steering away from her.

Sorry but it's yet another case of bias and yet another light sentence.

If you read the article, you'll see he returned to the scene after becoming aware he may have hit someone.  Your accusation makes no sense at all. If he was leaving the scene after (as you assert) being aware that he hit someone, why would he then return due to a flat tyre? 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

It’s not charged as manslaughter because juries don’t convict on manslaughter for driving offences. Now they don’t convict for dangerous or careless, but that’s another matter.

As for fleeing the scene... he can’t flee the scene of an accident if he isn’t aware of there having been an accident.

So you're taking the word of a killer driver, I guess you believe that criminal slag who claimed to have hit a sack of potatoes when she mowed down Michael Mason too! He drove on after obviously striking something with enough kinetic energy to launch a human being 100feet ffs. If you can't notice that then I don't know what you would.

His bullshit is there to see, why did he bother to return to the scene if all he had was a flat tyre and wasn't aware of having hit something/one??

Please don't ever use the word 'accident' when discussing these types of incidents, it's incorrect and somewhat offensive.

As for not charging on manslaughter, CPS were happy enough to charge Charlie Alliston with it on the back of the deceased stepping into his path whilst he was doing 10mph trying to avoid her and steering away from her.

Sorry but it's yet another case of bias and yet another light sentence.

The legislation from which the charge arises refers to an “accident” and that is what the charge is called. Get over it. I know we don’t like to call these things “accidents” because it implies no one is at fault, but it’s right there in the statute book.

Charlie Alliston wasn’t convicted of manslaughter, so maybe juries won’t convict any road user on that offence, no matter their mode of transport. Besides, he wasn’t driving a car when he killed someone, so he couldn’t be charged with causing death by dangerous driving even if the CPS wanted to charge him with that. The point is the dangerous and careless driving offences were brought in specifically to deal with the fact that no one was getting convicted of manslaughter for killing people while driving. Manslaughter requires the death to occur while you’re doing something that is in itself illegal. Neither driving a car nor in Charlie’s case riding a bike are inherently illegal, so you can’t get a manslaughter charge to stick. You could maybe get there by arguing that, say, it’s criminal to drive at 80mph, but a lot of the jury are going to be thinking “hmm, but I sometimes drive at 80mph” so then they won’t convict.

Our society holds driving as sacrosanct. That is the problem. Until that changes, it’s rather irrelevant what the CPS charges people with because the jury will just acquit.

iandusud wrote:

As others have said it should be a life ban. He openly admitted in court that he has no respect for laws applied to driving so why should he allowed to have a driving licence? It's beyond belief! CPS should appeal the decision. 

There's a wealth of case law and legislation around the area of indeterminate sentencing - a five year ban and extended test is one solution to that issue....

[/quote]There's a wealth of case law and legislation around the area of indeterminate sentencing - a five year ban and extended test is one solution to that issue....

[/quote]

Don't place too much faith in the extended test to clear the roads of idiots, it is simply the normal, basic test but lengthened from 35 minutes to an hour.  The standard expected is no different and most experienced drivers have little trouble passing after a couple of hours ironing out bad habits with an instructor. 

mike the bike wrote:

 

There's a wealth of case law and legislation around the area of indeterminate sentencing - a five year ban and extended test is one solution to that issue....

[/quote]

Don't place too much faith in the extended test to clear the roads of idiots, it is simply the normal, basic test but lengthened from 35 minutes to an hour.  The standard expected is no different and most experienced drivers have little trouble passing after a couple of hours ironing out bad habits with an instructor. 

[/quote]

And why should someone who openly asserts that he has no regard for laws relating to driving be allowed to take a driving test? 

iandusud wrote:

And why should someone who openly asserts that he has no regard for laws relating to driving be allowed to take a driving test? 

Because it’s inconceivable in our society that someone be forbidden from driving.

On a more practical level, it’s also basically unenforceable that someone be forbidden from driving.

vonhelmet wrote:

iandusud wrote:

And why should someone who openly asserts that he has no regard for laws relating to driving be allowed to take a driving test? 

Because it’s inconceivable in our society that someone be forbidden from driving.

On a more practical level, it’s also basically unenforceable that someone be forbidden from driving.

Both your points are very accurate and well made. However even if the courts can't stop someone from driving (ie even if you take their licence away they can still jump in a car a drive) they should not be giving such people the right to hold a licence. The message that is sent out is important, particularly for victims, their families and society at large. 

exilegareth wrote:

iandusud wrote:

As others have said it should be a life ban. He openly admitted in court that he has no respect for laws applied to driving so why should he allowed to have a driving licence? It's beyond belief! CPS should appeal the decision. 

There's a wealth of case law and legislation around the area of indeterminate sentencing - a five year ban and extended test is one solution to that issue....

This is the problem in a nutshell - revoking someone's license to drive is seen as a punishment, the reasonableness of which should be judged alongside other punishments such as prison. 

Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. I simply do not understand why it has to be dealt with by the criminal law and only the criminal law.

The first issue is of course the standard of proof in crimnial cases - beyond all reasonable doubt is a high bar (and is meant to be). There is also the issue of juries and, as has been said so many times, the problem with having juries assessing driving cases is that many if not most jury members will be drivers, and there is too much willingness to forgive everyday bad driving. 

I can accept that prison sentences should only be handed out after a criminal trial*. However, I see no justification for saying that having permission to drive can only be dealt with by the criminal law. Make it a civil issue.

Any issues of indeterminate sentencing, standard of proof, etc... fall away, as the law would more accurately reflect reality - all that has been taken away is a privilige you initially earned by passing a test, but has been lost because you've acted like a cockwomble. 

*It should be noted that you can be imprisoned for contempt of court even in purely civil cases, if a penal notice has been given (i.e. repeated contempts with a clear warning that if you do it again, it's prison). If licenses to drive were dealt with purely as a civil matter, then I'd want penal notices given whenever licenses are taken away. 

Edit: obviously none of this will ever happen...

Rich_cb wrote:

Shoyld be a default life ban for causing death by dangerous driving.

As I've said in previous threads; ban these criminals for life and if they want to appeal let's have a meaningful debate about the right to drive.

Rich_cb wrote:

Shoyld be a default life ban for causing death by dangerous driving.

it should, if you could guarantee they never sat behind the wheel of a vehicle ever again and would be caught if they did...but there arent alot of police on the roads around Norfolk, I think actually between Norfolk and Suffolk who run a combined road & firearms unit across both counties, they have just 4 police motorbikes to cover the entire area...which is how people end up thinking its acceptable to drive at 80mph on a 50mph road or also from the Kings Lynn area just the other week they stopped a car with a driver using a bucket as a seat and mole grips to steer with... http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/driver-sitting-on-a-bucket-and-steerin...

Rich_cb wrote:

Shoyld be a default life ban for causing death by dangerous driving.

Absolutely. With public transport, taxis and lifts from others as alternative commuting solutions, surely the courts can't say that not driving would be too great a punishment. It's not as if he hasn't got other options.

The biggest irony would be to see the idiot resorting to riding a bike. In fact perhaps during their prison sentences, these guys should be made to ride 10 km along varied routes during the morning and evening peak hour rush.

Rich_cb wrote:

Shoyld be a default life ban for causing death by dangerous driving.

Absolutely. With public transport, taxis and lifts from others as alternative commuting solutions, surely the courts can't say that not driving would be too great a punishment. It's not as if he hasn't got other options.

The biggest irony would be to see the idiot resorting to riding a bike. In fact perhaps during their prison sentences, these guys should be made to ride 10 km along varied routes during the morning and evening peak hour rush.

Rich_cb wrote:

Shoyld be a default life ban for causing death by dangerous driving.

Absolutely. With public transport, taxis and lifts from others as alternative commuting solutions, surely the courts can't say that not driving would be too great a punishment. It's not as if he hasn't got other options.

The biggest irony would be to see the idiot resorting to riding a bike. In fact perhaps during their prison sentences, these guys should be made to ride 10 km along varied routes during the morning and evening peak hour rush.