David Cameron: Sentence for Bristol tandem death driver may be reviewed

Insurance companies who for obvious reasons are well ahead of the courts in understanding this issue, feed in the the data which indicates that around 20% of drivers are responsible for 80% of crashes and claims.

A close review of the HGV drivers in London (and elsewhere) who have killed will reveal that a substantial number of the killer drivers have 'form', most notably Denis Putz (20 driving bans, 3 drunk driving, 3 dangerous driving, and prison terms for this) yet no one took away his Category C licence to drive HGV's.

Many responsible companies with company cars, will monitor their drivers and act to train or restrict the drivers who consistently show bad driving behaviours (speeding points etc). Vocational licences - for driving the vehicles most likely to kill & maim can be revoked without the need for a court appearance and driving charge, if the driver is proven to be unfit to hold that licence. OK they can still drive cars and vans up to 7.5T GVW but not the most deadly ones.

We can press for a greater action on penalty points. It is scandalous that the excuses made have allowed drivers to continue with up to 42 penalty points when in theory they should have been banned at 12. The driving ban is part of the sentence, and if you lose your licence you have to do exactly the same as someone who cannot drive, arrange your life accordingly, and when you need to use a private car, pay for a driver to drive it - they're called taxis, or chauffeurs, where they drive your car for you. The driving licence essential detail is rubbish, and an insult to victims when it is played by the defence.

We need a far stronger line that a driving ban is a driving ban, and a far stronger network to pass details of EVERY driving offence committed by a vocational licence holder, so that the regulator for vocational licences is clearly kept in the picture, and can act to remove the Class C (Rigid = up to 32T) D (Buses & Coaches) and E (Articulated trucks) licences from people who pose the highest risk. They can also restrict or even close down the firms who are less rigorous about checking their employee details, after all when the Police checks reveal drivers with no insurance and no HGV licence, who gives them the truck to drive? Indeed who provides the cars to the uninsured and unlicensed who as in this case go on to kill with a car?

There is a little lateral thinking detail - do you sink the battle cruiser or drain the ocean it needs to get around? So is it removing the driver from the car or the car from the driver we need to focus on? removing the driver from the cars (by the level of unlicensed drivers) certainly isn't working effectively.

Disqualified or otherwise unlicenced drivers should not have the luxury of being tried using motoring laws. It's assault with a deadly weapon, or in this case, double manslaughter.

The judges in this country seem obsessed with guidelines. They are for guidance only, not slavish adherence. Two people killed, 2 counts of death by dangerous driving. Two maximum 14 year sentences to serve consecutively. 28 years. Plus any time remaining from previous suspended sentences or probation for the earlier crimes. Job done.

Like most of you i am sure, this tipe of incident is often talked about with your riding group. And i imagine like myself most of you have had near misses where youv'e been waving fingers and shouting at drivers. Most drivers just reply with more of the same as they have no idea how close to hitting you they were.
Maybe as many have staited before all drivers should have some cycle awareness training to pass the driving test.
Even better would be a compulsary 12 months riding before they are aloud to start driving lessons. Then they would actually realise how much space is safe to give a cyclist!

Unfortunately, whether there's an offence of "Causing serious injury by dangerous driving" or not, the 'dangerous' part sabotages it. It's quite difficult to prove 'dangerous' rather than 'careless' driving - even in cases such as this one! - and therefore the CPS tend to downgrade to 'careless' in order to get a conviction rather than going for 'dangerous' and losing.

Perhaps every driver who kills a cyclist either intentionally or by accident should automatically receive a full life term or possibly even the death penalty.

maybe they should review the sentencing on the previous 11 occasions?

Why could we not sentence "near-misses", for example, similarly to those instances where someone has actually been killed? Or do we have to wait til someone dies, to get these people off the road?

(Before anyone points it out - i know he was disqualified from driving already. But he also consistently demonstrated that such disqualification would not stop him driving, til he killed someone - or, two people).

Great. Now what about justice for Audrey Fyfe and that youngster killed by the cancer doctor?

Positive news, though it is a shame that it has taken this long.