Drug driver who killed cyclist staged fake crash to hide damage to car

Already been mentioned in the comments as it was in a seperate story the same day.

Quote:

Howick was jailed for three-and-a-half years and banned from driving for 47 months.

It doesn't mention whether that will be served time and also whether it includes the Guilty Plea time off or not. 

Agreed. Although it was lucky he crashed again as well.

See, I personally would have a fixed ban of 5 years if found guilty of causing death by careless driving with a license retake to get it back and the new license restricted to low power cars for x amount of years the same as Motorbikes are now. Also these affected drivers should also have a smaller points limit for bans (6 instead of 12) for the same period as the restrictions on engine power.

Any driving whilst banned or driving powerful cars when not allowed should be an extension to the ban and auto jail sentence of x months increasing for repeat offenders.  That way they either reform their driving habits or lose it altogether. 

But then I would also have license retakes every 10 years for normal drivers as well as too many pick up bad habits driving without realising and also don't know the HC changes as mentioned in previous articles. I would also throw in a cycle proficiency at the same time unless medically exempt to cycle as it will give drivers only a glimpse of life as a cyclist and also give car AND Cyclist people an update on the cycling skills and HC rules for cyclists.

I can relate to a limited ban for causing a collision that leads to damage and/or injury, but if a driver has caused the death of another road user (driver, cyclist or ped), then I just don't see that society is served by allowing them back on the road. They had their chance and unfortunately, they've shown beyond doubt that their driving is not safe. I appreciate that people can learn and improve skills etc. but I consider it an insult to the victim's family to turn around and let them back behind the wheel.

To be honest, I find it disturbing that someone would want to ever drive again after causing the death of another person. That mindset alone makes me suspicious of how they behave around other people.

So do you ban ex cons from doing anything or do you think that a second chance is allowed once sentences are served? 

I prefer the latter at least once to see if they have improved but with limitations. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

So do you ban ex cons from doing anything or do you think that a second chance is allowed once sentences are served? 

I prefer the latter at least once to see if they have improved but with limitations. 

Depends on the nature of the crime and the work. e.g. I wouldn't want sex offenders to be allowed to work with children or other vulnerable groups. Similarly, I don't think that a disbarred lawyer should be allowed to practise law and a doctor that has been struck off shouldn't be allowed to run a surgery.

Edit: just to clarify that I've got no problem with employing or working alongside ex-cons, but it does depend on the nature of employment and the crime. The issue I have is when someone has proven that they are unsuitable for a particular career (e.g. driving) - why give them a chance to ruin another person's life?

And those are specific rules in place by those organisations and even with some of those there is an option for reinstatement/employment if certain conditions are met. And it is these conditions I'm stating for the ability to prove to drive again after a long period of time then seems to be set currently. 

Well, for driving, I'd consider that when the victim is fully recovered, then you can re-apply for a license again. That seems fair.

As far as I know, getting disbarred is permanent except under very specific conditions.

Personally, I would want to see the same sentencing regardless of whether an injury has been caused, the severity of any injury, or whether it resulted in a death.

If you take a blind bend at 70mph and there happens to be no-one there, your driving isn't somehow less bad than the person who does the same and knocks someone down. You've both taken the same, equally unacceptable, risk. The difference is one of (literally) blind luck, and neither of you should be on the roads until there can be a reasonable expectation that you've changed your attitude to driving.

Having a different approach depending on the outcome is essentially saying "it's fine, as long as you get away with it".

Nice idea in theory, but in practise it does make a huge difference on the specifics. If you drive badly, but manage to not hit anyone, then it can be considered a learning experience. If you do the same manoeuvre, hit someone and leave them for dead, then that's obviously a more serious offence even though it's the same actions (obviously you wouldn't stop and call an ambulance for when you don't hit someone).

That assumes that people will actually learn, though. I suspect that it's actually far more common that they just think 'that idiot could have got themselves killed', and carry on driving exactly the same unless and until they eventually do kill or seriously injure someone.

The leaving someone for dead is a slightly different issue, and a separate offence.

Howick was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment and was disqualified from driving for two years and 21 months

At least some jail time, but it really doesn't seem enough.

Agreed. ;-(

What a scumbag.