Judges told killing a cyclist now an 'aggravating factor' for driving offences, could lead to longer sentences

Totally agree - I got hit by a driver who had 30 points on his licence.

The magistrate who fell for the "extreme hardship" spiel was effectively sentencing me to a spell of extreme hardship and taking away my human rights.

Cycloid wrote:

Totally agree - I got hit by a driver who had 30 points on his licence.

The magistrate who fell for the "extreme hardship" spiel was effectively sentencing me to a spell of extreme hardship and taking away my human rights.

You were hit by someone with 30points on their licence! 
Please do tell us more.. in fact @road.cc can you do a story on this please! 

ChrisB200SX wrote:

I would have thought a driving offence would be an aggravating factor in killing a cyclist (cyclists are people, right?), rather than the other way around?!

I think they are saying that if the victim in a death by careless driving conviction is a vulnerable road user (rather than another driver) this is considered to be an agravating factor.

I.e. take more care around soft human bodies. Don't excuse that as "oh well it only takes a minor mistake"

ChrisB200SX wrote:

(cyclists are people, right?)

Not according to ITV News;

Birmingham to make roads safer for pedestrians with new 30mph speed limit

"the plans will make roads safer for people and cyclists"

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-06-20/pedestrians-made-a-priority-...

Found the answer, it's the date of the sentencing:

In accordance with section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Sentencing Council issues this definitive guideline. It applies to all offenders aged 18 and older, who are sentenced on or after the effective date of this guideline, regardless of the date of the offence.*

(Edit: there's a caveat that the offence has to be sentenced as per the law in place at the time. In the case you referenced yesterday, the offence occurred in 2021, whereas the new law came into force late June 2022, so it will be sentenced with the old guidelines. Seems it's taken a year for the sentencing council to update the guidelines, given the length of court cases, the delay probably won't affect any cases where the offence was committed post June 2022). 

There's a description of how it works here, that's mostly in terms of sex offenders but the same principles would apply.

The maximum sentence would be whatever was in force at the time of the offence, but the current sentencing guidelines will be used.

Interesting. So given that the prior law allowed sentences up to 14 years, there is a chance this case could use the new guidelines and result in a more appropriate sentence than we are used to seeing. 

Off the back wrote:

causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs

This is where the legal system needs to change. One would argue to get behind the wheel or a car while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a 'dangerous' thing to do, yet to kill someone while you are its just careless? 

I see your point absolutely, it doesn't look good, but (as I understand it) careless driving means driving at a standard below that expected of a confident driver, and dangerous driving at a standard well below that of a competent driver, so it is possible to be over the alcohol limit but still be driving at a "careless" rather than "dangerous" level. Personally I would like to see the ambiguity removed by imposing mandatory charges of manslaughter for anyone who, under the influence of drink or drugs, kills when using a vehicle.

https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/driving-offences/

Examples of dangerous driving are:

speeding, racing, or driving aggressively
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers
overtaking dangerously
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load.

I see how the wording can make it seem otherwise, but if you are not 100% in control of the vehicle - and by being intoxicated you probably are not - you are a danger to other road users. Your judgement and reactions are no doubt compromised. You might get someone 3 times over the limit driving quite tamely but does that mean they can react in time if an incident occured ahead of them? 

The message it gives off is being drunk while driving is merely careless behaviour.

I totally agree, I abhor drink driving to the extent that I would make it an offence to drink any alcohol and drive; in my motorcycle days I wouldn't have one pint if I was riding. But in your source, further down under "Driving under the influence" it says:

Police.uk wrote:

Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs (legal and illegal) is a specific offence, but can also be considered as dangerous or careless driving.

So they obviously do sometimes classify incidents involving drink driving as careless. Not saying that's right, just it's what they do.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I see your point absolutely, it doesn't look good, but (as I understand it) careless driving means driving at a standard below that expected of a confident driver, and dangerous driving at a standard wellfar below that of a competent driver, 

Getting behind the wheel while under the influence is surely FAR below the standard of a careful and competant driver, even if the actual manner of moving the vehicle around was not.

Of course it is - see the last sentence of my post for what I think it should be classified as - I'm just reporting what they say about it.

The problem is that a large proportion of drivers who are banned seem to already be banned. Unsurprisingly another ban doesn't put them off driving. 

As to undue hardship, 100%. If you cared you wouldn't be in the position to lose your licence. Your ability to work is in your own hands and shouldn't come above peoples right not to be killed by you.

I would love to know how many people who cause fatal or horrible accidents have a long history of driving offences. I would wager its a lot. 

All of this!

If I was a crim I think I'd spend approximately 0% of my time worrying about driving offenses.  For most there's a tiny chance of detection.  Police (taking their cue from society in general) are mostly uninterested.  If it does come to court the punishments (if any) are normally meaningless.  They're certainly unlikely to prevent you reoffending.

Final part is to sort out our (to me) ridiculous "how long's a piece of string" / "stick your finger in the air" careless / dangerous definitions.  I've fairly low expectations of the legal system and even less of legal reform.  However the definitions of those desperately need some even vague objective guidance for the judiciary.  Fortunately, we have a driving test and the Highway Code (still wooly, and mostly not law...) as ready-made "standards".

chrisonatrike wrote:

Final part is to sort out our (to me) ridiculous "how long's a piece of string" / "stick your finger in the air" careless / dangerous definitions.  I've fairly low expectations of the legal system and even less of legal reform.  However the definitions of those desperately need some even vague objective guidance for the judiciary.  Fortunately, we have a driving test and the Highway Code (still wooly, and mostly not law...) as ready-made "standards".

To be fair, the problem isn't so much the guidance as to what constitutes careless/dangerous driving, it's the fact that juries are too fallible. Defence solicitors make jury members think that they drive like that, and surely they don't drive dangerously, so if the jury have all done what that driver has done and they don't consider themselves as having driven dangerously, then how can they convict them of dangerous driving. And that comes down to the fact that we are not continually tested on our ability to drive.

sapperadam wrote:

To be fair, the problem isn't so much the guidance as to what constitutes careless/dangerous driving, it's the fact that juries are too fallible. Defence solicitors make jury members think that they drive like that, and surely they don't drive dangerously, so if the jury have all done what that driver has done and they don't consider themselves as having driven dangerously, then how can they convict them of dangerous driving.

Ties into the irresponsible narrative of Accident (that nobody could predict) that mainstream media espouse as reader friendly confirmation bias.
The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines should be mandatory in law enforced by the Department of Culture Media and Sports to change Attitude and Behaviour of road danger providers (motor vehicle users).
Please write to your MP otherwise nothing will change..

sapperadam wrote:

And that comes down to the fact that we are not continually tested on our ability to drive.

Every day is a school day i.e. an opportunity to learn.

In a real safety culture each and every near miss or unexpected occurrence is self reportable and published for the benefit of all. Flying and Construction examples of that.

During the Crossrail Programme we had sites with more than a million working hours since a killed or seriously injured event. Everyone has the right to go home safely after the days work.

There is no political appetite for a genuine safety culture in road transport, except HGV or PSV where the (40 tonne) danger is obvious.

Department of Transport metric of KSI is the wrong measure for road danger since it doesn't align with the acceptable risk of Active Travel.

Completely disconnected from #VisionZero..

lonpfrb wrote:

sapperadam wrote:

And that comes down to the fact that we are not continually tested on our ability to drive.

Every day is a school day i.e. an opportunity to learn.

In a real safety culture each and every near miss or unexpected occurrence is self reportable and published for the benefit of all. Flying and Construction examples of that.

...

There is no political appetite for a genuine safety culture in road transport, except HGV or PSV where the (40 tonne) danger is obvious.

Department of Transport metric of KSI is the wrong measure for road danger since it doesn't align with the acceptable risk of Active Travel.

Completely disconnected from #VisionZero..

Yes.

If we're not going to go full "rights and responsibilities" for driving and "police it better" (and with mass motoring we never will, the job's too big) then the only sensible option is to sweep the casualties and those who lose out under the carpet make things "safe" by de facto barring all but those in motor vehicles from most public spaces go down the health and safety route.

The UK has made a tentative start with the Road Safety Investigation Branch (mirroring the RAIB / AAIB / MAIB) but AFAIK it was proposed to immediately send this off on what is kind of a side-issue (investigate electric scooters) and I'm not sure it's actually been set going yet.

Even VisonZero would be the start of getting our collective heads on right but I'd rather use something more holistic which has been proven in some decades of practice e.g. follow the Dutch "Sustainable safety" concept.

sapperadam wrote:

To be fair, the problem isn't so much the guidance as to what constitutes careless/dangerous driving, it's the fact that juries are too fallible. Defence solicitors make jury members think that they drive like that, and surely they don't drive dangerously, so if the jury have all done what that driver has done and they don't consider themselves as having driven dangerously, then how can they convict them of dangerous driving. And that comes down to the fact that we are not continually tested on our ability to drive.

I'm totally with you on the root cause here!  Driving is a dangerous, licenced activity which is way out of line with how most are treated.  Passing a test is considered a rite of passage; joining a club.  Driving is a normal, frequent activity practiced by a large fraction of the population - so then it's approached and considered mostly as a humdrum chore.

#Motornormativity - even for those who don't drive.  Plus when considering cycling on the road, who the heck has a good understanding of that?  Even "I'm a cyclist myself" folks may not be fully aware of important factors needed when considering the why and what of crashes involving cycles.  At least - the debate on road.cc suggests so.

a driving ban should be like a suspended prison, driving while disqualified should be automatic jail for the full duration of the original ban (not the remaining period) so that as time passes there is more incentive to not breach the ban

brooksby wrote:

So now we're an aggravation?

Some more than others.... 

It is welcome news though - a step in the right direction.

brooksby wrote:

So now we're an aggravation?

Only when they hit us ...