Conference terri::cars_uk

Thoughts?

Yes: the problem with the present law is the well known difficulty in proving
"recklessness".

What we need is an American style "motor vehicular homicide" law.

/. Ian .\

    
    I saw some of the program, and was surpried how lenient the sentences
    for killing with a car are. I think that the only really clear-cut
    cases are those where the driver has been drinking. I feel that 
    there can be _no_ excuse for this, and that the driver should be tried
    for killing someone, in the same way that they would be tried if they
    had killed someone with a gun. Cases of reckless driving while I
    consider them to also be very serious, are far harder to prove, since
    usually witnesses are required, and therefor an element of remebering
    and interpretation. Certainly the panalties for such behaviour should be
    incresed, since I agree with many of the people interviewed, that the
    fact that the damage/injury is done by a car seems to make the 'crime'
    less serious.

	I saw it.  In fact I'd just got back from taking out my RoSPA tutee
	so I could at least feel a little better that I'm helping to make
	the roads a little safer.

	It wasn't very pleasant and was thought provoking.  North's comments
	were interesting, but depressing in that the Government still hasn't
	implemented the white paper that was a result of (his) North Report.
	I heard him speak at the IAM last autumn and he was hoping then that
	some of the report would make it into law.

	For those who didn't see the program, it pointed out the paucity of
	the law in prosecuting unsafe drivers.  The major law, Reckless driving
	asks the jury to make decisions about the state of the driver's mind
	and is rarely used because it is so hard to get convictions.  Instead
	careless driving is used which carries much lesser penalties.  In fact
	neither carries great penalties: the maximum for Reckless driving is
	5 years in jail, compare that against 15 years for stealing a Mars
	bar.  That doesn't seem to make sense.  The North report recommends a
	much simpler law based on bad driving, death/injury and drunkeness.

	The question that I ask is this.  Does the lack of penalties encourage
	(or at least not deter) bad driving?

	Dave
	

    Yep, I too saw the programme. It does make you think about the
    "nutters" on the road but what can you really do about it ? 
    
    Driving slower might increase your chances of having an accident 
    with one of them ! And we all know what happens to our 'New Year
    Resolutions' don't we ?

    I'm not convinced that American road-laws would really get thru 
    into British road-laws. Perhaps after long, lengthy discussions
    they might but what if they do ? They might deter some people I
    guess.
        
    Besides, some of the defense lawyers ( e.g. in the programme last
    night ) come out with brilliant excuses ( memory or concentration 
    lapses etc. ) and this would defeat the object of having stricter 
    rules. "Rules are made to be broken" etc. 
    
    Perhaps more 'Policing' on the roads is one solution ?
        
    

    RE .3 (I think)
    
    What's a "tutee"? Sounds like something Egyptian, but I could be wrong.

    
    RE .5
    I suspect that a "Tutee" is someone who their passenger "Tut's" at a
    lot.
    
    Come on Dave, you really must be a lot more patient! :^)
    
    Mark

	Tutee = someone I tutor.  I never tut, but there may be the odd
	sharp intake of breath.  To put it more simply I sit in the passenger
	seat and make snide comments, er, well no, I make constructive 
	remarks and attempt to get my driver(s) to as a high a standard as
	I can.  Just to show fairness, I even take them out in the Marlin as
	an example of how it should be done, then they can criticise me.

	Dave

    Only problem with this is the perspective you view the 'accident' from.
    As a case in point, on saturday a local lad was killed on a local
    bad-spot.
    
    The lad's father was quoted in the paper as complaining that it was all
    due to drivers "using the road as a bypass to avoid the A4". Trouble
    is, at that time on a saturday this is most unlikely. knowing the road
    I'm inclined to put the blame differently. 
    
    The road has a reasonable gradient down alongside a school, which then
    curves left past a junction on the left. When sitting at this junction
    waiting to turn right up the hill, you can not see up the road, and
    must therefore 'guess that it's clear. If, as you pull out a car
    appears, then providing it's not going too fast you should be able to
    avoid each other. 
    
    In this instance, the lad was riding his motorbike down the hill, and
    crashed straight into the side of the car pulling out. The lad was
    >probably< going quite fast and close to the kerb, hence he didn't see
    the car (nor was he seen) until too late. (I know all this as his
    friend, the son of our friend, witnessed the whole thing).
    
    You >could< blame the boy for speed, but no doubt inexperience played
    it's role. It would be difficult to blame the car driver, he could see
    maybe 20-30 feet, and was pulling away from standstill across the road.
    
    Could you say he should be charged with vehicular homicide?. even
    though he killed someone with his car?. 
    
    Richard

    Yep, I saw it too. I expect my standard of driving will improve for
    a few days before relapsing to "normal". Incidentally, the reason I
    took the IAM and ROSPA tests many years ago was due to watching a
    similar program and deciding to want to do something about it.
    
    I doubt if the law can ever be made to work satisfactorily in the case
    of motoring accidents. When you set out to rob a post-office and manage
    to gun down the sub_postmaster then it is clearly murder/manslaughter. But
    how many motorists deliberately set out to kill other motorists? This
    is where the law has difficulty proving "intent" as we saw in the prog.
    
    There is too much of the "stick" approach to raising driving standards.
    
    What I would like to see is two things:
    
    1. Positive motivation towards good driving, eg lower cost insurance,
    free road tax, "brownie-points" on your licence (opp to penalty
    points) for good driving which can be taken into consideration if you
    do happen to commit an offence, etc, etc.
    
    2. Higher social awareness of good drivers. Not quite sure what I mean
    here but I think I'm trying to say placing a high social regard and 
    personal values on safe driving. There is no doubt that people are
    "social" creatures (snobbish) and can use statements like, "I'm a
    member of so_and_so club", or "Actually I'm in the Civil Service".
    Wouldn't it be great if folks who are demonstrably good/safe drivers
    could use that fact to social advantage! This is the opposite of
    "stick" in terms of heavy penalties and condemnation for bad drivers.
    It turns the equation right around and positively reinforces good
    driving and creates an environment where good driving is normal 
    culturally acceptable behaviour. Today IAM/ROSPA members are in the
    motoring minority and have an image of middle-aged vegetarians. Perhaps
    the IAM/ROSPA tests (and the associated tuition) should be mandatory
    after tbd time since gaining one's licence?
    
    Ian

    ref .9
    
    Richard, you don't state if there is a 30mph speed limit on this road. 
    I guess there is if it goes past a school ?
    
    Suppose one was travelling down this road at 30mph - would drivers
    emerging from the junction then have enough time to pull out safely?
    
    This sounds like the motoring equivalent of "RTFM"
    
    Ian
    
    

    Or rather, failing to kill should not be regarded as less culpable than
    killing, if you are driving dangerously.
    
    After all, it is the dangerous behaviour which the driver is doing; the
    death is incidental, if foreseeable. 
    
    So, if you all want to hang, draw and quarter all who are guilty of
    motoring homicide, do it also to those who drive as dangerously, or
    drink as much, but fail to kill.
    
    Steve

Very interesting program.  Yes tougher laws and penalties are needed, but there
are two main problems:

"Intent to kill": A lot of English law rests on the premiss that the bad guy
sets out to do something wrong.  If I steal a Mars bar, I had intent to break
the law and knew I was doing it and was in full control of my actions, and so
on.  Obviously (most!) motorists who drive badly aren't doing so with the
intention of killing someone, so the structure of the law makes it difficult
to prosecute them for this: hence the problem with "Causing death by reckless
driving" requiring "proof" of the driver's state of mind.

Blame: The other problem is proving (based on the observable facts of the
accident) that the driver's actions directly caused someone's death.  If
someone jumps out in front of a car doing 70 on the motorway and gets killed,
there are no grounds for prosecuting the driver.  Proving who is to blame for
the accident is made harder by one of the participants being unquestionable
(because they're dead!).  About 90% of accidents are attributable to human
error, and there ought to be clearer-cut boundaries for establishing blame (as
a bonus this would also help insurance claims!).  For example, if two cars
collide head on and the only observable evidence was that one was on the wrong
side of the road for no observable reason, then the one on the wrong side of
the road should be held responsible.  I know there are some guidelines already,
but there ought to be more and they ought to be given more significance.

I think there are several "solutions" to the problem.

Driving is potentially dangerous: all drivers have a responsibility to other
road users and pedestrians.  Drivers need to be made bluntly aware of this.
When you sign your driving licence (which you must
do by law) you sign to say you have read and understood the highway code.
Another clause should be added, so that when you sign your licence you are
agreeing to something like:

    " I am aware of the dangers involved in driving.  I am aware of the
      increased danger I present to other road users if I drive in a way
      that contravenes the highway code or breaks the law.  I confirm that
      if I drive in such a way and cause damage, injury or death I am
      to be held responsible for such..."

This immediately removes the problem of "proving" the driver's state of mind.

Driving penalties should be a lot tougher: if a driver causes a death, he/she
should be charged with manslaughter in addition to *and separate to* charges
for driving offences.  This removes the "incidental death" problem.

There should be tougher penalties as a deterrent to bad driving.

The current drink/driving laws allow you to drink about 1� pints (obviously it
will vary from person to person) and still be legal to drive.  So you get
people playing "Russian Roulette" and seeing if they can get away with two (or
more) pints.  A lower limit is needed.  It is impractical
to change the law to say "no alcohol in the blood", as then if I'd had a small
glass of wine last night there would be traces of alcohol in my blood the next
day.  As an approximate suggestion, the limit should be set so that if you've
had � pint, you could not legally drive for six hours.  This is a practical way
to make any drinking prior to driving illegal.

Drink/driving penalties should be increased: a first offence should carry a
minimum 5 year ban.  A second offence should carry a mandatory life ban.  (I
also favour similar penalties for driving without insurance...)

Similar penalties should apply to gross speeding; over 100mph on a motorway
(on which the limit should be raised to 80).

The law needs to be totally overhauled: the "intent" premiss is not suitable
for driving.  There should be a number of new offences covering specific
aspects of bad driving, with stiff and well-defined penalties.  The intention
not being to prosecute more people, but to make drivers sit up and take notice
of their obligation to the world around them.

Oh, finally an "IMHO" before someone bites my head off...

Scott

    I agree that the "proof of intent" problem is a difficult one (they
    mentioned it on the program several times). However the documentary
    presented a number of cases where you would have thought the police had
    all the proof they needed, eg (from memory!):
    
    Driver overtakes a car which is stopped at a zebra crossing. 3 young
    men are crossing at the time and are hit. One is carried on the roof of
    the car for 180 yds before falling off. Driver ** DRIVES AWAY!!** Witnesses
    include the bloke carried on the roof of the car (now disabled, also
    one of the others died) plus a passenger in the car itself, who also
    testified the driver had had 5 pints of lager and was driving well over
    the speed limit.  Verdict: NOT GUILTY of reckless driving, guilty of
    careless driving (far more minor offence).
    
    
    	Tony                                                         

	We've been through the doubt thrown on RoSPA/IAM/Police training
	one thing at a time techniques before, so let's not rathole here.
	Leaving aside what you or I consider good driving techniques, you
	cannot argue that better training does not provide at least part of 
	the answer.  Whether we agree on what that training should be is
	immaterial to this debate.

	As for fault, then it should be the same as all decisions in law,
	a matter of reasonable debate.  The major point the program made
	was that making legal decisions based on what the driver was thinking
	is not working.  These decisions are not going to be easy; one or
	more people are injured or killed and someone must decide whether an
	individual was acting irresponsibly.  There are bound to be 
	uncertainties.

	Engendering socially responsible attitudes is a good idea.  Indeed,
	the current climate around drink driving is changing.  Most (right
	minded) people now frown on this practice and don't see it as
	socially acceptable.  Unfortuanately, nobody thinks the same about
	exceeding speed limits in urban areas...

	Dave

    Funny old world isn't it?
    
    A train driver of previously unimpeachable character makes one mistake
    and kills some people and goes to prison for 6 months, but a persistent
    drink driver can mow down a bus queue of people and escape with a fine
    and a ban!
    
    Makes you wonder about British justice doesn't it?
    
    The real problem is that you have to decide if someone was not taking
    sensible care when the accident causing the death occured. I like the
    idea of the charging with manslaughter seperately, that way a sober
    but idiotic driver can be found guilty of killing a mother and child
    (good emotive stuff, eh?) on a pedestrian crossing, but a driver
    slightly over the limit who was involved in a collision with a driver 
    overtaking on a blind bend would only be punished for drinking and
    driving (assuming he was not incapable of avoiding an avoidable 
    accident).
    
    Mark 

    
    Re .10
    
    � "Actually I'm in the Civil Service".
    
    Anyone who ADMITS to this needs a stick to knock some sense into them!
    :^)
    
    Was this REALLY supposed to illustrate your point? 
    
    Mark

.12�Richard, you don't state if there is a 30mph speed limit on this road. 
.12�I guess there is if it goes past a school ?

    Yes, there is a 30 m.p.h. limit.

.12�Suppose one was travelling down this road at 30mph - would drivers
.12�emerging from the junction then have enough time to pull out safely?

    A good question, to which I do not know the answer. I used to live
    ~ 200 yards away from this junction - I have always thought that it
    is a junction that needs special care.

    Martin (who_saw_the_bunches_of_flowers_on_the_kerb_side).

As "manslaughter" exists to cover unintentional killing, why aren't
motorists who kill charged with this at present?

Scott

    
    As I said earlier, the case of drunk driving I would have thought,
    would already be covered by the law, since reckless driving requires
    that the state of mind of the accused be taken into consideration.
    Drinking and driving _is_ done with forthought. Everyone who has a
    driving licence knows the effects of alcohol (it is mentioned in the
    highway code, even if they have been able to avoid all other
    educational material!).  
    
    Ithink the problem of punishing someone for a 'vehicle incident'is a social
    one - it is called an accident - ie "an event without apparent cause,
    unexpected event;unintentional act, chance" (Pocket Oxford Dictionary).
    Most 'accidents' are _not_ "without apparent cause". 

    Re .22
    
    Yes, but nearly all are unintentional...
    
    I think that to punish the _death_ as such is totally wrong; it is
    wholly chance whether death results from dangerous driving. It is
    however "on the cards" that death could result from dangerous driving,
    and we should thus punish as if death had been caused, even if it
    doesn't. Thus - for example - dangerous or drunk driving should
    _always_ carry the same penalties as - for example - manslaughter.
    
    To put it another way, a dangerous driver should not "get away with it"
    if his victim fortuitously survives.
    
    IMHO
    
    Steve