http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Dangerous driving - new injury offence plan" en Sun, 31 May 2026 16:58:18 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4108#post-42858 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:03:25 +0000 Instography 42858@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I thought lots of offences had variations that took account of context and intent. There's loads of ways of considering the manner in which a person had caused or been involved in the death of another person - murder, manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary), encouraging and assisting suicide, euthanasia, infanticide etc. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4108#post-42840 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:58:46 +0000 Dave 42840@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't understand why they feel the need to have all these offences - it's quite rediculous (and counterproductive). I can't think of any other thing like it ("causing death by dangerously dropping a brick from scaffolding", no wait, he bargained down to merely "causing death by carelessly dropping a brick from scaffolding", or even "dropping a brick without due care and attention").</p> <p>There should be one simple requirement on people, that is, that they drive in a safe manner. If they fail to do so, they should be charged with an offence, defined as any lapse in standards, whether momentary or more prolonged, such that either an injury/death/damage to property did occur, or would be likely to occur in less fortunate circumstances.</p> <p>It would be much easier to obtain a conviction for "driving unsafely" because while a jury may wrangle over whether to convict on "causing death by X" (or was it merely causing injury by X, simply X, or a lesser offence altogether - where X in {careless, dangerous}), there is not much debate over whether someone was unsafe, especially if an injury did actually occur and there is a victim / deceased as a result.</p> <p>Then, having established that the motorist was in charge of the vehicle in question and the vehicle in question caused (or risked) outcome X, Y, and Z, the judge would sentence according to guidelines. </p> <p>It would not be possible to get off lightly with driving at 150% of the speed limit round a corner on the wrong side of the road (unless the jury decided that was not unsafe) because the judge's hands would be tied - speeding, wrong side of the road, blind corner, death caused = serious smack down. </p> <p>Even better, by manipulation of the guidelines you could focus on different issues, without the need to create artificial new laws. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4108#post-42739 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:40:11 +0000 Smudge 42739@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Anth, absolutely right, but you can console yourself that any motorcyclists who get charged will normally feel the full weight of the legislation so it's ok really... after all, if you do a car driver it might affect their job. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4108#post-42736 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:18:53 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 42736@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The key phrase here is, "<em>will carry a maximum sentence of five years</em>". Causing <em>death</em> by dangerous driving carries a tariff <em>up to</em> 14 years in prison. In reality, certainly from the reported cases, it's unusual for a prison sentence to be used at all, and when it is the sentence is regularly less than 5 years (usually because there is a plea bargain down to Causing Death by <em>Careless</em> Driving which has a maximum tariff of 5 years).</p> <p>As pointed out above, the number of actual convictions under this new offence will proably be tiny, as most will plea bargain down. And with 'injury' the plea bargain down will be to just 'Dangerous Driving' (maximum tariff of 2 years). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4108#post-42728 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:58:54 +0000 mgj 42728@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@crowriver, you've spotted the cause of the new offence being created; there is just too big a gap between the definitions and punishments relating to the current 'momentary lapse' and 'sustained period of dangerous driving', which means that sheriffs end up looking at the former. The estimate is that there will only be a couple of Scottish convictions a year under this legislation. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4108#post-42716 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:13:35 +0000 crowriver 42716@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>'Drivers in Scotland, which has its own legal system, will commit an offence where they cause "severe physical injury".'</p> <p>Unless they have a Top Gear fan Sheriff, in which case they will get off lightly, even if they kill a cyclist whilst on the wrong side of the road and driving over the speed limit... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4108#post-42711 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:10:55 +0000 chdot 42711@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> Dangerous drivers could face longer jail terms under a proposal to go before Parliament.</p> <p>A new crime of causing serious injury by dangerous driving will carry a maximum sentence of five years.</p> <p>Most people jailed for dangerous driving receive sentences of less than two years.</p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15208065" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15208065</a> </p>