CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Should Driving Offences be Linked to Result or Quality?

(7 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from Dave

No tags yet.


  1. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    A spin-off from the 'Causing Injury by Dangerous Driving thread.

    As has been pointed out, having multitudinous driving offences is slightly odd. Even more so when a basic principle of driving offences is that sentences are linked to the 'quality' of the driving, with the 'result' being, usually, ancillary.

    In effect this means that a driver doing 70 in a 30 zone, overtaking a car on a blind corner, beside a school, and with his eyes closed, who by some miracle causes no damage, injury or death, should be treated more seriously than a driver who is going 35 in a 30, brakes slightly too late for a red light and goes over the stop line by a foot, striking a pedestrian, and killing them.

    It's an ugly way of putting it, but quite often that line between life and death is down to 'luck'. By that I mean the obviously dangerous driver is lucky to get away with not hitting someone - the other driver has also done something wrong, so cannot say that they were 'unlucky', though in our black and white world that's the way many see the distinction.

    In theory I personally think that the quality of driving should be the determining factor. All too often someone who has done something really dangerous will get away with the line 'but no-one was hurt'. I reckon that's irrelevant, because they've shown a degree of recklessness which could easily have lead to a death. A person shooting a gun into a crowd and miraculously not killing anyone would never get away with the same argument.

    Does this mean the result should affect nothing in the sentencing? Probably depends on the circumstances (driving at 70 past a school at 3.30, for example, probably does up the criminal culpability through irresponsibility compared to driving at 70 at 3am on the same road).

    Thoughts?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. wingpig
    Member

    Where to look for insight? Countries/states where possession of deadly firearms is seen as as basic a human right as the right to drive cars? Countries/states without the runaway-vehicle-apologism we seem to be suffering from?

    That thing where the defence can say "BUT no-one was injured" or "BUT they lost control of the vehicle due to the [weather conditions]" would have to be cancelled for any offence-irrespective-of-outcome to be able to work. A sort of dual-tariff system whereby someone could be simultaneously tried for 'driving like a tube/total tube/moron/cretin/absolute idiot/total idiot' thereby causing 'no damage or injury/light-moderate-heavy-total damage to property and/or fright/light-moderate-severe temporary/permanent injury/death or deaths' (delete as applicable) could be fair (and account for both action and result (with the 'result' component being no different to the result components applied to people causing fright, injury or death by means other than a vehicle)) but would have to contain every possibility (or scope for expansion without scope for weaselling-out) in order to avoid that arguing-down-to-lesser-offence/sentence thing we have at the moment.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    I think education and malice aforethought have a part to play. Educate drivers better about the potential consequences of having worn tyres, driving too fast for the conditions etc. Then when they cause a collision there's a clear link to be made between their actions and the outcome.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. wingpig
    Member

    Without uprooting the existing accepted state that cars have to be and have to go fast in order to fulfil their design specifications and that swiftly-moving cars are therefore part of the natural order HAIL FORD there'll always be some buffering between driver, weapon and victim when the weapon is a motor vehicle (except perhaps where 'normal' driving isn't involved such as if someone ran someone down deliberately in a field in a car with big teeth painted on the bonnet). Motor vehicles have all these roads all over the place to be driven on (which were of course built for them using their money) so their natural state is to be moving along at injury-causing speed in the same way that people do not naturally walk around swinging hammers around at head height (though there are similar attempted get-outs if someone is caught so doing, which also invoke the idea of temporary loss of control, but of the person, not the weapon). The undue respect accorded to the vehicle is the key problem.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    wingpig: "so their natural state is to be moving along at injury-causing speed"

    When I was really young I was amazed at the two lane system. I couldn't believe that roads which were designed for horses and carts were being used by cars passing within feet of each other at closing speeds of over 130mph. In a way I still can't.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. Smudge
    Member

    imho to prosecute people based on the outcome of their potentially dangerous actions would be lunacy.

    That is to advocate sentencing based on luck. If someone drives past a school at closing time at 50mph and no-one steps out does that make them less culpable than someone who does exactly the same thing but where someone *does* step out and is killed? Of course not, the offence is *exactly* the same, therefore the sentence *must* be the same if it is to be in any way fair.

    That is without considering the incentive created to *gamble* on not being done were sentencing on outcome become the official norm (I know it is reality now in some cases although it should not be)
    Most reckless drivers consider themselves lucky/good therefore would be encouraged to continue to drive badly or even worsen their rish taking.

    Nope. That way madness lies! Sentence on the offence and the likely outcome, not the actual outcome.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. Dave
    Member

    However when you go down that route, for example, we can see that the likely outcome of speeding past a primary school is that nothing will happen (loads of people do it every day, it basically never leads to tragedy), so surely it would only be fair if none of the offenders were prosecuted at all?

    This I believe is what happens to a large extent in cases where cyclists come off second best to a dangerous driver. The judge and jury think to themselves "well, they were only driving like anyone else would have done, better let them off", rather than "yes, speeding round a blind bend is dangerous - ban!"

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin