Sentencing

Nigel Randell said:

Was the sentence in the Zak Carr case due today?

Deferred until Monday AIUI.

Tim, on Google Groups.

Tim Hall said:

Nigel Randell said:

Was the sentence in the Zak Carr case due today?Deferred until Monday AIUI.

Tim, on Google Groups.

Deferred so that Mr Pearce can have a Sunday lie-in after
hitting the pop on Saturday night. Prepare to be dumbfounded by a
community sentence in light of recent lack at space in the jails.

[email hidden] whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

Tim Hall said:

Nigel Randell said:

Was the sentence in the Zak Carr case due today?Deferred until Monday AIUI.

Tim, on Google Groups.

Deferred so that Mr Pearce can have a Sunday lie-in after
hitting the pop on Saturday night. Prepare to be dumbfounded by a
community sentence in light of recent lack at space in the jails.

For serious comment on the problem, read backnumbers of this famous
blog:

http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/

It really is an issue that the motorist usually doesn't intend to hurt
anyone, and criminal law is fundamentally about intent. If you took
something, did you mean to steal it, or was it a mistake ? If you let
an animal starve, did you knowingly neglect it, or had you been run down
in the street and hospitalised ?
If you ran someone down, did you mean to, or was it a mistake ?

Motorists are in "control" of a heavy machine going incredibly fast, and
they don't even get a yearly test and medical - can you imagine that in
industry?

What are we to do about the carnage on our roads? It's a difficult
problem, that's why press and politicians close their eyes to it.

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

"Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nigel Randell said:

Was the sentence in the Zak Carr case due today?

Deferred until Monday AIUI.

Tim, on Google Groups.

Thanks Tim. Let's hope that the right decision is made, uninfluenced by the
"current sentencing climate".

--

Nigel

Nigel Randell said:

"Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nigel Randell said:

Was the sentence in the Zak Carr case due today?

Quoted message said:

Deferred until Monday AIUI.

Quoted message said:

Tim, on Google Groups.Thanks Tim. Let's hope that the right decision is made, uninfluenced by the

"current sentencing climate".

I am not familiar, yet, with the Zak Carr case and this is not a
comment on it.

However:-

This issue of "intent" is one close to my heart.

At present it seems possible for (as an example) a London
bus driver to argue that repeatedly chasing a cyclist
along the road following at a distance perhaps 1/10th of
that recommended in the highway code is not evidence
of any "intent" to harm. Should the cyclist subsequently
find themselves crushed under the wheels then it will simply
have been an 'unavoidable' acccident.

I am sure that this view will some time quite soon (say 5 years)
be overturned, however at present cyclists and other vulnerable
road users have to simply take their punsihment as is its
meeted out by the deserving and unimpeachable motorists.

Quoted message said:

At present it seems possible for (as an example) a London
bus driver to argue that repeatedly chasing a cyclist
along the road following at a distance perhaps 1/10th of
that recommended in the highway code is not evidence
of any "intent" to harm. Should the cyclist subsequently
find themselves crushed under the wheels then it will simply
have been an 'unavoidable' acccident.

I am sure that this view will some time quite soon (say 5 years)
be overturned, however at present cyclists and other vulnerable
road users have to simply take their punsihment as is its
meeted out by the deserving and unimpeachable motorists.

Exactly so. No driver 'accidentally' overtakes a cyclist at speed and
with only inches to spare, or 'accidentally' overtakes a cyclist and
then immediately turns left across their path, or 'accidentally' cuts
up a cyclist at or just before a pinch point, nor for that matter do
motorists 'accidentally' drive whilst using a mobile, or whist too
tired to be safe. In the majority of cases drivers do not
'accidentally' exceed the maximum legal speed either or 'accidentally'
drive down country lanes far too quickly to be able to stop in the
distance they can see to be clear, or 'accidentally' drive on roads
that they know may well be affected by ice at or just below a speed
that would only just be legal on a summer day in perfect conditions.

All such behaviours are examples of motorists quite wilfully driving
in a manner that any reasonable person would recognise increases the
risk they pose to others. It is about time that the law recognised the
high degree of culpability when such bevaiour lead to harm.

Sue White said:

Motorists are in "control" of a heavy machine going incredibly fast, and
they don't even get a yearly test and medical - can you imagine that in
industry?

Quoted message said:

--

Sue ]🙁🙂

Let alone drive in opposite directions at closing speeds of 120mile/hr
with only a white line to separate them - imagine the risk assessment
for that one 😉

squeaker said:

Let alone drive in opposite directions at closing speeds of 120mile/hr
with only a white line to separate them - imagine the risk assessment
for that one 😉

Drifting off topic, but that's the one that gets me:

My daughter is positively encouraged to walk to school inches from
motor traffic thundering along an icy road, with no physical
protective barrier whatsoever.

When she gets there, she's not allowed to throw a snowball, because
it's too dangerous.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[email hidden] whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

All such behaviours are examples of motorists quite wilfully driving
in a manner that any reasonable person would recognise increases the
risk they pose to others. It is about time that the law recognised the
high degree of culpability when such bevaiour lead to harm.

If you mean the motorist's to blame for the consequences (which they
didn't intend) of an act which is normal (almost everybody breaks the
speed limit) then that isn't how the law ought to work.
An action doesn't become more negligent if it goes wrong - it was either
a good choice or a bad one when you decided to do it. A good choice can
still go wrong if you're unlucky.

Part of the problem is that the acceptable level of risk for motoring is
very low - if a motorist breaks the speed limit every day for a month,
he thinks he's proved it's safe. But if he slid off the road and killed
a pedestrian even once a year we'd be outraged.

People don't assess risks well at this sort of level. We naturally
think "lots of people are doing that and getting away with it so it must
be OK to do it" even where our own safety's concerned. For instance, a
skier says "hundreds of people have gone that way today so it must be
safe" and happily leads his family down it as the afternoon warms up and
the risk rockets [1]

That's why we have the much-derided Health and Safety at Work, and
that's why we have traffic laws. They keep risks too low to be visible
to individuals and then the individuals flout them.

What to do? We can keep to the speed limit ourselves when motoring.
And this spring I'll be replanting the daffodil bulbs I don't want in my
garden - on the roadside at a few un-favourite spots, to make them look
like accident sites.

[1] If you're interested in [censored] risk assessments this is good:
<http://www.snowpit.com/articles/traps%20reprint.pdf>

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

Bicycle helmets are really a bit of a scam.
They make most cyclists slightly less safe but there's money in selling them.

Sue White said:

Quoted message said:

All such behaviours are examples of motorists quite wilfully driving
in a manner that any reasonable person would recognise increases the
risk they pose to others. It is about time that the law recognised the
high degree of culpability when such bevaiour lead to harm.

Quoted message said:

If you mean the motorist's to blame for the consequences (which they
didn't intend) of an act which is normal (almost everybody breaks the
speed limit) then that isn't how the law ought to work.

Whether or not such as acts are 'normal' is beside the point, the
bottom line is that such acts are UNLAWFUL and drivers should be held
properly to account for their unlawful behaviour, especially when any
reasonable person would have foreseen that their unlawful behaviour
increased the danger they posed to others.

You also seem to be overlooking the central point that even though a
driver acting such a way might not 'intend' to kill or maim, drivers
very often QUITE WILLFULLY and knowingly take liberties with the
safety of innocent third parties. As such, whilst it might not be
correct to charge a driver with murder, neither is it correct to write
off death and injury arising from such behaviours as being merely
'accidents'.

Drivers should not be treated in a different manner just because they
are in a car when their wilfully dangerous behaviour causes harm to
others. For example, if someone were to stab someone without having
any intention of killing them and the person nonetheless dies, they
will be charged with manslaughter, not merely wounding. Here we have
one illegal act leading to a more serious charge because of it's
consequences, and the same principle should apply to all driving
crimes as well, and not just where a 'causing death by dangerous
driving' charge can be justified.

To be honest what you say sounds a bit like an apology for 'mob rule'
and a call for the rule of law and the well-being of innocent people
to be all but ignored simply because 'most people' have no respect for
the law and the safety of others. I would argue that if drivers were
held to be properly responsible for their own actions and the
consequences of their actions, close to 'everybody' would choose to
drive within the law and with due consideration for other road users.

Quoted message said:

Part of the problem is that the acceptable level of risk for motoring is
very low - if a motorist breaks the speed limit every day for a month,
he thinks he's proved it's safe. But if he slid off the road and killed
a pedestrian even once a year we'd be outraged.

I would say that in reality the 'acceptable risk' for motoring is
outrageously high. I don't see much 'outrage' arising from the 3,500
road deaths and thousands of maimings which result from often wilfully
dangerous driving each year either. For the most part people just turn
a blind eye or offer a few empty platitudes, (or plant a few flowers)
seeing the carnage on our roads as being an acceptable price to pay
for being able to drive everywhere with no more than a token attempt
being made at regulation. Problem is for the most part all the
benefits of this situation accrue to the motorist and the 'acceptable
price' is paid by innocent third parties.

Quoted message said:

People don't assess risks well at this sort of level. We naturally
think "lots of people are doing that and getting away with it so it must
be OK to do it" even where our own safety's concerned.

Not completey true. For example Transport Research Laboratory research
shows that most drivers are fully aware that overtaking a cyclist at
or just before a 'pinch-point' is potentially dangerous and most claim
that they would not do such a thing. However, DfT research shows that
once on the open road 75% or more of drivers will do exactly this!

in message <[email hidden]>, Sue White

(') said:

[email hidden] whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

All such behaviours are examples of motorists quite wilfully driving
in a manner that any reasonable person would recognise increases the
risk they pose to others. It is about time that the law recognised the
high degree of culpability when such bevaiour lead to harm.

If you mean the motorist's to blame for the consequences (which they
didn't intend) of an act which is normal (almost everybody breaks the
speed limit) then that isn't how the law ought to work.

Yes, that's right. And if they kill someone through 'normal' negligence
then that's manslaughter.

Quoted message said:

An action doesn't become more negligent if it goes wrong - it was either
a good choice or a bad one when you decided to do it. A good choice can
still go wrong if you're unlucky.

Absolutely. But the problem is we have allowed a a situation to arise where
it's 'normal' to drive negligently. (Almost) everyone does it - and
expects to get off with a slap on the wrists if anything goes wrong. Got
bald tyres? Excellent, drive on them! Is there black ice about? Excellent,
60mph it is, then. Slaughter a cycling club? Who cares, they were only
cyclists...

Quoted message said:

Part of the problem is that the acceptable level of risk for motoring is
very low - if a motorist breaks the speed limit every day for a month,
he thinks he's proved it's safe. But if he slid off the road and killed
a pedestrian even once a year we'd be outraged.

People don't assess risks well at this sort of level. We naturally
think "lots of people are doing that and getting away with it so it must
be OK to do it" even where our own safety's concerned. For instance, a
skier says "hundreds of people have gone that way today so it must be
safe" and happily leads his family down it as the afternoon warms up and
the risk rockets [1]

I think we basically agree about the situation; the problem is what to do
about it. My solution is to remove the licence to drive - permanently, no
appeal, no excuse - for even quite minor motoring offences; and then only
punish 'driving without a licence' - but punish that severely.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If any council in the country has anything to say to cyclists
;; about cycle paths, it should be: "We are terribly, terribly sorry."
- Zoe Williams, The Guardian, 13th Sept 2006

Sue White wrote on 28/01/2007 23:41 +0100:

Quoted message said:

If you mean the motorist's to blame for the consequences (which they
didn't intend) of an act which is normal (almost everybody breaks the
speed limit) then that isn't how the law ought to work.
An action doesn't become more negligent if it goes wrong - it was either
a good choice or a bad one when you decided to do it. A good choice can
still go wrong if you're unlucky.

Yet when a small number of people are killed in a train crash or a
couple of children murdered by a school caretaker or killed by a faulty
heater its front page news for days or weeks and everybody jumps up and
down about not letting it happen again. Kill a couple of children with
a car and nobody notices. There are a hundred Soham equivalents every
year where young children are innocently and violently killed by
motorists but nobody is bothered about it. There are the equivalent of
70 tube bombings a year when people are suddenly and violently killed by
motor vehicles and nobody is bothered by it. What will it take to get
people to take violent death by motor vehicle as seriously as other
forms of violent death? Motorists have evaded responsibility for the
consequences of their actions long enough IMO.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Sue White said:

It really is an issue that the motorist usually doesn't intend to hurt
anyone, and criminal law is fundamentally about intent. If you took
something, did you mean to steal it, or was it a mistake ? If you let
an animal starve, did you knowingly neglect it, or had you been run down
in the street and hospitalised ?
If you ran someone down, did you mean to, or was it a mistake ?

Is this really the case?

If I dig a trench across my front lawn (as I was doing this weekend)
and I don't cover it up and the postman subsequently is killed when he
falls into it while taking a short cut across the lawn in the dark are
you suggesting that I am not guilty of manslaughter because I did not
intend to kill anyone even though it is a perfectly foreseeable
outcome of my actions?

If I cut down a tree in my garden and it falls across the pavement
killing a passing pedestrian are you suggesting that I am not guilty
of manslaughter because I did not intend to kill anyone even though it
is a perfectly foreseeable outcome of my actions?

If I take a bunch of school children dingy sailing in rough conditions
without appropriate equipment and a boat sinks drowning four of them
are you suggesting that I am not guilty of manslaughter because I did
not intend to kill anyone even though it is a perfectly foreseeable
outcome of my actions?

I would expect to be charged with manslaughter under any of those
circumstances.

And yet what you seems to be saying is that if I overtake a cyclist
when there is not enough room, drive too fast for the road conditions
or drive whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs I am not
guilty of manslaughter because I did not intend to kill anyone even
though it is a perfectly foreseeable outcome of my actions?

Is it one rule for drivers and another for the rest of us?

Andrew

Sue White said:

[email hidden] whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

All such behaviours are examples of motorists quite wilfully driving
in a manner that any reasonable person would recognise increases the
risk they pose to others. It is about time that the law recognised the
high degree of culpability when such bevaiour lead to harm.

If you mean the motorist's to blame for the consequences (which they
didn't intend) of an act which is normal (almost everybody breaks the
speed limit) then that isn't how the law ought to work.

People used to make the same argument about drunk driving. "almost everybody
drinks and then drives" "no harm was intended" blah blah blah. It's now
socially unacceptable to carry on with this absurd line of reasoning.
Hopefully, speeding will be seen in the same light one day.

Marc Brett said:

Sue White said:

[email hidden] whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

All such behaviours are examples of motorists quite wilfully driving
in a manner that any reasonable person would recognise increases the
risk they pose to others. It is about time that the law recognised the
high degree of culpability when such bevaiour lead to harm.

If you mean the motorist's to blame for the consequences (which they
didn't intend) of an act which is normal (almost everybody breaks the
speed limit) then that isn't how the law ought to work.

People used to make the same argument about drunk driving. "almost everybody
drinks and then drives" "no harm was intended" blah blah blah. It's now
socially unacceptable to carry on with this absurd line of reasoning.
Hopefully, speeding will be seen in the same light one day.

Why hopefully? Can you explain your understanding of "speeding" so that
we can tell if you're simply naive about road safety issues, or whether
you are better described as anti-car.

--
Matt B

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:39:22 +0000, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

Marc Brett said:

Sue White said:

[email hidden] whizzed past me shouting
> All such behaviours are examples of motorists quite wilfully driving
> in a manner that any reasonable person would recognise increases the
> risk they pose to others. It is about time that the law recognised the
> high degree of culpability when such bevaiour lead to harm.
>
If you mean the motorist's to blame for the consequences (which they
didn't intend) of an act which is normal (almost everybody breaks the
speed limit) then that isn't how the law ought to work.

People used to make the same argument about drunk driving. "almost everybody
drinks and then drives" "no harm was intended" blah blah blah. It's now
socially unacceptable to carry on with this absurd line of reasoning.
Hopefully, speeding will be seen in the same light one day.

Why hopefully? Can you explain your understanding of "speeding" so that
we can tell if you're simply naive about road safety issues, or whether
you are better described as anti-car.

This, for example?

http://www.4ni.co.uk/news.asp?id=58846

Marc Brett said:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:39:22 +0000, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

Marc Brett said:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:41:24 +0000, Sue White <[email hidden]> wrote:

> [email hidden] whizzed past me shouting
>> All such behaviours are examples of motorists quite wilfully driving
>> in a manner that any reasonable person would recognise increases the
>> risk they pose to others. It is about time that the law recognised the
>> high degree of culpability when such bevaiour lead to harm.
>>
> If you mean the motorist's to blame for the consequences (which they
> didn't intend) of an act which is normal (almost everybody breaks the
> speed limit) then that isn't how the law ought to work.
People used to make the same argument about drunk driving. "almost everybody
drinks and then drives" "no harm was intended" blah blah blah. It's now
socially unacceptable to carry on with this absurd line of reasoning.
Hopefully, speeding will be seen in the same light one day.

Why hopefully? Can you explain your understanding of "speeding" so that
we can tell if you're simply naive about road safety issues, or whether
you are better described as anti-car.

This, for example?

http://www.4ni.co.uk/news.asp?id=58846

Do you think that his speed would have been safer if the speed limit was
raised to 180 mph, or abolished - which would mean he wasn't "speeding"?

I'd prefer it if we concentrated on inappropriate speed for the
conditions. That would mean that the nutter who drives past a school at
turning-out time at 30 mph would be treated with the contempt he
deserves, rather than being congratulated for keeping within the speed
limit.

--
Matt B

Daniel Barlow said:

Matt B said:

I'd prefer it if we concentrated on

cycling.

Why are you answering to my post to make that point? That wasn't where
this thread began. I was contributing to an already active discussion.
Are you going to make the same point to the initiator, and to all
other contributors?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That would mean that

some people would have to get off their at-best-tangentially-related
single-issue hobby horses,

Who specifically is that remark targeted at? Obviously not me - or is
there a specific 'single issue' out of the multitude of issues that I
post about that you have difficulties accepting the views of others on?

--
Matt B