Takes the biscuit

[UnMarked]

If the fine was tripled does anyone think people would stop using their phones while driving?????

Since 1st April 2007 when the fixed penalty for this offence was increased from £30 to £60 + 3 points I have not noticed a decrease in the amount of people committing the offence. What has happened, is the drivers who do use their phones (hand-held) whilst driving are more surreptitious(generally), and more likely to go to court and argue the odds (but in my experience more often than not lose and incur increased penalties).

The law was not being broken since PXW was using his hands free in car system. The point being made is that even using a legal system for taking calls requires a decision to be exercised in the circumstances you find yourself driving in.

A good point and something that users should bear in mind - especially if they are involved in an accident that ends up in court. It is obvious that even using an hands-free kit takes a certain amount of concentration and therefore a court could consider any influence the call had at the time of the incident when imposing its sentence.

 

[normanr]

I apologise PXW I miss-read the reply

 

[PXW]

I apologise PXW I miss-read the reply

No worries - fired up the debate a bit! If you've had a fatality in the village I can understand your reaction.

 

[Dieselman]

more likely to go to court and argue the odds (but in my experience more often than not lose and incur increased penalties).

The public at large often has a view that if one attends Court and loses on a traffic violation offense that the Court increases the penalty and fine as opposed to the original ticket, out of some malace, to force people to roll over and accept the FP.
But reading your post made me think that they are actually applying no more penalty than if there was no fixed penalty ticket system, and that the FP is actually the minimum penalty that can be awarded for such a misdemeanor, thus is a good option if one is guilty.

Can anyone confirm.

 

[normanr]

Not too much interest to the forum but I got a bit upset at this thread because the young girl that got killed was a lovely happy 12 year old she was not related to me but I knew her, the person that killed her was using his mobile (not hands free) and mounted the pavement and run her over and denied the fact that he was making a phone call.

Tough luck to him but somebody saw him also the police checked his phone for calls made, the parents have found it very difficult to come to terms with her death so they left flowers by the fence where she was killed.

They have done this for a short time now the council has told her to stop leaving flowers as it is upsetting the locals.

He was fined with points on his licence only verdict was accidental death (good old English laws)

Sorry but had to let you know why I reacted so strongly

 

[Dieselman]

He was fined with points on his licence only verdict was accidental death (good old English laws)

Seems a bit odd given the witness and corroborative evidence, surely Death by Dangerous Driving would be more apt..??

Isn't accidental death the Coronors verdict on the death, not a driving conviction.

 

[UnMarked]

Not too much interest to the forum but I got a bit upset at this thread because the young girl that got killed was a lovely happy 12 year old she was not related to me but I knew her, the person that killed her was using his mobile (not hands free) and mounted the pavement and run her over and denied the fact that he was making a phone call.

Tough luck to him but somebody saw him also the police checked his phone for calls made, the parents have found it very difficult to come to terms with her death so they left flowers by the fence where she was killed.

They have done this for a short time now the council has told her to stop leaving flowers as it is upsetting the locals.

He was fined with points on his licence only verdict was accidental death (good old English laws)

Sorry but had to let you know why I reacted so strongly

I'm amazed at this outcome....death by dangerous driving would certainly have been charged if the evidence was there in the first place.

 

[UnMarked]

The public at large often has a view that if one attends Court and loses on a traffic violation offense that the Court increases the penalty and fine as opposed to the original ticket, out of some malace, to force people to roll over and accept the FP.
But reading your post made me think that they are actually applying no more penalty than if there was no fixed penalty ticket system, and that the FP is actually the minimum penalty that can be awarded for such a misdemeanor, thus is a good option if one is guilty.

Can anyone confirm.

I'm not aware of magistrates increasing the points in any cases in our neck of the woods. The fine certainly odes and there's a minimum of £60 costs to add-on too although this is quite often substantially more.
The roadside penalty (£60 and 3 points) is the absolute minimum.
Interestingly HMG are looking at the possibility of increasing the points to 6 at the roadside (equivalent of driving without due care).

 

[glojo]

I'm amazed at this outcome....death by dangerous driving would certainly have been charged if the evidence was there in the first place.

You often read my posts where I call these modern laws a complete ass and this example is not the exception. Why on earth should the prosecution have to prove a state of mind or whether it may or may not be deemed dangerous by a specific driver? We have now reached a stage where the police and prosecutors will not even attempt a prosecution because of new definitions that make getting a conviction more difficult./

At a guess the mobile phone user was prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. Normanr cites a sad example, but is there any other type? Any death has awful consequences for those that are close to the victim, yet we all believe we are the perfect driver?

Our dangerous driving law is a complete farce and I will only have a little rant:

If someone is not legally entitled to drive a motor vehicle, or they do not have the relevant documentation to legally allow that vehicle to be on the road, and they kill someone........ They should be charged with MURDER! Forget dangerous driving or driving without due care. If they shouldn't be on the road then tough.... I don't care what excuse they have, they should not be driving.

If your not paying attention and you kill someone, then that should be death by dangerous driving and have a maximum sentence of LIFE! (Only to be applied in the most serious of circumstances)

Vote for me and I'll sort out the law system
Burke's Law will have a whole new meaning

End of rant

regards
John

 

[edthedead]

I'm not aware of magistrates increasing the points in any cases in our neck of the woods. The fine certainly odes and there's a minimum of £60 costs to add-on too although this is quite often substantially more.
The roadside penalty (£60 and 3 points) is the absolute minimum.
Interestingly HMG are looking at the possibility of increasing the points to 6 at the roadside (equivalent of driving without due care).

Went to court with a mobile phone ticket very recently - bloke pleaded not guilty, but got found guilty - total fine (inc cost etc) £615 + 3 points... bet he wishes he'd taken the fixed penalty!

 

[Dieselman]

If someone is not legally entitled to drive a motor vehicle, or they do not have the relevant documentation to legally allow that vehicle to be on the road, and they kill someone........ They should be charged with MURDER! Forget dangerous driving or driving without due care. If they shouldn't be on the road then tough.... I don't care what excuse they have, they should not be driving.

If your not paying attention and you kill someone, then that should be death by dangerous driving.

Neither of these scenarios would stick.
Murder has to be pre-meditated so the prosecution would have to prove that was the case and the idea of charging someone with DBDD for a simple error would also be wrong,.
Take an example of someone who pulls out because they have been flashed out of a junction. They move forwards and don't see a motorcyclist and have a collision in which the M-cyclist dies.
That doesn't constitute dangerous driving, simply a lack of enough care.

The law doesn't work on prosecuting people for the results of their actions, just the action itself, otherwise there would be massive imbalances of penalty on a random basis.

Driver A: Young scally drives everywhere like a loony and has numerous accidents but fortunately nobody dies as a result.

Driver B: Normally drives with due diligence and carefully, but one day doesn't see a cyclist at a junction due to parked cars, pulls out and kills the cyclist.

With your method driver A gets a light penalty and driver B goes to prison. That wouldn't be right as their actions were not bad enough to warrant that, they made a mistake.

 

[glojo]

Neither of these scenarios would stick.
Murder has to be pre-meditated so the prosecution would have to prove that was the case and the idea of charging someone with DBDD for a simple error would also be wrong,.
Take an example of someone who pulls out because they have been flashed out of a junction. They move forwards and don't see a motorcyclist and have a collision in which the M-cyclist dies.
That doesn't constitute dangerous driving, simply a lack of enough care.

The law doesn't work on prosecuting people for the results of their actions, just the action itself, otherwise there would be massive imbalances of penalty on a random basis.

Driver A: Young scally drives everywhere like a loony and has numerous accidents but fortunately nobody dies as a result.

Driver B: Normally drives with due diligence and carefully, but one day doesn't see a cyclist at a junction due to parked cars, pulls out and kills the cyclist.

With your method driver A gets a light penalty and driver B goes to prison. That wouldn't be right as their actions were not bad enough to warrant that, they made a mistake.

Your totally correct,

In our modern age we have to prove the dangerous aspect of the driving when someone steals a car, has no driving licence, and no right to be on the road and then kills two or three children who are innocently stood at a bus top. You are totally correct to say that this toe rag will merely say he had a 'lapse of concentration' and he is very sorry for killing the children! Yup he will probably get prosecuted for driving without due care and of course the other motoring offences.

Whereas I say this person should be charged with murder, they had NO right to be in the car, they give up the right to say sorry the instant those wheels start to rotate. Anyone that should not lawfully be driving has no excuse for whatever happens. I don't care if a child runs staright out in front of them, they should not be in that lethal weapon (the car). They are illegally on the highway and cannot offer any mitigation or excuse.

I suppose we could do away with the offence of death by dangerous driving for those that are legally on the highway. Perhaps on reflection we could have a new offence simply called 'Death by driving' or similar wording and then let the court decide on a suitable punishment.

I wish I could agree with you about this 'momentary' lapse of concentration, but we MUST surely take into consideration that this 'momentary' lapse has caused the death of a fellow human being.

If a member of my family was run down whilst crossing the road at at pelican controlled crossing and the offender went through a red light and ended up with 3 points and a £300 fine because they had a 'momentary' lapse of concentration is that right or just?

When driving a motor vehicle we are in control of a lethal weapon and a momentary lapse can kill. I'm sorry to disagree, but it saddens me when I continually read about drivers that have this momentary lapse and then laugh at the grieving family when they get their 3 points and a £100 fine for killing someone.

As I keep saying, if you want to murder someone. then simply run them over and say sorry.

Job done, 3 - 6 penalty points and a fine.

I fully accept you and all the legal beavers think I'm nutty, but to me the nut cases are those that let these oafs laugh at them as they walk out of the court having killed someone and only been fined for their actions.

Your 'flashing' example merely highlights the incompetance of the offending driver. Flashing headlights is NOT mitigation and certainly does not give any driver the right to close their eyes and pull out in front of a motor cyclist. We all accept that a driver might flash their lights to allow us to puill out, BUT..... it is our responsibility to ensure it is safe to proceed and yes with our modern interpretation we would struggle to convict this driver for causing the death of the motor cyclist by their 'dangerous' driving, but to me this driver has killed this person and deserves to go to prison and a due care conviction will probably not grant my wish. Death by Driving

John

 

[glojo]

Driver A: Young scally drives everywhere like a loony and has numerous accidents but fortunately nobody dies as a result.

Driver B: Normally drives with due diligence and carefully, but one day doesn't see a cyclist at a junction due to parked cars, pulls out and kills the cyclist.

With your method driver A gets a light penalty and driver B goes to prison. That wouldn't be right as their actions were not bad enough to warrant that, they made a mistake.

Oi..........
Don't assume what my system would do.

Driver A:
Dangerous driving is a serious offence and often results in prison sentences. The punishment is between 3 - 11 penalty points and obligatory disqualification for a minimum of one year. In addition, you may receive up to two years imprisonment. Anyone convicted of dangerous driving must take a re-test before they will be permitted to drive again. Dangerous driving cases can be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court or in the Crown Court.


Driver B
Yup,
Fair comment they MIGHT go to jail. Please note the word might. The evidence would be heard and by crikey they would need to do a lot of waffling to convince me that what they did was safe, or correct! A momentary lapse would earn them a 'Go to Jail' card.

John