Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

death by careless driving

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Going through each one... oddly enough, I never listen to the radio or to a CD when in the car. Second, no, there have been occasions when I've slipped over the speed limit. Checking what speed you're doing is hardly the biggest distraction in the world. Unfortunately, it's one that's made very necessary when you're trying to avoid speed cameras, especially in Richard Brunstrom Land. Third, I usually drive alone, so that circumstance doesn't really apply. Fourth, there's a clock on the dashboard, which I usually look at when waiting at traffic lights or so on. I try to avoid distractions, but I'm only human.

    So for those who fail to meet your level of perfection... you honestly think driving dangerously ie putting on lipstickn whilst tootling along with one hand on the wheel for twenty minutes is the same as two seconds of taking your eye of the road to change station.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay, all but the first of my posts in this thread have been removed. I must admit that I was slightly confused after reading Whowhere's post. Even after several readings, I wasn't entirely sure what he was saying, so it would have been better to seek clarification before commenting further. My mistake.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm torn about this one.

    There should be a more serious offence of death by careless driving, because killing someone is an awful thing to have happen. The severity of what happens isn't covered by the existing law which means that the prosecution have to prove reckless or dangerous driving or little is done.

    But at the same time I don't like the way there is a distinction between someone who does something dangerous on the road and kills someone and someone who does something dangerous on the road and doesn't.

    I honestly think that sentencing should be on the basis of the nature of the mistake not on the consequences of the mistake. Someone who overtakes on a blind bend at 90mph should be spending the same amount of time in jail regardless of whether he is lucky enough to miss the motorcycle coming the other way or not. Equally someone who has a temporary lapse in concentration shouldn't have the book thrown at them because they were unlucky enough to hit someone and kill them.

    I don't think that custody should be the starting point for death by careless driving. Brake are wrong about that. Brake are often wrong in their comments about the roads.

    And I know I'ce contradicted myself in that post. It's one where I can see both sides of the argument equally clearly.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    There's a clear difference between careless driving and dangerous driving and the punishment should reflect that. I don't see what the problem is in making a distinction.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    There's a clear difference between careless driving and dangerous driving and the punishment should reflect that. I don't see what the problem is in making a distinction.
    i think i've a slightly clearer idea of that now from reading the thread. :)
    although i can still think of a few examples where that might not be very clear cut at all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    There's a clear difference between careless driving and dangerous driving and the punishment should reflect that. I don't see what the problem is in making a distinction.

    There isn't a problem with making a distinction, the law does it quite clearly as it is. It's just brought in a new bit about if you're driving carelessly and kill someone the sentence will be higher than if you don't. There never used to be an offence of death by careless driving, it didn't matter if you killed someone or not the sentence was the same.

    It's just the numbskulls at Brake that think that anyone who kills someone on the road, even if it was a fairly small and innocent mistake, should be spending 20 years in prison. But then everyone knows that they are complete retards.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    Seems fair to me.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    can i ask what is ''brake''?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »

    I honestly think that sentencing should be on the basis of the nature of the mistake not on the consequences of the mistake. Someone who overtakes on a blind bend at 90mph should be spending the same amount of time in jail regardless of whether he is lucky enough to miss the motorcycle coming the other way or not. Equally someone who has a temporary lapse in concentration shouldn't have the book thrown at them because they were unlucky enough to hit someone and kill them.

    I don't think that custody should be the starting point for death by careless driving. Brake are wrong about that. Brake are often wrong in their comments about the roads.


    :yes: agrees
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    otter wrote: »
    can i ask what is ''brake''?
    Brake is a charity which campaigns for greater road safety. See here for their website.
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    otter wrote: »
    can i ask what is ''brake''?
    If you don't know, you really shouldn't drive...

    (Sorry, someone had to say it! :p)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Indrid Cold wrote: »
    If you don't know, you really shouldn't drive...
    :lol:
    why though? ... knowing the name of a charity doesn't have much to do with the practical side of road safety or driving.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    otter wrote: »
    :lol:
    why though? ... knowing the name of a charity doesn't have much to do with the practical side of road safety or driving.

    It's alright Indrid, I got the joke :rolleyes: ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    It's alright Indrid, I got the joke

    :lol: - i get it myself now. ha ha.
    i'm a bit slow on the uptake today :razz:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    otter wrote: »
    :lol: - i get it myself now. ha ha.
    i'm a bit slow on the uptake today :razz:


    :D:p
Sign In or Register to comment.