Jail for road-rage motorist who deliberately ploughed into cyclists

[Audax67]

+1 I also think it was the right outcome (except for the driving ban).

I don't think long prison sentences are really the answer for any but the most awful crimes and the most awful people. Sixteen weeks in prison (or maybe eight?) is a wake up call for something done in the heat of the moment. Sixteen minutes in prison would be long enough for me.

However what the driver really showed is that he isn't safe behind the wheel. That's very different: we had the chance to remove a temperamentally unfit driver fom these narrow roads (as Flinders mentioned).

Sixteen weeks plus consequences, i.e. likely loss of employment, and a hard time finding work afterwards - especially if his job involved driving.

As to the 112 weeks' "road ban", I'd take that to mean that he can't use any vehicles on the road, bikes included - or was that just the paper's sloppy usage?

[thirdcrank]

...As to the 112 weeks' "road ban", I'd take that to mean that he can't use any vehicles on the road, bikes included - or was that just the paper's sloppy usage?

In plain English, it means that they are not licensed to drive any mechanically propelled vehicle during the period of disqualification. Twiddly bits decide whether they need to pass a driving test again to get their licence back at the end of the ban. The legal English version is in s37 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, with twiddly bits.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/37

[Richard D]

Was the offender required to pass the extended driving test before driving again once the ban expires? That would certainly be reasonable.

Yes he was.

Of course, we know that the driving test does little to test people's attitudes and manner of driving the moment the pass certificate is handed over, but at least he has to prove a basic level of competence before he drives. Although as he managed to pass a test once before yet still thought that his driving was in any way shape or form acceptable is deeply disappointing.

According to local press reports, he apologised to the Court for his actions. No mention whatsoever of apologising to the cyclists involved, mind you.

[Bonefishblues]

It would be more relevant for the offender to have a psychological assessment in order to regain his licence. A re-test is almost irrelevant.

[Postboxer]

Not just an assessment, he has proven he is unfit, so therefore some kind of psychiatric therapy should be needed before being considered fit to drive again.

[Bonefishblues]

Not just an assessment, he has proven he is unfit, so therefore some kind of psychiatric therapy should be needed before being considered fit to drive again.

He may just have had one of those red mist moments and done something to his eternal shame and regret. He may be just fine, he may not be. Assess, then decide.

[thirdcrank]

From the link in the OP

Simon Dean, for Rafferty, said his client was disabled and immediate custody would have an impact on his condition.

He said: “On the day in question, he saw the red mist, his behaviour was stupid and, through me, he apologises to the court for what he did.”

I've long been an advocate of psychometric testing fir drivers: technical driving skill is not the same as the right mental state.

I've no idea whether this driver had any previous convictions, but he can't have had a terrible driving record or it would surely have been mentioned in the media report. Assuming he had no relevant previous convictions, then there is a case for a suspended sentence, on the basis that the court proceedings and the suspended sentence might prevent a repeat by somebody who had kept out of trouble till late middle age. His advocate will almost certainly have made that point in a mitigation which will have been much longer than what's quoted above. Had he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, that might have been the outcome and there might still be an appeal against sentence.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Usual justice-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-41035831

"A woman who seriously injured a teenager when she crashed into a bus stop while on a cocktail of drugs, has been given a suspended sentence."

"Wilson had only driven a few hundred metres from her home in Penzance when she fell asleep at the wheel, the court was told.
She had taken cocaine, heroin, methadone, morphine and codeine in the days leading up to 13 March, as she was afraid to sleep because of threats from a violent drugs gang.
Hospital tests showed the level of cocaine in her system was so high it went above the recognised scale.
Judge Robert Linford described the circumstances as "unusual" and said he gave a suspended sentence "with a very high degree of hesitation".

That's OK then

[thirdcrank]

The gaols are full. They don't improve anybody. It's expensive to put people in them and the only arguable reasons for sending anybody there is the possibility of deterring others (having failed to deter the individual being sentenced) or for the protection of the public, which implies a very long sentence. (Current controversy over indeterminate sentences being a case in point.) Public opinion is all that's left and it's fickle.

[horizon]

With driving offences we have both a effective deterrent and an appropriate punishment which is humane, cheap (almost costless) to administer, reasonably fair to the family of the offender, socially productive (i.e. it actually has side benefits), helps the offender to regain health and equanimity and can do what prison is supposed to do - protect the public. It is flexible, can be tailored to the severity of the offence and inasmuch as it it seen as a real punishment (or at least claimed as much in court by offenders) can meet the demands of victims for retribution.

And yet this penalty is used in a weak, mealy-mouthed sort of way by the courts and successfully subject to ludicrous claims of undue hardship (if true then the punishment is even more effective).

This penalty is the loss of the driving licence. Its only drawback is the need for effective enforcement, for which I for one can think of many solutions. Lifelong loss, ten year loss, six month loss. one month loss: all have their roles. I think it a huge failing of our judicial system that loss of licence is so little used in the ways that it could be.

[[XAP]Bob]

With driving offences we have both a effective deterrent and an appropriate punishment which is humane, cheap (almost costless) to administer, reasonably fair to the family of the offender, socially productive (i.e. it actually has side benefits), helps the offender to regain health and equanimity and can do what prison is supposed to do - protect the public. It is flexible, can be tailored to the severity of the offence and inasmuch as it it seen as a real punishment (or at least claimed as much in court by offenders) can meet the demands of victims for retribution.

And yet this penalty is used in a weak, mealy-mouthed sort of way by the courts and successfully subject to ludicrous claims of undue hardship (if true then the punishment is even more effective).

This penalty is the loss of the driving licence. Its only drawback is the need for effective enforcement, for which I for one can think of many solutions. Lifelong loss, ten year loss, six month loss. one month loss: all have their roles. I think it a huge failing of our judicial system that loss of licence is so little used in the ways that it could be.

Even a 1 week loss would make people think - and you'd be hard pushed to say that you couldn't cope without a car for a week...

[Bonefishblues]

It would be economically punitive too, in terms of insurance renewal costs.

[Postboxer]

I was thinking the other day about the reports we often see in the press about people on the road with more than 12 penalty points on their licence who are still driving, because they plead they need the car for work etc, I was wondering how much their insurance premiums are, as insurance companies aren't known for their charity, I would expect them to ramp up premiums with each new conviction, assuming of course that they are informed of them.

[Bonefishblues]

I was thinking the other day about the reports we often see in the press about people on the road with more than 12 penalty points on their licence who are still driving, because they plead they need the car for work etc, I was wondering how much their insurance premiums are, as insurance companies aren't known for their charity, I would expect them to ramp up premiums with each new conviction, assuming of course that they are informed of them.

I think that number is fewer than our discussions on here might suggest. Extract froma BBC article below regarding 12+ points:

Penalty points and the law
Bans are six months for 12 or more penalty points accrued within three years.
Most points remain valid for three years from conviction, but stay on licences for four years, which is why so many drivers have a high number of points but are allowed to be on the roads.
The number of points put on a licence varies depending on the offence.
Exceeding the speed limit can lead to three to six points as can using a mobile phone at the wheel.
Someone who drives above the legal alcohol limit would get 10 points.
Up to 11 points can be put on a licence for drug driving and these stay on licences for up to 11 years.

[cotswolds]

I was thinking the other day about the reports we often see in the press about people on the road with more than 12 penalty points on their licence who are still driving, because they plead they need the car for work etc, I was wondering how much their insurance premiums are, as insurance companies aren't known for their charity, I would expect them to ramp up premiums with each new conviction, assuming of course that they are informed of them.

I think that number is fewer than our discussions on here might suggest. Extract froma BBC article below regarding 12+ points:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975 says over 10,000, which as a proportion of drivers in the UK is pretty small.

This line of thought reminded me of one of the things I'd like introduced as a new punishment - if you have points on your licence you have to have a plate on your car warning other road users of how many points you have. Same idea as the L plate for learners, warning other drivers to give you extra space. Given that many people see their car as a status symbol, having such a plate would rather detract from the appearance of the their shiny new metal box. Companies who care about their image might be concerned about their sales force turning up in customer car parks showing such a plate. Mothers might be concerned about letting their children be driven in such cars.

Wouldn't work for everyone, but I think it would have an effect, and cost next to nothing. (Obviously those with more than 12 points would have to pay extra for a custom plate.)