WHAT!

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
thirdcrank
Posts: 27546
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby thirdcrank » 6 Jan 2019, 1:11pm

... The issue with driving while banned is that it might have been to keep a dangerous driver off the roads yet it is seen as a petty offence. ...


It depends on what you mean by "petty" of course, but I believe it's generally considered serious, but not grave. There's also the point that if these offence attract really heavy sentences, then the incentives not to stop after a crash or to try to out-run the police are increased.

reohn2
Posts: 32264
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby reohn2 » 6 Jan 2019, 1:21pm

thirdcrank wrote:
... The issue with driving while banned is that it might have been to keep a dangerous driver off the roads yet it is seen as a petty offence. ...


It depends on what you mean by "petty" of course, but I believe it's generally considered serious, but not grave. There's also the point that if these offence attract really heavy sentences, then the incentives not to stop after a crash or to try to out-run the police are increased.

If we are to reach that conclusion we may as well give into the criminal fraternity and seek to defend ourselves by whatever means we see fit.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 8659
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: WHAT!

Postby horizon » 6 Jan 2019, 1:22pm

There's also the point that if these offence attract really heavy sentences, then the incentives not to stop after a crash or to try to out-run the police are increased.


There are always unintended consequences and it is to be hoped (and I think mainly it does happen) that judicial principles are pretty well worked out. It was always said that the excessively heavy sentences handed down after the (gun-free) Great Train Robbery were an instant incentive to carry firearms (hung for a sheep etc). What I would rather see is an accumulated penalty where the person isn't condemned after one incident but a profile is built up over time. Indeed, stopping at the scene, being alcohol free etc should be taken into account as mitigating factors.
It's autumn in England with the trees turning golden. So we say leaves mean leaves.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27546
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby thirdcrank » 6 Jan 2019, 1:36pm

... What I would rather see is an accumulated penalty where the person isn't condemned after one incident but a profile is built up over time. Indeed, stopping at the scene, being alcohol free etc should be taken into account as mitigating factors.


We already have a system of totting-up points. I'm not going to go through all the sentencing guidelines collating aggravating/ mitigating factors in different offences but what I think you are suggesting is already in place. I doubt if mitigation on the grounds of not being drunk while killing somebody by driving recklessly would receive much sysmpathy, but who knows.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 8659
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: WHAT!

Postby horizon » 6 Jan 2019, 2:05pm

thirdcrank wrote:
We already have a system of totting-up points.


Yes, but not a very good one. And you get more or less the same ban for three minor speeding offences as you do for killing someone. What we need is a method of assessing suitability to drive, not a punishment for an offence (there are others punishments available). Psychological profiling might be one method but behaviour over time, recorded as offences is IMV not bad.
It's autumn in England with the trees turning golden. So we say leaves mean leaves.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27546
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby thirdcrank » 6 Jan 2019, 2:21pm

Yes, but not a very good one. And you get more or less the same ban for three minor speeding offences as you do for killing someone....


Except that totting-up isn't the only way to attract a driving ban: the more serious offences almost all carry the possibility of a much lengthier ban and the requirement to pass an extended driving test before being able to apply for a new licence.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

Totting-up is a practical way of trying to ensure that an offender's previous summary convictions are taken into account. With more serious offences, criminal convictions are recorded with fingerprints for identification and the court can ask for social inquiry reports before sentencing. Indeed, they normally must obtain reports before sentencing somebody to prison.

I'd agree that there should be more attention paid to somebody's psychological state, especially in road-rage cases, and I've posted more than once that being technically proficient behind the wheel doesn't necessarily mean somebody will be a good driver.

One elephant-in-the-room is that without detection, sentencing policy is academic.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 8659
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: WHAT!

Postby horizon » 11 Jan 2019, 3:37pm

Cunobelin wrote this on another thread:

Drivers with speeding offences are shown to be more likely to tailgate, fail to stop at a junction, overtake poorly


viewtopic.php?p=1295449#p1295449

I have no idea how this was arrived at but you can see my point: minor offences point at more serious ones and vice-versa. That's why I would like to see a much higher cut-off point for a ban (say 30 points) and many more offences resulting in say one or two points. So for example, someone may be caught speeding a couple of times at 25 mph in a 20 mph zone but only receive one point for each offence. Over time, however, the driver is able to reflect on his/her driving and society is able to take a much more considered view. In this way, the detection of the offence (and the points and/or fine) are seen as useful information gathering more than a deterrence as such.

If or when a ban finally kicks in then a ban means a ban - I'm convinced it is enforceable if society so chooses. But under my scheme of things it isn't a punishment any more than failing your driving test is.
It's autumn in England with the trees turning golden. So we say leaves mean leaves.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27546
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby thirdcrank » 13 Jan 2019, 1:17pm

horizon

Only partial info as I post but how would disqualifying somebody from driving affect this sort of thing?

Woman and toddler left in crashed car in Long Eaton

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-d ... e-46851036

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 8659
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: WHAT!

Postby horizon » 13 Jan 2019, 1:46pm

thirdcrank wrote:horizon

Only partial info as I post but how would disqualifying somebody from driving affect this sort of thing?

Woman and toddler left in crashed car in Long Eaton

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-d ... e-46851036


He would have passed his test that showed only that he was competent to operate the vehicle (the test could be tweaked a bit more but no matter). Thereafter his driving behaviour would have resulted in the accumulation of points on his licence which would by then have disqualified him for several years as unsuitable to drive a car. This is based of course on the assumption that this incident didn't come from nowhere. Had he driven he would then have been in prison and the event would not have occurred. The second assumption here is that a ban would be properly enforced and would be backed up by prison.
It's autumn in England with the trees turning golden. So we say leaves mean leaves.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27546
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby thirdcrank » 13 Jan 2019, 1:59pm

I'm jumping to the conclusion that something like automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) was involved: something has attracted police attention. He's decided to try to make a determined attempt to outrun the police and it's only good luck that has prevented death or serious injury. I mention ANPR because it's one of the few effective tools for detecting disqualified drivers or at least their vehicles.

I fancy one of the results of this will be that all concerned will face an investigation for the role they played in motivating the driver to try to escape, although the fact that nobody was killed and he didn't drown may prevent that.

reohn2
Posts: 32264
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby reohn2 » 13 Jan 2019, 2:04pm

thirdcrank wrote:horizon

Only partial info as I post but how would disqualifying somebody from driving affect this sort of thing?

Woman and toddler left in crashed car in Long Eaton

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-d ... e-46851036

Bizarre doesn't begin to describe such actions.
If his licence isn't withdrawn and him made to sit a retest after serving such a ban,what makes anyone think he'll not drive without insurance(because his premium will be sky as a result)if he's not banned?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 8659
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: WHAT!

Postby horizon » 13 Jan 2019, 2:59pm

reohn2 wrote:what makes anyone think he'll not drive without insurance(because his premium will be sky as a result)if he's not banned?


Everything I've suggested so far is based on the presumption that enforcement is possible. Enforcement of firearms licences seems to work reasonably well; I think the same could apply to driving licences.
It's autumn in England with the trees turning golden. So we say leaves mean leaves.

brynpoeth
Posts: 8363
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: WHAT!

Postby brynpoeth » 13 Jan 2019, 3:08pm

Vehicles should be limited to 70mph max, except for cop cars, then the girls in blue could catch the terrorists easily
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs

reohn2
Posts: 32264
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby reohn2 » 13 Jan 2019, 4:41pm

horizon wrote:
reohn2 wrote:what makes anyone think he'll not drive without insurance(because his premium will be sky as a result)if he's not banned?


Everything I've suggested so far is based on the presumption that enforcement is possible. Enforcement of firearms licences seems to work reasonably well; I think the same could apply to driving licences.

Firearms are carry a lot of restrictions to use and there arent many people with such licences and very easily traced,even with the poor policing numbers available in modern day UK.
Contrast that with car numbers on the road and the way their drivers can easily get around the law.
I've posted this before:-
Suppose I'm banned but wish to keep driving with impunity and own a fairly common car,if I can find a car similar to mine that's legally on the road in another town say 100 miles away.I simply have a pair of reg plates made up like that car and drive around with those plates fitted to my car.ANPR shows it up as legal and if I keep my nose clean the chances of being stopped are minimal.
That's the sad state policing UK roads today.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27546
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: WHAT!

Postby thirdcrank » 13 Jan 2019, 6:23pm

horizon wrote:
reohn2 wrote:what makes anyone think he'll not drive without insurance(because his premium will be sky as a result)if he's not banned?


Everything I've suggested so far is based on the presumption that enforcement is possible. Enforcement of firearms licences seems to work reasonably well; I think the same could apply to driving licences.


Firearms licensing by definition regulates legally held firearms and places quite a burden on the people who have them. The influence on people who decide to act outside the law is limited.