awavey wrote: .... and is spending more time in jail than anyone convicted by the "modern upto date" death by driving laws, ...
That is factually incorrect. Some drivers convicted
of this offence receive custodial sentences in the 8,9,10+ year range. If I'm wrong, cyclists would be better off under charged such a law than manslaughter.
I don't want to start yet another Alliston debate but our legal system places a lot of emphasis on the guilty mind. If a driver were go on the road in a racing car without brakes, depending only on engine braking to slow down, blew their horn to get a pedestrian out of the way and crashed into them and killed them, then the sentence on conviction would be at the top end of the range. The potential of the driver of a motor vehicle for killing somebody is immeasurably greater than a cyclist, but when it happens, the deceased is just as dead no matter what killed them.
IMO if anybody is serious about improved enforcement of traffic law, then "Not me, gov!" is an untenable platform for a campaign.
the maximum sentence for death by careless driving is 5 years, so the ones in the 8-10+ range, which I must admit I dont recall many if at all in the past 2 years, could only be death by dangerous, or careless driving + drink/drug driving, then its 14 years. But even then the longest sentences Ive seen recently were still only 5-6 years, where both drivers left the scene, one was drunk after visiting 3 seperate pubs, the other driving at speeds upto 80mph on a 50mph road.
both surely demonstrated as much disregard and a guilty mind by driving in the manner they did, did not enter guilty pleas, yet neither got even half the maximum tariff applicable.
and fwiw as was highlighted by a government minister at the time, and is detailed in the consulation document, manslaughter is equally applicable to every death on the road, even those caused by motor vehicles, its simply the CPS for whatever reasons they have, choose not to prosecute on it for cases involving motor vehicles.
everything Im reading in this consulation document, the way the questions are phrased to get the answers they clearly already want, is to equate cycling to be as dangerous to pedestrians as driving motor vehicles is, why is frankly just nonsense sorry