[Cycloid]

Time and again on Road CC we hear of drivers walking free from court, or receiving a minimal judgement, after causing death or serious injury to a cyclist.

Naturally the cycling community feels incensed, but we can hardly claim to be impartial onlookers and the greater good must be considered. However if a judicial system is not seen to be Fair, Impartial, and Equally Accessible to all then citizens will lose confidence in it.

Part of the problem must lie in our adversarial system in which one side (the prosecution) paints defendants in the worst possible light whilst the other side (the defence) looks for extenuating circumstances and makes them appear as saints, even if they are pleading guilty. A good lawyer may convince a Jury / Judge of the defendant’s character, and we get a miscarriage of justice. If you can afford a good lawyer (Mr Loophole springs to mind) you may well come out with a more lenient judgement.

Is our adversarial justice system robust, but with occasional shortcomings?

Would we be better served by an Inquisitorial system (as in France) in which the judge gets involved with the case?

Topic

[TheBillder]

Short bans are a good idea,
Short bans are a good idea, especially if combined with confiscation of the vehicle. Otherwise, it’s too easy just to carry on driving, safe in the knowledge that being stopped in the week of a first ban is so unlikely as to be risk free.

[Tom_77]

There are some stats in this

There are some stats in this pdf – https://www.roadpeace.org/download/roadpeace-causing-death-by-careless-driving-10-years-on/?wpdmdl=4295&refresh=5ce56145d52911558536517

 

[hawkinspeter]

I’d rather see driving bans

I’d rather see driving bans being handed out like candy. First increase the police traffic presence which could be done cheaply with cameras (CCTV/dashcams/helmetcams) if they streamline their video submission portals. Ideally allow the police to issue short-term bans (e.g. 6 months or less) for simple offences, but allow the driver to contest it and have a court case instead, although the length of ban should then be doubled if found guilty to provide an incentive for drivers to just admit their guilt.

For any at fault incident that ends up killing someone, the driver should have their license revoked permanently. Whether or not a prison sentence is also applicable can be decided by the judges, though community service would seem appropriate in the less malicious cases.

Anyone caught driving whilst banned should immediately be sent to prison. This would need some of that increased traffic police presence or some widespread ANPR cameras to flag down suspicious drivers, especially with cloned plates. Maybe have driving with a cloned plate be a lifetime driving ban too.

If we can get the worst drivers off the road, then there’ll be less congestion and pollution.

[wycombewheeler]

Cugel wrote:

Understand that it’s in the context of thinking that gaol is useless as a deterrent in the vast majority of cases

And even more so in the case of driving offences, because 99% of dangerous driving does not result in a death, so they have already been really unlucky. No one sets out to kill someone on the roads. So the thought of going to prison doesn’t even factor in.

Until we start really clamping down on the dangerous behaviours, nothing will change. I’m thinking of short bans instead of a points totting up process.

First offence – one week

Second offence – one month

Third offence  – 3 months

fourth offence – one year

Bans affect most people equally (other than those that can afford drivers) whereas fines can be ignored by the more wealthy. It would also be harder to argue undue hardship over a ban of only a week, but it should focus the drivers mind on how inconvenient it is.

[wycombewheeler]

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

I read somewhere that “every cyclist who has killed someone has gone to jail” which may or may not be true.  I haven’t researched that, just read it.

Because of that, I googled something on the lines of  “% of drivers who kill someone in an accident who then go to jail”.  In an article that appeared in the Sun (I know, that hardly makes it the perfect source) they said “13 drivers a month who have killed someone get sentenced to Community Service”.  I should probably look into this further, but the Sun seem to be saying that every other day a driver who has killed just gets communuity service.

Roughly 1800 people a year killed on UK roads, assume 1500 incidents, that’s 125 a month. So, around 10% of the drivers are being sentanced to community service, the remainder are going free? or to prison?

[Steve K]

There’s a good section on

There’s a good section on this debate (with no mention of cyclists!) in the Secret Barrister book, including a direct comparison with the inquistitorial system.  Iirc correctly, they conclude with sticking with our system, albeit most of the book is highlighting the shortcomings.  (It is some time since I read it.)

[Spangly Shiny]

Who is gong to build and

Who is gong to build and operate all these new prisons?

[Cugel]

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

I read somewhere that “every cyclist who has killed someone has gone to jail” which may or may not be true.  I haven’t researched that, just read it.

Because of that, I googled something on the lines of  “% of drivers who kill someone in an accident who then go to jail”.  In an article that appeared in the Sun (I know, that hardly makes it the perfect source) they said “13 drivers a month who have killed someone get sentenced to Community Service”.  I should probably look into this further, but the Sun seem to be saying that every other day a driver who has killed just gets communuity service.

Understand that it’s in the context of thinking that gaol is useless as a deterrent in the vast majority of cases of all kinds but I feel that penalties that attempt to make recompense, rather than providing revenge, to those left suffering the loss of loved ones (or and/or economic supports) is a far better way to punish drivers who maim and kill. However ….

The “community service” given as the penalty should be far more stringent and demanding than the sort of “pick up some litter for a bit” stuff currently imposed on miscreants. If you deprive a wife and children of a working and loving husband, you should be required to spend a long, long time providing as much physical recompense as practicable.

This might be your time working and paying most of your wage to your victims, for years and years and with only enough for you & yours to survive left after the recompense is paid over each week to your victims. It might require 7 days per week working to earn more. Or the penalty might also include paying over the vast majority of any capital and assets you have. You might be made their indentured servant for all sorts of tasks, for several years.

In addition, access to the sorts of technologies that would allow you to perform another foolish act of the sort currently called “accident” should be permanently withdrawn, with large penalties applied to anyone facilitating you getting at such technologies illegally. No car for you, criminal!

For the irresponsible who cause trafic accidents through self-indulgent carlooning, this might even work as a deterrent. Be lethally careless, become a slave, perhaps for the rest of your life.

**********

Putting people in gaol is largely about revenge, which doesn’t actually help victims in any genuine fashion or work as a deterent. (People who do bad things do so “accidently” or at the behest of uncontrolled momentary emotions or in the belief that they’ll avoid detection). It costs us all a lot of money to gaol someone. Gaols are schools that create even worse criminals of those going in to them.

Some people are so dangerous that they can’t be dettered from future evil acts by anything other than confinement. But that’s a very small percentage of the people who currently end up in gaol.

 

[chrisonabike]

Just make up something – say

Just make up something – say it’s not your fault, the Sun was in your eyes.

[Daveyraveygravey]

I read somewhere that “every

I read somewhere that “every cyclist who has killed someone has gone to jail” which may or may not be true.  I haven’t researched that, just read it.

Because of that, I googled something on the lines of  “% of drivers who kill someone in an accident who then go to jail”.  In an article that appeared in the Sun (I know, that hardly makes it the perfect source) they said “13 drivers a month who have killed someone get sentenced to Community Service”.  I should probably look into this further, but the Sun seem to be saying that every other day a driver who has killed just gets communuity service.

[Cycloid]

Thanks for all the

Thanks for all the interesting comments, I deliberately restricted my original post to the court proceedings that take place after an “accident” has taken place and all the evidence has been collected and presented to the Judge / Jury.

Other bloggers have rightly broadened the scope to include motornormativity, and the acceptance of road user deaths and injuries that are the accepted price we pay for using the roads as we do. These are of course heavily weighted towards vulnerable road users.

So we could have a hypothetical case in which a driver pleads guilty to causing death by careless driving and the evidence suggests it is at the high end of the scale. (Probably should have been dangerous driving) This carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

The defence says his client is a “carer”, “a kind hearted man”, and “full of remorse”.

The Judge (who probably drives a large car and may suffer from unconscious bias) takes this into consideration and the driver walks out of court.

A quick look at the driver’s Facebook page shows him to be, say, a petrol head and far right wing racist. This of course may not be incompatible with being “kind hearted”.

So in our adversarial system, we have the situation where the defence has misled the court, the judge has taken it all in and the defendant gets minimal punishment.

In an inquisitorial system the judge manages the investigation and would be much more aware of the whole situation. This does not prevent a truly biased judge manipulating the system, but it would make it much more obvious.

 

[Cycloid]

Thanks – I’ve checked out the

Thanks – I’ve checked out the reviews and bought the book. It cost £3-20 on Abebooks

[mattsccm]

Is it this or just sentancing

Is it this or just sentancing guidelines. 

If we , say, stuck two zeros on every speeding fine or a minimum of £1000 a mph over the limit plus car impounding until paid things might change. This would be for “minor” offences. Any injury would be mandatory prison + social punishment for many years. Maybe life ban on car ownership etc.

We are just too soft as a society. 

[BalladOfStruth]

Rendel Harris wrote:

I’d say there’s actually more of a problem with judges and sentencing than with juries. It’s actually quite rare to see a driver who has killed or seriously injured a cyclist being found not guilty by the jury…

True, but it’s very common to see the charge for brazen, conscious, and dangerous behaviour dropped to a “lesser” offence, because they know they won’t get the higher offence past a sympathetic jury of people who probably do the same shit every day. 
 

How often do we see intentional acts like speeding, mobile phone use, punishment-passes gone wrong, etc. downgraded from the charges they should be (dangerous driving, or even attempted murder in some cases) to charges like “careless driving” or “without due care and attention”. 

[Rendel Harris]

the little onion wrote:

Given that anti-cyclist hatred and prejudice is rife in the media and public discourse, I’d say that there is a major problem with trial by jury in incidents when a driver has harmed cyclists.

I’d say there’s actually more of a problem with judges and sentencing than with juries. It’s actually quite rare to see a driver who has killed or seriously injured a cyclist being found not guilty by the jury, but it’s absolutely commonplace to see the driver, having been found guilty, being given a suspended sentence by the judge on the basis that they have to care for their elderly mother or “no sentence I could give will bring the victim back.”

[Author]

Replies