Maximum for death by careless is five years.
Maximum for death by dangerous is something like 14 or 16 years.
This driver was found not guilty of death by dangerous, but guilty of death by careless.
It's a case where the jury has not given the judge the bullets to fire.
|
|
Funny, isn't it. As a non-legalese type person I find it hard to imagine how careless driving can be anything but dangerous. If it's not dangerous it is, by definition, safe. Odd.
|
Careless is usually described as 'a momentary lapse'.
Dangerous is 'a prolonged period of inattention'.
Thet's why the prosecution in this case claimed the driver cannot have been paying attention 'for about a minute'.
They were seeking to prove the 'prolonged period of inattention'.
The jury, by their verdicts, were not convinced.
|
|
|
|
Even when given the bullets judges still opt on the side of leaniency when dealing with foreign drivers.
Search Klaas Alewijn Jan Rehorst
Convicted of Dangerous Driving 5 Dec. 08 gets 5 years for causing the death of one other.
Edited by gmac on 16/02/2009 at 19:00
|
|
|
|
|
Swop this round to British lorry driver killing six on Portugese road and I wonder how many years it would be before he left their prison ?
|
|
Can we have some links to the harsh treatment of British drivers in other EU countries, please, and what they did, and the sentances... its just that I don't remember any making the headlines... thanks!
|
|
|
|
Looking at cases such as Michael Shields who was back in Britain after about a year of a 10 year attempted murder sentence, I think the answer is "not long"
|
well as someone who has spent the day in dover (in the town well away from the port) watching from across the road which vehicles the police stop (those with british plates) and what is done for same offence i can say with some certainty that brits are routinely handed tickets and foreign drivers are routinely let off - mostly not even stopped
having lived in belgium i can tell you that if youre stopped for speeding on a british bike there is a good chance the bike will be confiscated (took away on a truck) until you have paid your speeding ticket, which compares and contrasts to belgian bikers in UK who are routinely let off with a warning if they are even stopped at all
dont make me laugh we all know the rules are not applied evenly to brits and foreign drivers
|
6 Months? We are getting to the stage where you will get that for a third offence of putting your wheelie bin out on the wrong day, if the Stasi snoopers catch you!
|
retgwte, isn't what you say more to do with the law in Belgium allowing the police to do that and the UK law not, so what you are saying is that our law is not tough enough, then?
Others are saying its too harsh on us poor motorists... look at the speeding threads for evidence...
Edited by b308 on 16/02/2009 at 19:02
|
thats not the full story
belgian police are more leniant to their own nationals
british police are far more strict with their own nationals
over the waves of thousands of offences every year it certainly makes the world a lot tougher for anyone stupid enough to drive on a british licence
loads of people know this and use any trick in the book to swap their UK licence for another Eurpean one, in one simple stroke making themselfs practically immune from speed cameras etc
our law has the provision to be tough on foreign drivers, just the pen pushers running the home office will not let the coppers use it cos it would cost too much mainly
sad really
|
|
|
|
>>>Surely so called ' professional drivers ' like this should be subject to bigger sentences to make them work that little bit harder on their concentration.<<<<<
Ah, at last we're seen as 'Professional'.
I remember a thread on here not too long ago where it was almost unanimous that a Lorry Driver wasn't a Professional but just as soon as we do something wrong we suddenly reach that lofty elevated status.
Try looking at the facts here and think of him as a lorry driver.........his nationality had no reflection on what he did wrong.
How would you have felt if it was a British driver who had done this and received the same punishment?
He didn't go out that day intending to kill a whole family, he had a momentary lapse of concentration, that had horrific results.
Concentration doesn't come easily at the end of 10 hours driving in day, in a lorry with cruise control, aircon, air assisted seats and auto gearboxes.
Boredom and complacency does, and I'd like to bet that those among us who are honest will be whispering 'there but for the grace of God go I'
And it isn't confined to lorry drivers either, a car can have just as tragic consequences as we've seen on the news today from Pembrokeshire, and most likely another momentary lapse..........
Pat
|
|
Emphatically agree PDA. I agree with all you say. You've saved me the effort. Similarly Retgwe. There's an awful lot of blind faith out there.
|
Some of the recent threads on here contradict many posters arguments for their particular opinions regarding this incident.
Maybe if all the stationary traffic had their feet placed on their foot brakes, the large glare might of caught this drivers attention.
To all the moaners who bang on about getting caught in road closures for police investigations, please see the interviews on SKY with the family left behind. Proper investigation is the only way to put these drivers behind bars and to find out what really happened
.
And as for the sentence. Too lenient. He could be out in 18 months. He should be banned at least from driving, for life. If he was charged with dangerous driving then that should have been the only result. Not downgrading it to careless. Why can't the justice system stick to the charge?
|
'Why can't the justice system stick to the charge?"
It's like the charge of murder. Most manage to get it downgraded to manslaughter .
To me, careless driving is when you run in to the back of the car in front at walking pace and do a bit of bumper scrapping. Dangerous is when you plough your 40 + ton truck in to stationary traffic at 60 mph whilst looking at your laptop.
|
>It's like the charge of murder. Most manage to get it downgraded to manslaughter.
Really, Mr X? Even if that's true (and I'll gladly accept that it is if you can offer us some supporting evidence), what does it tell us? That large numbers of people are getting off lightly? Or that, because there are lesser offences too, those same people are still being convicted and punished for something when their offence - or the evidence of it - doesn't merit a more serious conviction. If it weren't for such things as manslaughter and death by careless driving, the offenders you're so concerned about would have had to be sent home.
So far in this thread, you and Retgwte have produced a lot of heat, smoke and Mr Cul-de-Sac "It's an outrage" ranting without offering a shred of evidence to support your assertions. (And no, Ret, being 'involved in a few court cases' doesn't count.) If it's not all blind prejudice and hang-'em-high demagoguery, can we please have some proof?
|
|
This is a place to hold discussions and debates, . When it is a court of law, then we ( I inc retgwte ) will bring evidence and proof. For now, we offer our ' opinions " if it's all right with you ?
|
> For now, we offer our 'opinions' if it's all right with you.
Opinion is fine, Mr X. You, however, appeared to be asserting your manslaughter idea as fact, and I was merely asking whether you actually knew something we didn't - and from which we could learn. I think you've answered that question.
|
|
>>Concentration doesn't come easily at the end of 10 hours driving in day, in a lorry with cruise control, aircon, air assisted seats and auto gearboxes.<<
My heart bleeds. If you are in control of such a potentially destructive vehicle, you take it seriously and you make sure you are awake and aware. If you do it for a living, you should know better.
There is no excuse, so have a little respect for those that died and stop making excuses for that which was easily avoidable.
Many people drive long distance, but those who have a single thought for others do so safely - that includes making sure you are in a fit state to drive ie aware.
|
Safety-each is responsible for their own, don't rely on others to do it for you. The safest lane on a motorway in standing traffic is the inside lane. Car length from the vehicle in front, foot on brake and eyes on rear view mirror, always. The escape lane is on your left. Simple
Let's be careful out there...
|
having been in a few court cases i am afraid like the victims family in this case i have totally given up any youthful i once had of british justice
the average court is a lot of public school idiots talking down to everyone else
and the folk who can afford the more expensive legal team just about always win, no justice in it at all
so we have crazy situations where organisations like the nhs can employ v expensive legal teams and win time and time again against joe public and his modest legal team, yet cumulatively its obvious the nhs is a failing evil lying orgnanisation, but sadly the joke of a legal system never really gets this obvious fact
and so it goes on
crown prosecution and courts in serious driving cases have a lot to answer for too
|
"Concentration doesn't come easily at the end of 10 hours driving in day, in a lorry with cruise control, aircon, air assisted seats and auto gearboxes."
Well do a different job then. If you can't do it, don't do it. Boredom and complacency? Oh, that's an excuse for killing people isn't it? That and "we get told we have to hit targets".... there's more to life than profit-making. For some people, though, such as the family that were killed, there is no more life is there? And much the same for their remaining family. Stick that in the back of your 40-tonne roadgoing missile and smoke it.
|
|
|
> and so it goes on ...
Yes, it does rather. I wish the mods would dilute this sort of rant, but I suppose they can't.
|
|
I saw that post as more of an ' opinion ' than a rant... but then again, when an ' opinion " appears that people disagree with, get rid of it seems to be the easy option.
|
|
|
|
By definition all lorry drivers are professionals - it is a profession, However some don't actually act very professionally. This foreign driver will be out 'on licence' in 18 months according to BBC news last night. Nobody can think that 3 months per life is more than a smack on the wrist. I am sure a similar outcry would have been raised whatever the nationality of the driver.
|
Every few days another major hold-up on the A14 is reported on our local news. - and almost every time, it's an incident involving an HGV. Are these blokes driving when they're falling asleep? I suppose it doesn't help when they follow 3 metres behind the vehicle in front.
On holiday last year, we saw continental drivers in action from the vantage point of a seat on a coach. They were all phoning, using their laptops etc - so, do we assume that they leave these habits behind when they enter the UK?
|
It all comes down to the need for more Police, on the road, pulling people over and if needed, getting them off the roads.
You cant tar all lorry drivers with the same brush though ( father-in-law is one! ) but there are some bad ones with bad habits and they need to be taken off the road ASAP.
|
I'm confused (easily done I know!)
Certain individuals on this site produce thread after thread, link after link, stating how we are now in a Police state.
Then those same individuals produce yet more threads illustrating how people are getting away with murder through lack of Police/CPS action.
This could explain why I've decided to restrict myself to the rare threads that involve motoring from now on.
|
|
I think you'll find this tread is attacking the sentencing, something Police have little control over.
|
What is all the fuss about.
My view of the Criminal inJustice System is it's designed to punish the innocent and protect the guilty.
It worked very well again.
|
|
Re Mr X. Here, here!
Edited by nortones2 on 17/02/2009 at 13:30
|
|
> It all comes down to the need for more Police ...
No it doesn't. To achieve what you ask for would need a huge number of 'police', which is why there are so many cameras to do the missing work.
It comes down to self-imposed sensible behaviour by all road users. We all know there is a lot of senseless behaviour which keeps the pots boiling in this forum. I can't think of any 'initiative' which government might impose to solve the problem. There are millions of drivers in a huge dodgem system every day, so accidents will happen. I'm a bit surprised there aren't more.
|
>>It comes down to self-imposed sensible behaviour by all road users <<
ie hope, because thats all you have if you rely on people to be sensible.
>>To achieve what you ask for would need a huge number of 'police'<<
Well if thats what it takes, id happily pay extra tax for it. If you took the majority of uninsured, incapable and dangerous drivers off the road ( which must be around 1/3 maybe? ), we would presumably get lower insurance premiums and less congestion at the very least.
>>which is why there are so many cameras to do the missing work. <<
Show me the camera that puts drunk, uninsured or dangerous drivers in custody??
Id like people to be afraid of breaking the law rather than considering it fair game. Presence matters and for that you need numbers. The only people who worry about the Police are criminals, thats kinda the point.
|
'we would presumably get lower insurance premiums '
I very much doubt it. They are business's selling a must have product and use that fact to keep prices buoyant.
Many thousands of non road fund licence paying motorists have been removed from our roads following purges and the use of new technology yet we haven't seen a penny piece removed from the duty.
|
> Hope, because that's all you have if you rely on people to be sensible
Agree 100% - I wasn't suggesting it was going to happen.
> If that's what it takes, I'd happily pay extra tax for it ..
Has anyone estimated how much tax would be needed to pay for the necessary cover? - and that assumes that the new recruits would all do their jobs properly and efficiently. And if all those 'uninsured, incapable and dangerous' drivers cannot be straightened out, how much harder will it be to keep them off the road? They just get a car somehow and carry on. Without an epidemic of social behaviour, all we can HOPE for is to keep a lid on it.
> I'd like people to be afraid of breaking the law ..
People aren't afraid of breaking the law, but of getting caught. Appointing more police could help there, but only marginally I suggest. You could say that even when caught, the sentences aren't a deterrent, especially when prisons are so enjoyable. But we all know they are full, so what next?
Edited by Andrew-T on 17/02/2009 at 13:58
|
>>People aren't afraid of breaking the law, but of getting caught. Appointing more police could help there, but only marginally I suggest. You could say that even when caught, the sentences aren't a deterrent, especially when prisons are so enjoyable. But we all know they are full, so what next?<<
Well there is that and your right about the sentancing - that is the really scary bit - the consequences. Prisons may be full but I hear Antarctica is quite unpopulated :-)
|
>>which is why there are so many cameras to do the missing work. << Show me the camera that puts drunk uninsured or dangerous drivers in custody?? Id like people to be afraid of breaking the law rather than considering it fair game. Presence matters and for that you need numbers. The only people who worry about the Police are criminals thats kinda the point.
Hear Hear.... cameras are useless at policing, all they do is convict speeders, untaxed, or uninsured vehicles.. that is not what this country needs!
And anyway, once people know where speed cameras are, they slow down for them, then speed up, often to more than the speed they were doing to 'catch up' making the roads past cameras more dangerous!
I used to work 1/4 mile past a camera, once it was installed I found it a lot harder to cross the road, so I know for a fact what I have said to be true.
|
The charge was reduced to causing death by careless driving simply because there was absolutely nothing else found to be a mitigating cause in the accident.
He wasn't driving illegally over his permitted hours.
His vehicle was in a good roadworthy condition
He wasn't using a mobile phone.
There was NO proof that he was using a laptop.
All this would have been investigated extensively in an effort to ensure the greater charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
It was a momentary lapse of concentration, and to those of you who so vehemently condemn me for saying it I suppose you claim never to have had one whilst driving?
Well, how many times do you think back and ask yourself if that last set of traffic lights were really on green because you 'don't remember coming through them'.
They were on green, but your mind was elsewhere and whether you like it or not it happens to us ALL.
For what it's worth I think he should serve the full term of his sentence but I think it should be served in a Portugese jail at their expense and not at ours.
Another leading question.............
Does anyone think that the comforts of a modern car, and a lorry cab, such as aircon, cruise control, auto boxes etc contribute to the loss of the ability of the brain to act?
I certainly do, take away the human input and the brain promptly stops working that's why so many of us leave the cruise switched off.
To those who have accused me of not being able to do this job because I happen to have a more realistic and balanced view of the situation, I have been a lorry driver now for 28 yrs and all of that has been accident free, so that may be the reason this case scares me.
if he had been illegally driving over his hours, driving an unsafe vehicle ot talking on the phone then I could have understood this accident.
The fact that he wasn't makes us realise just how lucky we've been when lapsing into 'auto' mode, and that applies to car drivers too.
Pat
|
Straight piece of carriageway, prior matrix warnings, stream of rear lights ahead, that momentary lapse lasted a hell of a long time Pat.
I once saw a 7 ton driver doing a crossword across his steering wheel. I suppose if he had rear ended someone you would consider that a momentary lapse.
If he ( the P driver) cannot supply any contributory factor or admit WHAT the heck he WAS doing, then it should have been taken as an admission of guilt and a full sentence for careless driving should have been administered. As the possible 18 month sentence is far too lenient, he MUST lose his licence as redress, for life. And that goes for any driver convicted of death by careless/dangerous driving.
Edited by spood on 17/02/2009 at 20:25
|
>>I once saw a 7 ton driver doing a crossword across his steering wheel. I suppose if he had rear ended someone you would consider that a momentary lapse.
<<<<
Certainly not, I would consider that a perfect reason for a charge of dangerous driving, not careless driving.
Hence the analogy of passing the green traffic lights but not remembering them.
Pat
|
Well, a record surely? The second contributor manages to apportion some blame upon the Police. So, no 'well done' for gathering the evidence and presenting it in such a fashion as to gain a conviction?
Indeed, wasn't it in these very forums recently that the Police were blamed for closing roads after fatal accidents, despite the work that is needed to be done to secure convictions such as these?
Surely the driver just made an error and should be warned not to do it again?
Hang on! wasn't there another thread on here recently about the American driver who killed someone? Most contributors thought the sentence too harsh for his 'error'.
At least have some consistency, and can we get back to blaming the Police for, well, just about everything?
|
> He MUST lose his licence as redress, for life ..
So you are from the Judge Jeffreys school of punishment - one strike and you will have to find a new kind of employment. It could be argued that the driver will be so affected by this mishap that he will drive blamelessly from now on. Everyone should have the chance to redeem himself, possibly by serving a jail sentence.
As Pat has explained, the evidence suggests a brief lapse of concentration; in this case it killed a family. Would you apply the same rule when an identical lapse results only in driving into a tree? We are not talking about a deliberate act to destroy, so we should try (difficult, I agree) not to get too emotionally focused on the tragic loss of life.
Edited by Andrew-T on 18/02/2009 at 10:40
|
He wasn't driving illegally over his permitted hours. His vehicle was in a good roadworthy condition He wasn't using a mobile phone. There was NO proof that he was using a laptop. All this would have been investigated extensively in an effort to ensure the greater charge of causing death by dangerous driving. It was a momentary lapse of concentration and to those of you who so vehemently condemn me for saying it I suppose you claim never to have had one whilst driving?
pda, thank you very much for that post. It has been found to be, on the evidence, exactly what you say. That's all that can be done. I do tend to agree with your mention in your other post about serving the whole sentence, and serving it abroud, though.
|
Anyone who makes a typo while posting on HJ is potentially capable of careless driving.
Careless driving is something that can befall the normally good driver as well as the habitually careless one. As said above, it can just be a momentary lapse, or possibly the misreading of a situation. Usually such occurrences don't lead to an accident, but when they do the consequences can be tragic.
Dangerous driving involves knowingly doing something that carries a high risk, like overtaking on a blind bend or tailgating someone.
|
|
Having said that, if one's careless driving leads to horrific consequences for others, a jail sentence is entirely justifiable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
