OK, we get it. If you're texting your BFF <3 whilst driving, cause an accident and kill someone, you do hard time. But if I read the Pistonheads story correctly, that's up to seven years. In other words, it's a maximum– not a minimum– sentence. And why pick on texting? Doesn't The Land of Hope and Glory have a general charge of "causing death by dangerous driving," or some such thing? Not yet, they don't. "Ministers now want to see the two new offences – causing death by careless driving and causing death while unlicenced, disqualified or uninsured – pushed through as soon as possible." Again, what's with a separate anti-texting caveat? "The council said it wanted to send a ‘clear message’ to those who text while driving that it will not be tolerated." Uh, OK. But I'm little concerned about the Council throwing the book at killer drivers with a history of "bad driving." "Very serious cases, where drugs, alcohol or persistent bad driving are involved, could warrant a jail term of up to 14 years, the [Sentencing Guidelines] council said." ?4U. Is it prima facie if you accidentally kill someone but have a bad driving record?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I say make it minimum 7 years. But if you kill yourself you should be given the Darwin award.
For once in my life I’m grateful for a new law – it will save lives; especially young drivers who are addicted to their phones.
If you hit and wound someone by any means within your control, you should–at minimum–lose your license and, possibly, your car. Kill someone and you should be looking at accidental death or manslaughter.
Texting, drinking, sleeping, f…anything. If the pedestrian isn’t jaywalking and your car hasn’t suffered mechanical failure, you’re at fault. No ifs, ands or buts. You’ve proven you cannot handle the responsibility.
My wife was run down a few years ago by a guy who just flat out was not paying attention (he just blew through a left hand turn without so much as looking). It netted him a $105 fine for failing to yield to a pedestrian.
Now that said, while I have very little sympathy for inattentive drivers, having a specific law for texting is just “Think of the Children!” syndrome. The law isn’t there to “send messages”, it’s designed to, depending on your viewpoint, balance society’s freedom against it’s collective responsbilities.
You want to “send a message”? Do an ad campaign, don’t pollute the law.
Next up will be video taping of roads and any driver caught texting a huge fine, no accident needed. That is the goal of these laws anyway.
psarhjinian: If the pedestrian isn’t jaywalking
Why should your liability decrease because the victim was himself in violation of the law?
and your car hasn’t suffered mechanical failure,
Why is it not part of your responsibility of owning a car to make sure it is in good repair at all times?
you’re at fault.
You have just created two specific exceptions to being held at fault. Why are yours any different from specific “texting” provisions?
I agree with what I understand to be Mr. Farago’s position: there is no need for a new law. Period.
mdf,
Why should your liability decrease because the victim was himself in violation of the law?
Because there’s an obvious difference between running someone down because you weren’t paying attention, and running someone down because they stepped out from behind a parked truck.
I’ll agree that drivers need to be attentive, but there’s a reasonable expectation. You may as well say you’re liable in a car/car accident because someone ran a red and struck you.
Why is it not part of your responsibility of owning a car to make sure it is in good repair at all times?
I’ll grant you this point because I wasn’t clear, but my original line of reasoning here was that you can’t really be held responsible if your car fails due to an unforeseen defect. If you were driving an unsafe vehicle to start with, that’s different and covered by existing laws.
The difference between the position Mr. Farago is condemning and mine is this:
* What the council is doing is a duplication of existing legislation. It’s akin to having a law for Fraud and Fraud Committed with a Computer. It’s a legislative redundancy.
* Mine is dealing with the concept of extenuating circumstances, which isn’t a legislative action at all, but judicial one.
It is the function of a court to interpret circumstances and how they relate to the law. It’s bloody stupid for a government body to muddy the legal waters for what amounts to an advertising campaign.
It wont save any lives. Kids will still txt.. they will just go to jail in the unlikely event that someone dies. Its a reactive law.. preventive would be making it illegal to txt while driving.. but then we should make music illegal to have while driving (wasn’t that a major concern in the 1930s)
“Ministers now want to see the two new offences – causing death by careless driving and causing death while unlicenced, disqualified or uninsured – pushed through as soon as possible.”
Something that hasn’t been commented on, is the other law where driving unlicensed or disqualified (revoked license, I assume) is equated with driving uninsured. Since when did having insurance make you a better driver? What is the proximate cause between being uninsured and running somebody down due to your own negligence. I drove a car for 1 1/2 years without insurance and was probably a better driver for it, because I couldn’t afford to get in an accident or get pulled over. Not having insurance doesn’t make you a bad driver. Maybe irresponsible, but not a bad driver. Generally speaking, people who can’t get a license or have their license revoked are very bad drivers.
history/propensity to commit the crime are not admissible for the purposes of determining guilt
but they are admissible for sentencing considerations