Careless Driving

[MarkH]

I was listening to the radio this morning and apparently criminal lawyers are debating a proposed new law of 'causing death by careless driving'. There are already offences of 'careless driving' and 'causing death by dangerous driving' and this is an attempt to bridge the gap. The distinction between the two, from what I can gather, is that to be successfully convicted of 'careless' driving you would need to have demonstrated a 'momentary' lapse in concentration, e.g. looking down to change radio stations etc, whereas with dangerous driving you would have been driving/riding far below the standards required for operating a motor vehicle and a death was caused as a direct result. The new law would give the judges the opportunity to factor-in any death caused as a result of careless driving. It is worth mentioning as well that careless driving does not involve a custodial sentence whereas dangerous driving and the new law could.

The question I'd like to ask is how you all feel about this? Do you think that a driver should be held accountable for a death for a momentary lapse in concentration, such as the ones we're all probably guilty of making, regardless of experience? I've just read the 'Kamikaze toddler' topic and, if that had gone differently could it be argued that the poster (sorry can't remember who when writing this) would be guilty of the new offence and jailed? Scary thought, eh?

Mark

[waremark]

The Road Safety Bill, published last year but not yet passed into law, introduces a new offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving, punishable by (I think) up to 10 years imprisonment.

I strongly disagree with this proposal. I posted the following on a different forum last October after reports about the proposal:

"The linked piece quoted a BBC correspondent. 'Tom Symonds said: "The problem is, if you kill someone when you've only driven carelessly, then you can't be sent to prison - you can only have a fine."'

And the problem with that is??

And a Brake representative:

Brake spokesperson Aimee Bowen said: "Changes to the system of charges and penalties for driving offences are long overdue.

"All too often we see killer drivers, who devastate families and communities through reckless and selfish behaviour behind the wheel, getting away with little more than a fine."

But if they are reckless they can be sent to prison under the existing rules. If they are only careless, then they are no more guilty than virtually every other driver on the road - there are very few drivers whose driving is always beyond reproach. Why should they be disqualified and required to submit to a retest, let alone be sent to gaol? Criminal law generally only punishes those who have a criminal intent, which is absent in the careless driver. Why should this area of law be an exception?"

For information, the definition of careless is:

"A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

[SammyTheSnake]

For information, the definition of careless is:

"A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

It sounds to me like the law is unnecessarily confusing on this point. I would've described the driver above as "incompetent" rather than "careless"

Is this the wording that leads to "without due care and attention" or is that a different law?

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

[7db]

For all you offence spotters out there, dont forget to notice the difference bewteen careless and inconsiderate driving, both covered by the new S3, but both provable separately and a choice needing to be made up front about which has been committed by prosecutors.

I don't think there's a "death by inconsiderate driving"...

Whilst offences should be judged on what the offender does, not the unforseeable consequences of his actions. Careless driving ought to be more irresponsible where it is likely and forseeable that death might arise.

The problem I have is that if it's likely to cause a death, then aren't the twin tests for dangerous driving passed? And if it isn't likely and forseeable to cause a death, then is it really just?

I wonder what the burden is on showing causation. If I drive carelessly, and someone dies, what does the prosecution need to establish to show death by careless -- is it enough that the person died, or is there some element of causation?

(example:- I answer my mobile phone at the same moment as a man falls off a bridge immediately in front of my wheels. I am driving carelessly. He dies.)

[Søren]

For information, the definition of careless is:

"A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."

It sounds to me like the law is unnecessarily confusing on this point. I would've described the driver above as "incompetent" rather than "careless"

Is this the wording that leads to "without due care and attention" or is that a different law?

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

Section 3 RTA 1988 is the offence of careless driving, and incorporates the offences of A)driving without due care and attention or B)driving without reasonable consideration for other road users.

The driver commits the offence of driving without due care and attention if he has departed from the standard of care and skill that in the particular circumstances of the case would have been exercised by a reasonable prudent competent and experienced driver.
Careless driving therefore includes acts of carelessness and minor errors of judgement.

Driving without reasonable consideration of other road users includes such things as failing to dip headlights and driving through puddles. The evidence also has to show that an actual road user was inconvenienced.

This is the 'book' description of the offence, but in reality CPS would tend to look for a bit more to take the offence to court.

Regarding the death by careless offence, I have mixed opinion on it. We have Sec3A RTA causing death by careless driving while unfit through drink or drugs. This carries 10 years max (or is it 14 now?)
We also have Sec 12A Theft Act for aggravated vehicle taking where death results from an accident. There is no requirement to qualify the driving standard for that offence, and it carries 14 years max.

I am keen to see Sec 3A causing death by careless extended to include causing death by careless driving while knowingly committing offences such as no insurance, no licence, driving a (knowingly)stolen vehicle, disqualified driving or failing to stop.

Other than that I believe that careless driving should always simply reflect the manner of driving rather than the consequence.

[MGF]

The Roady Safety & Parking Bill was a Private Members Bill introduced last year and was dropped (as most PM Bills are).

This proposed an indictable (jury trial only) offence of causing death or serious injury by negligent driving with a maximum sentence of 10 years.

This Bill is dead and buried.

The Road Safety Bill 2005 (a Government Bill that is very much alive and likely to become law in some form) did not originally have an offence of death by careless but this was added recently at the Committee stage.

Clause 19

Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving.

Amends Road Traffic Act 1988 to add the following after Section 2A (definition of dangerous driving).

"2B Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving

A person who causes the death of another person by driving...without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons... is guilty of an offence"

Sentence.

Upto 12 months in a Mags. Court

Upto 5 years in a Crown Court

By way of comparison if you are convicted of dangerous driving the maximum sentence is 6 months or two years,Mags, Crown respectively(this might have changed)

However if you kill someone as a result of dangerous driving the maximum sentence is 14 years

So the culability is the same but the harm that results leads to a much stiffer sentence.

Also the culpability necessary for a Common Assault is the same as for ABH. The sentence for the latter is much higher.

If you intend to cause someone serious injury and succeed in doing so then you are guilty of a Section 18 GBH. If the person dies as a result of those injuries you are guilty of murder.

Throughout our criminal justice system there is a relationship not just between the level of culpability and severity of crime but also the harm done and the severity of the crime..

I believe this principle is appropriate and would suggest that the idea of 'death by careless' being worse than merely 'careless' isn't an unreasonable or misguided attack on the motorist but is consistent with the entire justice system.

The question now remains as to what level of culpability should be necessary for a prison sentence when the worse kind of harm is caused; (death).

My opinion is that a prison sentence may be appropriate however what constitutes careless driving might be something as relatively innocent as 'a momentary lapse in concentration' but at worse could be conduct just short of 'dangerous driving'.

The scope of carelessness is quite wide and not merely limited to the 'momentary lapse'.

Hopefully the Bill will be amended to keep a prison sentence for the more serious acts of carelessness where it is currently not possible to imprison someone but to limit the consequences of the momentary lapse.

As a matter of interest do the traffic police on here start DWDCA proceedings for 'momentary lapses' or do they look for more?

My guess is probably the latter.

[Søren]

As a matter of interest do the traffic police on here start DWDCA proceedings for 'momentary lapses' or do they look for more?

My guess is probably the latter.

If we reported people for every momentary lapse, we'd be doing nothing else. Similarly CPS charging standards and public interest considerations demand that we/they give some thought to the level of carelessness and the level of third party involvement.

I'd personally like to see us able to dish out fixed penalty tickets or driver improvement scheme offers at the scene of many minor collisions, and for other non-collision due cares. I fear I may have to wait awhile for that though.

Interestingly it seems that the standard applied by both the police and the CPS seems to alter when a collision occurs and much more so when a fatality occurs.

For example if a person was driving along a road at excessive and inappropriate speed, then failed to negotiate a left hand bend which was DWL protected, and lost it on the bend careering over to the other side of the road at speed:

If he ended up simply picking himself and his car out of the hedgerow, he would likely be reported for due care. He might be lucky and escape prosecution or receive a driver improvement scheme option.

However if a car, biker, cyclist or pedestrian was in the path of this out of control car and a third party died as result of the collision, he would certainly be interviewed for and the strongest efforts made to charge for the Section 1 offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

So the level of penalty for exactly the same driving error could range from zero to perhaps 5 years imprisonment, simply on the basis of luck.