It's that Alok Sharma again. From our archives he was at it last November too. Why did drivers re-elect him? We explained here why he was wrong then.
Oh yes the self promoting fool Karl Turner, (Lab Hull) had his two pennorth. Recalling his failed attempt to get drivers jailed for just having an accident and his rapport with PM David Cameron, who had seemed to agree with Karl, that being an ex barrister
Yes the case cited, involved cyclists. None of these MPs seem to think that people in the road, exposed to complete strangers of varying mental capacity and skill, operating big machines, is a bad idea to start with. Perhaps if they were not so anti driver and really interested in life saving, they would start there.
The guy had been drinking and doing 70 MPH in a 30 MPH zone and got 10 years. Like any other convict, 'he has no right to appeal his sentence because he's a driver' according to these anti driver MPs.
Unlike a shooter, who deliberately picks out individuals before he fires his gun, drivers, including this one, didn't intend to kill anyone. We explained here why there's a difference 'When a road accident or crash occurs, any and all subsequent deaths are part of the same unintentional event.'
Then there is the anti driver Happy Jim Fitzpatrick. 'It is now pass'e to call an accident an accident' he says. So on that basis many millions that could save more lives on and off the road can be devoured looking for someone to blame.
In this case, the deliberate element was to drink and possibly, at that point, not to drink too much. Having drunk too much, everything else was caused by it. The irrational decision to drive, then to drive at 70 MPH in a 30 limit was not an intended or even a conscious act by then. But there's no shred of evidence of intent to crash and kill people. So yes they have cited a conveniently extreme case and the driver got 10 years but he didn't go out to kill anyone, let alone two. Even in this extreme case, there was an element of 'accident'. A sentence, as of manslaughter, in this case would make 10 years seem reasonable; not to anti driver politicians though.
But generally, dangerous driving is a matter of subjective opinion. 'It is the only law, as well as its sister careless driving, that is based and relies totally on the evidence of hostile and unqualified witness subjective opinion. (See no fixed penalty for careless) In any other offence with long sentences, these witnesses would only be allowed to give evidence of fact and not opinion. The only witnesses of opinion would be expert witnesses in any other such trial. So for drivers, even the balance of evidence is severely reduced to the views of 'a competent driver'. In other words not an expert driver, but in effect any driver that drives. And on that we can put people away for 14 years. So you can be jailed for 14 years by the opinion of hostile non expert witness.'
These MPs do not see that in allowing, encouraging and condoning a dangerous concept and scenario, they are as culpable as anyone else when it goes wrong.
Manslaughter, which allows for life terms, would seem to be a very appropriate charge for this type of road death where irresponsible conduct is the cause so that a distinction can be made for death by dangerous driving which is far too subjective. It's very significant that death by dangerous driving was created because juries shied away from the long penalties of manslaughter charges. They didn't agree with long terms for accidental acts. Now the anti driver brigade are dissatisfied with the 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving. This driver could've been charged with manslaughter if prison terms are the object.
These MPs are using an extreme case to achieve long sentences for unintentional acts generally. The problem is that there are many naturally atrocious drivers, who think they are great and that their driving is faultless: We all know them.
Where were our driver defenders to stand up for drivers in this debate and point all this out?
Wake up drivers. To these MPs you are an enemy of the state not people with an outstanding safety record struggling to keep the community viable and thriving.