For once, I’ll give the Mail credit. The driver was Portuguese and some other outlets have concentrated on that in a slightly xenophobic way (he was unfamiliar with UK roads and was stupidly checking routes on a laptop when he crashed). I don’t know if they do or not in the copy, but kudos for resisting the temptation and keeping it out of the headline.
Death by careless driving which is a new law I believe. Proof of dangerous driving has to be clear otherwise they will not convict. A few years ago the headline would have been MAN FINED £600 FOR SIX DEATHS. Whatever the sentence people will not be deterred from driving like arseholes. I have just seen some twat using his mobile and eating a sandwich at the wheel.
If they want to make out it’s too lenient, they take the lowest possible time served meaning time off for good behaviour and parole at the earliest possible opportunity, and then round it down to the lowest year. They only ever give you the actual term if they want to make out it’s too severe.
Does anyone else have trouble reading the headline? Just does not read right, missing some words. Like ‘in’ before jail or something.
A lot of people have focused on the fact the guy is a foreigner, but good to see that the Mail hasn’t overtly done this.
About the incident: I think that human error and lack of concentration can never be eradicated from driving, and sometimes the driver avoids any consequence from their actions (might only wreck their own vehicle etc) but occasionally the lack of concentration takes lives. Subsequently, we have to choose whether to make a distinction between the act that caused the accident, and the result. What I mean by this is that everyday people in charge of motor vehicles speak on mobiles (not hands free), eat foot, put on make-up, change CD’s (fiddling around taking them out of cases, or CD wallets etc) and avoid serious accidents, let alone killing six people, yet judged on the merits of their careless driving the crime they have committed is equal to this truck driver, however, the consequences of their careless driving does not result in the death of anyone, let alone 6 people.
So should we judge people on actions, or consequences?
I cannot imagine what it is like to lose 6 members of a family, nor can I imagine the guilt felt by the driver of the lorry. Things are never black and white, I drive 22,000 miles a year, during this period I am bound to lose concentration at some point, and if my loss of concentration ended up with me being put in jail, and having to life with the deaths of other people I would be distraught. However, I can (like many people) look back on times when I honestly should have been paying more attention to the road than I should of, but luckily (touching the wood of my desk) I have avoided causing any accidents.
This was a terrible accident, and if it makes people address their own behaviours whilst driving perhaps some good can come of it.
I travel by coach from Bristol to London airports. I sit on the
near side, and because of the height I see into the cabs of lorries, as they are passed. I am amazed, horrified and disgusted at the number of vehicles with newspapers spread over the steering wheel, DVD players showing films
etc., on the console, take-aways being eaten, and many, many other distractions being “enjoyed” by the drivers.
The experience is frightening, and I am always glad when I reach my destination. I just hope that my report of this “mis”
conduct is seen by someone who can look into this recipe for
disaster, often for the innocent.
I regret having to say so, but I rather agree with the Mail on this one. I’ve never quite understood why we need to have a law on ‘Causing Death by Dangerous Driving’. We already have a perfectly good law against killing people through carelessness. It’s called Manslaughter.
If I push a load of bricks off some scaffolding and they land on a little old lady and kill her then I don’t get done for ‘dangerous brickwork’. Manslaughter’s enough.
There is no minimum tarrif for Manslaughter. There was a case a while back when a woman killed an abusive husband and was convicted and bound over.
Nick – manslaughter isn’t carelessness though, it’s recklessness. To be proved you have to show the person thought about the risks, thought about the harm they could cause by their actions and carried on anyway. I would imagine this is very difficult to do with car accidents. I would also imagine juries would find it very difficult to convict many drivers of manslaughter (it would make them uncomfortable about their own driving and their views of driving IMO). The specific driving offences probably make it easier to prosecute people.
Yeah in all serious kudos for the Mail for not blazing “NOW FOREIGNERS ARE KILLING HARDWORKING DRIVERS” as some of the radio stations seemed to be heavily implying. Cant see their moderation lasting though. Also they seem to think speeding isnt even a crime if your “otherwise law abiding” so the headline is pritty hypocritical. But you cant have everything.
For once, I’ll give the Mail credit. The driver was Portuguese and some other outlets have concentrated on that in a slightly xenophobic way (he was unfamiliar with UK roads and was stupidly checking routes on a laptop when he crashed). I don’t know if they do or not in the copy, but kudos for resisting the temptation and keeping it out of the headline.
Death by careless driving which is a new law I believe. Proof of dangerous driving has to be clear otherwise they will not convict. A few years ago the headline would have been MAN FINED £600 FOR SIX DEATHS. Whatever the sentence people will not be deterred from driving like arseholes. I have just seen some twat using his mobile and eating a sandwich at the wheel.
It’s 3 years.. but that would be putting facts in a headline which is against the rules apparently.
It’s standard Mail procedure with sentencing,
If they want to make out it’s too lenient, they take the lowest possible time served meaning time off for good behaviour and parole at the earliest possible opportunity, and then round it down to the lowest year. They only ever give you the actual term if they want to make out it’s too severe.
And they lambast the government for spin…
Does anyone else have trouble reading the headline? Just does not read right, missing some words. Like ‘in’ before jail or something.
A lot of people have focused on the fact the guy is a foreigner, but good to see that the Mail hasn’t overtly done this.
About the incident: I think that human error and lack of concentration can never be eradicated from driving, and sometimes the driver avoids any consequence from their actions (might only wreck their own vehicle etc) but occasionally the lack of concentration takes lives. Subsequently, we have to choose whether to make a distinction between the act that caused the accident, and the result. What I mean by this is that everyday people in charge of motor vehicles speak on mobiles (not hands free), eat foot, put on make-up, change CD’s (fiddling around taking them out of cases, or CD wallets etc) and avoid serious accidents, let alone killing six people, yet judged on the merits of their careless driving the crime they have committed is equal to this truck driver, however, the consequences of their careless driving does not result in the death of anyone, let alone 6 people.
So should we judge people on actions, or consequences?
I cannot imagine what it is like to lose 6 members of a family, nor can I imagine the guilt felt by the driver of the lorry. Things are never black and white, I drive 22,000 miles a year, during this period I am bound to lose concentration at some point, and if my loss of concentration ended up with me being put in jail, and having to life with the deaths of other people I would be distraught. However, I can (like many people) look back on times when I honestly should have been paying more attention to the road than I should of, but luckily (touching the wood of my desk) I have avoided causing any accidents.
This was a terrible accident, and if it makes people address their own behaviours whilst driving perhaps some good can come of it.
They eat ‘food’ obviously, I am not implying people chew their won feet whilst driving.
I travel by coach from Bristol to London airports. I sit on the
near side, and because of the height I see into the cabs of lorries, as they are passed. I am amazed, horrified and disgusted at the number of vehicles with newspapers spread over the steering wheel, DVD players showing films
etc., on the console, take-aways being eaten, and many, many other distractions being “enjoyed” by the drivers.
The experience is frightening, and I am always glad when I reach my destination. I just hope that my report of this “mis”
conduct is seen by someone who can look into this recipe for
disaster, often for the innocent.
I regret having to say so, but I rather agree with the Mail on this one. I’ve never quite understood why we need to have a law on ‘Causing Death by Dangerous Driving’. We already have a perfectly good law against killing people through carelessness. It’s called Manslaughter.
If I push a load of bricks off some scaffolding and they land on a little old lady and kill her then I don’t get done for ‘dangerous brickwork’. Manslaughter’s enough.
There is no minimum tarrif for Manslaughter. There was a case a while back when a woman killed an abusive husband and was convicted and bound over.
Nick – manslaughter isn’t carelessness though, it’s recklessness. To be proved you have to show the person thought about the risks, thought about the harm they could cause by their actions and carried on anyway. I would imagine this is very difficult to do with car accidents. I would also imagine juries would find it very difficult to convict many drivers of manslaughter (it would make them uncomfortable about their own driving and their views of driving IMO). The specific driving offences probably make it easier to prosecute people.
Carelessness, recklessness, negligence… all on the same page of the thesaraus.
This case though would seem pretty cut and dried. Reading from a laptop while travelling at 70mph on a motorway? Pick your term.
I am biassed though. A good friend of mine was killed in the Great Heck crash. I’m probably not the person you want defining the law.
Good God, is that a sensible front page? I agree the bloke will feel terrible but he seems to have got off pretty lightly for being so stupid.
Does this mean the Daily Mail’s in favour of the rules of the road now then? I thought speeding / drink driving was all OK by them.
Or is that just if you’re a middle aged solicitor’s wife with a silver 4×4 (essentail of course for those school run traffic jams)?
Sadly, its likely this awful story would not have made the front page if the car only had one or two people in it.
Does anyone actually know what the maximum jail term for manslaughter is?
Yeah in all serious kudos for the Mail for not blazing “NOW FOREIGNERS ARE KILLING HARDWORKING DRIVERS” as some of the radio stations seemed to be heavily implying. Cant see their moderation lasting though. Also they seem to think speeding isnt even a crime if your “otherwise law abiding” so the headline is pritty hypocritical. But you cant have everything.
Since the main headline has passed muster, how about the side story about bank loans?