Got it. This is an awful story and nothing that is said or done now will ever make things better for the toddler's family.

A long jail sentence for the driver is richly deserved (failure to stop is unforgivable whatever else was done) but it won't bring the child back. I can only hope action is taken to look at the root problems behind this incident and sensible measures put in place to prevent similar things happening in future. I'll say it again, how can an 18 year old be legally driving around in an MR2?

 

San I think we can all echo your latter comment, but I was looking for what the realistic sentencing is.

Unfortunately mikdys hit the nail on the head with his first line.

 

You may not know that the police already have access to insurance company databases, so it is easy for them to check insurance cover at the roadside.

There are also patrol car based systems that scan passing vehicles, cross reference with the insurance databases and alert the officer.

On the last documentary I saw, the traffic officer said he was getting hits 'all the time' and that he could have spent all day just stopping cars.

The fact that he didn't/couldn't highlighted a few things:

1) the priority attached to the offence
2) the scale of the problem
3) the obvious opportunity to set up specialist units (civilian based if necessary)

If they gave me a licence and the IT access I could make a fortune. It would be a simple matter of cruising residential streets at night, scanning vehicles and clamping or towing them. You'd catch all the tax dodgers in the same way. Give them a time period in which to pay or prove cover and then the car is forfeited.

I have suggested this to a senior police officer, whose response was that it 'would damage community relations'. Funny how this doesn't apply to speeding and parking enforcement.

At the moment, even with recent law changes regarding no insurance, I believe the minimum fine is still just

 

Good post Gad!

It's interesting that Causing Death By Dangerous Driving was originally brought in to replace Manslaughter which was normally charged in these circumstances, as it was thought to be too 'heavy'

I remember standing in No1 Court at Stafford Assizes where everyone had crammed in to see a local boxer begin trial for manslaughter where he'd punched a bloke in a fish and chip shop queue and the guy had subsequently died. When they took his plea he surprised everyone including his poor barrister by pleading 'Guilty' After a hurried adjournment his barrister mitigated on his behalf showing that he hadn't been the agressor and the guy who died was shown to have had a very thin skull. The judge gave him a 12 month Conditional Discharge and he walked out of court. A lot of people were incensed, but I always thought that could have happened to anyone, and it was a sensible result.

Contrast that incident with this RTA where the guy is driving like a maniac with total disregard for the safety of others, probably drives like that normally anyway, and you have to think that the priorities are all wrong!

 

[QUOTE=gaddafi,Aug 27 2004, 08:51 AM] You may not know that the police already have access to insurance company databases, so it is easy for them to check insurance cover at the roadside.

There are also patrol car based systems that scan passing vehicles, cross reference with the insurance databases and alert the officer.

On the last documentary I saw, the traffic officer said he was getting hits 'all the time' and that he could have spent all day just stopping cars.

The fact that he didn't/couldn't highlighted a few things:

1) the priority attached to the offence
2) the scale of the problem
3) the obvious opportunity to set up specialist units (civilian based if necessary)

If they gave me a licence and the IT access I could make a fortune. It would be a simple matter of cruising residential streets at night, scanning vehicles and clamping or towing them. You'd catch all the tax dodgers in the same way. Give them a time period in which to pay or prove cover and then the car is forfeited.

I have suggested this to a senior police officer, whose response was that it 'would damage community relations'. Funny how this doesn't apply to speeding and parking enforcement.

At the moment, even with recent law changes regarding no insurance, I believe the minimum fine is still just

 

Yup....as they're the easiest target as they're less likely to complain; a misplaced sense of 'playing it safe'.

Who the hell makes up these laws anyway?

Because as far as I can see, there can only be 2 groups responsible: those that make the laws, and those who interpret them......to the detriment of society.

 

Bring back Hanging!!!

 

at the moment even a

 

I agree.

Maybe the missing (third) group is us - the public/voters?

Sorry to get on my political soapbox so early this morning

And I don't want to hijack this thread, honestly. So briefly:

but I do think that until you get a new right wing party, nothing will change.

We had 18 years or so of the conservatives and they did nothing to stop the rot.

Labour's record is now established.

I can't see the Liberals cracking down in the way most people seem to want.

So the door is open........

There's no need for a right wing party that is harsh on crime to be incompetent in other areas.

I think the first thing you need is a credible figurehead and that's probably the biggest problem.

I did write off UKIP but RKS does appeal to a LOT of voters. Now I'm not so sure if they can't build on what they've achieved already.

If anyone wants to continue this discussion (although it might be too political) perhaps they could start a new thread on O/T?

 

Ron!!

1. Where have you been?
2. Are you living in Brighton now?
3. How is Duke's Mount?
4. Fancy a pint?