Careless driving after a crash

Mickey666

ontheroad1970 said:

Mickey666 said:

No one would seriously think that such a radical change to any current system is going to be adequately defined by a few posts on a public forum.  What's disappointing, however, is that no one has attempted to discuss the merits of the proposal, preferring instead to focus on why it might be difficult to implement.

If that's a fair representation of public opinion then we will continue to have a system where consistently 'dangerous' drivers who rack up numerous damage-causing accidents get off scot-free while consistently 'safe' drivers who have never caused an accident can rack up penalty points on their licences through minor speeding offences, which are more focused on revenue than safety.

Still, as long as insurance companies (ie all us premium payers) pay for the damage caused by these 'blameless' drivers then that's all ok, right?  A bit like not wasting police time on 'trivial' house burglaries because they have more important things to do and because insurance companies (ie all us premium payers) deal with all the damage and losses caused anyway.

Perhaps this principle of not bothering the police with 'trivial' offences could be expanded to cover other areas of the law and relying on insurance policies (ie all us premium payers) to deal with the resulting losses.  Be careful what you wish for

You don't want to consider the reality of the situation.  That's called living in cloud cuckoo land.  I wouldn't want to leave insurance companies in charge of criminal convictions, nor any other commercial company.  

I don't recall saying anything about criminalising accidents, merely that they should result in points on driving licences in the same way that speeding offences do.

Car_54

Mickey666 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Mickey666 said:

No one would seriously think that such a radical change to any current system is going to be adequately defined by a few posts on a public forum.  What's disappointing, however, is that no one has attempted to discuss the merits of the proposal, preferring instead to focus on why it might be difficult to implement.

If that's a fair representation of public opinion then we will continue to have a system where consistently 'dangerous' drivers who rack up numerous damage-causing accidents get off scot-free while consistently 'safe' drivers who have never caused an accident can rack up penalty points on their licences through minor speeding offences, which are more focused on revenue than safety.

Still, as long as insurance companies (ie all us premium payers) pay for the damage caused by these 'blameless' drivers then that's all ok, right?  A bit like not wasting police time on 'trivial' house burglaries because they have more important things to do and because insurance companies (ie all us premium payers) deal with all the damage and losses caused anyway.

Perhaps this principle of not bothering the police with 'trivial' offences could be expanded to cover other areas of the law and relying on insurance policies (ie all us premium payers) to deal with the resulting losses.  Be careful what you wish for

You don't want to consider the reality of the situation.  That's called living in cloud cuckoo land.  I wouldn't want to leave insurance companies in charge of criminal convictions, nor any other commercial company.  

I don't recall saying anything about criminalising accidents, merely that they should result in points on driving licences in the same way that speeding offences do.

Only criminal offences result in points.

williamgriffin

Mickey666 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Mickey666 said:

No one would seriously think that such a radical change to any current system is going to be adequately defined by a few posts on a public forum.  What's disappointing, however, is that no one has attempted to discuss the merits of the proposal, preferring instead to focus on why it might be difficult to implement.

If that's a fair representation of public opinion then we will continue to have a system where consistently 'dangerous' drivers who rack up numerous damage-causing accidents get off scot-free while consistently 'safe' drivers who have never caused an accident can rack up penalty points on their licences through minor speeding offences, which are more focused on revenue than safety.

Still, as long as insurance companies (ie all us premium payers) pay for the damage caused by these 'blameless' drivers then that's all ok, right?  A bit like not wasting police time on 'trivial' house burglaries because they have more important things to do and because insurance companies (ie all us premium payers) deal with all the damage and losses caused anyway.

Perhaps this principle of not bothering the police with 'trivial' offences could be expanded to cover other areas of the law and relying on insurance policies (ie all us premium payers) to deal with the resulting losses.  Be careful what you wish for

You don't want to consider the reality of the situation.  That's called living in cloud cuckoo land.  I wouldn't want to leave insurance companies in charge of criminal convictions, nor any other commercial company.  

I don't recall saying anything about criminalising accidents, merely that they should result in points on driving licences in the same way that speeding offences do.

How would you do that then? You haven't thought this one through. 

sevenhills

Car_54 said:

Only criminal offences result in points.

Those types of offences are not criminal offences and therefore will not show up on any type of DBS check.

williamgriffin

sevenhills said:

Car_54 said:

Only criminal offences result in points.

Those types of offences are not criminal offences and therefore will not show up on any type of DBS check.

They are criminal offences as they are dealt with in a Magistrates court. 

Don't make the mistake of confusing a criminal offence with a recordable offence. 

Car_54

sevenhills said:

Car_54 said:

Only criminal offences result in points.

Those types of offences are not criminal offences and therefore will not show up on any type of DBS check.

All offences in English law are criminal. Only some (mostly more serious) are recordable and result in a criminal record.

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

ontheroad1970 said:

You don't want to consider the reality of the situation.  That's called living in cloud cuckoo land.  I wouldn't want to leave insurance companies in charge of criminal convictions, nor any other commercial company.  

I don't recall saying anything about criminalising accidents, merely that they should result in points on driving licences in the same way that speeding offences do.

So who decides liability for the collision?

Let's say there's two cars meet each other on a roundabout, and the stories and damage don't give anything away as to the actual cause... Insurance are going to shrug and put it 50/50.
You'd have both drivers being handed FPNs, with a court date if they don't accept it?

How is that not insurers being in charge of criminal convictions?

Or would you have the police doing full in-depth technical analysis of every minor traffic bingle...?

TooManyPoints

If they are not criminal offences, what are they?

They are tried in a criminal court; they are prosecuted by either the police or the CPS. When dealt with by way of a course they are not prosecuted at the discretion of the police. When dealt with by way of a fixed penalty the (criminal) statute that provides for their normal prosecution makes provision for the fixed penalty alternative. All driving offences which attract points can see an immediate disqualification as an alternative and they can all see disqualification when sufficient points have been accrued. If such a severe sanction is to remain a possibility then drivers must be afforded the protection that the criminal justice procedure provides (in particular, for this discussion, the Rules of Evidence).Such matters should not be left to the whims and fancies of insurers who have a totally different emphasis when making their decisions.

sevenhills

TooManyPoints said:

Let's say there's two cars meet each other on a roundabout, and the stories and damage don't give anything away as to the actual cause... Insurance are going to shrug and put it 50/50.

You'd have both drivers being handed FPNs, with a court date if they don't accept it?

Sounds like a serious accident, you think just paying the excess is a fair punishment?

MEM62

sevenhills said:

MEM62 said:

From where are you getting your assumption that any driver involved in a crash has automatically committed an offence?  And why refer to a statement from a Sheriff in LA when US Law is irrelevant in the UK?  

One of the two drivers involved in a crash is likely to not have paid enough attention to the road and other vehicles, that's careless.

There is an absolute chasm between that and a provable offense being committed.