UK drivers who kill while on mobile phones could face life sentences - Polidicks

Imo seems more like you're just gonna end up with a lot more teenagers in jail then actually preventing phoning while driving.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;51474102]Simple solution: Don't look at your phone while driving. It really is that easy. Just don't even touch it. This isn't like a life sentence for anything harmless, this is for people wilfully distracting themselves while controlling a 1ton+ hunk of metal and risking the lives of not just themselves, but everyone around them. When you're driving, you should be doing one thing and one thing only: Driving.[/QUOTE] I use my phone for its navigation capabilities, which seems no worse to me than using a dedicated GPS device.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;51474857]I use my phone for its navigation capabilities, which seems no worse to me than using a dedicated GPS device.[/QUOTE] Then use this, no need to actually hold a phone in your hand while driving. [img]https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1MY3lLFXXXXXOXXXXq6xXFXXXc/New-Free-shipping-Adjustable-font-b-Car-b-font-Air-font-b-Vent-b-font-Mount.jpg[/img] All the Uber drivers I know with entry level cars have one of these.

How is it for drunk drivers in the UK? I'd say if one of these gets a life sentence then the other should too. [editline]a[/editline] [QUOTE=TacticalBacon;51474149]If it's going to affect them that badly, maybe they shouldn't be negligent in the first place. Let's try a thought experiment for a moment: Swap the car for a gun. Have someone with a gun in one hand and their phone in the other, texting someone while firing without looking. If one of their shots hit someone, should they go to jail for it? If so, why is it suddenly ok when it's a car they're operating instead of a gun?[/QUOTE] That's not a great analogy. You generally don't walk in front of people firing guns, meanwhile we have crosswalks on every street.

First the death penalty is considered revenge, now a life sentence is slipping into that territory for some here... If you think it's a bit extreme then here's a tip; don't use your phone while driving.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;51473879]Whats the point of that? Bad drivers aren't hardened criminals, sending them to a prison has no point, revoking there licence would be more fitting. We need to remember justice is not about revenge.[/QUOTE] Completely agree. A mistake, no matter how awful shouldn't be met with the worst punishment possible, IMO. It's likely they won't get over it for the rest of their lives, anyway.

[QUOTE=gk99;51474968]How is it for drunk drivers in the UK? I'd say if one of these gets a life sentence then the other should too.[/QUOTE] can be 1 year up to 14 years max if you cause a death while under the influence (it's rarely 1 year, more often than not it's in the middle 7-8 years, but i stress, it's done case by case), a life sentance here is usually 15. As i said in a previous post above, being under the influence of drugs and or alcohol have the diminished responisbility defence because you are not capable of making sound judgement. You don't get that defense if you use a phone, you are making the conscious decision free of imparment to do something stupid and you know is dangerous.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51475017]can be 1 year up to 14 years max if you cause a death while under the influence (it's rarely 1 year, more often than not it's in the middle 7-8 years, but i stress, it's done case by case), a life sentance here is usually 15. As i said in a previous post above, being under the influence of drugs and or alcohol have the diminished responisbility defence because you are not capable of making sound judgement. You don't get that defense if you use a phone, you are making the conscious decision free of imparment to do something stupid and you know is dangerous.[/QUOTE] The diminished responsibility defense in case like that is total nonsense though. You should not get off easier simply cause you got wasted. Especially not if your actions caused death.

[QUOTE=duckmaster;51474622]Imo seems more like you're just gonna end up with a lot more teenagers in jail then actually preventing phoning while driving.[/QUOTE] if those teenagers caused a crash that killed one or more people then yeah they certainly belong in prison teenagers don't even have an excuse because you are bombarded, constantly, throughout the training experience, on the theory test and in the practical test, [B]do not use your phone while driving[/B].

[QUOTE=Morgen;51474551]In the UK there's a lot of Automatic Numberplate Recognition cameras everywhere so if you drive on a suspended licence on any of the main roads then the police are going to know fairly quickly. If you was dumb enough to go on the motorway then you'd be detected as soon as you got off the on ramp. Only way I could see around that would be to drive around in someone elses car.[/QUOTE] That doesn't stop people, though. And that can be easily argued against, all the suspended driver has to do is say someone else was in that car when the picture was taken, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation(I had my friend driving me somewhere and we took my car, but I was a passenger). Then, have that someone else corroborate, and bam. Charges are null on grounds of reasonable doubt. [QUOTE=rndgenerator;51475160]The diminished responsibility defense in case like that is total nonsense though. You should not get off easier simply cause you got wasted. Especially not if your actions caused death.[/QUOTE] And it doesn't work over here unless you're rich enough to afford a top tier lawyer. Being drunk is no excuse.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51475160]The diminished responsibility defense in case like that is total nonsense though. You should not get off easier simply cause you got wasted. Especially not if your actions caused death.[/QUOTE] It's a defense but it rarely holds much weight. At the end of the day both drink driving and phone driving fall under a manslaughter sentance (though i belive it's called something else, semantics really), there's 2 types, Involuntary and Voluntary. [del]Involuntary would be drink driving, because a drunk person may not have set out to drive at all, their judgement just went to shit which led to them being behind the wheel, a drunk person may not be aware they are even drunk. Voluntary would be Mobile phones, because the person catagorically knew the risk, and opted to ignore it out of willfull ignorance. [/del] - wrong way round And ultimately, both can receive life. As i said, it's case by case sentancing. Not blanket, Even the title of the thread says 'could' face life, they likely won't. [QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51475195]if those teenagers caused a crash that killed one or more people then yeah they certainly belong in prison teenagers don't even have an excuse because you are bombarded, constantly, throughout the training experience, on the theory test and in the practical test, [B]do not use your phone while driving[/B].[/QUOTE] It's worth noting that under the age of 18 in the UK, a life sentance is typically 10-12 years max, if it's not a muder charge / first offense, a good number of years get shaved off.

[QUOTE=TestECull;51475212]That doesn't stop people, though. And that can be easily argued against, all the suspended driver has to do is say someone else was in that car when the picture was taken, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation(I had my friend driving me somewhere and we took my car, but I was a passenger). Then, have that someone else corroborate, and bam. Charges are null on grounds of reasonable doubt. And it doesn't work over here unless you're rich enough to afford a top tier lawyer. Being drunk is no excuse.[/QUOTE] With ANPR systems the police will often come out and pull you over.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;51474003]It's extreme, but it might be necessary if people are still often doing it with the current legislation in place and then end up killing people. Also consider that when people use their phone while driving in Europe, they almost certainly made the conscious decision to endanger others. There are [I]very[/I] widespread information campaigns highlighting the dangers here in Germany for example.[/QUOTE] I feel like there isn't a need to have campaigns telling us why it is a bad idea to divert your attention to a small electronic device while operating a one ton and a half metal machine. That's just common sense. Still, life for this is dumb as fuck. Taking away one's license to drive forever would be WAY more effective.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;51475402]I feel like there isn't a need to have campaigns telling us why it is a bad idea to divert your attention to a small electronic device while operating a one ton and a half metal machine. That's just common sense. Still, life for this is dumb as fuck. Taking away one's license to drive forever would be WAY more effective.[/QUOTE]Common sense not as common as you think.

[QUOTE=EXPLOOOSIONS!;51475195]if those teenagers caused a crash that killed one or more people then yeah they certainly belong in prison [/QUOTE] As I've mentioned earlier, why is it relevant to the sentence that they caused a crash? One who phone-drives and crashes has no difference in intent to one who phone-drives and doesn't crash

[QUOTE=RobL;51474373]That's fine then, willful implies there's intent behind it. So what were we arguing again?[/QUOTE] You were the one who was saying killing someone shouldn't matter in response to this piece of news. Unless for some reason you thought people were being forced to use their phone against their will then what was the point of the post if not to claim people who kill others through negligence shouldn't suffer the legal consequences?

[QUOTE=RobL;51473852]Why should the sentence depend on whether they kill someone or not? I really don't understand justice that isn't based solely on intent.[/QUOTE] Law and emotion don't mix

I don't know if anything will really deter people from doing this though, no matter how severe the punishment. People will just say "nah that won't happen to me". People are dumb. Self driving cars are probably the best way to fix this issue.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51475414]You were the one who was saying killing someone shouldn't matter in response to this piece of news. Unless for some reason you thought people were being forced to use their phone against their will then what was the point of the post if not to claim people who kill others through negligence shouldn't suffer the legal consequences?[/QUOTE] The negligence is willful. The killing is not. Is that not simple enough to understand? It seems purposeless to sentence people based on what are essentially dicerolls outside of their will [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;51475421]Law and emotion don't mix[/QUOTE] Meaning...?

[QUOTE=J!NX;51475421]Law and emotion don't mix[/QUOTE] Law is mostly based on emotion and morals.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;51473879]Whats the point of that? Bad drivers aren't hardened criminals, sending them to a prison has no point, revoking there licence would be more fitting. We need to remember justice is not about revenge.[/QUOTE] Would still be fitting to pay compensation to the victim's family.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51475461]Law is mostly based on emotion and morals.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RobL;51475454]Meaning...?[/QUOTE] Meaning this is a stupid law based on the idea of basically revenge against stupid people there's a difference between a law that's based on good morals and even bad ones, and one that exists just to completely fuck people over that the lawmakers don't like. [QUOTE]It is designed to send a “clear message” that people who cause “immeasurable pain” to families with reckless driving should be given a “punishment that fits the crime”. [/QUOTE] its eye for an eye bullshit like this that should not be in law. Like you could theoretically murder the family instead and get a lower sentence. if anything it's not emotion, just apathy that shouldn't mix with law

[QUOTE=J!NX;51475470]Meaning this is a stupid law based on the idea of basically revenge against stupid people there's a difference between a law that's based on good morals and even bad ones, and one that exists just to completely fuck people over that the lawmakers don't like. its eye for an eye bullshit like this that should not be in law. Like you could theoretically murder the family instead and get a lower sentence. if anything it's not emotion, just apathy that shouldn't mix with law[/QUOTE] My mistake, I thought you were criticising me

[QUOTE=J!NX;51475470]Meaning this is a stupid law based on the idea of basically revenge against stupid people there's a difference between a law that's based on good morals and even bad ones, and one that exists just to completely fuck people over that the lawmakers don't like. its eye for an eye bullshit like this that should not be in law. Like you could theoretically murder the family instead and get a lower sentence. if anything it's not emotion, just apathy that shouldn't mix with law[/QUOTE] Oh yeah fuck all those people who die because of idiots who can't unglue themselves from phones at any time.It's not revenge against stupid people, it's an attempt to prevent stupid people from killing others.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51475521]Oh yeah fuck all those people who die because of idiots who can't unglue themselves from phones at any time.It's not revenge against stupid people, it's an attempt to prevent stupid people from killing others.[/QUOTE] Pretty amazing how you'd word it in such a way that makes it seem like I'm just being a dick. Read my fucking post lmao. I'm not saying that at all. But you can continue with that if you want, I'm sure you'll look intelligent. they have lives too you know. Maybe they're fuck ups but they still don't deserve life because of it. Make them pay for all the damage they did, even if its an immense amount, and ban them from driving forever. Giving them a bigger sentence than most actual intentional killers will see is just morally wrong. I know that 'max sentence' is only there to scare people, but life for this should never be considered. But no lets ruin someones life just because they're a giant fuck up. That'll show them!

Seems a bit excessive. Wonder how this works for hands-free devices.

I'm all for this law.

[QUOTE=J!NX;51475539]Pretty amazing how you'd word it in such a way that makes it seem like I'm just being a dick. Read my fucking post lmao. I'm not saying that at all. But you can continue with that if you want, I'm sure you'll look intelligent. they have lives too you know. Maybe they're fuck ups but they still don't deserve life because of it. Make them pay for all the damage they did, even if its an immense amount, and ban them from driving forever. [B]Giving them a bigger sentence than most actual intentional killers will see is just morally wrong[/B]. I know that 'max sentence' is only there to scare people, but life for this should never be considered. But no lets ruin someones life just because they're a giant fuck up. That'll show them![/QUOTE] just an fyi, [URL="https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-do-murderers-serve-prison/"]the average life sentence for murder in the UK is 17[/URL], and they have to serve a minimum of 15 years. i mean, the maximum sentence for manslaughter in the uk is life anyway (and according to the article, the average sentence for causing a death while using a phone is 4 years) if you decide that the rules don't apply to you and ignore the constant barrage of [I]"Do not use your phone while driving"[/I] it's a bit hard to have sympathy. if you want to see how they sentence for manslaughter i'd recommend [URL="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Manslaughter-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdf"]this[/URL] or [URL="http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#involuntary"]this[/URL]. It's mainly based on how many rules you decided to ignore and the likelihood of it happening again. So, someone who breaks the golden rule once may see a lot more lenient sentence than Dave the Boy Racer who gets caught every other week for driving offences. I believe, after a bit more study, that what's happening is that causing a crash because of phone usage is going to be weighted more heavily as a serious incident.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;51474176]I don't understand, do you think I don't, want them to go to prison? Because I do. Like I said in my first comment, I'm a huge advocate for these people to be punished But i'm trying to remind people that the offender is also a person, who might be deeply effected by what has happened. Using your own thought experiment How do think that person holding the gun felt knowing he just killed someone.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I made a dumb assumption. I just feel pretty strongly about this, it honestly makes me mad that so many people act like staring at their phone while driving is no big deal when it makes you 4 times as likely to be in a crash and is the number one cause of death for motorcyclists. As for your response, probably incredibly shitty. But my sympathy for them is diminished somewhat by the fact that they're in that situation as a direct result of their own negligent actions.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51473989]??? Justice solely based on intent makes no sense. Are you saying people shouldn't be punished for manslaughter?[/QUOTE] If the goal of justice is rehabilitation, then intent should play a [b]massive[/b] role in the sentencing. [editline]4th December 2016[/editline] "If you don't want to serve life don't use your phone while driving :)" isn't a valid argument. It's exactly as valid as "if you don't want to get stoned to death don't commit adultery (even if you were raped) :)" All you're doing is restating the punishment. You're not [b]justifying the fucking punishment,[/b] you're just telling people what the punishment is as if that somehow justifies it.