Motorists who kill while avoidably distracted at the wheel will face prison under new careless driving laws which came into force on Monday 18 August 2008.

The new offences will, for the first time, allow courts to imprison drivers who cause deaths by not paying due care to the road, or to other road users. They are designed to plug the gap in current legislation and so prevent drivers who kill walking away from court with just a fine.

Avoidable distractions which courts will consider when sentencing motorists who have killed include:

using a mobile phone (calling or texting)
drinking and eating
applying make-up
anything else which takes their attention away from the road and which a court judges to have been an avoidable distraction.

The new laws will also penalise uninsured, disqualified or unlicensed drivers who kill.

The new offences will carry custodial sentences of:

*up to five years for causing death by careless driving

*up to two years for causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.

Prior to the introduction of these new laws, the maximum sentence for those convicted of causing death by careless, uninsured or unlicensed driving was a maximum £5,000 fine and penalty licence points.



The independent Sentencing Guidelines Council published definitive guidelines on sentencing for death by driving offences in July of last year. If you wish to view these, then click here

IMO if found guilty of either of the above you should
be put in court and charged for manslaughter.

Its always been the easiest way to kill some one and walk away.
Which only angers a a bereaved family.

We all know that when we get behind the wheel of a car
we can either get there safely or Turn the car into a Killing Machine.

Its a loaded gun waiting to go off.

Trying not to be too contravercial (spell?) but everybody makes mistakes while driving, it is pure chance whether someone gets killed when you make that mistake. Someone can make a huge mistake and nobody notices, someone else can make a much smaller mistake and kill someone.

Some people intentionally drive badly, tailgaters etc they should be dealt with harshly

Shouldn't the outcome depend on your actions, not the result of your actions? Obviously it should take into account the likelyhood of your actions causing death/damage etc.

We can all make mistakes, whether it be driving or any other part of every day life, its human nature and that is something that will never go away. There is a vast difference between a mistake and deliberately flaunting a law that is designed to preserve the well being and lives of other road users and the pedestrian. With all the advertising which takes place in this country on the Do's and don'ts of driving no one can be excused for breaking those laws Jacci has outlined above. My only worry is the up to 5 years sentencing for taking someones life for those offences, that is surely not enough, were is the deterrent in that, perhaps those sort of sentences should be handed out even without killing someone. Because there's a car involved we do get away with murder.

hmm...states have some bizaree law..homicide with a motor vehicle or simialr...which it is really.

the careless aspect is defined as "more than a momentary lapse of concentration...."

yes..we all do make mistakes now and then..we are human and the law recognises that...but to make a definitve and avoidable decision not to pay attention to the road eg "put make up on whlst driving..." thats what the law is trying to stop.

A life taken in any way such as a fatal rtc can never be replaced...
and no prison term can replace that life....but it may deter some people...and possibly save lives...

I think perhaps that the difference will come down to 3 words - careless, dangerous and reckless.

In the Motor Car Act (1903), the offence of reckless driving was introduced. In the Road Traffic Act (1930), there were two offences: 'Reckless or Dangerous Driving' and 'Careless Driving'. In 1956, a third offence of 'Causing Death by Reckless or Dangerous Driving' was introduced, to avoid having to employ the charge of manslaughter in these cases. In the Criminal Law Act (1977) the offences of 'Reckless or Dangerous' were re-worded as simply 'Reckless'.

Now here lies the problem! The Prosecution have to "prove" recklessness i.e. the driver's state of mind at the time. There was a Report made about this (which I won't bore you all with - it's called the North Report if you're really interested) which led to changes being made.

That's why offences relating to bad driving were reformulated in the Road Traffic Act (1991), to more readily identify and punish dangerous drivers. The earlier offences of 'Reckless Driving' and 'Causing Death by Reckless Driving' were replaced by 'Dangerous Driving' and 'Causing Death by Dangerous Driving'. There is no offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving (except where alcohol or drugs are involved). These changes were intended to move the emphasis from the driver's state of mind to the objective quality of the driving.

The much higher penalty for Dangerous Driving where a death results, has caused some debate on how far the system does (or should) focus on the standard of the driving alone, as opposed to the consequences. The issue is getting to the actual "bare bones" as opposed to the emotive side of things.

Further argument centres on whether the 'deliberate' nature of some kinds of bad driving should attract the highest penalties, or whether the potential danger should be the key issue, regardless of the actual consequences.

Personally, I can't see the maximum sentence being meted out. The maximum sentences are rarely used as it is. JMPO, but I think that's part of the problem!

Thanks PJ

Ever thought of crossing to the dark side and doing law DD

Too honest mate!

Same here, hence I want out of Defence