New Careless Driving Causing Death, Grievous Bodily Harm and

[wellington_street]

https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/P ... safer.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Road Safety Minister Liza Harvey said a new offence of Careless Driving Causing Death, Grievous Bodily Harm and Bodily Harm would give courts the ability to jail people whose careless driving resulted in death or serious injury.

"Currently the maximum penalty for Careless Driving where a person is killed or seriously injured is a $600 fine which is completely inadequate and not in line with community expectations," Mrs Harvey said.

"The lack of an adequate penalty for this offence has been expressed by the State Coroner, a senior magistrate and the general public."

The maximum penalty for the new offence would be three years in prison and/or a $36,000 fine.

The Minister said the changes also meant a person sent to prison for a driving offence would not serve their licence disqualification until after they were released.

"The community expects penalties to have an impact and this confirms the Government's stance that a driver's licence is a privilege, not a right," she said.

[find_bruce]

A focus on careless driving is good. The issue for me however is that it only comes into play after the person has been killed or injured. What they are not addressing (and this is a common complaint) is reducing the incidence of careless driving.

Increasing the penalties for such carelessness may satisfy community expectations for retribution, but will have no impact on its incidence. To put it in simple terms a person who is driving carelessly is not thinking about the consequences of their actions. The usual theory behind increased penalties is deterrence, which is an easy hand waving exercise that does not stand up to scrutiny in this instance.

Deterrence theory in this application would go something along the lines of - "if I drive like this I might kill or seriously injure someone, if I kill or seriously injure someone I might go to gaol, so I shouldn't drive like that". The problem is that thought process never goes like that - the driver is blissfully ignorant of the fact that their driving might kill or injure someone, so the consequence never occurs to them.

This is why most anti drink driving ads focus upon the risk of being caught - a high risk of being caught with a relatively low consequence has a much greater deterrent effect than a low risk of being caught with a high consequence.

I would love to be wrong & discover that the government has a program in place to reduce the incidence of careless driving.

[Cycleops70]

I agree Bruce, if we are only acting after someone is already hurt & not intervening before it comes to that. Then the rate of people being hurt & killed will not reduce.

[bychosis]

Still might get into the media that running someone over isn't just an accident, it is caused by 'careless driving' which has a punishment that is more that a thorough thrashing with a wilted lettuce leaf.

[lobstermash]

I think it's a positive step, but agree that there's plenty more needed to be done to prosecute the policy that 'a driver's licence is a privilege, not a right'.

[Mulger bill]

A focus on careless driving is good. The issue for me however is that it only comes into play after the person has been killed or injured. What they are not addressing (and this is a common complaint) is reducing the incidence of careless driving.

Increasing the penalties for such carelessness may satisfy community expectations for retribution, but will have no impact on its incidence. To put it in simple terms a person who is driving carelessly is not thinking about the consequences of their actions. The usual theory behind increased penalties is deterrence, which is an easy hand waving exercise that does not stand up to scrutiny in this instance.

Deterrence theory in this application would go something along the lines of - "if I drive like this I might kill or seriously injure someone, if I kill or seriously injure someone I might go to gaol, so I shouldn't drive like that". The problem is that thought process never goes like that - the driver is blissfully ignorant of the fact that their driving might kill or injure someone, so the consequence never occurs to them.

This is why most anti drink driving ads focus upon the risk of being caught - a high risk of being caught with a relatively low consequence has a much greater deterrent effect than a low risk of being caught with a high consequence.

I would love to be wrong & discover that the government has a program in place to reduce the incidence of careless driving.

Word for word, thanks Bruce

[Sinner]

Still might get into the media that running someone over isn't just an accident, it is caused by 'careless driving' which has a punishment that is more that a thorough thrashing with a wilted lettuce leaf.

Not always true. Sometimes the fault is with the person who got hurt and there will then be the issues of proof. You can see the press baying for blood on the careless driving angle when in fact the driver may be totally innocent.

[cj7hawk]

Does anyone have a copy of the wording of the planned legislative changes?

Thanks
David

[find_bruce]

Road Traffic Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2015

[cj7hawk]

Road Traffic Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2015

Thankyou find_bruce - Can you please comment on the significance of the new sections with this included;

62. Careless driving
Every person who drives a motor vehicle without due care and
attention commits an offence.
Penalty: 30 PU.(was Penalty: 12 PU.)
[Section 62 amended by No. 11 of 1988 s. 24; No. 50 of 1997
s. 13; Road Traffic Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2015
cl. 27.]

Given that the office of road safety has publicly stated that the minimum safe distance for passing is 1m, and that they have upgraded the fine here to about $1500 ( from $600 ) and added the section about death/harm, would it be sufficient with video of a close pass to make complaint to the police of Careless driving, on the basis that if there was a collision, that the new section would apply?

Or are the teeth that I'm seeing here false?

Thanks
David

[Thoglette]

Or are the teeth that I'm seeing here false?

The question is whether anyone is willing to take them out of the kennel & unmuzzle them. Currently it appears Mr Plod is studiously ignoring the OORS statements on 1m

[find_bruce]

A change to the penalty for careless driving does not change the definition of whether particular driving is careless. Similarly the opinion of the OORS that the minimum safe distance for passing is 1m is unlikely to change the attitude of the Police who determine whether a matter is prosecuted.

[AlexHuggs]

A change to the penalty for careless driving does not change the definition of whether particular driving is careless. Similarly the opinion of the OORS that the minimum safe distance for passing is 1m is unlikely to change the attitude of the Police who determine whether a matter is prosecuted.

The initial evidence out of the East seems to be that police aren't particularly keen to enforce 1m passing laws, either. I think the value of these laws is in education and awareness.

[cj7hawk]

Police generally aren't keen on enforcing any laws except the ones they feel personally strongly about - They are all impositions on us and think about parking inspectors who enforce the most annoying of laws? No one likes them at all.

It is more dangerous for a car to pass by a cyclist too closely than it is to run a red light or stop sign. This is the attitude change that is needed within the police and government so they start doing something about close passes.

Unfortunately, until our advocacy groups start pushing this message outwards, there won't be a great amount of pickup on this message.

I get a lift with someone who considers themselves a safe driver. They respect cyclists and try to always drive within the law. Yet, they get mad at cyclists two-abreast as it makes it harder for them to squeeze through... In other words, they think it's perfectly OK to pass by a cyclist within a few tens of centimeters as long as they don't hit them. They also find it annoying that cyclists often ride in a way that's more difficult to predict than most motorists.

And this is someone who most people would consider a good driver.

I guess the interesting part of this new legislation for me is this line;

it is immaterial that the death, grievous bodily harm or bodily harm might have been avoided by proper precaution on the part of a person other than the person
charged or might have been prevented by proper care or treatment; and

This is interesting, because there doesn't seem any scope for the actions of the cyclist to be considered in the circumstances - this means that if someone is driving too closely ( and even if the police ignore the 1m advice from the OORS, I don't think the courts would ) and the cyclist swerves out and hits the driver, then the driver is still entirely at fault under this law, because they were too close to the cyclist at the time - So it does make we wonder if that's a useful starting point for such a campaign.

Regards
David

[trailgumby]

I guess the interesting part of this new legislation for me is this line;

it is immaterial that the death, grievous bodily harm or bodily harm might have been avoided by proper precaution on the part of a person other than the person
charged or might have been prevented by proper care or treatment; and

This is interesting, because there doesn't seem any scope for the actions of the cyclist to be considered in the circumstances - this means that if someone is driving too closely ( and even if the police ignore the 1m advice from the OORS, I don't think the courts would ) and the cyclist swerves out and hits the driver, then the driver is still entirely at fault under this law, because they were too close to the cyclist at the time - So it does make we wonder if that's a useful starting point for such a campaign...

Yeah, very interesting. I guess we'll see how that plays out in court.

[Thoglette]

and the cyclist swerves out and <strike>hits the driver<strike> is hit by the driver, then the driver is still entirely at fault under this law, because they were too close to the cyclist at the time

I'm missing something - that sounds like a "Great Der of History". Of course the driver is still entirely at fault - it is their responsiblity to ensure that the pass is safe.

[cj7hawk]

and the cyclist swerves out and <strike>hits the driver<strike> is hit by the driver, then the driver is still entirely at fault under this law, because they were too close to the cyclist at the time

I'm missing something - that sounds like a "Great Der of History". Of course the driver is still entirely at fault - it is their responsiblity to ensure that the pass is safe.

Most drivers don't see it that way -

This is the single biggest problem I face when riding - and back-roads aren't always an option ( and cycle paths don't exist )