On 12 Jul, 07:50, Doug  wrote:
> On 11 Jul, 09:28, BrianW  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Jul, 08:00, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Jul, 08:24, JNugent  wrote:
>
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > On 9 Jul, 21:57, "DavidR"  wrote:
> > > > >> "David Hansen"  wrote
>
> > > > >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032894/Cyclist-killed-teenag...
> > > > >>> As one might expect with the Daily Wail, the headline bears little
> > > > >>> relationship to the contents of the story
> > > > >> In the Telegraph there was another story on the same page about a person
> > > > >> deliberately droving a LandRover at someone. The victim leapt of the way
> > > > >> but the driver was charged with assault. My thought was "why wasn't it
> > > > >> attempted murder?"
>
> > > > > Good point. Why aren't cars treated like any other lethal weapon?
>
> > > > Good point. Perhaps motor cars should be taxed and regulated like those
> > > > lethal weapons kitchen knives (even daggers), hammers and plastic bags.
> > > > Not to mention sleeping pills.
>
> > > Any of which would involve a manslaughter charge if they inadvertently
> > > caused a death but why not a car? If a car is deliberately used to
> > > kill then that is treated as murder, just like any other weapon,
>
> > Well we are getting somewhere. �Not so long ago, you were confidently
> > stating that murderers using cars got away scot-free. �You now appear
> > to have recognised just how stupid that made you look.
>
> > > but
> > > not if it is an involuntary cause. Obviously killer drivers are
> > > treated preferentially.
>
> > No longer sustainable. �What about the new offence of causing death by
> > careless driving? �To be convicted of manslaughter through negligence,
> > the prosecution must prove "gross negligence" - ordinary negligence is
> > not enough. �To be convicted of causing death by careless driving, the
> > prosecution merely need prove ordinary negligence. �Therefore, killer
> > drivers, at the lower end of the culpability spectrum, are actually
> > treated more harshly than other killers.
>
> You are still missing the point that manslaughter has a maximum life
> sentence which could be applied in extreme circumstances while the
> 'death by driving' charges do not.

In a recent case, a woman who starved her 3 y old daughter to death
didn't get life, so I cannot see any circumstances in which a non-
deliberate killing by a driver could merit a life sentence.

> Also manslaughter is routinely used
> on people who kill away from roads so why not actually ON roads?

<Sigh>

How many times have we explained this to you?  And what about the
death by careless driving I mentioned?  You carefully did not comment
on that, I note.