Kill someone and get just 61 days

I recall the police also found forensic evidence on his car (clothing fibres on radiator grille?)

Whereas, as shown by the links, a driver who leaves the scene and manages to stay anonymous for long enough can no longer be tested for drink or drugs, and without witnesses can claim he/she wasn't at fault, even if that's untrue.

I guess that would make the difference, humptydumpty. As long as the driver's found, he or she can't really deny driving dangerously if there's strong evidence to the contrary.

Not sure why the sentence is as it was: I was hit by a hit-and-run driver 2 years ago, he was driving on the wrong side of the road and exceeding the speed limit; he also abandoned his car, and was later arrested by police. He had not been drinking nor was he under the influence of drugs. He was found guilty of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, and sentenced to 18 months. There were a lot of witnesses - is that the difference?

Signed.

In 2015 17000 accidents where the driver drove off www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38594919

One day this could be you, your child, your grandchild - lying in the road, maybe dying while a person who could have summoned help disappears.

A change in the law would give people more incentive to stop.

petition is now just over 5,300.

It requires a change in the law, that is usually done either with a short bill from an MP or the next time the government wishes to make other changes. There are a few MPs who may take this up, more signatures on the petition encourages them to do so/ the government to include this when they make other changes. Petitions are one way MPs are encouraged to act.

If you sign you get an email to click the link to confirm its you and then one more email later to tell you the government repsonse. It's no fuss.

There are many other reports of similar cases e.g. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/16/police-trace-drivers-after-woman-dies-after-multiple-hit-and-run

As a general rule I think we are far too lenient on driving offences. But I don’t think a petition is the way to go at all - I really don’t know how the shift will be made. Personaly I find the punishment for driving without a licence/ insurance derisory because of the very real risks both activities pose but I think too often we judge an act by it’s actual consequences rather than the real risk posed and the possible consequences.

Not my petition but it was clear enough to me.

This is the back story - driver made no attempt to slow down before hitting the pedestrian and made no attempt to summon help for them. Could easily have been a child they left for dead. . www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/15904158.Family_calls_for_change_in_law_following_hit_and_run_road_death/

Well the petition doesn’t make that clear. slreadytaken.

All the facts and independent views need to be seen before anyone can decide on signing anything.

The petition is not about minimum sentencing. It is about about increasing the maximum possible sentence so the judge has more discretion. The judge in this case gave the maximum permitted sentence so there was no possibility of an appeal increasing it.

Sorry but generally I’m not in favour of minimum sentencing, presumably decided by parliament.
Sentencing should be decided by the judge in the light of all the evidence.
If a sentence is considered too lenient the prosecution can appeal against the sentence.

apologies, was meant to be in AIBU so have reported and asked for it to be moved.