errorSix teen-agers cleaning up roadside trash as restitution for minor crimes were killed March/2000 on a busy interstate highway when a white mini van drifted into the median after the driver twenty year old Jessica Williams fell asleep.
Silver State pays the county to pick up trash that blows off its garbage trucks as they head to the landfill near Apex, a few miles north of the accident site.
"I always just assumed that they went to parks, I didn't know they were off on the side of the road." Said Lorene Boggs the mother of a child on a work crew.
Doug Gould can't understand why it was necessary to have his boy, Scott Garner Jr., 14, picking up trash in the middle of the busiest interstate in Nevada.
"What were they even doing out there?" Gould asked. "It makes no sense. It's Sunday afternoon, everyone is in the process of leaving Las Vegas, and the county has these kids out in the middle of a super-expressway ... you would think they would have had some safeguards."
Garner, of Henderson, was doing community service to clear a burglary charge from his juvenile record and was one of six teens killed near the Las Vegas Motor Speedway. Also killed were Las Vegans Anthony T. Smith, 14, Alberto Puig, 16, Rebeccah Glicken, 15,Malina Stoltzfus, 15, and Jennifer Booth, 16. The attorney elicited evidence that no signs, pylons or flagmen were present to warn drivers that children were working in the area.
"These young folks were extremely close to the freeway," Watkins said.


Many of the guidelines for the Adopt-A- Highway Liter-Removal Program wear not followed at all. When collecting litter, face oncoming traffic and be aware of passing traffic. Be alert to move quickly, if necessary. For safety reasons, members of participating group will not pick up liter within the roadway’s median or on inside shoulder. Again, NDOT personnel will handle these areas. Some reasons as to why a certain section may be unacceptable for adoption include; heavy traffic flow and narrow road side. Their were also no flaggers or cones.
The State’s negligence that played a major roll in the deaths of the six teenagers was not allowed as evidence in Jessica’s trial, Nor were jurors allowed to view the accident scene at their request.


Jessica Williams[now 21years old] has been incarcerated at the Las Vegas county jail since March/19/2000 with a bail amout of five million.


Associated Pathologists Laboratories found 5.5, 5.1 and 4.8 nanograms of marijuana per milliliter of Williams' blood. State law dictates that 2 nanograms of marijuana must be found in a milliliter of blood in order for someone to be charged with driving under the influence of a controlled substance. But experts for the prosecution and the defense have testified the limits are not intended to mark the point where a driver would be impaired. Her father maintains she was one of a large population of drivers who have latent amounts of marijuana in their system.
"Yes, she used marijuana in a limited fashion, on occasion, just like most people do -- and that's the damned truth," Steve Williams said. "If anybody is responsible for that, it's me,she was rarely without a book in her hand as she grew up in Utah, Arizona and California ;she's never been in trouble," her father said. "She was a model child -- sweet, helpful, charming, loving, honest."
She earned good grades at a high school just north of San Diego, and upon graduation her father paid for her to visit Europe.
She traveled to France, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Italy and Switzerland, where one of her sisters resides.
She returned to this country one year later to attend the New York School of Interior Design, where she intended to develop her creative bent.
Steve Williams said his daughter left school after one year with the intention of traveling some more before resuming her education. "She found New York pretty confusing," he said.


Troopers at the scene of the March accident arranged for blood tests that detected marijuana, but did not run the battery of roadside tests police typically use to determine whether a driver is impaired. "I saw nothing in there that would have precluded a field sobriety test being administered to Miss Williams," said Redfairn, who investigates fatal accidents and instructs fellow officers on how to recognize the symptoms of drug use.
Webster said he used field tests in about 98 percent of the 2,500 driving under the influence arrests he has made during the past 12 years. Failure to administer the tests can leave a sober person unable to effectively defend a driving under the influence charge, he said.
"They would be at a severe disadvantage to proving their innocence," Webster said. Toxicologist Raymond Kelly, a prosecution witness, and Redfairn have testified that Williams likely fell asleep while driving her white Ford van back from the Valley of Fire.


Watkins presented testimony from American Medical Response employees who drove Williams from the scene to University Medical Center.
Paramedic Tammy Gomez and emergency medical technician Victor Montecerin said they did not believe Williams was under the influence of drugs.
Montecerin said her pulse and blood pressure were within the normal range. Redfairn testified he would expect elevated levels in a person impaired by marijuana or Ecstasy. An expert witness testified [Dan Berkabile] “Jessica Williams was not affected by marijuana when her white Ford minivan drifted into the median of Interstate 15.
"My opinion is that she fell asleep," he said. Toxicologist David Andrenyak a defense witness told jurors he tested the same blood samples earlier this month and detected marijuana levels far below those found in the original tests performed in March by Associated Pathologists Laboratories. The highest level Andrenyak found in the same samples was 1.4 nanograms per milliliter.


Watkins has contended the 1999 law is unconstitutional because the maximum drug levels it prescribes do not correspond to any degree of impairment.
Another defense expert testified that the results obtained in tests performed by the state and the defense were so wildly disparate that both should be disregarded.
"Those numbers are unreliable," toxicologist Michael Peat said.
Following Peat to the stand was Chambers, a Henderson resident and UNLV faculty member who specializes in sleep studies.
"There aren't too many people who know what I know about sleep," he said.
The biological sleep patterns of Jessica Williams help explain the March accident in which six teen-agers were killed, an expert testified Tuesday.
Henderson psychologist Mark Chambers said the majority of the population goes to sleep at night and awakens in the morning, all in accordance with the natural rhythms of their bodies.
Williams, a self-described "night owl," is wired differently, he said. Her natural sleep cycle, or the period when her body wants to sleep, lasts from about 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
This was a major factor in the 1:40 p.m. accident Williams' defense attributes to her falling asleep, Chambers said.
"The point at which she is at maximal sleepiness is at about 2 in the afternoon," the psychologist said. "From a biological point of view, the accident actually occurred in the middle of the night."
On cross-examination, Chambers said it was not true that adult drivers can be expected to know when they are tired and act accordingly. He said people are notoriously inept at gauging their own susceptibility to sleep. Also studies have consistently failed to show that marijuana causes people to become sleepier,"


The jurors found Jessica Williams guilty of driving with a prohibited substance ; She was not found guilty of driving under the influence!! And with the prohibited substance charge she faces a possible 120years behind bars!!
Counts 1-6Driving and/or being in actual physical control with a prohibitive substance in the blood. Felony. Guilty on all six counts
Counts 7-12 Involuntary manslaughter Not guilty on all counts
Counts 13-18 Reckless driving Not guilty on all counts
Count 19 Use of a controlled substance. Felony.Guilty
Count 20 Possession of a controlled substance. Felony. Guilty


Las Vegas
Many of you have asked how you can help Jessica’s current situation. Well we finally have something you can assist with if you feel led to do so. We have set a goal of ONE THOUSAND LETTERS by March 28th for Jessica’s sentencing. Pass this on to as many people as possible that are willing to express an opinion on the issues below. Jessica’s attorney Jhon Watkins, has asked that we have as many letters sent as possible to Judge Mark Gibbons. Judge Gibbons will determine whether Jessica receives between 2 up to 120 years in prison on march 30th at her sentencing hearing. Attorney watkins has out lined the main points of focus:



A}LENIANCY IN SENTANCING
B}EXPRESS DISSATISFACTIONON THE STATUTORY LAW SHE WAS FOUND GUILTY ON. FELONY DUI BASED ON TRACE ELEMENTS IN THE BLOOD, NOT BEING IMPAIRED.
C}HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT HAVING MINORS ON FEDRAL INTERSTATE HIGHWAY {I-15} COLLECTING TRASH AS PART OF THE PROBATIONSERICE WORK PROGRAM, WHICH IS UNDER CLARK COUNTY’S DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICE.
D}HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT JESSICA’S BEING SENTENCED TO PRISON AS A NON VIOLENT OFFENDER.
E}LASTELY, FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION ON ANY OTHER ISSUES YOU SEE RELATING TO THIS CASE.


Please write to Judge Gibbons and send a copy to Jhon Watkins. THE ADDRESS AS FOLLOWS:

DISTRICT COURT DEPT#7
JUDGE MARK GIBBONS
200 SOUTH THIRD STREET
LAS VEGAS NV 89155
PHONE#702-455-4662


FAX#702-386-9104


ATTORNEY AT LAW JHON WATKINS
804 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
LAS VEGAS NV 89101

Jessica Williams was rightly found culpable in the
deaths of the pedestrians, but for the wrong reasons.
The medical technicians and other specialists believe
that Jessica drove while asleep at the wheel, not while
intoxicated. Thus, she is guilty of reckless driving
resulting in the deaths or grievous injuries of several
people. She should be subject to the same standards of
liability that apply to the operator of any heavy and
dangerous equipment who, by their reckless conduct, cause
the deaths of numerous people. The appropriate penalty
may not be life in prison, but it is, at a minimum, some
prison time, and an absolute lifetime ban on ever sitting
behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

Right now, we have a double standard in this country, one
which is responsible for untold suffering and destruction
of innocent lives. And that double standard is: kill with
a car while sober, no matter how reckless, and, so long as
intent is not proven, you'll face at worst a point or two
on your driving record. But drive while intoxicated even
without killing, and you may go to jail. Of course, such
a policy as this has nothing to do with public safety. It
is simply a reflection of two things: the irrational and
fanatical war on drugs, and the car culture that posits the
absolute supremacy of the motor vehicle over our landscape.

Below is a letter from Simon Baddeley and colleagues to
authorities in England regarding the issue of traffic
safety in that country, a letter whose contents are highly
relevant to this discussion. Though the context is England,
almost every observation below applies equally to this
country and the case in hand concerning Jessica Williams.
If we take to heart the considerations and observations in
this letter, we can't fail to conclude that Ms. Williams
case calls for severe penalties, but for different reasons
than invoked by her prosecutors.



Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:07:29 -0000 From: "Simon
Baddeley" <s.j.baddeley@bham.ac.uk>
Subject: RESPONSE TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES PENALTIES
REVIEW

6 March 2001

Jisha Salim, Sentencing and Offences Unit, Home
Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, LONDON, SW1H 9AT; fax
020 7273 4345; e-mail jisha.salim@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/sou/rtpcons.pdf


Dear Jisha Salim,

RESPONSE TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES PENALTIES REVIEW The
first part of this response focuses on the 4 co-signers of
this letter. It aims to convey the knowledge, experience
and values that might lead you to regard our views as
helpful to your timely review of road traffic offence
penalties. It is prepared in some haste but with a sincere
wish to make a positive response to the invitation to
consult on a most welcome policy development.

The response is not assembled as a point-by-point response
to specific items as requested. We apologise for this and
hope that the Home Office may still glean some helpful
advice from what follows.

The Road Traffic Offences Penalties Review can mark a shift
in attitude to driving in the UK. These changes must affect
all of us. We believe that they will benefit the majority
- drivers and non-car-drivers alike - but political will
is required to resist a vocal minority of interests who
will claim this review infringes their rights, but in the
matter of road traffic offences the government can win
hearts and minds by strengthening the law.

We are four citizens who, though interested in
and affected by transport issues, do not represent
anyone but ourselves. Three of us work together.
Professor John Raine, Director of the Institute of Local
Government Studies, Birmingham University, has spent many
years researching the Magistracy on behalf of the Home
Office. He is a Green party Councillor for Malvern District
Council. Ray Puffitt is Senior Lecturer at Birmingham
University with wide experience of regulatory processes in
Local Government. Simon Baddeley lectures as an associate
of the same department. He commutes and travels across
the UK by bicycle, walking and public transport and has
an interest in the role played by transport in urban
regeneration.

Our decision to write a joint response arose in connection
with the death, in a road crash, of Ray Puffitt's only
daughter, Jane, on 25 March last year. Jane's death
affected all who worked with Ray and convinced us of the
need for a shift of direction in sentencing policy and its
context as this relates to driving behaviour. We welcome
this Review.

To ensure our views would not look like an attempt to
create law based on a specific tragedy or bias policy
towards punishing a particular individual we enlisted
our fourth respondent Martin Ward. Martin is a family
friend of Simon Baddeley. More than the rest of us,
Martin relies on driving cars for work and leisure. His
business is reliant on road transport by car and van.
In 29 years, at his conservative estimate, Martin has
covered over a million miles in 57 cars and at least 20
motorcycles. At 18 he had a minor motorcycle accident which
made him determined to pay "ultimate attention at all times
whilst in charge of a motor vehicle". He has had no form
of road traffic accident since. A successful businessman,
Martin recently qualified as a member of the Institute of
Advanced Motorists (IAM) and has successfully encouraged
his employees to seek IAM certification.

We believe that your review should take forward the
principle that driving a car (or other motor vehicle) is
a privilege and not a right. To earn and keep the right
to drive, a citizen must demonstrate on-going competence
throughout their life in the form of driving skill and
care for others. We use, as an analogy, the written
and unwritten laws of the sea about care for self and
others in a hazardous environment. The same is taken for
granted among train drivers, airline pilots and, though
still far from widely accepted, among a growing minority
of motorists.

As well as the contempt that should attach to bad driving,
the law should provide sanctions against those unwilling to
demonstrate competence and care when driving. This should
be a sanction that would regard exceeding a speed limit
of 20 or 30 mph as being as serious as a faster breach
of the law. Thus, manoeuvring at relatively slow but
inappropriate speed within an enclosed space can be quite
as serious in its consequences for others as disobeying
higher speed restrictions.

It is difficult to get to the controls of a train, bus,
plane or ship if one is of an inappropriate age for the
requirements of the job, sleepy, ill or intoxicated and
have not passed regular tests of one's fitness for that
responsibility. It remains extraordinarily easy for someone
in any of these conditions to get behind the wheel of a
motor vehicle - as temptingly easy now as it was when
A.A.Milne described Toad's miscreant car theft in the
1920s. It is equally easy to do the same thing even though
unqualified, uninsured and legally banned from driving by
a court.

While driving a car, actions that would be prohibited or
looked upon with extreme disapproval if done by anyone in
charge of a plane, ship, train or bus, such as non-journey
related chats with passengers, changing a tape or disk,
tuning a radio into an entertainment station, listening
to it, speaking on a mobile phone, lighting a cigarette,
looking at a map, wiping a window or adjusting a seat
while moving, are not only legal but in many cases
widely considered acceptable when in charge of a motor
vehicle. Yet the road is an environment as hazardous as
air, sea or railway.

Changing current road traffic behaviour requires a shift in
values which extends to the Home Office itself - certainly
to the writer of the introduction to the review. While
the government is arguing elsewhere that the "sheer
number of road traffic offences is staggering" [footnote:
"In England and Wales alone in 1997, 2.2 million motoring
offences went to court, and a further 1.6 million offences
were dealt with by official police action or fixed penalty
notices, excluding parking and obstructions offences. More
go undetected, some of them serious. A great many, though
not all, affect road safety directly. Para 10.5 Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Tomorrow's
roads: safer for everyone The Government's road safety
strategy and casualty reduction targets for 2010] the Home
Office consultation suggests, with limited evidence, that
the review should, by and large limit itself to eliminating
the behaviour of a marginal group of "recklessly bad
drivers" (Para. 8.2). The review seems - and forgive us if
this is a misreading - to seek special consideration for
"the overwhelming majority of traffic offences" because
they are committed by "decent, responsible and basically
law abiding people, in circumstances where tiredness,
impatience, a moment's carelessness or haste can have
serious consequences for the safety of themselves
and others." This paragraph reveals like the driving
behaviour that needs re-examining, a misperception of the
pervasiveness of the problem.

The view that most offenders are "law-abiding" is
a mitigation that steers the courts away from the
need to use the law to influence and modify driving
behaviour throughout the population of present and future
drivers. Placing your main focus on "bad" drivers, though
we are all for recognising the fact of repeat offenders
and do not gainsay their miscreance, can be compared to
the attempts by some reformers to mitigate the injustice
of slavery by eliminating "bad" slave owners rather than
the institution.

Driving, despite being much more widespread and accessible
than piloting a plane, handling a ship or driving a
train, needs to acquire the same esteem, responsibilities
and liabilities that attend control over those forms
of transport. Given the statistics of road related
deaths, relative to deaths linked to these other forms of
transport, it will seem astonishing to future generations
that the apparatus for public protection that surrounds
rail, air and sea travel is not linked to road movement.

If you consider liability on these terms the issue
of the crash, and attendant injury and/or death that
results is as much the responsibility of the "good"
motorist who makes a "pilot error" as the "bad motorist"
on whom your review seems to be focusing. The officer
in charge of a lost or damaged naval vessel is allowed
and required to face an automatic court martial.
Infinitesimally few marine officers, airline pilots
or train drivers intentionally cause disasters, but
there is a sophisticated legislative and investigative
apparatus in place to establish innocence, liability,
negligence and degrees of criminality where there has
been damage, injury or death. These procedures are taken
for granted. They are seen as protecting the standards of
the relevant professions, serving the interests of victims
and a wider public interest. The same must be applied to
being in charge of a motor vehicle.

Shifting the scope of liability for driving offences
promises to benefit non-drivers and drivers alike
and present drivers who would like, in line with
government policy, to use cars less. They know about
exhaust pollution. They experience more and more road
congestion. They realise alternatives won't work unless
people switch in large numbers to other ways of getting
around. But the public space needed to take to the
streets to walk or cycle and take trains and buses is
not available.

The apparent reduction in reported road traffic casualties
during 1999 (DETR) is misleading, not so much because
of statistical anomalies but because the figures do not
show how road safety education, by its effectiveness
at spreading the word from the earliest age about the
dangers of road traffic, has helped reduce casualties by
removing potential victims - voluntarily and compulsorily -
from public space. Many citizens have come rightly to see
public space as hazardous for themselves, and perilous
for their children. They are reluctant to enter it except
to take a few paces between their car - if they have one -
home, school and shopping centre. It is not surprising that
lack of exercise, sometimes leading to problems of obesity
will surface in early middle age [Footnote: Di Guiseppi,
Carolyn, Li, Leah and Roberts, Ian (1998): 'Influence of
Travel Patterns on Mortality from Injury among Teenagers
in England and Wales 1985-95: trend analysis' British
Medical Journal. Volume 316 pp.904-905 "Reduced walking and
cycling have undoubtedly contributed to declines in overall
physical activity, a cause of increasing obesity in British
children. The curtailment of independent mobility may
also have important adverse effects on children's mental,
physical and emotional development." LTP predictions of
road traffic growth suggests these trends are increasing.]

Far too much public space has been taken out of circulation
for all but cars by dangerous road traffic. The law can
reclaim this space. We are pleased to see many agencies
being required by government to exercise "joined-up"
thinking about what makes city life attractive and
civilised. As a result, official bodies pressed by
voluntary campaigning groups and charities are responding
in a concerted way to concerns which for years have been
viewed as eccentric. These changes in attitude to the
unconditional benefits of car travel are seen by some as
assaults on common sense, but common sense is altering
under the weight of accumulating private realisations
about what makes a city liveable and local economies more
sustainable. The Road Traffic Offence Penalties Review
can help ensure these experiences are built into urban
regeneration.

Last year the Home Secretary's "Crime and Disorder" Bill
included traffic behaviour that "local people perceive
to be unsafe". This marked a pivotal moment in changing
entrenched attitudes to road traffic - long seen as a
positive influence on local economies. The Home Secretary
both through the present review and his earlier guidelines
for Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships is defining
traffic behaviour as a dimension of community safety and
urban regeneration. This bold "appreciative judgement"
can is complemented by road traffic penalties aimed
at removing driving behaviour that, as surely as street
robbery, blights local economies. Simon Baddeley, Chair of
his local residents' association, and a "Neighbourhood
Watch" co-ordinator sees cars, vans, motorbikes and
even mini-buses driving through his own and surrounding
residential streets at speeds far in excess of speed limits
turning communal space into "an unofficial factory floor."

We all agree that driving a motor vehicle - despite claims
to the contrary - is actually becoming more dangerous
despite improved technology and roads. This danger is
masked by the steps people have been forced to take to
avoid it. The explanations are varied and debatable but
we agree the main reason is that society has changed and
with it, attitudes to the car. We are not denying the car
its convenience. The problem is that the car has become
too widely elevated from a useful form of transport, to a
status symbol and than a weapon in which too many of our
fellow citizens are liable to live out their personal
problems. Car advertising encourages this, promoting
the car as a means of expression that has nothing to
with using it to get conveniently from A to B. We have
created a "car-culture" analogous to the "gun-culture"
so robustly undermined after Dunblane. Like "gun
culture", "car-culture" is not sustained by a minority of
psychopaths, but by an enormous number of self-proclaimed
law abiding citizens. The difference between gun and car
cultures is that "car culture" is more dangerous.

The "mis"-use of the motorcar by "decent law-abiding
people" must be tackled. It requires political will. We
fully support the government's reiterated point that
the measures contemplated are not "anti-car". Ministers
defending their stringency must not be diverted by claims
that these measure restrict freedom. These measures can
make cars safer for those inside and outside them. They are
liberating. Measures to restrict the use of cars in cities
and to introduce car parking charges and congestion charges
are designed for the convenience of drivers and non-drivers
alike and promise to recover choices that have been taken
away by the growth of an over-dependency on cars. This
dependency congests roads and lessens the freedom of all
travellers - drivers and non-drivers alike - forcing onto
into cars many people who would use alternative transport
if it were available.

The car is not our target. Government action must change
driving standards. This must be achieved by education
including advertising and legislation. Driving a car,
for work or pleasure, should be seen - with pride - as
involving the responsibilities that attend ship handling,
flying and train driving. Being a responsible, aware,
capable driver must be elevated to being "trendy" at the
point where the young person gets access to a car.

We propose the current driving test be elevated to the
level required by the IAM. We suggest a rich combination
of stick and carrot be used to make this retrospective
for all drivers. The difficult thing about passing such
a test is less technical than attitudinal. The new test
should be phased in over 3-5 years and done by age groups
starting with the youngest.

We would make the new photocard licences mandatory and
valid for 3 years. Renewal, as with a pilot's licence,
would be subject to a sight test, reaction time test and a
driving simulator so that GPs can assess an individual's
physical ability to drive. For over 65s, this renewal
should be an annual event where it would offer the
collateral benefit of health checks in line with local
Health Improvement Plans (HIMPs).

We are uncomfortable with penalties that entail clamping
and forfeiture of vehicles on the grounds that is a legal
minefield which would allow too much evasion via insurance
and which would miss out on offences committed in cars
hired or taken without permission. On the other hand,
we approve these measures for unfit vehicles and suggest
that driving and/or owning such vehicles be included
within the penalties tariff as occasion for forfeiture.
Thus we would ask the government to ban the welding of
used cars and take out of circulation cars that have had
this kind of "repair". Apart from helping the environment,
this would remove, from hazard to themselves and others,
cars which have failed or will fail their next MOT, are
therefore uninsured and untaxed and being driven with bald
tyres and bad brakes.

We conclude on the role of imprisonment. This February the
young man who while intoxicated, unlicensed and uninsured,
was driving the car - not is own - in which Ray and Anne
Puffitt's daughter, Jane, and Stacey Parry, the only
daughter of another couple, were killed, pleaded guilty to
dangerous driving and was sent to prison for 6 years. Ray
and Anne expressed the view (and who more qualified?) after
the sentence that they were uncertain that this penalty
struck the right balance between retribution, redemption
and deterrence. They, and we, share their view that in a
situation like this a sentence of this length may do little
good. What would have been more relevant and preferable
would have been a "sharp" custodial sentence of, say, 12
months and a lifetime's driving ban. As it is the driver
has received a driving ban of 7 years concurrent with his
prison sentence with a requirement to take an extended test
after that period. We believe in sentences which reflect
circumstances in which an individual has forfeited the
privilege of driving for the rest of their life.

Long prison sentences should be confined to that category
of criminal who having been disqualified from driving gets
back into a car. Someone caught driving when disqualified
should, even if no other offence has occurred, be liable
to a sentence of 5 years. If a disqualified driver kills
or injures another person a life sentence should be
available to the courts. We realise that the imposition
of tougher sentences will rest on changing attitudes in
the population at large and that these views will come to
be reflected in sentences - if they are available. They
shouldn't be mandatory.

We realise that to some a lifetime ban might after, say 10
years, seem unreasonable. It is nothing to the sentence
imposed on those bereaved by the behaviour that led to
the sentence. While recognising its intended strictness -
especially within what we have referred to as the mind-set
of "car-culture" - we know that there are other ways of
getting about (with prospects of these improving in the
future) and that living a good life without driving a
motor vehicle is feasible. We believe that for certain
cases, such as that of the young man whose driving led
to the death of Jane Puffitt, a life time driving ban
represents a reasonable loss of privilege. It would be
a sentence with which juries would be happier and which,
in the circumstances we have described, could play a more
effective part in changing popular attitudes than long
prison sentences.

Courts which might balk at the long prison sentences we
want for driving while disqualified, could impose a life
time's driving ban and in so doing send a message from
society that driving a car is a privilege that in certain
tragic circumstances - such as those that prompted this
letter - can be forfeit forever.

Yours sincerely


Dr John Raine, 33 West Malvern Road Malvern WR14 4NG 01684
5650521 Simon Baddeley, 34 Beaudesert Road Handsworth
Birmingham B20 3TG 0121 554 9794 Ray Puffitt, Rockend, 23b
Cecil Road Weston-super-Mare BS23 2NG 01934 633710 Martin
Ward, 2 Lahn Drive Droitwich Spa WR9 8TQ 01905 772278