|
I know what she was driving and yes you're being totally stereotypical, but hey why let that get in the way of good prejudicial swipe ?
|
|
|
I don't want to pass judgment on what happened or who was at fault, because that's been dealt with. But I was thinking about this a lot today.
She's only a bit younger than me, and I can't help thinking that not going to prison, but being free, trying to get through life with that hanging over you and being without your car for five years, then having to take your test again, is a bigger punishment than what will amount to a couple of years in prison.
I don't think you ever get over something like that, and, in my opinion, I fail to see what good putting her away with career criminals, to fall into their way of life, is going to do. She probably already regrets it more than being in there is going to make her do.
And to drag this back to motoring...
Two people have a collision. One has a clean licence and the other has six points through being caught out by a few mph by cameras on two occasions, making them a serial speeding offender in the words of a few above. Are we really so quick to judge and make assumptions over the driving style of the two drivers, due to a couple of minor errors?
|
|
Indeed, and no one should under estimate the effect of time in prison. However, most of my sympathy goes to the family of a young man who will never get the chance to re-start his life. A sad case all round, but a lesson to all on our serious responsabilities when using the public highway
|
|
|
|
Just hope that the sentence is a deterent to bad drivers, dont think it will make a jot of difference to the average speeding texter though!
Edited by corblimeyguvnar{P} on 29/02/2008 at 20:58
|
|
|
causing death by dangerous driving is often difficult to prove, which is why sometimes lesser offences are used, often to the disgust of the deceased's relatives
i'd suggest there might well be a bit more to it, that hasn't fully come out in the press release
in my personal opinion, with the facts as known, although she deserved a noticeable penalty which should include imprisonment, she is a tad hard done by because of:
1, the cyclists own reckless actions which compounded her own
2, the sort of sentences other people in society get for other criminal offences
the example that the emergency vehicle might have done what the cyclist did, doesn't really wear, because an emergency vehicle should Give Way through a red light...and if they don't they're up for grabs for whatever offence is deemed appropriate i.e there is no 'get out of jail free card'....if a cyclist habitually does red lights, why didn't he 'give way'...although over the limit, 45 mph in a 30 mph limit isn't greatly excessive on our modern roads...(i'm not saying it's alright, just stating what the norm is)...so if he'd been sensible he ought to have had a chance to see the car, whatever the car driver's attention was on
|
i'd suggest there might well be a bit more to it, that hasn't fully come out in the press release
and, of course, regrettably, we do not have the benefit of the cyclist's version of events.
|
|
|
Defendant was found guilty by a jury after a full trial and sentence was deferred for a month, presumably so Judge had full access to reports, antecedents etc. I agree with WP - there's more to this than meets the eye.
Has anyone got a better link than BBC to the full story? IIRC from an earlier report the lights were temporary for roadworks - another good reason why even 30 may have been too fast.
Surprising similarity (as at 21:30 on29/02) between views here and those in cyclist's forum:-
www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=9473
|
The quote "serial speeder" is very accurate in this case.
You can try Southern Evening Echo for more info, it has reports from the initial accident to the trial and sentencing.
CBG
|
|
|
|
thanks for the link B't'aut...some balanced views on there certainly
|
I still think the driver mostly to blame. And a stiff penalty or even sentence appropriate.
I do not believe the length of sentence is appropriate but I'm no judge with all facts. There are others who do worse and get a lesser sentence.
|
|
|
Was the judge a cyclist who hates mobile phones?
Are judges fair?
is the Pope a protestant?
Does anyone get a fair trial in court?- what is a fair trial?
How much will the sentance be reduced on appeal,
when real judges get hold of the case?
That said, a woman got massive damages off London Transport for being run over by a bus and she crossed on a red light - the world is barmy.
In Gernamy she would be fined - not the bus driver ( although perhaps he needed another sticker on hs door)
|
|
So as an experiment tomorrow should I drive down the A6 at 45mph reading a text and then replying to see how safe it is? Talking is one thing but texting. Maybe this is the reason for a harsh sentence? Maybe I'll close my eyes for ten seconds too.
|
|
|
How much will the sentance be reduced on appeal when real judges get hold of the case?
If you were starting four years tonight, you'd think the judge was real enough.
|
|
|
That said a woman got massive damages off London Transport for being run over by a bus and she crossed on a red light - the world is barmy. In Gernamy she would be fined - not the bus driver ( although perhaps he needed another sticker on hs door)
Not an offence to ignore a red ped light; drivers still have to watch out. Civil damages would normally be reduced significantly for this sort of contributory negligence.
If you read judgements, attend hearings or talk to judges (at any level) you'll find they're absolutely committed, fair and professional. Media reports and political headline grabbers are not reliable indicators of what actually happens.
|
I had a look at the junction in multimap. The road from which the driver turned left from, joins Mountbatten Way at an oblique angle. The whole junction appears to be about 50m across. In my mind it's not such a cut & dried 'he crossed the red light' judgement. I can imagine that if you were cycling across this junction it would be a very fine judgement call - if your lights were going to amber or even if they changed whilst you were halfway across - whether you should continue or stop halfway on the apparent 'island' . It seems (given the sort of speed a cyclist might travel) you could be easily caught out with lights changing against you & a moving car (in this case travelling at 40+ mph) passing the lights just after green.
Perhaps, as someone has said, there are more facts to be known here & the cyclist (although reportedly going through a red light) may have simply been in the green light for the opposing road, rather than crossing his 'own' red light.
There's a traffic light junction near me where the phase change is rather quick & the traffic lights are places 10-15 metres back from the acutal junction - I've seen many a crosser-on-just-changed-to-amber almost intersect with a vehicle quickly off the mark on amber from the other direction.
|
|
|
|
"How much will the sentance (sic) be reduced on appeal,
when real judges get hold of the case?"
Rather a cheap shot at a profession that is well respected in the CJ system and beyond. Do you have personal knowledge of this Judge ?
The sentence would have been based on pre-sentence reports and the Judge would have indicated at trial stage what sentence was being considered, I think the tut-tutters woud have been tut tuttering away here even more had he given a Community Sentence.
|
Got to say PU that I do think it's a long sentence even though IMO it does pass the custody threshold.
I think a big part of this is that he's assessed it at ~3 years and then added 50% for the not guilty plea.
I can't for the life of me see how she was wrongly convicted as the manner of her driving was an operative cause in his death, and it was clearly far below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver due to her inattention and speeding. Whereas blame is apportioned in civil matters, in criminal trials one party, or both or neither can be legally 100% guilty.
Personally I'd have said at first glance that 12-18 months on a guilty plea would have been sufficient, perhaps 2 years after trial although - compare that to the sort of sentence that more stereotypical offenders get when their driving goes that badly wrong - although ultimately her disregad for the consequences of her actions was fairly similar so perhaps there's an argument for saying that there's really not much mitigation here at all.
Edited by DavidHM on 01/03/2008 at 11:43
|
|
The fact remains that anyone who is so stupid that they are unable to understand the dangers inherent in using a mobile phone (particularly texting) whilst driving - is too stupid to be allowed a driving licence. The roads are far too crowded as it is, we don't need these inconsiderate idiots!
|
|
Think Waino has just about summed it up. The mobile phone has just added another distraction, with all that's going on around on the road (especially at junctions, slip roads and mergers), there has to be a saturation point for attention and we seem to have reached it.
|
The fact we know cyclist ignored red and driver was doing 45mph suggests the whole incident was caught on tape. It's not like he whispered with his last breath "I jumped red light" and she added "but to be fair, I was doing 45 texting my husband". And provided there is evidence to her speed and him jumping the light, once again, she deserves fine for speeding, but the blame purely for his death is unfortunately his own. Action and consequence - if you walk into line of fire, you are likely to get hit by the bullet, if you walk into rail tracks when the crossing is closed you are likely to get hit by the train, if you enter the road on red, you are likely to get hit by the car. These are very simple rules to understand.
Leaving alone her alledged texting "around the time" which has about the same degree of certainty as "I saw her scratching her bum" witness statement - whether she was repeated speeding offender doesn't really matter in this case. It wouldn't matter if she was war criminal, tax fraud or russian spy murderer with plutonium in her pocket. These are separate charges for separate court. We know she's guilty of speeding. But was it her fault that random cyclist jumped red in front of her car? No. Could she somehow prevent him from jumping red light in front of her car? No. Could she in any way, shape and form affect the other party decision to be in the path of her car at the time? No. Did she try to stop the car. Yes. Did she try to avoid the collision? Yes. Then she's done all she could given the circumstances. Her speed bares no relevance to the cause of the accident. It affects the outcome, but not the blame. Going further her speed is about as relevant to the outcome of the accident as as not choosing a car without 5 star pedestrian rating or him not wearing the helmet would. Thank you, Your Honour, no further questions.
Edited by v0n on 01/03/2008 at 18:32
|
>v0n
Your posts on this subject ignore the simple laws of physics and stopping distances. To suggest speed has no bearing on the case ignores the following which are facts and not debatable:
1. stopping distances vary with speed.
2. Energy given to a body hit by a car vary with speed squared..
Edited by Pugugly on 01/03/2008 at 18:51
|
|
i dont know, i wasnt there, havent seen the junction, dont know the light fazing, but what bothers me is her mind set . ie 45mph going through a green light
|
If he'd stopped at the red light - like he should have done - he'd be alive today.
Fortunately he was only riding a bike. I dread to think what would have happened if he'd run the red in a car - he might have killed innocent people as well as himself.
|
I'm not sure it's been established the unfortunate cyclist did go through a red light, merely that he was in the path of the driver on green - big difference. If you'd read my post on the actual junction layout & distance across it , you may relaise it's not as cut & dried as you assume.
I also think the speculations & comments in some posts about a deceased person are rather close to lacking in sensitivity for any relatives or friends who might visit here.
Edited by woodbines on 02/03/2008 at 00:11
|
|
His family agreed that he went through the red light when I saw them being interviewed on the day before sentencing.
|
His family agreed that he went through the red light when I saw them being interviewed on the day before sentencing.
Yes, I stand corrected on this point after having read subsequent & fuller reports.
|
Did she try to stop the car. Yes. Did she try to avoid the collision? Yes.
I believe that one of the reasons the investigating Police looked into the drivers phone records was that she took no avoiding action.
|
>>Could she in any way, shape and form affect the other party decision to be in the path of her car at the time? No.<<
VON, I'd suggest you are really far off the mark with this comment and others in your posting. Two bodies collided at a point in space and time. If she'd been doing 30mph her car would have been several metres short of that point at that time and the collision would not have happened. She would also have had more reaction time to stop/avoid the collision.
Equating texting with sctatching your backside is also wrong. One needs hand/eye co-ordination and a considerable amount of concentration on accurately manipulating a small device, the other doesn't need this co-ordination and can be done without taking your eyes off the road.
No further questions? I hope you are the prosecuting lawyer if I'm ever hauled before the Bench.
Edited by Nsar on 02/03/2008 at 15:03
|
VON I'd suggest you are really far off the mark with this comment and others in your posting. Two bodies collided at a point in space and time. If she'd been doing 30mph her car would have been several metres short of that point at that time and the collision would not have happened. She would also have had more reaction time to stop/avoid the collision.
I understand your line of thought, however, I choose to disagree. Going in that direction we could speculate that if she left her home 5 minutes later she would save a life etc etc. Time and space continuum is not really a factor here - as you said - two bodies collided, accident occurred - and it wasn't caused by the speed of her car, it was caused by the cyclist disobeying basic rules of the road. Looking at it from "speeder is always at fault" perspective is wrong - if there were cameras on that stretch of the road and road humps limiting speed to 20mph, it would most likely affect the outcome of the accident, I agree, but it would limit probability of that accident happening only by factor of right timing. Not jumping red light however, would limit chances of that accident happening by 100%. Every time. In every scenario.
Having said that, of course she still deserves to be banned from driving and fined for speeding, and, if proven, texting while driving.
|
|
But.......had she been diving at or below the speed limit wouldn't her reduced reaction time and braking distance been a factor ?? - that is the whole point of speed limits aren't they ?
Edited by Pugugly on 02/03/2008 at 17:16
|
But.......had she been diving at or below the speed limit wouldn't her reduced reaction time and braking distance been a factor ?? - that is the whole point of speed limits aren't they ?
Those factors only affect the outcome of the accident, but do not prevent the accident from actually happening (at least not beyond silly time continuum speculations - from "if there was something interesting on telly and she woke up 30minutes later that morning" all the way to "if she sped at 50 miles per hour she would clear that junction long before he entered").
To put it simpler - on one hand you have:
- IF she drove slower and hit him, maybe he would be now in vegetative state with slim chances of recovery
- IF she drove smaller car, with better pedestrian rating and hit him, maybe he would recover from coma and spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair
and so on.. Within the outcome.
And on the other hand the list is much shorter:
- IF he stopped at red it would not happen.
|
The faster you drive, the less time you have to react. She thought she knew better. She was wrong, but someone else paid with their life.
You draw up the lists you want, long, short, fat, thin it doesn't make any diifference to the fundamental truth.
|
The faster you drive the less time you have to react. She thought she knew better. She was wrong but someone else paid with their life.
Strange way of thinking there. You don't know if the guy would survive if she was driving 30mph, you know the accident was his fault, but you reckon he paid with his life for her mistake. Her speed in this particular context just relatively
small addition to what was already most certainly life threatening
situation. It's not the speed or any other travel vectors in this case that involved the victim in this accident, it was his decision to cross the road when it was clearly unsafe. Everything else - the speed, the car, his lack of high visibility vest and cycling helmet, pedestrian NCAP rating of the vehicle, driver's reaction time, her possible annoyance with Terry Wogan on the radio that day or environmentally affected stopping properties of the road - all that falls under "maybe", speculation, and nothing else.
it doesn't make any diifference to the fundamental truth.
That's all I'm saying. Red is red. It's there for a reason.
Edited by Pugugly on 02/03/2008 at 23:05
|
The jury disagree with you, as did the Judge, as does all the weight of evidence of the survivability of being hit at 45mph as opposed to 30mph and the weight of evidence of a driver's ability to respond to the unexpected at 45mph as opposed to 30mph.
And me.
But I think we've reached the end of the road for our discussion.
|
|
Thanks and with that can we draw this to a close ?
|
Leaving home 5 minutes before has nothing to do with it. She was in control of her car, she chose to drive at that speed and in doing so left her not only with less time to react to the unexpected but also made it significantly more likely that if she did collide with a pedstrian/cyclist that they would have little chance of survival.
Of course the cyclist was at fault, but her actions made it much more likely that his stupidity would be fatal.
Edited by Nsar on 02/03/2008 at 17:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
