FocusDriver im incredulous that you dont think a custodial sentance is appropiate
i suppose all the other laws in the land are worthless too
maybe if you get hit by an uninsured driver like my family have and had to pay repairs out of your pocket you might change your high and mighty tune
its amazing what an empty wallet does to the senses
i feel devastated for the family who suffered a loss,obviously you in your ivory tower never get to see real life on the pavement level
signed ,someone who cares
|
bell boy, you make a series of incorrect assumptions in your post I'm afraid.
Firstly, by seemingly infering that YOU care while I do not (not just an inference in your case it has to be said) is almost inhuman. Certainly very twisted.
i suppose all the other laws in the land are worthless too
Assumption No. 2. This is not about whether laws should exist, it is whether or not a motorist who is a pratt of the first order should be sent to prison for a mistake, a mistake with very grave consequences, but a mistake all the same.
maybe if you get hit by an uninsured driver like my family have and had to pay repairs out of your pocket you might change your high and mighty tune
Assumption 3. This happened in a car I was travelling in as a child. My parents had to pay but then again I was 7.
obviously you in your ivory tower never get to see real life on the pavement level
Assumption No. 4. Do I never cycle then? SO it's all been a hallucination?
And you're incredulous at me...
|
|
|
|
A custodial sentence? What the hell would that achieve?
It would make it clear that driving while unqualified is just not worth it. I don't think you can ignore that aspect of this case. Who's to say that if he had been a properly trained and examined driver, the same thing would have happened?
I think I'm pretty good at driving after four pints, but I wouldn't expect much mercy if I was involved in this kind of accident while doing so. Driving with excess alcohol, or no licence, is not unpremeditated. Jail would have been appropriate IMO.
|
I'm not normally in favour of custodial sentences for motoring accidents resulting from the sort of lapse in concentration that we are all guilty of from time to time, but in the case of someone like this guy who is knowingly flouting the law I think he should have gone away. Everyone knows that demonstrating the ability to pass a basic test of driving is essential before anyone is allowed to take charge of a car, and this dangerous clown is unfortunately one of a considerable number who think they are above the rules which apply to the rest of us.
|
|
When I read it though I got the impression he was a casual driver that always drove supervised but then his wife did get done for allowing him to drive the car yet he didn'tr get done for not having valid insurance. I think there is a lot more to this story that we don't know about.
|
"Obviously not all information can be included in a press report, but it was said in court this guy had been driving for eight years, albeit on a provisional, and as such was an experienced driver."
So he had a PROVISIONAL license for 8 years. How often did he drive on his own in that time. And he might of only drove once a month for that time or once a year. Just because he had a license for the 8 years doesn't make him an experienced driver.If he was that experienced he would have passed a test in that time. The fact is his actions led to the death of someone. The cyclist could have died even wearing a helmet. The provisional drivers luck ran out and as such should have gained a custodial sentence. Not suspended. In these circumstances the drivers should be given a choice, do the time, or license revoked for 10 years.
When I watch the array of "traffic" cop type programmes on the TV I am astonished by the numbers of drivers pulled over driving on provisional licenses. There should be a minimum time to undertake a test on such a license, say 18 months. Any test failure could extend the provisional by a month. So either they pass or fork out long term financially (lessons/tests).
|
|
|
|
The report says the car was the unlicensed passenger's mobility car.
Presumably the pasenger didn't have insurance. So how would it have been taxed and aren't any checks carried out?
|
Bromptonaut.
Have you tried modern cycling helmets?
Mine has nothing covering the ears (they still get just as cold), or obstructing peripheral vision - it's like a pudding basin, all above ear level. A further advantage of modern ones is they usually have a peak, perfect for riding into the sunset ;>)
|
The report says the car was the unlicensed passenger's mobility car. >>
No. The report says it was his partner's mobility car. That she was the front seat passenger at the time of the accident. That she was done for permitting an unlicensed person to drive the car.
So she must have held a licence herself in order to get the car on the road.
Edited by Optimist on 09/05/2009 at 17:04
|
...So she must have held a licence herself in order to get the car on the road...
No, she had no licence.
It was a Motability car to which she was entitled because of her disability.
She got the car on the scheme on the basis a qualified driver would be driving it.
|
...So she must have held a licence herself in order to get the car on the road... No she had no licence.
ifithelps, do you know more about this case than is stated in the OP link?
I have reread it a number of times, and cannot see where it says the woman DIDNT have a full licence.
until you confirm or deny more knowledge, may I put a slightly different take on this?
woman is disabled, but is able to drive.
her partner has a provisional licence, and has taken lessons, but not passed a test.
couple are out, when lady is taken ill, feels unsafe to drive.
man decides (unlawfully) to drive home/doctors/hospital.
man on cycle is hit by car, blame unknown, could be bike swerved, could be driver just didnt see him.
in that scenario, then the title of this thread IS correct, it could happen, be us in a car, as an unlawful driver, as a ill passenger, or as a cycle rider........
|
...ifithelps, do you know more about this case than is stated in the OP link?...
swiss tony,
Yes, I was in court for reasons that are not important here, although I didn't write the report.
It's a public court, of course, so I only heard what any member of the public would have heard if they happened to wander into the public gallery.
As I said earlier, the partner doesn't have a licence which is why he also admitted 'driving otherwise than in accordance with his licence'.
If she had a full licence, she could supervise the defendant and no such offence would have been carried out.
|
|
|
|
pass a basic test of driving is essential before anyone is allowed to take charge of a car, and this dangerous clown
But, RR, not having passed the test does not make a person a dangerous clown. And we all know that passing it doesn't stop someone from being one. I wouldn't call this driver one without knowing a lot more about what had happened.
The court very clearly thought this was the result of an unfortunate combination of circumstances, rather than an accident provoked by someone's dangerous driving. The driver didn't try to flee and presumably showed decent remorse (which would be profound in such a case). No need for jail, no point in it. Anyway that was the court's opinion.
Believe me, anyone can clip a bicycle. I've done it myself. And I've seen two-wheeler riders bring dangerous disaster on themselves with little help from surrounding traffic.
Very sad case, which the court decided, probably rightly, not to make even sadder with a vengeful populist sentence.
|
You are quite correct lud, not passing the test does not automatically make someone a dangerous clown. But it bypasses the system which ensures that those of below a very basic ability are not allowed on the roads unsupervised, and driving for eight years without licence or valid insurance is about a premeditated a way of sticking two fingers up at the rest of us as it gets.
Assuming the facts are as reported, the guy can consider he got a right result.
|
|
|
|
Lud, you'll not thank me but your post at 16.16 is what I should have said in the first place without getting all flustered and blotchy. Very well put.
|
|
|
|
|
Manatee, if you're not taxed or insured or licensed, this is a big problem which needs dealing with severely and I agree with the thrust of what you say - in spirit.
Why not, then, make prison sentences mandatory for people who drive without these bits of paper? And, before that, make driving tests even more stringent? Because, if we do then the chances of cyclists/pedestrians being mown down by errant drivers would be reduced. I could support that, but not the bandwagon-jumping only when a person is killed in unfortunate circumstances.
Maybe I'm of a specific view when it comes to road deaths. Unless a contract is out on someone who is intentionally killed, I just can't understand the mentality of punishing someone so heavily for being involved in such a hideous incident. If the fine for driving without insurance is £60 and 3 points, then making it SUCH an issue of the same when a tragedy occurs seems like a retroactive way of dealing with things. There's little deterrent i the first place - maybe to you and I but not to people to whom the police are known by their first-names.
Incidentally, talk of drink-driving isn't relevant to this specific case. If the guy had been drunk then I'd not be saying any of this.
|
The other side of this concerns the suitability of prison.
I belive it costs the taxpayer £1000 per week or thereabouts for each prisoner. Drugs etc are rife in prison, there is a high percentage of people who come out of prison druggies that weren't when they went in.
Would be so much better to have a much more efficient Community Service set up that meant they actually put something back in the community rather than the current CS set up.
|
|
|
The point about the drink driving was that both it and driving unqualified are something that the driver decides to do before there are any consequences. He has wilfully ignored the statutory requirement to pass a test before driving.
There was a recent case where a lorry driver fell asleep and caused a (non-fatal) accident. I believe he was jailed for a year though IIRC he was within his hours and legal - he should have known he was tired, therefore unfit to drive, and stopped before he fell asleep was I think the reason for the sentence. And on that occasion no-one died. As you know lorry drivers have been jailed for 5 years after fatal falling asleep incidents.
It's true that cyclist's are often their own worse enemies, and I am aware that the circumstances may be more complex than we know, but other things being equal I would expect to see this man and his colluding partner, who also seemingly got a car through deception, severely dealt with.
The question of whether one should be jailed just for driving without a valid licence is an old chestnut - should we be punished for the act or the consequences? I think it's fairly well established that consequences count.
He shouldn't have been driving, but he was and somebody died when he hit them. Five years would not be too much for this driver, based on other sentences that have been passed, though I wouldn't have gone that far myself.
Edited by Manatee on 09/05/2009 at 17:47
|
I agree, it's willfully negligent. But why is the penalty for drink driving not 5 years? Currently, society is saying that drink-driving is criminal and very dangerous and we'll ban you for a year (in most cases, though not all) and have, say £500 off you. You won't go to prison if you've been LUCKY enough to have not killed anyone.
Anyway, this case does NOT involve a drunk-driver and, given the emotional response we all have to those which do, it's really not relevant here; otherwise we'd subject those who without insurance etc to the same sentence. Alcohol has a very strong effect on reflexes and judgement, not so paperwork, necessary though it is. If you're going to discriminate between who should go to prison, then it seems fair to do the same when it comes to differences in consequences.
Other than that, you don't seem to agree or disagree with much of what I said, perferring instead to reassert what you said originally.
Edited by FocusDriver on 09/05/2009 at 17:57
|
|
|
He shouldn't have been driving, but he was and somebody died when he hit them
Yes. But if the hit cyclist had been only slightly injured, how is the driver's offence any different? He would be in jail for being unlucky. I think he deserves a severe fine or some C-S, as suggested above.
Jail is for (a) punishing the offender and preventing him repeating the offence, e.g. burglary, drug-dealing; (b) protecting the public from a severe public threat, e.g. a rapist; and as a deterrent, 'pour encourager les autres'. I suppose the present case could be argued to fit any or all of these, but I would avoid the knee-jerk reaction which says 'he killed someone - clink'.
|
|
|
|
From the the limited press report, it seems the judge used his/her discretion in this case. I'm sure that causing death by careless driving can attract a substantial custodial sentence (viz, the suspended sentence he received was 2 years) - but the facts, circumstances & overall context must have persuaded the court that a primary custodial sentence wasn't justified or useful - either for the defendant or the more general serving of justice.
It seems the driver showed true remorse ( the report mentions a suicide attempt, psychiatric treatment & giving up his job..), not that that eases, necessarily, the pain of the family left behind, but you would hope it makes it easier to comes to terms with.
The minutiae & exact circumstances (from my limited reading) aren't explained, so it's difficult to comment - but you must assume that when the term 'momentary lapse' is used in summimg up, the accident happened without much warning or ability of the parties to do much to avoid it. So it doesn't seem it was the culmination of a sequence of errors or careless/bad driving - this must have weighed in the sentencing too.
I'm not for one nanosecond excusing or condoning unqualified & uninsured drivers, but just trying to understand the reasoning & circumstances that might make a such seemingly 'open & shut case' not so open & shut.
|
Maximum for death by careless is five years.
The judge referred to guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guideline Council.
He said this case fell between what the council calls a level three and level two offence.
The suggested penalty for a level two offence is prison, the suggested penalty for a level three offence is a community sentence.
A witness behind the driver said he was doing 15/20mph 'driving normally' when he pulled onto the roundabout and clipped the cyclist.
The judge said he accepted the circumstances as outlined, a straightforward 'I didn't see you' collision.
|
I can't see where the info is that the owner of the motability car didn't have a licence. Is that in the story? What conclusion do we draw if that's the case? If she couldn't generally drive the car who generally did?
It couldn't happen to any of us because we don't drive unlicenced and presumably uninsured?
The curfew is an intersting aspect of the sentence. Any thoughts on that?
|
...I can't see where the info is that the owner of the motability car didn't have a licence. Is that in the story? What conclusion do we draw if that's the case? If she couldn't generally drive the car who generally did?...
Optimist,
I think many disabled people get a Motability car for their partner to drive them around.
The circumstances of the supply of this car probably don't bear too close an inspection, because I believe the supplying dealer should only release the car to someone with a full licence.
As regards the curfew, the judge said it was imposed as an element of punishment.
|
|
|
When she got the car she will have named up to two drivers, according to the Motability stuff we have for my wife's car NO-ONE else can drive it - not even if they have a fully comprehensive insurance that could cover the car - that is part of the Motability Contract - but they don't mention driving without insurance, just driving on a provisional without supervision - so he could be a named driver but only able to drive if another person who has a full licence is in the passenger seat - obviously that would not be her, so i assume there is someone else who was not with them that day.
As regards other drivers, she's in her 50s so its quite possible that a relative (son or daughter) could have been the other named driver - thats what we have done on my wife's car, she can't drive so the named drivers are me and our eldest daughter.
As far as I can see the title of the thread "It could happen to us" purely relates to the fact that a momentary lack of concentration could result in someone getting killed... and ifithelps is quite right on that point, I'm sure we can all think of occassions where we have said "There but for the grace of..." under our breaths when reading of such tragedies...
|
...As far as I can see the title of the thread "It could happen to us" purely relates to the fact that a momentary lack of concentration could result in someone getting killed...
b308,
Yes, that was all I was thinking about when I came up with the thread title.
Thanks for the info on the Motability scheme.
I suspect this guy was a named driver, and, as you say, could drive the car legally on his provisional provided there was someone with a full licence in the passenger seat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Focus Driver - "He'll regret his half-second mistake". But it wasn't a mistake, It was careless driving. He drove without giving the correct level of attention that directly caused the death of an innocent road user. In reality he's no better than the guy who drives at 80 past a school at home time or the drunk who falls out of the pub after 15 pints & starts his car.
Why did he get a slap on the wrist? Because as you suggest, we are all capable of it and if we were to take people to task for their behaviour then even more of the GBP would find themselves locked up. Mind you the roads would be safer for me to go cycling.
People should be responsibe for their behaviour or face very serious consequences
|
So you have never had momentary loss of concentration and just missed having an accident, B?
I'd be careful where you are leading yourself there m8, as none of us are perfect and you (or I) could be the next to miss seeing that cyclist/pedestrian/other car....
|
Exactly b308, the "it could happen to anyone" gives everyone an excuse.
People will behave as they want to UNLESS there is reason not to & killing someone by accident (???) is unfortunately not a good enough reason to drive carefully as all it gets you a telling off.
|
People will behave as they want to UNLESS there is reason not to & killing someone by accident (???)
Am I right in saying then that if you went out in your car tomorrow and had a "momentary lapse of concentration" and killed someone you would expect to go to jail, and you previously unblemished record of driving should be totally ignored?
If thats the way you feel I think we'll agree to differ...
One thing I like about the law in this country is that things are not as "black and white" as you would want...
One other thing that I don't like about this country is the way the Press manipulate a story so that we end up arguing about something where we don't have all the facts that lead the Judge to make the decision he did... like this case!! ;)
|
|
|
|
bonzodog
In reality he's no better than the guy who drives at 80 past a school at home time or the drunk who falls out of the pub after 15 pints & starts his car.
Did you really mean to post that comment? How much forethought did you apply before comparing the two disparate circumstances?
I don't know if you're a religious man/woman but you'd be advised to pray like there's no tomorrow because tomorrow, a series of unfortunate events could well put you in the position of cyclist killer, despite your being a most excellent driver:
But it wasn't a mistake, It was careless driving
So you've NEVER made any mistakes while driving? Or, if you have, do you agree that this would make you as fallible as the rest of us since you are guilty of the careless driving you ascribe to the subject?
|
driver: But it wasn't a mistake It was careless driving So you've NEVER made any mistakes while driving? Or if you have do you agree that this would make you as fallible as the rest of us since you are guilty of the careless driving you ascribe to the subject?
I really cant believe anyone can be THAT self-righteous.... bonzodog, there is a VERY thin line between a 'mistake' and 'careless driving' Im sure ALL of us drivers have been guilty of doing one, and most probably both, at some time in our driving lives.... hopefully we have been lucky and got away with harming anyone.... and hopefully we never will......
|
|
|
|
|
|
