Woman admits A32 Wickham cyclist death

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

guitarpete247

Just about surviving
Location
Leicestershire
What is a life worth?:ohmy:
 

Sixmile

Veteran
Location
N Ireland
That is a shockingly poor sentence for taking a young man's life.

There are people who do 60 hours community work every month as regular decent citizens.
 
Life time ban minimum, I now wonder how many more will use the “sun as a get out of free jail card”


Here is a small list, arrived at from some very cursory googling:

The common factors in all of these cases, just to be clear, are these:

  • the victim died as a result of being hit by a car whose driver claimed not to have seen them
  • the reason the driver gave for not having seen the victim was low sun (even if this was the case only at or immediately before the moment of collision and the victim was quite visible shortly beforehand)
  • the driver was either not found guilty of any charges, or was never even charged
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/01/31/at-the-going-down-of-the-sun/
 

Drago

Legendary Member
Blinded by the low sun, yet continued to plough forth doggedly despite being unable to see. The punishment is derisory.

Can't see? Then stop immediately and potentially save a life.
 
None of those Kent drivers got fined, the massive shunt on the Sheppey Bridge. When I saw the headline "100 Kentish drivers collide with each other" I thought it was a spelling mistake:
 

Karlt

Well-Known Member

With no details of the actual piece of bad driving that led to this outcome, it's impossible to comment. Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.

Case 1 - driver stops, looks both ways, looks again, still fails to see approaching motorcyclist, pulls out in front of him resulting in his death.
Case 2 - driver drives for two hours at double the speed limit well over the legal alcohol limit, ignores red lights and priorities, but as luck would have it only property damage is done.

Who would you like to see receive the stiffer sentence?
 
Last edited:
With no details of the actual piece of bad driving that led to this outcome, it's impossible to comment. Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.

You might be right in theory, but are drivers getting community service orders when no one is killed? I'm not seeing it, and if it's not happening, then yes, community orders are the price of a life.

Case 1 - driver stops, looks both ways, looks again, still fails to see approaching motorcyclist, pulls out in front of him resulting in his death.
Case 2 - driver drives for two hours at double the speed limit well over the legal alcohol limit, ignores red lights and priorities, but as luck would have it only property damage is done.

Who would you like to see receive the stiffer sentence?

Honestly? Take both their licenses away. Neither should be on the road. If you are a bad driver because of carelessness and lack of responsibility, or you are a bad driver because you can't see or can't look properly, but your heart is in the right place, what's the difference? If I am under their front wheels, it's a subtle point.
 

Starchivore

I don't know much about Cinco de Mayo
With no details of the actual piece of bad driving that led to this outcome, it's impossible to comment. Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.

Case 1 - driver stops, looks both ways, looks again, still fails to see approaching motorcyclist, pulls out in front of him resulting in his death.
Case 2 - driver drives for two hours at double the speed limit well over the legal alcohol limit, ignores red lights and priorities, but as luck would have it only property damage is done.

Who would you like to see receive the stiffer sentence?

I appreciate your point but Driver 1 would have to be incompetent and not suitable for operating a vehicle if he can look twice and still fail to see what's in front of him. So I would say both should get banned. Yes case 2 might be considered worse but they are both a big danger to other road users.
 

Karlt

Well-Known Member
Case 1 - driver has a 45 year driving record with no incidents. Or do we believe it is impossible for a normally excellent and safe driver to drop the ball, with potentially disastrous results? I know it is, because I've seen it, fortunately with no-one injured. This is one reason I look forward to more automation and driverless cars, because I do not believe that anyone is such a good driver that this couldn't happen to them. Humans are fallible.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.

If the outcome is to be ignored then why do we have offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving with substantially different maximum penalties?

GC
 
Top Bottom