Cyclist death last August comes to court

[summerdays]

The details of a cyclists death last year:
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news...r-s-death/article-2776401-detail/article.html

A VAN driver's momentary lapse of attention at a "difficult" road junction cost the life of a university professor cycling close to him, a court was told.

and:

He said before the crash he had been either driving or working for the past 13 hours, but he was not tired or distracted and had thought the road was clear. The court heard he had a conviction for speeding in 2006, and a conviction for driving while using a mobile phone in 2008.

If it was 7.15 am and I had been working or driving for the past 13 hours I would be tired.

And the penalty for this:

The Recorder of Bristol His Honour Judge Neil Ford QC imposed a two-year community order, involving 200 hours of unpaid work, and ordered Stallard to pay £350 costs.

He banned him from driving for two years and endorsed his driving licence.

 

[mgarl10024]

Hi Summerdays,

Just sounds like a really unfortunate accident. Brings it home when it is so close.
I guess there is a question here about tiredness, but the way I read the article is that there was no malicious intent and so I guess the sentence reflects this.

MG

 

[Davidc]

The car* is king, long live the king.

* includes all motor vehicles.

 

[magnatom]

Hi Summerdays,

Just sounds like a really unfortunate accident. Brings it home when it is so close.
I guess there is a question here about tiredness, but the way I read the article is that there was no malicious intent and so I guess the sentence reflects this.

MG

Do you remember the guy who fell asleep and crashed into a railway line causing a train to derail killing 10 people? He got jailed for 5 years. He had no intent either, but driving whilst very tired is downright dangerous.

The problem with this case is the difficultly in associating the accident with his tiredness.

 

[adscrim]

Do you remember the guy who fell asleep and crashed into a railway line causing a train to derail killing 10 people? He got jailed for 5 years. He had no intent either, but driving whilst very tired is downright dangerous.

The problem with this case is the difficultly in associating the accident with his tiredness.

Indeed. I'm not a man of the law but if there isn't a car involved, it's involuntary manslaughter isn't it? Why does being in a car remove responsibility in the eyes of the law?

 

[Crankarm]

Do you remember the guy who fell asleep and crashed into a railway line causing a train to derail killing 10 people? He got jailed for 5 years. He had no intent either, but driving whilst very tired is downright dangerous.

The problem with this case is the difficultly in associating the accident with his tiredness.

Yep Gary Hart. Not a pleasant person. He was driving a 4x4 towing a trailer iirc sending explicit texts to a woman he had recently met on line. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1703959.stm

 

[upsidedown]

Indeed. I'm not a man of the law but if there isn't a car involved, it's involuntary manslaughter isn't it? Why does being in a car remove responsibility in the eyes of the law?

Well put.

What can be difficult about a road junction ? If you're of average intelligence, not distracted, and concentrating on what you're doing it can't be that hard to not kill somebody can it ?

 

[Crankarm]

The sentence is a complete JOKE!

Cat woman Mary Bale was fined £250 and had to pay £1,100 in costs. She lost her job as well.

 

[marinyork]

I find this quote very worrying if the judge placed the same emphasis on it that the newspaper seems to think he did

There is no evidence of excessive speed or of aggressive or impaired driving. You failed to notice a cyclist when emerging from a difficult junction.

It is effectively spin by the judge to try and justify his sentence. Aggressive driving is not something rigidly defined. As cyclists many of us (certainly me) would define many SMIDSYs as aggressive driving. The judge seems to have this naive idea that aggressive driving correlates completely with intent.

 

[downfader]

The sentence is a complete JOKE!

Cat woman Mary Bale was fined £250 and had to pay £1,100 in costs. She lost her job as well.

I know. Wheres the intellect in this? A cat (that survived) is worth more than a man who was unlawfully killed. We've got it all a*** over t*t in this country.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

The judge told him: "There is no evidence of excessive speed or of aggressive or impaired driving. You failed to notice a cyclist when emerging from a difficult junction.

In what sense was this a "difficult" junction? As far as I can tell, it's just a sliproad, joining a dual carriageway. The driver has basically SMIDSYed the cyclist, and killed him, through negligently failing to check the road was clear before joining it.


Further -

Jennifer Tallentire, defending, said Stallard was familiar with the junction and prosecution evidence suggested there would have been up to five seconds when he should have seen Dr Morris

Perhaps if the punishment for this kind of failure to pay attention was greater than a paltry fine and a token ban, people might start driving more carefully.


Just a thought.

 

[CopperBrompton]

The root issue here (and the reason the cat lady got a higher penalty) is that the law places great weight on intent.

Careless Driving is predicated on the idea that drivers should be penalised for their behaviour rather than the consequences of that behaviour. The reasoning is that driver A and B can do exactly the same thing (fail to look properly at a junction), driver A killing someone and driver B giving someone a scare, and that essentially they are both guilty of the same thing and should receive the same penalty.

The introduction of the offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving was a step in the direction of accepting that consequence should be taken into account in sentencing.

My own view is that consequence is everything. Yes, it may be sheer luck that driver A gets gaoled for 10 years and driver B gets three points and a £60 fine, but if drivers knew that they would be held responsible for the consequences of careless driving, we'd see a lot less of it.

 

[campbellab]

Maybe, but then everyone has 'an unthinking moment' from time to time and then its the concientious charity worker with a 30 year clean licence that's behind bars...

 

[Davidc]

My own view is that consequence is everything. Yes, it may be sheer luck that driver A gets gaoled for 10 years and driver B gets three points and a £60 fine, but if drivers knew that they would be held responsible for the consequences of careless driving, we'd see a lot less of it.

While I totally agree with you we're not going to see any move in that direction while the general attitude is that driving is a basic right and a few deaths each year (alright 2500ish and going to rise) is an acceptable price to pay for that right.

Until we have a fundamental change in attitudes, which needs education, there won't be a change in the way careles drivers are treated when they kill someone, whether pedestrian, cyclist or another driver.

Having had someone nearly take me out with his JCB while I was driving the car this evening on the A38 (he was on the phone and didn't even seem to notice that I'd had smoke coming from my wheels and two elderly pedestrians had had to jump backwards to avoid him) I'm feeling a bit touchy so I'll stop there.

 

[Chutzpah]

For anyone that isn't familiar with the area, this is it:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...=-M9bwIt_vLLTATqb3FcwJw&cbp=12,343.19,,0,8.93

Cars do go quite quick through there, then rapidly accelerate up to meet the dual carriageway at the top.