Is this what a life is worth?

[Cycleops]

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/lorry-driver-jailed-killing-cyclist-3782012
The driver killed a cyclist while on hands free. Jailed for just eight months, out in four.

 

[mjr]

:'(

Also dazzled and made no attempt to correct it, so was driving blind. At least he pled guilty but what a short sentence!

And in case anyone wonders why she was riding on that A road, it's actually the National Byway for a couple of miles out of Chatteris. It's not a fun ride IMO but it's not that busy and there aren't that many roads to choose from in the fens. A detour to avoid an A road can easily add 50% which is an awful nuisance on a commute. It probably should have cycleways added where possible and a treatment like below where not, but this is England where we don't value life.

 

[DCBassman]

where we don't value cyclists' life.

Ftfy

 

[mjr]

Oh, it's a long detour for walkers too. Maybe we don't value any lives not motorised?

 

[icowden]

So what sentence should he have received? Is putting him in prison for longer going to have a more beneficial outcome for him? Is it going to be more beneficial for the bereaved? Who will benefit from his occupancy of a jail cell?

He pled guilty from the outset. The sentencing guidelines are either 36 weeks to 2 years or 15 months to 3 years depending on whether the careless driving is close to dangerous driving or not. If the guilty plea is present from the outset, the tariff reduces by one third. So assuming the more dangerous category, that would reduce from 15 months to 10 months. It looks like the Judge did not consider that it was close to dangerous driving and instead went for the middle ground but with a higher starting point of a 12 month sentence (presumably based on the aggravating factor of the hands free) which reduced to 8 months.

He was disqualified from driving, thus losing his livelihood. He stopped at the scene which suggests concern for the victim. I don't see any benefit to locking him up for 10 years. I'd rather that his time was used productively, say raising money for a charity, speaking at driver awareness courses. Something useful. I also think it would be beneficial if the Council could be made party to the offence given that it seems that as a cycleway, it is unsafe and therefore you could argue that the council shares some culpability.

I don't see a correlation between the "value" of a life and a really long prison sentence. Prison should be reserved for people who are dangerous; people who cannot be trusted with liberty lest they re-offend.

 

[mjr]

So what sentence should he have received? Is putting him in prison for longer going to have a more beneficial outcome for him? Is it going to be more beneficial for the bereaved? Who will benefit from his occupancy of a jail cell?

Of course, it won't bring back the deceased, but I suggest that more than four months detention would be more beneficial for the bereaved. Additionally, removing Mr Witluski from the workforce for longer would increase the theoretical cost of the traffic death and, like it or not, government does currently evaluate the economic impact of road deaths when deciding whether it is worth doing remedial work on old roads like that.

And you didn't mention it and I know the quantifiable evidence for effects of deterrents is limited, but really, what message does it send to other drivers? You can be driving a large vehicle while distracted, effing around with your phone, driving blind into low sun that you do nothing to shade, kill someone and it's OK, plead guilty and you can be out in four months - less disruption than a gap year!

I'm not sure what the sentence should be, but four months seems remarkably short. If you run down the street with a chainsaw, trip, drop it and kill someone, wouldn't you be locked up for more than four months? If this driver had flattened a small car, wouldn't he have got more than four months?

[...] It looks like the Judge did not consider that it was close to dangerous driving [...]

Yes, and that seems bizarre given the newspaper report, doesn't it? Does anyone know whether the court report of the ruling is online or where it will appear?

He was disqualified from driving, thus losing his livelihood.

Disqualified for only two years more than the four months.

He stopped at the scene which suggests concern for the victim. [...]

Too little, too late, isn't it?

I also think it would be beneficial if the Council could be made party to the offence given that it seems that as a cycleway, it is unsafe and therefore you could argue that the council shares some culpability.

On balance I'd agree: that road is noticeably below current standards in several ways that impact cycling safety, yet parts are designated as a cycle route. On the other hand, it also requires an incompetent driver for death to occur on it. But road design should be forgiving of mistakes.

I don't see a correlation between the "value" of a life and a really long prison sentence. Prison should be reserved for people who are dangerous; people who cannot be trusted with liberty lest they re-offend.

Has not Mr Witluski shown he cannot trusted with liberty and a driving licence?

 

[ozboz]

People have lost their Mother , Husband lost his Wife , NoK have lost their family Member, If it was myself I would expect that months not years is not only totally unsatisfactory,:it is totally unacceptable . The driver has lost his freedom for a very short time and lost his livelihood, oh well , that’s very tough isn’t it , ffs,

 

[Slick]

Disgusting act and a disgusting sentence that should not be reduced because he stopped for the victim as it was already too late.

 

[Drago]

And in due course they'll be able to apply for their licence again.

If you shot someone youd never get an FAC again, but its somehow acceptable to kill with a kinetic weapon and, after a relatively brief hiatus, be allowed to wield one in public again.

 

[icowden]

Of course, it won't bring back the deceased, but I suggest that more than four months detention would be more beneficial for the bereaved.

He was not given four months. He was given a one year prison sentence, reduced to 8 months based on the early plea discount system. Under the current requirements of the law he will be considered for parole after 4 months and then spend 4 months on license.

You can be driving a large vehicle while distracted, effing around with your phone, driving blind into low sun that you do nothing to shade, kill someone and it's OK, plead guilty and you can be out in four months - less disruption than a gap year!

There is no evidence that he was effing around with his phone or distracted. He was calling on hands free which is currently permitted (although there have been calls to ban this) . There was no evidence that he had failed to use a sun shade. He did admit that the sunny conditions had reduced his visibility and that he did not change his driving to compensate for this, and this was taken into account by the Judge who decided the sentence according to the sentencing guidelines.

Has not Mr Witluski shown he cannot trusted with liberty and a driving licence?

Not based on the article. We were not in court. We have no information as to whether Mr Witluski was remorseful or otherwise. The best we can say is that he made a catastrophic error and a Judge has ruled on the consequences of that error, followed the sentencing guidelines laid out for him / her. Sentencing guidelines don't define the value of a life. There was no evidence that his action was malicious or intentional. It's a terrible thing to have happened, but it cannot be undone and putting someone in prison pointlessly has little benefit. If the Judge had felt that Mr Witluski had acted maliciously or needed longer to reflect upon his actions, he would have gone for a longer sentence. However the charge was accepted as was the guilty plea. The most he could have been given for the charge was 3 years and I have no doubt that the response to that sentence would have been exactly the same.

If you don't like the sentence, write to your MP. Vote for a Government that actually proposes to rescue the Justice system rather than trotting out Priti Patel to bleat meaningless crowd pleasing soundbites about tougher sentences.

 

[icowden]

Disgusting act and a disgusting sentence that should not be reduced because he stopped for the victim as it was already too late.

It wasn't. It was reduced as he pled guilty.

 

[icowden]

And in due course they'll be able to apply for their licence again.

Yes. If the Judge had felt that was inappropriate he could have given a lifetime ban.

 

[icowden]

People have lost their Mother , Husband lost his Wife , NoK have lost their family Member, If it was myself I would expect that months not years is not only totally unsatisfactory,:it is totally unacceptable . The driver has lost his freedom for a very short time and lost his livelihood, oh well , that’s very tough isn’t it , ffs,

So what sentence would you give? What would your guidelines be? Life imprisonment? Remember that this charge is based on causing death due to a single momentary lapse of judgement. Making a mistake albeit costly. So it can't include deliberately causing a collision or any other road traffic offence where the cause is malicious.

 

[ozboz]

Personally , yes I would ,

 

[icowden]

Personally , yes I would ,

So you will need to budget for around 200 new prison cells per year. Remember this sentence is going to apply to all who are found guilty of causing death by careless driving. What additional penalty will you give those that cause death by dangerous driving?