Is this what a life is worth?

[Slick]

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

Apologies but I only skim read threads like this as they disgust me. I did have this comment in my mind though along with some others I tried to ignore.

He stopped at the scene which suggests concern for the victim. I

 

[ozboz]

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?

And the alternative ?

Be lenient, short sentence , telegraph to everyone dangerous driving is partially acceptable ? If this driver did his full term , he walks out , greets his family and possibly says ‘ oh well, what are we doing for Christmas ,

‘Wonderful’

 

[Ming the Merciless]

There’s every evidence that this was more than a momentary lapse. The road has good sight lines and he’d have been able to see and be aware of the guy riding bike for the longest time.

He was meant to be a professional driver and he fell well below the standard of a basic competent driver. His professional licence should be revoked and not regranted without significant further training and retesting.

 

[Slick]

There’s every evidence that this was more than a momentary lapse. The road has good sight lines and he’d have been able to see and be aware of the guy riding bike for the longest time.

He was meant to be a professional driver and he fell well below the standard of a basic competent driver. His professional licence should be revoked and not regranted without significant further training and retesting.

I think it's important to remember who actually lost their life here.

Hilary Cox was described as a "a loving wife, mother, sister and friend"

 

[Drago]

Situations like this, where the driver could not see but made a conscious decision to continue driving regardless, should be prosecuted and sentenced as manslaughter - a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such unlawful behaviour is that someone could die.

Anyone stupid enough to lose their licence, for whatever the reason, be it a serious road crime or totting up, should never be allowed to drive again. You've got to put a fair bit of effort into losing your licence - it requires either spectacular risk to or loss or life and limb, or a persistent effort at minor offending, so anyone who has got that far can hardly complain that it was unforseen and suddenly crept up on them.

Vehicular crime is treated far too leniently, almost as if society accept it as the cost of doing business.

The only small ray of hope is that the "hardship" mitigation for keeping a licence is being screwed down tight this year - offenders will have to evidence a real and genuine hardship, and loss of the offenders own job alone won't meet that threshold. The court won't be able to simply accept peoples word on that one for much longer, and about time.

 

[classic33]

Situations like this, where the driver could not see but made a conscious decision to continue driving regardless, should be prosecuted and sentenced as manslaughter - a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such unlawful behaviour is that someone could die.

Anyone stupid enough to lose their licence, for whatever the reason, be it a serious road crime or totting up, should never be allowed to drive again. You've got to put a fair bit of effort into losing your licence - it requires either spectacular risk to or loss or life and limb, or a persistent effort at minor offending, so anyone who has got that far can hardly complain that it was unforseen and suddenly crept up on them.

Vehicular crime is treated far too leniently, almost as if society accept it as the cost of doing business.

The only small ray of hope is that the "hardship" mitigation for keeping a licence is being screwed down tight this year - offenders will have to evidence a real and genuine hardship, and loss of the offenders own job alone won't meet that threshold. The court won't be able to simply accept peoples word on that one for much longer, and about time.

They do that and there's going to be a fair few taxi/private hire drivers, locally, who'll be looking for new jobs.

The council don't even enforce their own Nine Point limit.

 

[mjr]

Remember that this charge is based on causing death due to a single momentary lapse of judgement.

I'd love to know the exact location of this collision. That road around there is not overburdened with corners, shall we say, with some straights of 4 or 5km, so any dazzled driver is likely to be driving blind for some distance. Far more than a momentary lapse. I guess we'll have to wait for the next RRCGB.

 

[mjr]

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.

In other words, 4 months detention unless he blots his copybook during it. It doesn't matter what the theoretical pre-discount parole-ignoring length is. What gets reported and what people see is how long he must be detained, which is four months.

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).

Making or taking a call hands-free is effing around on your phone IMO.

Sorry but I don't want to rebut every single excusing of the killer motorist and the judge who seems like a motorist or at least motorists' friend. I'm still interested what the sentencing guidelines say if he'd squashed a small car. This crash on that road saw the driver sentenced to six years but that was dangerous when driving blind and talking on the phone is only careless https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2016-09-12/texting-lorry-driver-jailed-for-crash

 

[classic33]

Assuming it's the same person, can his company licence not be revoked?


MARWIT TRANSPORT LTD

 

[fossyant]

I had life changing injuries because a driver couldn't be bothered to be careful. There was no speed on either of our parts - he didn't check. He didn't even get a slapped wrist. I have very low expectations of legal processes. Cars are legal ways to kill people.

 

[ozboz]

so the old chestnut SMIDSY as mitigation is applied and seemingly taken into account re: sentencing ,

 

[raleighnut]

It does seem a paltry sentence, most people would get more than that for exceeding a ton on an empty motorway.

 

[Pale Rider]

In other words, 4 months detention unless he blots his copybook during it. It doesn't matter what the theoretical pre-discount parole-ignoring length is. What gets reported and what people see is how long he must be detained, which is four months.


Making or taking a call hands-free is effing around on your phone IMO.

Sorry but I don't want to rebut every single excusing of the killer motorist and the judge who seems like a motorist or at least motorists' friend. I'm still interested what the sentencing guidelines say if he'd squashed a small car. This crash on that road saw the driver sentenced to six years but that was dangerous when driving blind and talking on the phone is only careless https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2016-09-12/texting-lorry-driver-jailed-for-crash

The lorry driver in your link was convicted of death by dangerous driving, which is the more serious offence and carries a recently increased maximum, of I think, 16 years.

Like it or not, using a hands free device is legal, texting via the handset is not.

The driver in the OP was legally using his phone, which a reasonable person might accept differentiates him from a texting driver.

He was convicted of the lesser offence of death by careless driving which, if dealt with at a crown court, carries a maximum of five years.

For the purpose of sentence, it matters not who he killed, only that he did so.

The texting driver was always going to get a whack.

The death by careless offence can be dealt with in a magistrates' court if the bench accepts jurisdiction and the defendant does not elect a jury trial.

In that instance the maximum sentence is six months, and I've seen a few who have not been given immediate custody.

One I recall was an elderly woman who reversed into an elderly gent in a small car park.

A younger, fitter person might have survived, but he didn't.

The driver admitted causing death by careless driving.

Much as I like stiff sentences, it's hard to see what could be gained by locking her up.

She did all the right things afterwards, including voluntarily packing in driving.

 

[srw]

I suggest that more than four months detention would be more beneficial for the bereaved

That's a heck of an assumption. Absent any message from them we don't know what they'd want. There's a very good reason why judges are given tariffs - it's so that fairness applies.

His professional licence should be revoked

It has been.

It does seem a paltry sentence, most people would get more than that for exceeding a ton on an empty motorway.

No they wouldn't. Maximum sentence is a fine and a ban. A clear motorway would be a mitigating factor.
https://www.brake.org.uk/media-cent...rists-were-caught-doing-over-100mph-last-year


@icowden is doing a good job putting the incident in context and providing some facts. It's a shame the hang'em and flog'em brigade are out in force.

A cyclist being killed on the roads in the UK is still a very rare event. Ranting about a specific case won't improve the risk from extraordinarily low to superextraordinarily low.

 

[Drago]

A clear motorway would be a mitigating factor.

Which is, frankly, ridiculous. I spent a few years on RPU and trust me when I say that losing control at illegal speeds and killing the occupants of another car on a near empty motorway is just as deadly as hitting the same car at the same speed on a busy motorway. Kinetic energy doesn't go for a tea break when the roads are a bit Q. All empty roads do is tempt weak willed fools to even greater heights of speed related idiocy.