Persistent offender killed cyclist while driving & texting

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

EnPassant

Remember Remember some date in November Member
Location
Gloucester
That isn't a good example because no one decides to lose control due to a patch of water, or black ice etc (that is beyond any
driver's control)
. But, the driver can choose NOT to use a mobile phone (or anything else that might take away their concentration).
We do know what things that we can avoid to minimize harm while driving. The choice is with the driver. Many choose to abuse
that choice. But I do agree what we have to be sensible about this. If it is proven that the driver didn't do anything to cause the
accident, then she/he shouldn't be given as harsh a sentence as someone that was guilty of doing something likely to increase
the chances of an injury/death.

Lack of imagination on my part. I'm sure you could come up with a better one.
And yes, that's what I'm getting at.

Losing control on a patch of water means you were going too fast for the road conditions, a choice.
As above.
 
OP
OP
glasgowcyclist

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
That isn't a good example because no one decides to lose control due to a patch of water, or black ice etc (that is beyond any
driver's control).

In the example above where four people were killed while cycling, that driver chose to go out in poor conditions in a car which had three bald tyres on it.

Despite the bizarre view of the magistrates that the tyres had no bearing on the collision, it shows that the driver was someone who gave no thought to the dangers he posed in a car that wasn't fit to be on the road. He still chose to use it.

GC
 

hatler

Guru
I recall (dimly, I admit) that the magistrates in the Rhyl case were advised by the police that the condition of the tyres had no bearing on whether or not the driver lost control on the black ice, it would have happened even with legal tyres. I imagine magistrates typically take police information as gospel.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
I recall (dimly, I admit) that the magistrates in the Rhyl case were advised by the police that the condition of the tyres had no bearing on whether or not the driver lost control on the black ice, it would have happened even with legal tyres. I imagine magistrates typically take police information as gospel.

The condition of the vehicle will have been outlined to the magistrates as a matter of fact - the tyres were bald.

The relevance of that will have been outlined to the magistrates as a matter of comment - the bald tyres didn't contribute to the collision - which the magistrates can make of what they will, although they very likely accepted it.

One might ask why collision investigator mentions the tyres at all if they were not relevant, but it does give the magistrates an indication of the general attitude of the defendant to his motoring.

It also robs him of any mitigation along the lines of: "I am always very careful to keep my car maintained to the proper standard."

Clean windows is another one, I've heard investigation reports that cite the windows were dirty.

Again it might not be relevant, but it's another little dent in the defendant's armour.

The ever present possibility of a crash is one of the reasons why I keep my car well up together.

If I am involved in an incident, the investigation into me at least starts on the right foot.
 
How is this relevant?

As it is, previous history can be introduced to the jury in certain circumstances. And it is the judge, not the jury, that decides on the sentence - and they will the defendants full history.

Because it means that in some cases it isn't
 
:sad:

Why is it not a requirement that you need a clean driving licence to get behind the wheel as your occupation?

Unfortunately there is so much competition and pressure that the targets can often only be met by "bending" the rules

The drivers who are willing to bend these rules will not have clean licenses
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
:sad:

Why is it not a requirement that you need a clean driving licence to get behind the wheel as your occupation?

At the other end of the scale, a barrister acquaintance of mine was due to be appointed as a circuit judge - the type that sits in the crown court.

Her appointment was delayed after it emerged she had six points on her driving licence - two three-point speeding camera offences.

The appointment of judges is not the most open of books, but the impression I got was she might have been appointed with, say, three points of some age about to come off, but six fairly fresh ones was a no-no.

She was appointed after all the points expired.
 

Drago

Legendary Member
Someone simply behaves dangerously with a shotgun, or even gets convicted of a violence offence that doesn't involve their firearm, they'd have their certificate revoked and would never get it back.

Actually kill someone behind the wheel and at worst you can have your driving ticket back in a few years. Insanity.

Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and society should treat it more as such, and demand that people exercise the utmost of diligence and respect in order to maintain that privilege.
 
Top Bottom