This beggars belief! £35 fine.

[glenn forger]

http://road.cc/content/news/73826-t...s-his-licence-after-cyclist-killed-collission

There is another aspect of justice that is often ignored - retributivism. It is the theory that when a person has done something wrong he ought to be punished for his wrongdoing, according to the severity of the action, and regardless of whether it benefits anyone in an utilitarian sense. Just deserts and all that.
I think the reason it is so seldom mentioned nowadays is because it is often conflated with mere revenge. Yet as a legal and moral concept it is still very much alive - it is the reason why war criminals from the former Yugoslavia are prosecuted, and why Holocaust perpetrators are still being hunted worldwide even today. An utilitarian argument can be made that these people are old (or very, very old, in the case of Nazi war criminals) and obviously won't be able to commit crimes again. And prosecution doesn't seem to have any effect as deterrence, judging by the amount of genocide since WWII, or since the Yugoslavian Civil War for that matter. Yet most people would agree that these people must be brought to justice, that we can't just say "well, trying them won't change anything now so let's just call it a day."
Now, is the taxi driver even remotely comparable to war criminals? No, not in the least. But the principle still stands - wrongdoings ought to have appropriate consequences. So, are £35 and three points even remotely appropriate for taking the life of a young person through sheer carelessness? I don't think so.

 

[EltonFrog]

No. He's a troll.

Highly unlikely I would have thought. Just because you don't agree with him does not make him a troll.

 

[glenn forger]

I think he's a troll because he ignores any evidence that refutes his claims, as he's done on this very thread. He claimed verdicts like this aren't endemic. I've shown that they are, he ignores the evidence, it was ever thus.

 

[simon.r]

This bit is, I think, key:

"The Crown Prosecution Service opted for the lesser charge because it could not determine the cause of the initial collision nor whether Mr Ridgeway had been killed as a result of that impact or from being carried on the bonnet of the car until it collided with the tree."

I'm reading that as saying it's possible that Mr Ridgeway could have caused the initial collision.

Absolutely agree that regardless of that, driving for 90m with a dead body on your car is unforgivable and have to question whether the bloke should ever be allowed to drive again.

 

[glenn forger]

Where I differ (and it is a small point) is that I do not read that as some sort of general statement about what 'we' (presumably cyclists) are worth.

.

The general statement is backed up by the many, many other cases that you've completely ignored.

What is the average fine for a driver who kills a cyclist?

What is the average term of imprisonment for a killer driver?

Unless you know the answers your lofty pronouncements that this sentence is not typical are worthless.

 

[glenn forger]

Apparently the CPS took the view that they could not prove that Bhamra's carelessness had caused the original impact but merely that continuing on for a distance of 90 metres with Mr Ridgway on his bonnet, colliding with signs and eventually a tree was careless driving.

They also decided that they could not prove that this 'proveable' carelessness, as distinct from the original collision, had caused Mr Ridgway's death.

Making every allowance for the fact that the details of the original collision did not come out in court and were not therefore reported upon, with the consequence that very little is in the public domain, the CPS charging decision does seem lame. In the absence of any striking explanation, a passing car should not collide with a cyclist.

This is on the face of it indicative of a lack of due care. Had the original collision been due to Bhamra's lack of due care, then it could hardly be disputed that that collision caused Mr Ridgway's death. Even if a conviction of causing death by careless driving was not a certainty it seems to me unfortunate that the facts were not brought before a Court to determine.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/update-from-court-cps-v-bhamra.html

Farcical.

 

[simon.r]

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/update-from-court-cps-v-bhamra.html

Farcical.

But couldn't you swap the words 'cyclist' and 'car' around in this sentence?: "In the absence of any striking explanation, a passing car should not collide with a cyclist".

My reading of the articles is that the CPS considered that there was a possibility that the cyclist ran into the car and died on impact.


You're going to have to take my word for it that I'm not being 'pro-driver' here, just trying to be analytical. Just to re-state my position, IMO the driver behaved and drove appallingly and deserves a harsh sentence. (What the definition of harsh sentence is, is a different argument altogether).

 

[Boris Bajic]

I think he's a troll because he ignores any evidence that refutes his claims, as he's done on this very thread. He claimed verdicts like this aren't endemic. I've shown that they are, he ignores the evidence, it was ever thus.

Sir Forger,

I do not ignore evidence because it refutes my claim - in fact I'm not even sure I make much of a claim. I may just see things in a different way to you. I'm not sure my disagreement was exactly beligerent or aggressive, but I seem to have elicited the full fury of your shore batteries.

Your passion for my prose and the fever in your responses are touching and make me almost wish I loved you, but at the same time I find it a little creepy and stalkerish (if that doesn't sound terribly rude).

The sweetest, loveliest thing about your slew of posts in this thread is that you finish with the phrase "it was ever thus". For a chap who only joined CycleChat a couple of weeks ago (early January?), you seem to be pretty cavalier with your use of the word 'ever'.

You may be right and I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that makes me a troll.

 

[glenn forger]

My reading of the articles is that the CPS considered that there was a possibility that the cyclist ran into the car and died on impact.

And the driver carries on for 300 feet, colliding with signs and trees?

 

[Accy cyclist]

"In mitigation the court was told that Mr Bhamra has since voluntarily given up his taxi licence and that he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and no longer felt able to drive."

Please don't tell me that he's going to start claiming some "unable to work" benefit from this?

 

[Crankarm]

I think he's a troll because he ignores any evidence that refutes his claims, as he's done on this very thread. He claimed verdicts like this aren't endemic. I've shown that they are, he ignores the evidence, it was ever thus.

You're new here aren't you? It might be an idea to tone down your posts a bit. BB might be a lot of things but troll is not one of them.

 

[glenn forger]

Then I'm sure he can explain his argument that sentences like this aren't endemic?

 

[Drago]

We don't call them the Criminal Protection Service for nothing.

 

[400bhp]

You're new here aren't you? It might be an idea to tone down your posts a bit. BB might be a lot of things but troll is not one of them.

He isn't. It's Dawesome with a different username.

 

[Pale Rider]

It would have been easy for the CPS to charge death by careless, chuck it before a court and when the driver is found not guilty say: "Not our fault, we did our bit."

It's what they do with a lot of hopeless rape cases.

The fact the CPS only charged careless must mean they regarded death by careless as a complete non-starter, although it's not clear why.

One possibility is the cyclist had a pre-existing medical condition.