That’s a pretty hefty sentence, it looks about right for the situation (based on the limited facts given). Hopefully a similar level of sentencing will start being used in the more explicitly dangerous cases.

Is that statement attempting to draw sympathy for the killer..
Seems irrelevant to mention how hard done by the killers family are..

What about the 3 fatherless children and widow..

Does/should the sentence take account of his efforts to evade detection?

Is it 7 years for causing death by dangerous driving alone, or was the sentence “Harsher” because he left the scene, hid evidence and lied?

I’m fairly sure the sentence does take those things into account – though also his previous convictions play a significant part.

IANAL but my interpretation is “dangerous” is more deliberate, whereas “careless” is negligent.

^ this is what really irks me, deny deny deny, oh chance of being found out? try and get off on lesser sentence. I know its pretty much standard procedure and not specific to motoring offences but it still doesn’t sit well with me.

Along with not stopping and trying to hide it, it’s utterly horrible just how little respect he showed for another human being 🙁

I guess we’ll never know how the sentencing would have gone if he had stopped, I have my suspicions, but its whatabboutery so no point in getting het up something that is purely speculation.

Feel for both the family of the victim and the guys kids, there really are no winners in this situation 🙁

At least he got 7 years – This one only got 12 months for the same thing!!!!!!

It’s a legal distinction. Careless driving falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver. Dangerous driving falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver. The trouble there is the standard of competent driver applied by a typical jury member.

IMHO killing a vulnerable road user (also legally defined) where the victim has done nothing wrong should be regarded as dangerous driving by default.

killing a vulnerable road user (also legally defined) where the victim has done nothing wrong should be regarded as dangerous driving by default.

Exactly – as soon as your careless driving harms anything it should be (it IS) dangerous driving.

You can drive carelessly and knock over a wheelie bin. That isn’t dangerous.
You can drive carelessly and break a predestrian’s leg. Then it is dangerous.

As I said, the law is beyond me.

Does this not make sense?
You can drive carelessly and knock over a wheelie bin. That isn’t dangerous.
You can drive carelessly and break a predestrian’s leg. Then it is dangerous.

Yep, and using those definitions, killing a vulnerable road user who isn’t doing anything wrong clearly falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver.

Terry was a member of my club. Hopefully some closure for his widow and children now. It is a minging bit of road and it was early morning dark and unpleasant weather when he was knocked off. It was on my lodger’s commute route and he avoided riding that bit, particularly after this.

And for the 3rd time, the law is beyond me.

In my view, I’m not putting emotion into it, just logic.

D0nk’s right. For reference below; the written law’s pretty simple here, the application and process seems to be the issue –

A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 if

the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;[2] or
if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous.[3]
In this context, “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.[4]

The essential limbs, as is common ground, do not require any specific intent to drive dangerously. Section 2A sets out a wholly objective test. The concept of what is obvious to a careful driver places the question of what constitutes dangerous driving within the province of the jury.

So it could be ‘dangerous’ but the usual issue of likelihood of prosecution via jury who are probably ~80% drivers, or exact circumstance adding doubt may mean it becomes a ‘careless’ prosecution. I think it also depends on the events and mindset (ie intent or not) leading up to an incident and not or less on the actual result of the incident. That’s the bit that leas to so many calls of injustice related to RTIs and the point that people see driving as a normal risk when outcomes can be so tragic, yet it’s a massive cultural change to get people to accept higher risks and penalties for a daily ‘right’. A point that has been better-made before by others, but it always seems to come down to the same thing.

Based on the double standards of some forumites on the thread about the pedestrian killed by a cyclist, it’s probably just as well that the law removes emotion from the process.

And remember the CPS, judge and jury have the full facts. We don’t.

Refreshing to see a proper sentence. Be nice to see more like it.

How is that only 3.5 yrs, that’s a scandal