I've just read this report, and seen that the defending counsel was a mate who's also a fairly keen road cyclist. I'm a bit shocked actually, I don't think that I could put my feelings on hold for something like this.

I certainly couldn't have stood up in court and said "It was a momentary lapse of concentration".

Excuse me, somebody I don't like has just cycled past – I'm off to have a momentary lapse of concentration (though I'll make sure I do it where there are no cctv cameras so they can't prove I'm lying).

Lawyer in total mercenenary never-mind-the-facts-just-get-the-killer-off shocker

Seems like a fairly standard attiude to road accidents in my view. I once witnessed an accident that left a driver in an extremely bad way, brain damaged etc.

The bloke who'd driven into him had a good quarter of a mile, or around 15-20 seconds to see him. Obviously, he wasn't paying attention.

When I was giving my statement, one of the policemen said something along the lines of "We all do it occasionally" when I mentioned that he must have not been paying attention.

I'd personally like to see much harsher treatment for bad driving in general. I really don't see why driving when extremely tired or whilst distracted is more socially acceptable than driving drunk, particularly when tiredness has been proven to be as bad as drink for your cognitive abilities.

the policemen said something along the lines of "We all do it occasionally" when I mentioned that he must have not been paying attention

That is f&*"ing shocking, especially when someone's life (or quality of life) is involved.

Just read the report too – why only banned for 2 years? Should be banned for life for killing someone.

thats incredible.

I think they should "police" driving like they police the internet.

The chances of you getting caught driving dangerously are slim, very very slim. Tossers driving at 100mph on mobile phones prove it.
and the penalty when you do get caught is survivable. a few points, a bit of cash.
fair, considering the actual offence, you could say.
BUT, the combination of slim chances of being caught, and survivable fines mean people dont consider it a threat.

Where am i going with this i hear you ask!

I dont download dodgey music anymore, i buy it now. not because i think the chances of getting caught are any higher, they are slim as slim. but if you DO get caught, the IP makes an example of you, and screws you back to the stone age.

Car drivers should have the penalties increased.

more jail terms
bigger fines.
and less room to mess around with points on your lisence.

the penalties may not reflect the offence, but i believe doing it that way would make people stop pissing around with such dangerous situations!

i NEVER use my phone when im driving, but if i did, its 3 points isnt it? and a fine of a hundred quid or so.

i reckon the occurances of people usin phones while driving (for example) would plummet if the penalty was 2 years of cold showers with Raymond the B*stard.

The job of a barrister is to put any feasible argument forward.

The job of the judge is to moderate ridiculous arguments

The job of the jury is to decide "beyond reasonable doubt" who they believe.

Things like this always make me wonder.. Are we one of the most lenient countries for punishment of crimes? or is it mainly Daily Mail propaganda…

Mainly daily mail propaganda – although in some ways we might be but we jail more of our population that other EC countries – significantly more and we criminalise children in a way they are not in many countries