[Closed] 2 years for trucker after cyclists death-oturaged!!!

And what purpose would have been served by a 10 yr stretch rather than 2? the cyclist is still dead and the truckers life is in tatters.

been following that case in the local paper, terrible...
the purpose of a longer sentance..........maybe to make the family feel like their sons, brothers, uncles life was actually worth something.

you don't have kids, do you teej???

That's a flippin outrage. I don't normally post on threads like this but that is shocking.

That really is wrong.

i think the driver should have got charged with manslaughter at least.

Maybe he should be permanently stripped of his driving licence as well (driving a motor vehicle is not a right, it's a priviledge and he's shown that he doesn't deserve that priviledge) and made to cycle up and down the busiest roads in the country, every day for the length of his sentence, or until he understands what it's like to feel the rush of 4 tonnes of metal passing at 60mph just inches from your right elbow (whichever is the longer term). Or not quite passing, if that's what happens.

I hear the A9 has an enviable reputation for this purpose.

Story [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/8332527.stm ][b]here[/b][/url]. I suggest you read it before posting.

That is, without doubt, a seriously shocking sentence for mowing someone down, whilst they are clinging to the windscreen and then driving off and dumping the bike! Unbelievable! 🙁

url= http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/8332527.stm ]

here is the linky.

To kill the cyclist then pick up his bike and then drive many miles and dump it,says a lot for the mentality of the driver.

it seems that if you want to kill someone in this country, you should wait until they're on a bike, then hit them with a motor vehicle.

it's effective, and only a short sentence if you get caught...

It is a strange outcome, if the story 0n our local news is correct the lorry hit the guy on the bike, said rider was left clinging to the windscreen wipers of the wagon but the driver would not stop but carried on driving until the rider fell off under the wheels of the truck. Driver then, according to winesses, drove for a further 6 miles with the bike under his vehicle, finally stopped, pulled the bike out, put it in the truck, drove 30 miles out of his way to dump the bike in a remote area and carried on as if nothing had happened.

2 years jail and a 3 year driving ban seems very lenient, especially as the driver has shown no remorse and was verbally abusive to the family while in court.

I usually agree with TJ about not giving long sentences merely for revenge but this case does seem to justify more jail time, and definately a longer, if not permanent, driving ban.

You would expect a murder sentence to be handed down for what it blatantly murder.

Disgraceful.

He was found innocent of the more serious charge, which would limit the sentence that can be given.

I'm sorry, but how the **** can a jury find this piece of filth not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving?

Surely it's at least that, even manslaughter? I mean, if you reverse over someone and you're not looking, it's an accident through negligence, but to have a man clinging to your wndscreen and still not stop, you have to be acting recklessly with regard to that person's life. Surely?
I'm not sure that there isn't a case for murder, once you realise what you have done and refuse to save a person from slipping under your wheels.

One wonders what he'd have been charged with if a) he'd been a foreign driver (juries don't like foreign lorry drivers) or b) the person clinging from the windscreen had been a young mother, a 'pretty' school girl (juries like schoolgirls and mums) or a motorists.

I'm with dangerousbeans on this one - does seem strangely lenient.

Not sure what TandemJeremy is thinking of? With that view he could have been given 2 days! Punishment fitting the crime? Keeping him off the roads so WE and the inoscent public can be a little bit safer for a long while longer is one point and satisfying those left behind by the terrible incident would be another. Thanks to stu for putting up the item..

He'll be out in 12 months - truly disgusting, hopefully the sentence will be adjusted upwards later.

I'm lost with TJs reasoning too

I really fail to understand how that is not murder?
Granted the initial accident may be an error/accident whatever.
However driving whilst someone clings to your wipers - presumabaly staring at you and screaming and they start to slowly slipp down the front of your large vehicles windscreen....only one thing can happen they fall you run them over they die.
How that is not is not murder is beyond me.
Accident + stop = man alive
Accident + drive till he falls under your wheels = murder IMHO

TWO YEARS FFS I am like a Daily mail reader now being told an immigrant just got benefits HOW THE **** DO I COMPLAIN absolutely outrageous.

I really fail to understand how that is not murder?
Granted the initial accident may be an error/accident whatever.

However driving whilst someone clings to your wipers - presumabaly staring at you and screaming and they start to slowly slipp down the front of your large vehicles windscreen....only one thing can happen they fall you run them over they die.

How that is not is not murder is beyond me.

Presumably as it was an accident, all he did was leave the scene afterwards.

It does all seem very odd, but given the courts findings (you know, the people who hear the evidence rather than the sensational headlines) it would appear to be an accident rather than a serial killer with a truck.

But... whatever.. 2 years doesn't seem disproportionate to custodial sentences being handed out just for speeding. You'd think you'd get 100x for actually killing someone than going fast.

The chap clearly isn't the full ticket, he didn't behave like any normal sane person. The article also mentions previous similar convictions. Shouldn't be on the streets, is a danger to the public. 2 years is ridiculous, I really really hope he got a lifetime driving ban as well though no mention of it.

I used to work at Homebase, in fact the one he went to after (I think) he delivered his load to Wakefield ie he ran the guy down then came to us. We were contacted by the police about it. I think I was the person who unloaded the lorry. Crikey.

It only implies it but it seems he denied knowledge that he knew he had hit the cyclist at the time and so it would be hard to prove, especially in a lorry, that he was aware of the cyclist clinging to the vehicle. In those circumstances the lesser offence is usually persued. What they could have done though is give him a consecutive sentence for the perverting offence, which gives the judge license to whack on a theoretical life sentence, though in reality you'll get nowhere near that.

I would like to add that he was an agency driver, he didn't work for Honebase IIRC.

Junkyard - Member

However driving whilst someone clings to your wipers - presumabaly staring at you and screaming and they start to slowly slipp down the front of your large vehicles windscreen....only one thing can happen they fall you run them over they die.

dangerousbeans - Member

It is a strange outcome, if the story 0n our local news is correct the lorry hit the guy on the bike, said rider was left clinging to the windscreen wipers of the wagon but the driver would not stop but carried on driving until the rider fell off under the wheels of the truck

BBC News

A witness had told the court how 41-year-old Mr Spink, from Normanton, was dragged under the wheels of the lorry as it turned left at a junction near Wakefield city centre. Mr Spink was seen clinging on to the windscreen wipers of Stubbs's vehicle to try and prevent being dragged under.

Over-embellishment adds nothing to the argument

TandemJeremy - Member
And what purpose would have been served by a 10 yr stretch rather than 2? the cyclist is still dead and the truckers life is in tatters.

Anyone who has witnessed first hand the effects that this sort of crime has on those that are left would not be asking. I have seen the effects first hand.

And what purpose would have been served by a 10 yr stretch rather than 2? the cyclist is still dead and the truckers life is in tatters.

you make some good points on this forum but that has got to be a troll. if someone was clinging to my screen i would stop and make sure they were okay, not continue and murder them. Minimum should be long manslaughter sentence but if i were to decide he'd get life sentence.

Only reporting what was said on our news, not intentionally over-embelishing.

And I would like to think that the driver would be able to see someone hanging onto his wipers even if only for a second or two.

And in my opinion even if no longer prison sentence is appropriate the driver should have his licence revoked for life.

dangerousbeans - Member

Only reporting what was said on our news, not intentionally over-embelishing.

Sorry - that just goes to show how inaccurate reporting can lead folk on the internet to reach conclusions not agreed with by those who heard the whole story first hand.

my initial reaction was well at least charges and a custodial sentence
and at least the jury convicted

i'm sure i'll be corrected but 2 yrs seems pretty lenient for leaving the scene of a death and trying to hide the evidence

very very sad and also possibly shows that its not just inexperienced cyclists that get caught by left turners

Even the BBC news reports that a witness saw Mr Spink clinging to the wipers of the truck, since they are pretty much in front of the driver he either didn't see or didn't care (and I assume the former).

For such a lapse, and especially inlight of comments he is supposed to have made in court ( I wasn't there) deriding the cyclist, I personally think he should not be driving again in a couple of years.

I'm usually pretty phlegmatic about these kind of things on the basis that any driver can have a momentary lapse and hit a cyclist with tragic consequences, but this is the worst I've heard about and a very lenient sentence IMO

And before anyone starts, yes I do have kids, and I do ride on busy roads and have close calls with lorries.

horrible story the sentence must be an extra horror for the family.

some bloke just got 18mnths for doing 160odd on his motorbike and a hefty ban. that doesnt sit very well against this story.

Tandem Jeremey, the cyclist is still dead, but his family ,freinds are stil alive,and they and most of us want justice.

As for the drivers life being in tatters sadly he cant do a swop with the dead cyclist,who now sadly has no life.

As project said, the lorry driver can rebuild his life. The cyclist can't.

I'd have thought that a 10 stretch and a life-time ban on [i]any[/i] vehicle would be a *start*. Seen too many near hits caused by people not concentrating properly, using phones etc. People drive like tossers because they know they can. More appropriate punishment may cause some people to think more and thereby save lives.

TandemJeremy - Member
and the truckers life is in tatters.

Sorry TJ, how can you qualify that statement?

If the OP statement is true about dumping the bike and denying knowledge then it is reasonable to assume that the trucker really isn't too bothered about the death they were involved in.

I can't remember their name but a few years ago in London a woman was cycling down a London road followed by a lorry. The lorry was heading to a building site situated on the same road. After following the cyclist down the road, then attempting an overtake prior to turning left into the site the lorry driver crushed the woman under the lorry. Driving over her head. In court, after extensive cctv footage from various sources showing the lorry following the bike down most of the road - and the 'accident' - the lorry driver claimed to have never seen the cyclist. In what has to be a disgraceful example of legal incompotance (both the Judge and Prosecuter) the driver was found guilty of (iirc) driving without due care and attention and returned to work shortly afterwards.

From the ststement by the cyclists family on the news they were unhappy with the sentence but what had really upset them was the derogatory comments made by the driver: blaming the cyclist and calling him 'suicidal', refusing to say that he regretted the incident and in respect of his attitude towards the family in court - this is only heresay as I wasn'y in the court.

in light if the comments can I rephrase as

He clung to the truck whilst waving and joking with the driver as he happily let go and fell to his death under the wheels of the vehicle in a state of nirvanic bliss ... does that seem more plausible ?

I worry when even on a biking forum we seem to be defending or making excuses for what happened. if it was a genuine accident why not call the police when you find teh bike rather than driev off route to dispose of it?
Do any of you ever go near a road without your bike strapped to your car?

Perhaps a Number 10 Petition asking for an official review on the sentence of Andrew Stubbs?

Maximum sentence for careless driving is 5-years. Maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is Life.

Notwithstanding the fact he ran the guy over what confuses me is he HID THE EVIDENCE and yet that doesn't really seem to have been taken into account ?. If it was truly an accident then thats 'fine' but to then not only leave the scene of an accident BUT actually hide the evidence ? Life. Minimum. and keep him in for life.

I hope that when Stubbs (the driver) bends down to pick the soap up in the prison shower, Mr Bigg is using barbed wire and razorblades in chilli sauce as a lubricant. Every day.

The lorry driver deserves to get run over. C*NT

as some have said, you need the full transcript to form an opinion really (every time anything gets reported that I know about, it's wrong in important details)

if it was a big truck with a flat front, wouldn't the wipers be mounted below the bottom of the screen (not on the glass itself)? I suppose that might mean he really was invisible from the cab - maybe they even tried it using a similar cab

If so, maybe they're down to tragic accident followed by disposal of evidence (still seems a bit lenient, though if you can argue that you didn't know it had happened then maybe can say he only disposed of a stuck bike - admittedly after driving a suspicious 30-mile detour)

Tragic. My heart goes out to the victim's family and friends. An awful way to lose someone you love.

FWIW does anyone here with legal knowledge know if there's anything we can do as a community to ask for a re-trial or does it have to come from the victim's family?

I really don't feel this story benefits from folk embellishing it, but I would like it bumped until TJ explains his crime V punishment scale.

Ok so I was trolling and I listen to dangerous beans and trust what he says so perhaps was wrong to pick on this one

My question is still valid - serving 2 or 10 - what real difference does it make? What purpose does it serve.

I think it is right and good that now we see people going to jail for killing by vehicle - which did not happen a few years ago at all. However I really don't see any purpose in locking people away for decades as I can see no purpose to doing so.

However this particular case might have been the wrong one to run this troll on

In direct answer to the last post.

Sanctions after being found guilty serves 3 purposes.

Retribution -

Rehabilitation

Deterrence

So - retribution. Hardly any victims can become reconciled to the crime enough to ever be satisfied with any length of sentence for retribution. For killing by car IMO a small number of years is sufficient depending on situation. who decides - the dispassionate professionals we employ to decide this

Rehabilitation - Killing by car - either the person knows what they have done wrong and can be rehabilitated in a short time - or it will take a very long time indeed if it is ever possible So again a short o r a long jail sentence will have little difference in effect

Deterrence - I am not sure heavy sentencing for car crime / killing by car actually works at all - however if it does the prospect of a number of years in jail is as big a deterrent as we have. 2 yrs or 10 makes little difference.

It is very easy to say - "lock him up and throw away the key" Its much harder to find some purpose in doing so.

You have to be sick to "troll" about a fatality, regardless of your personal views on the legal system. 👿

My question is still valid - serving 2 or 10 - what real difference does it make? What purpose does it serve

Well it would certainly keep him off the road for 10 years wouldn't it? & possibly save some other poor family from have their whole lives wrecked

So - retribution. Hardly any victims can become reconciled to the crime enough to ever be satisfied with any length of sentence for retribution.

Well I think that anyone killing while driving and being juged responsible of reckless driving should be ban for life full stop.
Cars and motor vehicle are weapons, like it or not they are. If you can't use one sensibly you don't deserve to use one
full stop.

TJ you're an idiot like most of us but admitting you're trolling about a death of a cyclist...grow up. Ok you're probably feeling a bit silly but you'll learn there is a time and place for it. Not here though!

If the facts are correct, he carried on driving with the victim holding on to the wiperblades?

I'm just shaking my head in dismay. I know someone who started a pub fight and received 18 months from a punch up (no excuse for it) but murder-2yrs?

How do complain about this and demand justice as it gives a feebl attitude to this offence.

Sod being all nice about this.

TJ you are a total and utter cock IMO.

TandemJeremy made a similar response to mistercruds post about the petition to have a 3foot gap between us and traffic I notice.... (See post further down pages). Strange cos if he rides a tandem then its likely to be double trouble in the event of him being in an accident! Maybe he should let his mate know about his views...

TJ whilst I generally agree with liberal sentencing views-. But on both points I think this person requires more than 2 years

Rehabilitation - Killing by car - either the person knows what they have done wrong and can be rehabilitated in a short time - or it will take a very long time indeed if it is ever possible So again a short or a long jail sentence will have little difference in effect*

You accept yourself that people require different lengths of time to rehabilitate and that is the reason why we vary the length of sentence. It is to achieve the goal of rehabilitation which takes varying lengths with different people. I mean what is a penal system for if not to reduce recidivism ?*.

Deterrence - I am not sure heavy sentencing for car crime / killing by car actually works at all - however if it does the prospect of a number of years in jail is as big a deterrent as we have. 2 yrs or 10 makes little difference.

The whole point of a deterrent is to vary the length of time to reflect the severity of the crime and deter others by making the sentence too high to risk getting caught or doing it.
So in this case
Rehabilitation
I would argue the lack of remorse shown to the family means he is going to require more time to be rehabilitated than a person who spent the whole time in the dock weeping , asking for forgiveness and apologising to the family/court for his terrible error. The fact it is his third conviction for poor driving would further suggest he will require more time to be rehabilitated and it would act to deter others from continuing to drive poorly
Deterrence
I would argue that killing someone and disposing of the evidence is FAR worse than just killing someone by accident. The later is not deliberate the former certainly is done deliberately. We need to deter others from killing people and trying to hide the evidence of this and punish it severely. So again more than two years is required to deter others.

I think it is a very lenient sentence for the crime committed and the lack of remorse shown. Whatever that sentencing cost is it will be less than the other person paid as they are dead and he is not.

* Recidivism is one of my favourite words and so hard to just drop into conversation

Similarly, like others have said, I don't like commenting on this kind of thread but, it really appears to me to be an inappropriate sentence. Surely, a detour to dispose of the bike demonstrates he had full knowledge of what happened? That combined with a former conviction for perverting the course of justice clearly shows you probably couldn't trust a thing the man said, especially a claim that "I didn't see him".

My whole family was and still is, nearly 30yrs later, effected by the death of my father- killed by a drunk driver while riding his motorbike. The driver in that instance also claimed to have "not seen him". The length of sentence was 8yrs, and in terms of retribution, no it could never be enough (only one thing could be enough, but thankfully for the sake of my humanity, we live in a society where that is unacceptable), but in terms of a deterrent it is kind of getting there. Where is the deterrent in the case of Mr Spink?

When you drive a vehicle, you have a responsibility to yourself and others not to endanger life. This kind of sentencing undermines that responsibility by removing consequences.

Ultimately, bad people do bad things because they weigh up the consequences and figure they can live with them. 12mths jail time is far too lenient.

+1 Junkyard.

You put it better while I was typing.

scaredypants - Member

as some have said, you need the full transcript to form an opinion really (every time anything gets reported that I know about, it's wrong in important details)

Exactly

this is one of my objections to threads like this - Its speculation and voyeurism and the opportunity for people to outdo each other with vitriol.

I fully accept ( and said)that whilst not knowing the full details of this case I don't know if the sentence was too lenient or not but that perhaps it was.

Ultimately, bad people do bad things because they weigh up the consequences and figure they can live with them. 12mths jail time is far too lenient.

You really think so in cases like this? The driver thought - "I'll only get two years so I'll just kill this cyclist?" I really don't think the length of jail time beyond a year or two makes any difference to deterrence

I apologise for any offence - but I find the posting of threads like this offensive and the "hang em high" lynch mob mentality more than a little distasteful as well.

You really think so in cases like this? The driver thought - "I'll only get two years so I'll just kill this cyclist?"

No, I thought he perhaps thought, that his reckless driving and lack of regard for life wouldn't be punishable by a sentence commensurate with the damage that kind of behaviour can cause. His previous conviction, and now this one bear this out.

You should calm down, dear. Nobody said it was murder, so your exageration in the use of the word "kill" is unnecessary.

The "hang em high" attitude is distasteful, but this thread isn't full of it. I'm reading more disbelief than anything.

write to the cps and complain

i did about a lenient sentence in the media and they replied

but I find the posting of threads like this offensive and the "hang em high" lynch mob mentality more than a little distasteful as well.

Sanctimonious claptrap.

Only reporting what was said on our news, not intentionally over-embelishing.

Sorry - that just goes to show how inaccurate reporting can lead folk on the internet to reach conclusions not agreed with by those who heard the whole story first hand.

I've experienced first hand that you literally cannot believe a word the press says.

I was on the Jury for a death inquest, inmate committed suicide. We returned the suicide verdict but explicitly stated that the cause was the refusal of parol for something like the second or third time due to bad behaviour. We also explicitly stated that we felt the miscarraige of his girlfriends baby was not a factor.

The press just reported he topped himself because his girlfriend miscarried.

I never really had much respect for the press but having spent a whole week on a jury and taking it seriously (and it was quite a distressing experience) and watching the press just make up their own verdict was pretty galling...

but I find the posting of threads like this offensive and the "hang em high" lynch mob mentality more than a little distasteful as well

Sorry but I'm going to have to stick up for TJ, to say he is trolling is ridiculous.

If you read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/8245144.stm

It would appear it was the perverting the cause of justice offence that was the more serious than the careless driving offence, perverting justice would normally carry a custodial sentence.

If people are unhappy that he didn't get more for the driving offence, then you have to question why he was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and only guilty of careless driving. Presumably that was on the basis of the evidence that the jury heard at the trial, rather than what was reported on Look North.

Perhaps he should have been done for causing death by dangerous driving and got an extra year or two - I don't know, I wasn't on the jury. But neither was anyone else here.

Junkyard - I read your post and my comment was not aimed at you.

Thank you porterclough

TandemJeremy - Member
Ok so I was trolling

Mr Spink was seen clinging on to the windscreen wipers of Stubbs's vehicle to try and prevent being dragged under.

Again I generally agree with your points on letting the judical system run it's course and allow those who hear the evidence to make the decision then Judges pass the sentence However both the process and the sentence can lead to bad decisions. IMHO this is one of them.

EDIT: TJ It does seem strange to be arguing with you to be fair!! and I dont really want the burn em brigade as my allies

I still believe that causing a death whilst in charge of a vehicle in any circumstance other than pure accident (dangerous driving, careless driving etc.) should attract a permanent driving ban.

Junkyard - I accepted that on this specific case I don't know enough and might have got it wrong.

As regards trolling - I was trolling in so much as I knew it was a contentious point but I do believe in the general thrust of my position

Dangerous beans - I think that far better idea than massive jail time.

I simply don't believe that there is any deterrent value in sentencing for this sort of thing. No one goes out intending to kill someone with their vehicle and without intent there can be no deterrence.

Its not long ago that it was very rare for anyone to get jail time for killing by car. Changes in the law have made conviction more likely and serious jail time more common. This is only a good thing. I simply believe that beyond a few years jail time is of little value in this sort of case.

This report [url= http://www.farsleytoday.co.uk/39/Family-slam-jailed-trucker-who.5780942.jp ]here[/url] includes the following quotations from the Judge (who I assume DID hear all of the evidence).

Judge Penelope Belcher said his behaviour after the accident had been "callous" and he had shown total disregard for Mr Spink and his family.

"You sought to prevent any proper investigation into the circumstances of Mr Spink's death," she said. "You pulled the bike out from under the lorry. It was plainly damaged.

"You must have realised you had collided with a pedal cyclist and that the cyclist must have suffered serious injury, and given the circumstances of the bike being lodged under the lorry, you must have realised that the cyclist might have been killed.

"You plainly knew, or ought to have known, he was there.

"The exact circumstances are a matter of some dispute...(but] Mr Spink and his bike ended up beneath your lorry."

She said Stubbs' attempts to "undermine the proper investigation" of the case had added to Mr Spink's family's pain and the two years since the event in July 2007 had been "worse and more distressing than the actual funeral" for them.

"All involved in this case have conducted themselves with dignity," she told Stubbs. "Instead you continue, despite the weight of the evidence against you, (to claim] no knowledge of how the bike came to be in the undergrowth.

"You have shown no remorse at all.

"In the witness box not once did you express any concern for the deceased and his family.

"Your attitude was 'it was all the cyclist's fault'.

"You showed callous indifference to Mr Spink's death and that was reflected in how you disposed of the bike and other items in the layby.

"It was plain you put concern for yourself above any concern for the cyclist."

How on earth can anyone say all that and then give a sentence of two years? Not only beggars but fully buggers belief..

But of course TJ et al. we shouldn't be to harsh on the poor chap eh?

His pain and anguish is obviously just too deep to be actually *&%£'in visible to human eyes.

On reading comments from judge, are we to inferr that he actually failed to stop at all immediately after the accident?
I know people are not known to behave rationally immediately after an accident, but to show no remorse after the event takes a cold heart indeed, regardless if it was his or the cyclists fault, it doesnt appear to openly trouble the lorry driver.

No-one wins from this sort of incident. Very sad for the cyclist and his family.

But of course TJ et al. we shouldn't be to harsh on the poor chap eh?

His pain and anguish is obviously just too deep to be actually *&%£'in visible to human eyes.

and where did I say that? I merely said that I don't think decades in jail for this sort of offence serves any purpose. Of course it is far easier to snipe than to actually attempt to engage with the points made by me and others.

@Eat the pudding;
Exactly my point. What sort of message does it send to the other motorists who view us as a hinderance and an obstacle on the road rather than legitimate road users with rights (over and above the usual human rights not to be harassed or killed while going about our business)?
If that sort of attitude is still prevalent in a substantial section of the non-cycling population (pretty much everyone who owns a vehicle, then...) it can't be that remarkable that a jury of this man's peers might also contain people with that same callous disregard for the safey of cyclists or at the very least harbouring a belief that their right to the road was secondary to that of the motorist.

If this sort of arrogant, negligent and inhumane disrespect were to be made publicly unacceptable and held up for the poulation at large to see as disgraceful and criminal, might we not stand a better chance of securing convictions in this sort of case from juries in the future?

Goan - not quite sure it could be classed as murder, even less have evidence to prove it. It's not like he drove 6 miles with the body on teh front of the wagon, he knocked him down possibly by mistake/poor concentration but not on purpose. The guy may have been hanging there for a fews seconds and it appear to a witness as though the driver MUST have seen him and be trying to kill him. Far too lenient a sentence though. 2 years maybe if he stopped on the spot and called the emergency services and pointed out it was all his fault or some really unfortunate accident, but to pick up the bike and drive off - doesnt really change much in the outcome but does prove his attitude.

Sorry, I was under the impression that thinking that that (to paraphrase) 'a long jail term wouldn't serve any purpose' was equivalent to not wanting to be too harsh/punitive/excessive on the driver.

My point is that, on reading the comments from the Judge, it appears that this particular mammal should be kept away from society as long as possible, and that the reasons for that should be pretty clear from the facts of the case, and the attitude of the accused.

You claim that you don't see the point.
I do.
Ahh well, ho hum, etc etc.

What is the point then? the judge who made the summing up and is in the best position of all to decide thought 2 yrs enough.

So what is the actual point of banging him up for 10 rather than 2? What does it achieve?

In this case i feel that he should be banned from the road for life and if he then drives that should face a custodial sentance as it would be a deterent.
This is a tragic set of advents right up untill this

You sought to prevent any proper investigation into the circumstances of Mr Spink's death," she said. "You pulled the bike out from under the lorry. It was plainly damaged.

"You must have realised you had collided with a pedal cyclist and that the cyclist must have suffered serious injury, and given the circumstances of the bike being lodged under the lorry, you must have realised that the cyclist might have been killed.

2 years in prison is the maximum for careless driving, but then what punishment for impeding the course of justice.

Still maintain that a lifelong driving ban would be the best outcome to protect the rest of us from a careless and/or dangerous driver.

Good points from eat the pudding and belgium bob as regards the fact that the victim was a cyclist possibly reducing the severity in the minds of the jury 'not of his peers'.

People I work with pretty much all of the opinion that cyclists should not be on the roads as they expose themselves to too much risk.

My dad, if he were on the jury, would find the driver not guilty as the cyclist would not have been dead if he'd used a car - he would feel it was totally the cyclists fault for being there.

A jury of such 'peers' would not look kindly on a cyclist, especially as this guy was genuinely a cyclist weirdo who biked around the world not an ordinary bloke who happened to be on a bike at the time of the accident.

I think it's only 2 years because he was found guilty of "Causing Death by Careless Driving". Only a handful of people a year are handed a custodial sentence for that offence. It indicates how seriously the judge viewed the case. It also carries a 12mth ban.

It appears he got the maximum he could have got under that charge.

What's so sorry about it is they couldn't prove "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving". That is probably what hurts the family the most. That and the other aggravating features- Perverting the course, his unrepentant attitude in court, etc.

Very, very sad.

So what is the actual point of banging him up for 10 rather than 2? What does it achieve?

What Junkyard said ++

You need to look up what murder means.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 you could be prosecuted for [i]causing death by dangerous driving[/i] (up to 14 years), or [i]careless driving[/i] (and get 3-9 points, up to £2500 fine, and maybe disqualified), or [i]causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs[/i] (also up to 14 years).

Because death by dangerous driving is much harder to prove than careless driving, there are very few prosecutions and convictions for it, and in turn a lot of convictions for careless driving as there is far greater prospect of proving it in court.

As a result of numerous cases where people were only given points/fines/disqualifications by courts (the most they could be given) after being been convicted of careless driving, despite causing a someone's death, the Road Safety Act 2006 introduced the new offence of [i]causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving[/i] - not as hard to prove/not as easy to get acquitted - for which a sentence of 5 years and unlimited fine can be given. This has only just come into force which is why this man could not be prosecuted for it, the incident having occured in 2007.

TandemJeremy - Member
So what is the actual point of banging him up for 10 rather than 2? What does it achieve?

So if jail is too inhumane for someone who has been found guilty of commiting a crime, what do you suggest as a suitable consequence?