Some trucker guy in Wakefield area has just been sentanced for only 2 years after mowing down a biker with him for a while clinging to the truck's windscreen for his life. The rucker continued for 6 miles before discarding the bike wreckage in under growth... and later denied the accident,tradgedy. News from BBC1 Look North (Yorkshire). What sentence would be fit? 10 years maybe..
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=
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.
I think that probably explains why.
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.
You're making that up. In the report posted it didn't give any times. It could of all happened in a couple of seconds, before the driver reacted.
How that is not is not murder is beyond me.
Presumably with all the evidence it would be apparent. Hence being found guilty of a lesser charge.
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 - MemberHowever 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 - MemberIt 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 NewsA 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 - MemberOnly 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.
