MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Judge previously said
"I have not seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all at any stage."
I expect that has had a lot to do with the harshness of the sentence.
Perhaps one of the key things here is that there was objective outside evidence and witnesses - so his defense could be challenged. Whereas in most cases when cyclists are killed there is not so the motorists defense cannot be challenged.
I think we have to consider that the court has heard the story first hand and the nuance of how deserving this chap is of the sentence awarded is one they can judge far better than us. It does seem an unusually tough sentence, but I'd imagine the judge hasn't made that decision lightly.
I'm sure the judge passed sentence within guidelines for the crime etc, but do we really think that a judge and jury, faced with a motorist in a similar situation, would've acted in the same way? Unfortunately, poor driver behaviour is normalised within our society, which is reflected in the slaps on the wrist handed out to transgressors.
That is very harsh indeed and completely out of line with other people who kill on the roads
Hardly.
If someone had altered their car to track standards, removed driving aids etc. then killed someone, the sentence would have been similar...
Unfortunately, poor driver behaviour is normalised within our society, which is reflected in the slaps on the wrist handed out to transgressors.
That just isn't true though is it.
Look at any of the prison sentences dealt recently for death by dangerous driving, associated with the use of a mobile phone.
There's even talk of extending them to life sentences in future.
I suspect the severity of the sentence means that he is likely to appeal. I wonder if he will also appeal the verdict as well as the sentence, since from the limited reporting it does seem that there may have been flaws in the prosecution case. Obviously we have not heard all the evidence, but if the police expert witness evidence and video regarding stopping distances were or could have been significant factors in the jury's verdict, then that might well be part of the grounds for an appeal.
This does seem very harsh given similar sentences for motorists.
Same sentence as this from a few days ago for instance...
[img] http://www.worthingherald.co.uk/webimage/1.8134520.1504544485!/image/image.jp g" target="_blank">
Driving HGV above speed limit (56 in 50, then 55 in 40) and used a mobile phone, which he attempted to cover up by deleting calls, lost control of truck on a bend where it crushed a car killing it's driver.
18 months.
could have had 2 years for it. Lets just remember he killed someone while riding in a stupid manor on an illegal bike.
The average sentence for causing death by careless driving is 14 months, and the averaged custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 57 months. So in the context of those, without a guilty plea or remorse, the sentence here doesn't look like it's harsh. It's at the upper end of the available sentencing for the offence he was found guilty of (which is 2 years) so again not unreasonable given it's at the upper end of seriousness for that.
The average sentence for causing death by careless driving is 14 months, and the averaged custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 57 months. So in the context of those, without a guilty plea or remorse, the sentence here doesn't look like it's harsh. It's at the upper end of the available sentencing for the offence he was found guilty of (which is 2 years) so again not unreasonable given it's at the upper end of seriousness for that.
Thanks for those facts. It has put it into perspective and swung my instinctive reaction to this sentence the other way. Better than quoting random cases to support a preconceived opinion
@horatio; alternatively....I think Alliston's 18 month sentence is appropriate and, on that basis, the driver in the example you quote should have received a far stiffer sentence.
One of the problems is the inconsistent application of sentencing guidelines.
Sentence seems fair to me, given what I've read publicly. 18 months for killing someone and showing no remorse seems fair enough to me. You just can't kill someone due to your own lack of care and expect to get off lightly.
Driver sentences are the lenient ones. But then they are easier to empathise with.
[quote=epicsteve ]The average sentence for causing death by careless driving is 14 months, and the averaged custodial sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 57 months. So in the context of those, without a guilty plea or remorse, the sentence here doesn't look like it's harsh.
Except he wasn't found guilty of causing the death, and I'm not sure on what basis you're putting it at the upper end of seriousness of the offence he was found guilty of.
If only judges didn't (apparently) make decisions lightly when motorists kill with their vehicles. For reference the average sentences you mention are in the context of a maximum sentence of 5 years for DBCD and 14 years for DBDD. I'd be interested to see an example of somebody getting 3 years 9 months (3/4 of the max sentence) having been convicted of DBCD when killing a cyclist or pedestrian.
Seems an incredibly harsh sentence to me, I'd be amazed if he doesn't appeal.
You just can't kill someone due to your own lack of care and expect to get off lightly.
Not on a bike you can't.
but do we really think that a judge and jury, faced with a motorist in a similar situation,
If they were driving an illegal modified car, and showed no remorse for their actions then very much yes.
Seems an incredibly harsh sentence to me, I'd be amazed if he doesn't appeal.
Perhaps he needs to spend a little time considering what he did, the seriousness of it and that he may actually have been at fault.
The Rhyl one? driver with defective car self admitted driving too fast. Not even prosecuted for killing 3 cyclistsd
He got off lightly, hopefully he'll learn from it
[quote=mikewsmith ]Perhaps he needs to spend a little time considering what he did, the seriousness of it and that he may actually have been at fault.
Well when you put it like that, they should probably have banged him up for life.
David Kilgallon, the driver of the car who [b]admitted causing death by careless driving[/b], today said he never stops thinking about the tragedy. The 24-year-old, of North Drive, Cleveleys, was sentenced to 100 hours of community work and banned from driving for a year by a judge at Blackpool Magistrates Court.
A man has been given a 100-hour community order and banned from driving for a year for causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving in Essex.
Well when you put it like that, they should probably have banged him up for life.
No in context of what I said before he rushes off to appeal he needs to understand that he is guilty and move towards remorse.
The Guardian article reporting it suggests he has some significant emotional issues which may well get in the way of his ability to demonstrate or feel remorse. I'm not saying he's a character deserving of 100% sympathy, but there looks to be more going on than is simply distilled in a forum.
I'm not that convinced that jail terms are really appropriate in most ot these cases. No-one thinks they're going to kill anyone by driving dangerously (because at an individual level its very unlikely) so it doesnt act as a deterrent. We're not locking them up to protect society from them (as we would someone who'd committed a violent act). In the first instance it should be (length) driving bans with suspended jail term (so that if they're caught driving while banned they're locked up).
That 24 year old above? A 1 year ban? That's a joke. Actually so is 100 hours of community service - c15 days work? 100 days of community service (all your weekends for a year?) or even double that might be a useful level of deterrent. Locking people up is expensive
riding in a stupid manor
I think the location is irrelevant.
Hmm - I see comments there from the judge which would never have been made about a driver in a similar case - some of which have been mentioned earlier in this thread.
For reference the average sentences you mention are in the context of a maximum sentence of 5 years for DBCD and 14 years for DBDD. I'd be interested to see an example of somebody getting 3 years 9 months (3/4 of the max sentence) having been convicted of DBCD when killing a cyclist or pedestrian.
[url= https://preview.ibb.co/gbyE8k/IMG_0381.pn g" target="_blank">https://preview.ibb.co/gbyE8k/IMG_0381.pn g"/> [/img][/url]
Given that he was not found guilty of causing death - i.e., there was reasonable doubt, and by implication, that the pedestrian had some culpability for her actions, and the CPS had to rely on the fall back charge, I think it's a pretty harsh sentence.
I doubt he thinks he has anything to feel remorseful about. It has not been proven that his actions could have absolutely avoided the collision (and fatal outcome). Only that he "caused bodily harm by wantonly or furious driving" his bicycle.
Punished for the consequences, not the offence - not having a front brake might have been the only offence he was truly guilty of.
The Guardian article reporting it suggests he has some significant emotional issues which may well get in the way of his ability to demonstrate or feel remorse. I'm not saying he's a character deserving of 100% sympathy, but there looks to be more going on than is simply distilled in a forum.
Indeed, accurately measuring remorse must be very difficult. Also, in stepping out in front of him, she could as easily have caused his death - I think a little initial anger at what she had put him through would be understandable.
I think the location is irrelevant.
excellent work sir.
[quote=TiRed ]I doubt he thinks he has anything to feel remorseful about. It has not been proven that his actions could have absolutely avoided the collision (and fatal outcome). Only that he "caused bodily harm by wantonly or furious driving" his bicycle.
Is a good point. Why is he expected to feel remorse for an offence he was found not guilty of? Yet the judge's comments suggest she thinks his actions were reckless in a way the jury didn't.
He was cycling a dangerous bike in a dickish manner, killed someone and then showed no remorse. A custodial sentence is fair enough. If I was made in charge of a laws then whether you were on a bike or in a car, you'd get at least 12 months for that.
Given that he was not found guilty of causing death - i.e., there was reasonable doubt, and by implication, that the pedestrian had some culpability for her actions, and the CPS had to rely on the fall back charge, I think it's a pretty harsh sentence.
If that's true, it would seem that the appropriate comparison would be with causing injury by careless driving. Now, I don't have any stats to hand, but I bet 18 months would be highly unusual.
[quote=fanatic278 ]He was cycling a dangerous bike in a dickish manner
What was wrong with the way he was riding the bike?
What was wrong with the way he was riding the bike?
In my mind:
Wanton & furious = dickish
Also, in stepping out in front of him, she could as easily have caused his deat
This happened earlier this year:
Keen and accomplished’ Cheltenham cyclist dies after colliding with pedestrianBenjamin Pedley was riding in Reading at around 24mph when a pedestrian stepped out in front of him in March.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ..
Is the offence he was convicted of. It is hard to argue that the woman did not suffer bodily harm, nor that the bike did not have the legally necessary number of brakes (hence guilty of wilful neglect). All other "facts" are moot.
As for his dickish riding, I have not seen the CCTV footage, nor read any witness statements. But his conviction for the above offence is basically that he was in collision with a pedestrian (who suffered injury) and had no front brake. Whether these two are absolutely related was not proven in law (otherwise the more serious charge of manslaughter would have been proven).
He'll appeal the sentence at the very least. It doesn't sit easily on my mind, but comparison with other offences is not a valid argument.
Compare this case with a couple of other recent ones
Using car as a weapon, driving into a group of law-abiding cyclists, injuring one - 16 weeks
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/229239-dangerous-driver-who-deliberately-hit-cyclist-jailed-16-weeks ]Link 1[/url]
Pedestrian stepped out in front of a cyclist, this time the cyclist died, no calls for presecution
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest ]Link 2[/url]
Obviously neither of these made the national news, the phone-ins etc etc
Given that he was not found guilty of causing death
Not strictly true, as he was not charged with a crime featuring "causing death" in its construction. He was found not guilty of manslaughter.
He was found guilty of causing bodily harm - the fact that that lead to death but not to a guilty verdict of manslaughter is the reason why the bereaved husband is petitioning for a "death by..." style of crimes to deal with this sort of situation.
Comments from the judge:
Probably the key point from the comments, explaining why he's going to jail:
"But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane. "
Interesting thanks for the link. I suspect whether reading that you view the judge as someone who just doesn't understand cycling, or as the views of a rational judge in the circumstances, might depend on your existing prejudices.
I read it as rational, save for the peculiarity of the standard "you didn't have a helmet on" seemingly to be an indication of lack of safety consideration towards others (which it self evidently isn't).
LawyerWife reckons that 18months is a good sentence for him, especially after a trial (i.e. he didn't plead).
From the verdict, it appears the pedestrian was not using a phone!
Also got told off by the judge for not wearing a helmet, which would annoy Chris Boardman no doubt.
See the post 11 minutes earlier, above.
So he will be out after 9 months?
It does sound like he was cycling like a dick:
On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’. That meant threading a path between her in the middle of the road and a parked lorry on your left. We have together in this court-room watched those final seconds over and over on the CCTV footage that recorded them. When she realised her danger, in the shock of the moment, she clearly did not know what to do or which way to move for the best. The result was that you rode straight into her. If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not. On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident.
The comparisons to other motorists are, imho, not especially pertinent as the situations are not as comparable - that "if you modified a car for the track and then took it out on the roads" especially - motorists are allowed on the roads only with a licence for a reason, and from a risk point of view the likelihood and severity of causing something nasty with an unroadworthy car, drive badly (or a roadworthy one driven badly) are so out of kilter that comparison is meaningless.
What is more interesting, and I think much more comparable, is the one someone linked to where a cyclist, riding legally on a legally compliant bicycle, died as a result of a pedestrian stepping out in front of them. Nothing ever went to a trial (which is sort of the point) so there's only report of an inquest, but from that it appears the cyclist was utterly blameless and the pedestrian appears to have been entirely at fault. Pedestrians, like cyclists, can use the roads by right.
Is there even a charge that can be laid in that sort of instance (against the pedestrian)?
It does sound like he was cycling like a dick:
It'd be interesting to see the CCTV but it sounds like he might have been trying to scare her with a close flyby which went wrong.
Is there even a charge that can be laid in that sort of instance (against the pedestrian)?
Potentially manslaughter (by gross negligence) but, as this trial has probably proved, with zero chance of a conviction.
It does sound like he was cycling like a dick:
Regardless of what brakes were or weren't available, there are plenty of situations where pulling on the brakes will make a situation worse, not better. Same when driving a car to be fair.
I've not seen the footage, but I'd question the logic of an assumption that seems to be: didn't try to brake = didn't try to avoid the collision.
Some collision avoidances might even require some acceleration - for example a viable bud rapidly reducing gap in traffic. Or simply that you've got more control over direction when not braking heavily.
Like I say, I've not seen the footage that was available to the court and he may well have been cycling like a dick, but what is written down about it is, imho, not entirely logical in and of itself.
[EDIT]
When she realised her danger, in the shock of the moment, she clearly did not know what to do or which way to move for the best. The result was that you rode straight into her.
The more I read this the less I feel he did something wrong at that point (the setting off on an illegally brakeless bike that morning is a different matter). I think I'd have done the same in that situation (I ride plenty in the middle of a city so that's not hypothetical speculation). On a bike, whether at a "wanton and furious" or even a sensible, nay sedate speed, in this circumstance the pedestrian can easily and very, very quickly take a quick step back or forwards and we don't collide. On my bike, not so quick.
So if I, on the bike, make a call that I'm going this way, for that to work out, the pedestrian has to go that way. If we both go that way, we collide. Same if I swerve that way, it only works if the pedestrian goes this way. We haven't got time for a conversation about it. If I keep to my line, as long as the pedestrian does [b]something[/b], and it doesn't matter which way, we're all good.
"In the shock of the moment" the pedestrian appears to have done that startled rabbit thing and watched the bike plough into her. The cyclist gave her as much opportunity as he could, twice as many options as if he's swerved one way or t'other.
I'm working from the assumption that the braking / stopping distance thing as described in court doesn't stack up, by the way, but even if it did, in tight traffic situations and when a ped steps out without looking, as per my earlier point, the idea that you just yank the levers and everyone breathes a sigh of relief isn't what the real world looks like anyway.
Regardless of what brakes were or weren't available, there are plenty of situations where pulling on the brakes will make a situation worse, not better. Same when driving a car to be fair.
Indeed. I have instinctively swerved to avoid a pedestrian before now - would I be guilty because I didn't haul the anchors on?
The judgement does seem to hinge on the disputed expert evidence that a road legal bike would've stopped.
The judgement does seem to hinge on the disputed expert evidence that a road legal bike would've stopped.
Disputed by whom? It wasn't disputed by the defence and every test has indicated that a bike with legal brakes could have stopped or at least slowed significantly.
Disputed by whom? It wasn't disputed by the defence and every test has indicated that a bike with legal brakes could have stopped [b]or at least slowed significantly. [/b]
That's not the same as "stopped" is it? I believe that the prosecution accepted that the catastrophic outcome was not related to the speed of impact.
I believe that the prosecution accepted that the catastrophic outcome was not related to the speed of impact.
It'd still be bollox if they did.
It'd still be bollox if they did.
You could be right, but it's not relevant, because it didn't form part of the prosecution's case.
I'm not understanding the nature of the complaints on this thread. People keep posting isolated comparisons to cases involving cars vs cyclist, or cars vs pedesitrians. The examples people pick will only have been selected to justify pre-concieved opinions.
Why not open ourselves up to some basic facts?
A) Custodial sentences for death by carless driving are greater than 18 months long 16% of the time.
B) Alliston was cycling in a "wanton & furious" manner - whether that be exhibited by his disregard to the requirement for front brakes, or his style of cycling.
The bigger question is whether 18 months is an appropriately long sentence. This comes down to personal opinion. For me, it seems about right, give or take 6 months. I don't care what form of transport was used (inc. walking), the sentence should be the same.
Had the laws applied I'm sure he'd have been found guilty of death by careless and it does sound like the sentence was in line with what would have been expected for that, given the not guilty plea and the lack of remorse etc.
You could be right, but it's not relevant, because it didn't form part of the prosecution's case.
There was no need for them to, as the result proves.
It'd be interesting to see the CCTV but it sounds like he might have been trying to scare her with a close flyby which went wrong.
I have seen nothing that suggests this to me.
There would appear to be several contentious statements in the judges sentencing remarks.
I find it hard to believe he wanted to collide with her, he was just as likely to be injured. For all his experience it does sound like his riding style, presuming that she would stay out of his way, contributed to their collision - but I don't suppose for one moment the cars travelling in the other direction slowed at all, if they had - perhaps she would not have moved towards him. The inconsistency between his sentence and that of the many motorised drivers who do 'similar' is what appears unjust.
I'd say it was arguably higher than death by careless driving, closer to death by dangerous driving by the way it has been described by the judge in those sentencing notes - reinforcing how valid the sentence appears to be in that context.
The inconsistency between his sentence and that of the many motorised drivers who do 'similar' is what appears unjust.
Unjust in which direction? Should Alliston have a reduced sentence, or these other examples an increased sentence? What do us (as a group of cyclist) think the appropriate sentence should be? Pretend he was in a car with no front brakes if it helps decide.
by the way it has been described by the judge in those sentencing notes
That's the problem I guess, is that we're all guessing from descriptions from judges, lawyers and coppers all of whom, to a lesser or greater degree don't seem to demonstrate much knowledge or expertise of the realities of urban cycling.
One reading from those notes is "you held your line consistently and repeatedly shouted at her to get out of the way" which doesn't sound like terrible behaviour (see my earlier post).
There is this underlying bit about him not doing anything to avoid the collision (although "threading a path" seems to imply that he at least had some sort of plan) when it seems entirely clear from the same notes that the pedestrian did the sum total of precisely nothing to avoid the collision either.
Let's not forget this collision happened on the road, not the pavement.
Pretend he was in a car with no front brakes if it helps decide.
Why would it? They are hardly comparable in terms of levels of danger. You might as well compare riding an intercontinental ballistic missile (with no front brake) or a space hopper (also with no brake).
People drawing equivalence between several tons of fast moving motor vehicle and a bicycle should just stop it. They aren't equivalent.
Unjust in which direction? Should Alliston have a reduced sentence, or these other examples an increased sentence? What do us (as a group of cyclist) think the appropriate sentence should be? Pretend he was in a car with no front brakes if it helps decide.
For me, increased for the motorised examples (I think, I'm not entirely sure I have mixed feelings about all this).
Unjust in which direction?
I really am not sure. But when you can kill 3 people with a defective car and not even be prosecuted Or kill people with a car while drunk and speeding gets a 4 year sentance then this one seems out of step
Its a really tricky thing because in many of these cses especially this one what good does jail do? Deterrence effect is minimal surely. Rehabilitation seems needed often. Punishment?
I had a long chat with the sister of someone who killed a cyclist when driving. ( dazzled by the sun, turned right into the path of the cyclist) That persons life was also ruined. Severe mental health issues afterwards, lost her job, never drove again. In this case I can't see jail would have done any good although its no doubt she killed someone by careless driving
There are definitely cases where the sentencing of car drivers who've caused deaths have seemed very light, however not quite so much when you look at the sentencing averages. There have also been sentences of other cyclists that have caused deaths which have seemed light as well.
Overall it sounds like the sentencing in this case is about right, based on the limited legal precedents that exist.
One reading from those notes is "you held your line consistently and repeatedly shouted at her to get out of the way" which doesn't sound like terrible behaviour
This is the bit that makes me uncomfortable and I suspect is what contributed to the wanton & furious. Passing someone on foot or on a bike 'signalling' is often poor so you end up doing that left/right/left dance.
When I went to Vietnam 20+ years ago when there were 1000's of mopeds, few cars and no ped crossings I was 'taught' to cross the road by walking out and maintaining a steady pace in a straight line. The sea of mopeds would all shoal around you and you'd be fine. People don't do that in the UK. Stop, step back, hover.
If someone steps out in front of me I might yell, I might swerve, but I'll always be on the brakes first/as well.
he was a scroute that got his comeuppance , we dick get what he deserved
epicsteve - Member
Comments from the judge:
Summary:
Don't be a dick. You were a dick.
Hard to disagree with anything in there...
For me, the issue here is much less about whether he was in the wrong or not (at the end of the day, the bike was illegal) it's the utter hypocrisy of the way the whole thing has been dealt with both in the court and in the media. This single instance of a cyclist causing a death has caused more debate in the media and amongst MP's clamouring to be more outraged than their counterpart on the other side of the house, than every instance of harm/peril/death of a cyclist by motorists.
Cyclists are deliberately run off the road, put in danger from close/unsafe passing or even pedestrians not looking where they are going causing cyclists to swerve into the path of other road users on a daily basis in this country and no-one seems to care, police won't charge because CPS won't prosecute, or if it does make it to a court then a driver can get off by claiming losing his license will inconvenience his lifestyle.!!
Where is the outrage and calls to change the law there.? Would anyone have listened to or put a TV camera in front of this poor woman's husband if she had been cycling and killed by a car.? Would the driver even have seen the inside of a courtroom.?
That's the thing about this situation that really winds me up.
Apologies for the rant. (and breathe...!)
edlong - Member
Pretend he was in a car with no front brakes if it helps decide.
Why would it? They are hardly comparable in terms of levels of danger. You might as well compare riding an intercontinental ballistic missile (with no front brake) or a space hopper (also with no brake).People drawing equivalence between several tons of fast moving motor vehicle and a bicycle should just stop it. They aren't equivalent.
You have taken it to the extreme with your example, but I argue if you kill someone with a gun you should get the same sentence as if you kill someone with a knife (moot point - as obviously they both get life). Killing someone with a bike should get the same sentence as with a lorry, van, bike, pushchair or just walking. Sure, you can [i]potentially[/i] kill more people with a lorry, but if you only kill one person then that's what the sentence should reflect.
I'm not convinced there was any hypocrisy in the court but there definitely was (and is) in the media. But as others have said "man bites dog" is a bigger story than "dog bites man", plus the offender being such a despicable character also makes it more press worthy.
People drawing equivalence between several tons of fast moving motor vehicle and a bicycle should just stop it. They aren't equivalent.
I'm not sure of the particulars of the case, but this is incorrect in principle. They are equivalent. The reality is a large enough force was imparted to the woman to cause her death. It matters not to her by which vehicle it was that brought her untimely demise. She doesn't really care if it was a bike, car or articulated lorry that hit her - she'd be just as dead - it is utterly irrelevant....she's dead. And he is just as responsible whether he was riding a bike, car or lorry, any mode of transport is just as capable of killing someone if driven without due care and attention. It is the manner by which he drove/rode the vehicle and his attitude to other road users that is important, not what he was driving. It doesn't take a lot of force to kill a person and a lone cyclist riding without any care for others in their path is more than capable of delivering enough force to kill someone, and therefore has to take as much care and attention as any other road user out there. A car can be a lethal weapon, but so can a bike. Why should a cyclist who has killed someone through their careless actions not be just as culpable as a driver of a car or lorry? it is like saying a murderer who strangled someone is not as culpable as someone who shot someone.
I read it as rational, save for the peculiarity of the standard "you didn't have a helmet on" seemingly to be an indication of lack of safety consideration towards others (which it self evidently isn't
got told off by the judge for not wearing a helmet,
Well, if you read the whole sentence that is not what she said:
[i]As to why you chose to ride without a front brake and other safety precautions such
as wearing a helmet, you deny it was for the thrill of the experience.[/i]
That is [i]one more[/i] indicator of attitude to risk. It is essentially his attitude he is being sentenced for. Whilst I am not quite on the TJ scale of helmet argument, I don't always wear one for pootling around town, and see nothing concerning with her statement. She acknowledges that he denies doing it for the thrill. She is a judge not a forum poster - she talks in statements of fact, not implied insults.
H1ghland3r put it so much better than I could have!
I still maintain that if he hadn't behaved in the arrogant self obsessed manner that he displayed throughout, he might well be spending tonight in his own bed.
Let's hope the bell end learns something while he's locked up.
H1ghland3r - I totally felt the same instinct when the sentence was announced. But a bit of info from epicsteve, and a bit of my own googling makes me feel like the court got it right on this occasion. Statistically, when a death by driving case makes it to court, there does seem to be more-or-less equivalence. Although, this case is on the upper end of severity (in terms of sentencing).
I totally share your gripe regarding police, CPS, media and general public attitude to cyclists. I think we all experience it first hand on a regular basis.
Has anyone apart from the court seen the cctv footage?
we get to see lorries driving into a car and killing the entire family. I find it odd we don't get this freely available to us.
it is like saying a murderer who strangled someone is not as culpable as someone who shot someone.
...and being devil's advocate, I'm going to do just that.
Most murders aren't premeditated, they are spur of the moment actions, someone is at the end of their tether, and they lose it and someone dies. This, by the way, is one of the arguments against proponents of capital punishment who justify it by way of a deterrent effect - the deterrence only applies to the smaller proportion of premeditated, planned murders. Someone who's "lost it" isn't going to stop mid-murder and go "hang on, I'll get life / death for this" But anyway..
...and court sentences reflect this by the way, rightly so, there is a difference in culpability between someone shooting someone - people (in this country) don't just find themselves with a gun in their hand. It requires planning and forethought. You will, and should, be treated differently if you kill someone "on the spur of the moment" than if you went out with a gun and shot someone.
Seem to be a lot of people complaining about the lack of severity of the sentencing, they seem to be much quieter when it comes to motorists killing cyclists or pedestrians. Three points and the cost of a takeaway of he'd been in a car.