[Closed] Driver Convicted Of Killing Cyclist.

Good.

Good to hear.

Good.

Progress

I'll bid 6 months clinky and a 1 year ban.

death by dangerous driving is a bit more than that isn't it - esp with aggravating factors like the lying and tampering with phone records ?

4 years, no chance of HDC.

I'll bid 6 months clinky and a 1 year ban.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/

It'll be bugger all for killing the guy and years for what she did to try and evade justice.

It's 2 yr ban as a minimum. It will be a Level 3 offence, with sentencing guidelines between 2 and 5 years. Sentencing for the offence of defeating the ends of justice will be on top but may run consecutively.

She's going down for 3 years.

Is Scots law the same?

I'm just being excessively cynical. It looks like the minimum in E&W is 2 years clinky and a 2 year ban, presumably Scotland is the same or similar? I'm not expecting much more than the minimum though, whatever aggravating factors - the victim being a cyclist usually seems to be some sort of defence rather than the aggravating factor it should be (due to being a vulnerable road user).

Wow. She's 36, apparently.

Must have had a hard paper round.

[img] [/img]

That's just what they all look like up north...

[quote=hopeychondriact ]That's just what they all look like up north...

Hence why we shag sheep

Wow. She's 36, apparently.

Must have had a [s]hard paper[/s] milk round in Chernobyl.

Fify

Hey hey! Leave the poor sheep out of it.

Least sheep get shaved I suppose. :d

Jeez, insulting a woman on the basis of looks?

Lets see your mugshots then.

What cliches you are.

No winners here. Riders family devastated. Drivers kids left motherless while she's in clink.

Must have had a hard paper round.

Spat my tea out reading that one. 😆

I'd like to see this case publicised more widely to make sure drivers know there are consequences...
Deleting the phone record is despicable...

No winners here. Riders family devastated. Drivers kids left motherless while she's in clink.

Its the attempt to avoid blame THEN the helping her victim bit.

One of these people that you hope that anyone you care about never encounters.

the real problem is the low value given to vulnerable road users , death on the road is peculiar, its almost as if its expected ,however so caused ,and penalties for being the guilty are depressingly lenient, --it infuriates me every day the amount of tossers i see talking on their phones, writing texts etc--instant ban is needed-no second chance , straight ban of six months-would soon see a change in behaviour -and penalties for the above type of case should be sterner...

I don't think the jail sentences help. Should be long or life driving ban with mandatory jail time for driving when banned (and car being driven seized and destroyed - since unlikely to be in name of banned person and would discourage loan of car to banned drivers).

Good.

I don't think the jail sentences help.

I disagree. She took a conscious decision to drive dangerously and as a result killed someone. Jail time is appropriate.

Using a phone is more dangerous than driving at the drink drive limit. The big question is why using a hand held mobile is 3pts and not an instant ban(hands free are almost as bad just not illegal).

Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm

I think jail sentence is appropriate, a life has been taken.

I don't think the jail sentences help.

E&W is 2 years clinky and a 2 year ban,

*which seems to be the standard defence even when someone is being wilfully dangerous

Toppers and broess +1

There is no punishment that can bring the cyclist back, but drivers need to be deterred from being a dick

Agreed. Nothing good here, no winners.

But jail is sadly probably appropriate for someone who acted as she seems to have.

iirc normally served concurrently so back to driving on release.

They may not have fixed this in Scotland, but IIRC in E&W the law was changed so you don't serve a driving ban whilst locked up (ISTR there's still something funny about it because release date isn't fixed when you're sent down due to parole and stuff, so setting the start date of the ban is awkward).

but IIRC in E&W the law was changed

edit yeah here we go [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/when-is-law-not-law-when-no-one.html ]section 137[/url] afaik still not implemented

It's 2 yr ban as a minimum. It will be a Level 3 offence, with sentencing guidelines between 2 and 5 years.

Am I right in thinking these are usually concurrent?
So she'll basically be banned from driving while she is locked up? 😕

Like simons_nicolai-uk I'm not entirely convinced that jail sentences are a good deterrent in these cases, but I've never got my head around why we let these people EVER drive again?

They have demonstrated, with fatal consequences, that they cannot be trusted to safely operate a several ton machine at high speed.

Why do we give them another go in a year or two?

Oh dear. Some good and some petty comments here.

You do wish there was a way of undergoing community service as a paper round by bike, or some such, travelling along the same road she'd killed the poor fella. Not even going into the Bez theme of how mandatory licence for the cyclist would have helped one iota..

Two years means a year in Jail,possibly less and then release,again with an ankle support from the house of Windsor. So she will still be banned.

the Bez theme of how mandatory licence for the cyclist would have helped one iota..

This one?

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/them-and-theirs/

I was coincidentally just reading that very article.

No winners here. Riders family devastated. [b]Drivers kids left motherless while she's in clink[/b].

I don't think jail sentences help because I don't think they're an effective deterrent. With good reason, no one thinks it will happen to them (nearly everyone thinks they're a better than average driver which simply can't be possible). And locking people up is expensive, and wrecks families.

Taking licences away much more regularly might well be an effective deterrent. More frequent points for speeding etc, no exceptional hardship defence (which sees people with ridiculous numbers of points avoiding bans). Bans of 6months, year, two years for frequent speeders etc etc

If she gets 4 years or more she'll be ineligable for HDC (ankle support as Duckman said)
4 years & over is a parole sentence.

I don't think jail sentences help because I don't think they're an effective deterrent.

Taking licences away much more regularly might well be an effective deterrent

This. Just short, simple bans. You get -say - 9 points you get a 2 week ban and some sort of awareness course. No hardship defence at all. If you and your family suffer, that's the consequence of your action, you pay for taxis, beg lifts, take a couple of weeks unpaid leave if you can't get to work or do your job.

One month for a second ban within two years, and a compulsory retest.

One of the best things I've seen recently was one of these "my kids a useless driver" programmes. The lad cut up a cyclist. Part of his "re-education" was to get a close pass from a car while cycling (done on what looked like a private road on a country estate). The lad went apeshit about the how scary and dangerous it was.

That's another option for restorative justice...

I don't think jail sentences help because I don't think they're an effective deterrent.

Debatable. But they are an effective punishment. That's enough for me in this case.

"But they're an effective punishment"

An eye for an eye and all that. I think that' is a poor reason todo it. It satisfies our base instincts, that's all. Jail should be about protecting the public - where there is a real risk the miscreant will put others at harm again. Punishment is better carried out through the remove bet of privilege. (I know jail is the removal of freedom but...).

For people who aren't a danger then take time - public works, significant fines, removal of assets. Now I do think that someone who has driven whilst banned should be jailed - t.hey are a danger

What would protect more than jail is life ban - and that's what doesn't happen. It would for a pilot or a train driver or a doctor But not a driver.

So if not jail what then? I can kill someone and youll just take my licence away?

Ever faced jail? Tenpen shorts diary in pstonhead forum scared me enough to slow down when driving.

Did this woman have a licence and insurance?

careless ie a genuine mistake (sun in my eyes isn't an example) then no I don't think jail helps.
dangerous ie wilfully doing something stupid (like texting, continuing to drive with sun in your eyes, drink/drugs) then yes I think jail is a valid option.
But as you say bans are the perfect target for punishment for either, just very rarely done. MCTDs 2 weeks thing is a good example tho I think 9 point threshold is a bit high, maybe 3points = 1 week, 6 is a fortnight, 9 is a month. Retests and lifetime bans are another option. Hardship pleading should definitely be scrapped. Unless you're pissed it seems you have to be pretty bad to lose your licence currently. I'd prefer people temporarily or permanently lost their licence before they killed someone, seem to be multiple cases where drivers do kill someone and still drive away from court.

Of course enforcement will be tricky, impounding vehicles is probably going to be needed, the incidence of driving without licence/insurance is already high so how many short term ban drivers are going to carry on regardless?

A defence of financial hardship is an absurdity for someone running a car, unless the situation is truly exceptional.

I don't think jail sentences help because I don't think they're an effective deterrent.

The rarity in which they are handed out for death resulting from driving offences means we just don't know.

The rarity in which they are handed out for death resulting from driving offences means we just don't know.

Driving crimes are soft crimes it seems, cost of insurance vs fines for driving uninsured, driving without a licence results in a ban, people still legally driving with >12points, laughable.

Debatable. But they are an effective punishment. That's enough for me in this case.

Which is fine, but that only satisfies a need for vengeance and "justice".

I think we are all more interested in reducing the number of dangerous drivers. After all, everyone can agree that not being killed in the first place is lot more preferable to being killed in the knowledge that your killer will go to jail.

So what we need is an effective deterrent, which I'm not convinced jail time is. No one thinks they are a dangerous driver. No one thinks "Well I was planning to go out, drive dangerously and kill some people, but I've heard they'll lock you up for that now".

Taking away licenses - temporarily for minor offences and permanently for major ones - would be a deterrent and would also remove some numpties [i]before[/i] they manage to cause harm to others.

The tricky part with that is preventing unlicensed motorists from driving.

It's all a pipe-dream though. No government will support any of this because it would be massively unpopular.

Which is fine, but that only satisfies a need for vengeance and "justice".

Why put justice in quote marks in reference to the one case I've seen where justice has actually been served?

Read a story this morning in the local rag here about police cracking down on mobile use while driving, loads of drivers stopped.

That's the sort of thing which needs to happen a lot more if we're gonna stop tragedies like this case happening so often. IMO.

One of the best things I've seen recently was one of these "my kids a useless driver" programmes. The lad cut up a cyclist. Part of his "re-education" was to get a close pass from a car while cycling (done on what looked like a private road on a country estate). The lad went apeshit about the how scary and dangerous it was.

That is a tremendous idea.

I always find it strange that people convicted of causing death on the road ever get insurance again. It should be prohibitively expensive.

Why put justice in quote marks in reference to the one case I've seen where justice has actually been served?

To emphasise that it is a very subjective term in this context.

On the one hand is a person's life really only worth a year in jail?

And on the other is justice actually served by jailing these people, but then allowing them to go straight back to the very thing that cost someone their life?

[quote=Klunk ]I always find it strange that people convicted of causing death on the road ever get insurance again. It should be prohibitively expensive.

Because insurance companies rely on statistics, and presumably on the basis of those they set the amount people with CDBDD convictions have to pay so that it's more than the amount they'll have to pay out due to the accidents they cause. I'm guessing that if such insurance isn't prohibitively expensive then neither is the potential liability to the insurance company.

Or were you thinking that insurance companies should provide a social service (to make up for the judicial system not providing that service) which is at odds with their requirements to make the best profits for their shareholders?

It's all a pipe-dream though. No government will support any of this because it would be massively unpopular.

Indeed, it will reamin a pipe dream [i]unless [/i]you go at it from a different angle, we need to get to the point where we're not reliant on a goverment supporting it, but the populace demanding it.

We need to push for that awareness and attitude change to get people to see that they don't have to accept the danger, and that it would be better for everyone, we need to get to the point where it is socially unacceptable to drive dangerously.

It seems like an impossible task but that's the only way anything big will happen, you need the general population realise how utterly ludicrous it actually is to have 2 ton boxes (at best), or multi ton boxes with massive blind spots (at worst) zipping around at speed mixing with squishy humans in close proximity where the slightest twitch of a steering wheel, or lapse in concentration can kill.

Now I do think that someone who has driven whilst banned should be jailed - t.hey are a danger

I don't see the difference. A banned driver driving is choosing to ignore a law. A driver making a call on their mobile is choosing to ignore a law. In fact I'd argue the mobile is worse because that is causing danger to others. A banned driver driving safely might not be.

And here's today's killer driver getting jailed. Tragic for her but at least she is alive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11650891/Hero-soldier-jailed-over-death-of-hitchhiker-as-she-used-mobile-while-driving.html

If someone chooses to surf the web while driving then jail is the only appropriate sentence when they kill someone.

And another one today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7804324/Adam-Chapman-footballer-jailed-for-causing-pensioners-death-by-dangerous-driving.html

I dislike the 'Hero Soldier' bit, whether intentional or not it implies that this is somehow a mitigation and that it's a 'shame its happened to her when she's a Hero'

Maybe I'm reading into that too much, but I don't see why its relevant, and especially not in the title.

Maybe I'm reading into that too much, but I don't see why its relevant, and especially not in the title.

One of the best things I've seen recently was one of these "my kids a useless driver" programmes. The lad cut up a cyclist. Part of his "re-education" was to get a close pass from a car while cycling (done on what looked like a private road on a country estate). The lad went apeshit about the how scary and dangerous it was.

While setting up a stunt involving a cyclist and a controlled punishment pass would be a colossally expensive and risky exercise, I approve of the result.

I was the victim of an incident a couple of weeks back when a bloke passed me way to close for comfort and then confronted me with a piece of metal when I raised my hand in protest/surprise (note for the nickpickers & pedants - my OPEN hand, no gesticulating).

I think that every learner driver should be compelled to spend three hours either on a bicycle or an invalid carriage negotiating the roads in a town before they're allowed anywhere near a car.

[quote=irc ]And here's today's killer driver getting jailed. Tragic for her but at least she is alive.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11650891/Hero-soldier-jailed-over-death-of-hitchhiker-as-she-used-mobile-while-driving.html

Bloody cyclists riding on the pavement.

Hmm, actually looking at the 6 month sentence for:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11650891/Hero-soldier-jailed-over-death-of-hitchhiker-as-she-used-mobile-while-driving.html

and also the 18 month sentence in this linked article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10282561/Mother-jailed-after-knocking-down-cyclist-as-she-fiddled-with-sat-nav.html

Maybe my cynicism at the start of the thread was justified. How do those square with http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/ where the minimum sentence is 2 years in jail?

No one thinks they are a dangerous driver.

Equally no one thinks that they could do better as a driver which is what we should be aiming for when getting behind the wheel. There are no driving gods only those that haven't made a mistake yet or who don't acknowledge that they are fallible. How we get to this state of mind is the question.

Equally no one thinks that they could do better as a driver

Speak for yourself, I could do better, as I'm sure we all could.

I learnt to drive offroad as a teenager, followed by track days at Brands Hatch aged 16, followed by passing my test @17, followed by doing a police run extended driving course covering driving in the real world on major and minor roads, followed by skidpan sessions, followed by learning a lot more about offoad driving and vehicle control by doing 4x4 events for a few years. Now I mostly use the bike to get around, only using the car for trips >15 miles or when I have more than I can fit in the trailer, many years of bike commuting has taught me more observational skills than I ever learnt driving.

I can safely say that all the above has done is got me to the position where I hope, at best, I am very slightly less likely to have a major accident, as long as I am paying full attention and alert (no matter whether on bike or in car).

I am under no illusions here, I could still be safer, more alert, and more observant.

You don't stop learning as soon as you pass your test, you can always do better, and learn to be safer, and we will all still make mistakes from time to time.

But there seems to be this assumption that as soon as you've passed the driving test (which is just proof that on that [b]1 day[/b], you passed the [b]minimum possible standard[/b]), you're good to go and a 'safe' driver from there on in.

I passed a lot of other tests as a kid too, at school, an Uni etc. doubt I could sit down and do them all again now, wonder what makes people think driving a car is so special in that regard....

I'm [i][b]really[/b][/i] in favour of mandatory regular retesting on both theory and practical, it simply makes no sense to me that it isn't the norm, it is for every other kind of machinery you might operate, not to mention the theory/legal side of it which can change as well.

And on the other is justice actually served by jailing these people, but then allowing them to go straight back to the very thing that cost someone their life?

Do you think jail is an appropriate punishment for manslaughter?

FWIW I'd like to see a 10-year driving ban begin upon release for those who cause death by dangerous driving. And financial rewards for anyone who grasses banned drivers up if they're on the roads illegally.

[quote=amedias ]Speak for yourself, I could do better, as I'm sure we all could.

Yeah, I was thinking of writing that, but then those of us on here who are thoughtful about our driving are rare exceptions. I can think of several times when my driving has fallen below an acceptable standard (I'm sure my insurance company could name a few of them - though when I rolled my car onto a police car which was probably one of my worst bits of driving, the chap who was driving the police car didn't think what I'd done was anywhere near bad enough to prosecute me, and nor did the police traffic investigators who had to be called out, so I guess still better than a lot of people). I'd like to think I was a bit better than most people (which is a sadly low standard to strive for), not least because I know most of the HC and actually think about my driving, but then most people think they are above average drivers and I'm fully aware of my own lack of self-awareness, so not going to be very smug about that.

The jail sentences for driving offences vary ridiculously.

Soldier above on internet drives onto kerb and kills someone - 6 months
Driver drives onto brands hatch for a silly stunt - 8 months http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30082212

That soldier sentence does seem a bit of a joke, a discount for an early plea but not that much

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33411774 ]another jailed for using (texting) his phone[/url]

But there seems to be this assumption that as soon as you've passed the driving test (which is just proof that on that 1 day, you passed the minimum possible standard), you're good to go and a 'safe' driver from there on in.