[Closed] Can this be right?

G - have you got a link for the inquest findings?

[i]Interestingly overlooking these bits Drac[/i]

Nope didn't over look just pointing out that you also opened that chance up, anyway forums are areas of discussion you can't stop people saying how the feel about your mate if you ask.

You cannot compare the Rhyl incident to this. That was a travesty of justice and this is a case where someone has broken the law on numerous occasions and now is moaning about a relatively tame punishment. 6 months is not really a long time at all. If your that bothered buy him a bike or taxi him around for 6 months.
We have punishments for a reason and thats to deter people doing things - your mate clearly needs to learn.... Its his own fault so stop moaning.

[i]So in these circumstances where in my mates case no discretion (all speed camera jobbies) has been exercised there [b]is one particularly severe sentence, and then in the Rhyll case where discretion (or perhaps more accurately lack of it!) has been exercised and a ludicrous outcome has occurred. To me that rather suggests that cyclists lives aren't actually taken as having much importance. [/i]

Don't think there is anything particularly severe about your mates sentence at all, but if you feel the urge to put pen to paper to highlight the injustice of other sentences handed out to drivers who have killed or injured, you should do it.

The law go it right for your mate, but wrong for the Rhyl case (and other similar episodes).

From now on, should only people who wish to agree with the OP and validate his point of view be able to post on this thread?

maybe the orginal question should have been reworded to summit like: My mate has been caught speeding again (the bellend), I reckon the punishment doesn't really fit the crime in this case, what do you think?

or have I misunderstood.....again 🙂

TRH (STW lynchmob official)

now is moaning about a relatively tame punishment. 6 months is not really a long time at all

Firstly hes not moaning about it, and nor am I, he is however, very upset about letting us and his family down. So stop pontificating, Secondly 6 months is not tame at all, the norm with the circumstances that appertain here is somewhere between 3 and 6 weeks. Even the court officals were taken aback by the severity of the punishment.

Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly,

You cannot compare the Rhyl incident to this

thegreatape - Member
G - have you got a link for the inquest findings?

Nope but this will give you a flavour of it. [url] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm [/url]

Post the inquest the coroner made a complaint to the Home Secretary and the issue was then taken up and I believe some Police folks were hung out to dry for their failure to even charge the guy.

Stu_N - Member
From now on, should only people who wish to agree with the OP and validate his point of view be able to post on this thread?

I couldn't give a flying toss who agrees with my point of view, which incidentally is that I'm not defending his actions, but I think there is disparity in the sentences handed down for relatively minor traffic offences, and what happens if you kill a cyclist negligently at best and culpably at worst. However what really does boil my piss is idiots like you who choose either not to read or simply can't, but apparently have no problem with typing shite.

As I've said repeatedly, it just seems injust NOT TO MY MATE, but to the ever increasing list of cyclists who lose their lives on the roads. Basically if you want to assasinate someone, buy them a bike and then run them down. You will get away with it.

Who ever said the law's an ass? 😉

If you really are SO concerned about the Rhyl case, then surely the time to complain about it was then, not now. And as I asked before - are you suggesting that the charges brought against that driver would have been different if it had been pedestrians and not cyclists involved?

As I've said repeatedly, it just seems injust NOT TO MY MATE, but to the ever increasing list of cyclists who lose their lives on the roads. Basically if you want to assasinate someone, buy them a bike and then run them down. You will get away with it.

aracer - Member

As I've said repeatedly, it just seems injust NOT TO MY MATE, but to the ever increasing list of cyclists who lose their lives on the roads. Basically if you want to assasinate someone, buy them a bike and then run them down. You will get away with it.

With which we all generally agree. Why bring your mate's justified sentence into it and so confuse the issue?

Because the original question was made with direct reference to his mate with the Rhyl cyclists thrown in for good measure, and then when he didn't get the answers he wanted the focus changed to the sentences handed out for killing cyclists or pedestrians.

Which we all seem to agree on.

G - Member

[b]Very interested to know what the feeling is about my mate.[/b] He’s our software support guy, basically self-employed, works really hard and is excellent at his job. He’s just come in this morning, and tearfully announced that he is probably going to be unable to continue to offer us a service, on the basis that he’s just been banned from driving for six months. His crime? He had 9 points on his licence for “minor speeding offences”, (what I mean by that is one of them was for triggering a camera at 2:00am in the morning travelling at 37mph at the end of a section of national speed limit dual carriageway), and then got clocked again. He’s been summonsed, sent to court and banned for 6 months. (NB: 6 of the points were incurred in 2006 and are now off his licence.)

Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong, but [b]is this punishment[/b], that looks like making him unemployed, as the sole breadwinner in a family of 5 [b]proportionate[/b], (given that for example the driver who recklessly killed the Rhyll cycling club 4 only got £180 fine and 6 penalty points), reasonable and proportionate.

And as repeatedly pointed out the driver in the Rhyl case did not get a small fine for the killing - he got a small fine for a minor offense because thats all he was charged with

it takes 4 years for points to come off your license, so your mates 6 points from 2006 have possibly another 12 months to go. He's obviously not learning as seems to be getting caught regularly for speeding you're going to be treated more harshly then someone with no points that crashed albeit with disastrous consequences.

I did write to my MP about the Rhyl case, he promised to talk to the Transport Minister, never heard anything after that.

Still think you mate deserved it.

just got home to find that i have picked up another three points making six in all and guess what thats nobodys fault but mine i drive just the same amount of miles as your mate G and guess what from now on iam driving like a vicar as my job is linked to having a license(service engineer) we all speed at times and do know what only you are to blame if you get caught.

Some vicars are really bad drivers.

TandemJeremy - Member
And as repeatedly pointed out the driver in the Rhyl case did not get a small fine for the killing - he got a small fine for a minor offense because thats all he was charged with

And as repeatedly pointed out right back at you the Police were roundly criticised for it, not only that just a few weeks ago there was a report highlighting the disproprtionately high number of deaths of cyclists on the roads, so whats your point??

stufield - Member
it takes 4 years for points to come off your license

No actually it takes 3 as it always had done, its just that you can't have them physically removed for 4, so as to avoid people deferring their cases so they can present aclean licence. however, regardless of that whats your point?

IdleJon - Member

aracer - Member

As I've said repeatedly, it just seems injust NOT TO MY MATE, but to the ever increasing list of cyclists who lose their lives on the roads. Basically if you want to assasinate someone, buy them a bike and then run them down. You will get away with it.

With which we all generally agree. Why bring your mate's justified sentence into it and so confuse the issue?

Because the original question was made with direct reference to his mate with the Rhyl cyclists thrown in for good measure, and then when he didn't get the answers he wanted the focus changed to the sentences handed out for killing cyclists or pedestrians.

Get yourself up to the top of the thread, read the last two sentences that you have conveniently ignored. That apart I would argue that the sentence is excessive if you take ALL of the circumstances into account, and that the Rhyll one is ridiculously slight if again you take ALL of the circumstances into account.... its called comparision, a technique often used in conversations and discussions. In fact, the inequity being displayed here is what has motivated me to raise the matter as quite rightly mentioned after all of this time, however it could equally be the guy on the Dunwich Dynamo in O7 or the guy on the A1 time trail the other week, or any number of other cases, it just is happens that the Rhyll case is a notoriously extreme example.

Also, in respect of this, "With which we all generally agree" I actually don't think that is the case from what I've read above, most of the thread is wabbling on about my mate, which actually isn't what I asked at all.

G my point being that you are getting all muddled up. In the Rhyl case the punishment appeared small because the only thing the driver was found guilty in a court of law was a relatively minor traffic offense.

You wanted the Rhyl driver to get a bigger punishment - most of us did. However he got the punishment that is normal for the offense he was found guilty of. As did your pal.

You cannot compare what [b]you think[/b] the Rhyl driver did with what your pal was [b]found guilty [/b]of. Innocent until proven guilty. The Rhyl driver was not found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving only of a minor offense.

Or do you think that minor traffic offense is worth a jail term?

Lock 'em up and throw away the key!

I think the law sees him as a serial offender - 3, points anyone could get but then you think about insurance cost, to then get a further 3 points should really have underlined that his driving habits need to change - then he gets another 3 etc...
Some people really do need a kick up the arse to wake them up.. no one to blame but himself.
I hope his wife has bollocked him good and proper.

i am not reading all that. arguing in the matrix is just totally pointless.

i love speeding along in my old shitter. it goes brrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaappppppppp and it pleases me.

the trick is to go faster than the rozzers and you are ok.

If we all agree with G, as seems to be the goal of this thread, will it stop?

G my point being that you are getting all muddled up

No TJ you are getting muddled up, I'm well aware of the facts of the case. The whole point is that the Police did not take the matter seriously, and were roundly criticised afterwards for that fact. The fact that they didn't is the symptom, the actual illness is that the "system" doesn't treat cyclists lives as having any worth, so the case was treated as "poor fella, he's going to have to live with killing those people", as opposed to "this is a very serious incident, and has to be fully and properly invesitgated and if someone is culpable they should be taken to book for it".

Whereas my mates pecadillos are minor by comparision, have never had any investigation as to the prevailing circumstances surrounding them and he has been punished more severely than most people who kill a cyclist on the roads. Yet as per usual this thread is full of twerping idiots who a) totally have missed the point, and b) have actully admitted that there by the grace of God go I, and then are idiot enough to be crticising not only my mate but themselves by implications as well. THINK ABOUT IT FFS!!!!

Try thinking about it another way, remember the guy on the £4000 moutnain bike he ran into a girl who was killed when her head hit the kerb a wee while back? Remember the villifying and public outrage surrounding that?
It seemed to be centred around the fact that he was riding a £4000 MTB, and had shouted for the girl to get out of the way while he was doing 27mph in a 30mph area. Totally overlooked the fact that on a £4000 mtb there are hydraulic brakes which actually can stop you quicker than car in the same circumstances, the girl and her friends had been drinking all day and that she stepped backwards off the kerb into his path and that he apparently bunny hopped on to the path in an attempt to avoid her, and that doing 27 mph on a public highway with a 30mph limit is in fact perfcetly legal. So wheres the similar level outrage about the Rhyl boys, even on here a cycling forum??? Seems to me that even here all you get is people totally missing the point and prattling on about irrelevancies. No doubt in a moment some jerk will come along and start warbling on about how its a choice you take and the responsibility is with the cyclist who goes out and does what he is legally entitled to, and is then subsequently killed for it.

I give in!!!!!!! Are you being deliberately obtuse?

What the police did or didn't do is irrelevant. We have a judicial system for a reason. The Rhyl driver got the punishment that fitted the crime he was found guilty of, so did your pal.

The fact you wanted the Rhyl driver to be punished more is irrelevant HE WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY OF A SERIOUS OFFENCE.

It is irrelevant about public outcry. The Rhyl driver was not found guilty of killing - get it?

If the Rhyl driver had been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving but didn't go to jail you would have a point. But he didn't so you havent.

G - Member

.. the actual illness is that the "system" doesn't treat cyclists lives as having any worth...

...and he has been punished more severely than most people who kill a cyclist on the roads.

That's a valiant attempt to garner sympathy for your view based on making it so sort of "us and them" type of argument. However, do you feel that the Rhyl driver was left off lightly because it was "only" cyclists and that it would have been different if he had killed pedestrians?

So in a nutshell - the LAW has stopped your mate from going out driving due to the fact his serial offending may actually cause an unwanted unecessary death sometime in the future... is it possible that you have overlooked this fact ? The law is supposed to judge each case individually and like serial burglars, serial shoplifters only the maximum penalty allowed by law can apply.

[i]Very interested to know what the feeling is about my mate.[/i]

He's a dick who can't drive very well.

The man in Rhyl [b](who killed one of my friends)[/b] wasn't dealt with as harshly as I would like, but your friend still can't drive very well.

Legalities aside, what are the ramifications for the bloke and his family? If its IT could he not work from home?

Have you suggested cycling to him?

Hope this helps
TS

TJ - you tried your best, i dont blame you!

G - the point i think you are trying to make is that your pal got a harsher sentence for what he did that the Rhyll guy got for what you THINK he probably did. now if he was tried and found guilty of death by dangerous and got points and a fine you'd be absolutely correct, but in this case he didnt so your not! the fact of the matter is that killing someone with your car will in most instances see you doing time which most would agree with and consistently driving like a fanny will in most instances get you banned if you are lucky enough to avoid hurting anyone and most would also agree with that.

Personally, I feel that using the tragic deaths of those 4 riders in Rhyl, to try and garner some sort of sympathy for your mate, is out of order. Totally separate and unrelated cases. As mentioned earlier; you are bordering on being disrespectful to those who died, and their families and friends. I'm sure you don't intend to, but that's how this is starting to feel.

Cold hard reality is; your mate has transgressed, and is fully deserving of his punishment. Do his family 'deserve' to suffer? It's not the courts, or the Law, that is causing this, it's him, with his lack of respect for the Law. No point in trying to blame someone else for this; it's his own fault, entirely. Sorry if that sounds harsh, and I don't mean the poor bugger any malice, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

On a positive note; hopefully, this episode will make him think more carefully in future, and become a more considerate driver. As for his ensuing employment difficulties; it's an opportunity for him to use his intelligence, knowledge and ingenuity, to overcome this obstacle. Maybe, he'll come out of it all a stronger person.

Case dismissed.

He's trangressed admittedly but the amount of time and money that will be lost procssing this 'misdemearnour' not to say the loss of earnings incurred and subsequent HMRC revenue raises some interesting questions on the fiscal validity of such cases?

I think your mate could higher a pensioner to drive him round for a bit of cash in hand ?

I give in!!!!!!! Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No TJ you are getting muddled up, I'm well aware of the facts of the case. The whole point is that the Police did not take the matter seriously, and were roundly criticised afterwards for that fact. The fact that they didn't is the symptom, the actual illness is that the "system" doesn't treat cyclists lives as having any worth, so the case was treated as "poor fella, he's going to have to live with killing those people", as opposed to "this is a very serious incident, and has to be fully and properly invesitgated and if someone is culpable they should be taken to book for it".

Which bit was too difficult?

druidh - Member

That's a valiant attempt to garner sympathy for your view based on making it so sort of "us and them" type of argument..

Yep thats right, its what you do in a discussion/debate, you argue your point of view against others. So take yourself a gold star off the shelf and add to that the one for spotting that I don't think cyclists get treated fairly in these circumstances.

However, do you feel that the Rhyl driver was left off lightly because it was "only" cyclists and that it would have been different if he had killed pedestrians

Yes I do. Think of the scenario where a driver with 4 bald tyres on an icy road has ploughed through a group of pedestrians, killing 4, admits openly that he was going too fast for the conditions, and only gets charged with having bald tyres, then on top of that the Police are literally bollocked up hill and down dale by the coroner for their lack of diligence on several levels, and then tell me that there wouldn't be a public outcry about it.

Having crossed that bridge, see if why as a cyclist when you see others getting punished more severely for lesser crimes which luckily or not had lesser consequences that it wouldn't make you mindful of that disparity.

Frankly I cannot see what people have issue with, so please explain it to me, anyone ......

I hate to say it but I find myself agreeing with rudeboy AND tandemjeremy on this thread.

G - your mate is an idiot who deserved to be banned, and clearly not very clever as he didn't take the 3 previous warnings on board. If someone had four convictions in 3 years for robbery, shoplifting, assault they would be a serial offender and dealt with pretty harshly. Your mate should be, and indeed is, no different. You have to wonder how much speeding he does to get done 4 times in 3 years really - I agree it would be unlucky if he only sped 4 times in that period and got nicked every time but I somehow doubt that is the case.

I also agree with you that it seems awfully unjust that the guy that killed the 4 Rhyl riders only got done for worn tyres. Yes, that seems apauling that the driver escaped punishment if he was culpable but we're only going on heresay and conjecture. Perhaps the police who gathered the evidence at the accident scene didn't do their jobs as well as they should have done and let the guy away with it, which if true is tragic, but at the end of the day the DPP decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for anything more than dodgy tyres and that's what he got done for. I'm sure if they could have done him for more they would have done but it's a fact that people only get taken to court on the best charges the prosecutor thinks he can get them on.

The only connection I see between the two is that both involve convictions for traffic offences. I still find the comparison thoroughly distasteful, and don't see what you are trying to gain (other than sympathy for your mate) out of making it.

neverfastenuff - Member
I think your mate could hire a pensioner to drive him round for a bit of cash in hand...

But cash in hand is illegal, so prepare yourself for a major shafting by the holier than though brigade.... I can hear the sucking in of breath and the self righteous indignation-o-meter building up a head of steam right now!

I can only hear the laughing at you and the endless banging of head against keyboard

Keeping to speed limits really isn't very difficult.

If I managed to pick up 3 points then I'd consider myself a d*ckhead and be more careful in future.

To collect enough for a ban would seem to indicate a disregard for the law.

Stu_N - Member

**** me!!!!!

You really can't read can you??

G - your mate is an idiot who deserved to be banned

but at the end of the day the DPP decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for anything more than dodgy tyres

G - I have tried to Explain it. You won't listen. I'll try once more.

We have a judicial system that decides on what charges someone faces and what the punishments for those charges are if found guilty. This is impartial.

In the Rhyl case irrespective of what [i]you [/i]think was the correct thing the judicial system only charged him with a relatively minor offense and he got the appropriate punishment for that offense.

In the case of your pal he was similarly charged with an offense and got the punishment for that offense.

You ( and I for that matter) would like the Rhyl driver to have been charged with a more serious offense - but he wasn't. He was found guilty of a minor traffic offense and that was all. There was not enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of convicting him of a more serious offense. We have a principle in this country of "innocent until proven guilty" The Rhyl driver was not found guilty of the killing. That is the fact. Anything else is surmise and supposition.

It is perfectly possible to be responsible for a death on the road and not be guilty of any offense.

The law punishes on the basis of what you are found guilty of. The Rhyl driver was found guilty of a minor offense. Your pal has been found guilty of 4 minor offences. In each case the guilty party got the punishment that the crime they were[b] found guilty of[/b] merited.

Now there may have been mistakes made in the investigation of the Rhyl case that meant that he wasn't charged with a more serious offense - but that is again supposition and surmise - not fact. The only facts under discussion here are those that were proven in a court of law.

We do not have summary justice by public opinion in this country. we have rule of law.

No he isn't hes a very hard working family guy who has been a bit unlucky

What, that he got caught breaking the Law? Repeatedly?

Be'ave yerself, G.

G - the police take all the evidence they have to the CPS, the CPS review it and decide what the person is to be charged with. That's the procedure.

(Of course the reason that insufficient evidence of careless/dangerous driving was put before the CPS could be due to police shortcomings).

Was that admission made to the police, or at trial, or at the inquest?

**** me!!!!!

You really can't read can you??

Yes, I can read. I have read.

hes a very hard working family guy who has been a bit unlucky

LOL. No. Really. 😆 He's a serial offender who got what was coming to him. To answer the opening question on the second line of your original post, that's my feelings on your mate.

When I got caught speeding* I realised that maybe I couldn't just go hooning around as fast as I felt like so modified behaviour accordingly. It's not hard. I haven't been caught since - that's not to say I have never exceeded a speed limit since I got the NIP as that would not be true at all, but I have certainly had more respect for speed limits. Maybe if your mate had the same approach then you he wouldn't have been banned and you wouldn't have wasted your afternoon making a fool of yourself on the internet. Food for thought?

*(76 on a 60 bit on the A9 near Dalwhinnie in 2003, for the record)

djglover - Member
I can only hear the laughing at you and the endless banging of head against keyboard

Fair point, but to be honest, I've had a really crappy and very dull day at work, so the thread whilst all fundamentally true started off mischievously through boredom, on a subject, that I know brings the self righteous out of their cupboard, it is basically a troll.

Nonetheless I honestly do think the underlying point is absolutely correct, in that cyclists and their safety do not get a fair shake of the stick, but then they never will as long as nobody, not even fellow cyclists seem able to grasp the basic inequity that lies at the base of it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, love em or hate em, at least the red socks stick together and get stuff done. We're crap at that, as the above sanctimonious outpouring does rather prove....

Anyway, can't put it off any longer, DIY beckons

In the meantime, lets see how many more posts go on without actually reading what any of its about.

PS: Sorry if any offence was caused by any of the above, but you probably deserved it if there was. ABSOLUTELY NO DISRESPECT IS IMPLIED OR INTENDED TO THE RHYL 4 OR ANY OTHER BROTHER/SISTER CYCLIST WHO HAS LOST THEIR LIFE ON THE ROADS, AND IF JUST ONE MORE PERSON REALISES HOW UNFAIR THE CYCLISTS TREATMENT ON THE ROAD IS AS A RESULT, THEN THAT IS A POWERFUL ADDENDUM TO THE MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES.

G. [i]But cash in hand is illegal, so prepare yourself for a major shafting by the holier than though brigade.... I can hear the sucking in of breath and the self righteous indignation-o-meter building up a head of steam right now!

What we have seen in Parliament this week has thrown all this codswallop into the bin mate...

Stu_N - Member

I hate to say it but I find myself agreeing with rudeboy AND tandemjeremy on this thread.

It can happen you know - no need to feel dirty or guilty.

G - Member

Nonetheless I honestly do think the underlying point is absolutely correct, in that cyclists and their safety do not get a fair shake of the stick, but then they never will as long as nobody, not even fellow cyclists seem able to grasp the basic inequity that lies at the base of it. ................

On that point I totally agree with you. Its just that the two cases you picked don't show that. If the Rhyl driver had been charged with and found guilty of death by reckless driving and not received a custodial sentence then you would have had more of a point.

Similarly it is in cyclists interests that drivers with bad speeding habits and poor observation such as your pal need to be shown the error of their ways. I would rather collisions were prevented rather than people punished afterwards