Forum menu
Tragedy caused by another's selfishness.
Leaving aside the thing about posting links with no comments in the post 😉 that sucks. That needed a prison sentence, I don't care how short, to send out a message. I'm not convinced every road death should be punished by a prison sentence, but dozing off after a meal out crosses my personal threshold.
So old man who can't stay awake at wheel, kills someone...and has chance to get his licence back after 5 years, when he'll be even more senile
Driving a car isn't a God given right...sentencing seems to forget this.
Whilst this is a tragedy, the old man was later diagnosed with sleep apnea therefore I'm not sure how this constitutes his selfishness or the need for a prison sentence so please elaborate.
Not all prison sentences are served behind bars.
That's terrible, but what really boils my piss is this sort of reporting -
Stewart Anthony’s Toyota Yaris was travelling along New Road, Burnley, when the vehicle collided with 62-year-old biker Chris Raw.
So it wasn't Anthony's fault, it was the car that caused the accident judging by that writing.
What it should say is -
Stewart Anthony was driving his Toyota Yaris along New Road, Burnley, when he collided with 62-year-old biker Chris Raw.
He dosed off? Really? He took a shed load of prescription drugs? Or did he, in fact, doze off? ****ing provincial news websites.
Anyway, take away his licence for good and crush his Yaris.
the old man was later diagnosed with sleep apnea
He shouldn't have been ****ing driving then should he?
Any thoughts on this OP?
So old man who can’t stay awake at wheel, kills someone…and has chance to get his licence back after 5 years, when he’ll be even more senile
Driving a car isn’t a God given right…sentencing seems to forget this.
What has the mans age got to do with this case?
Any thoughts on this OP?
Perhaps he has dosed off?
Weird how they mention the victim's age twice and the killer's age isn't stated.
With that and the spelling mistake, the journalist should be sacked.
Awful thing to happen to Mr Raw and his family.
That’s terrible, but what really boils my piss is this sort of reporting –
So it wasn’t Anthony’s fault, it was the car that caused the accident judging by that writing.
What it should say is –
This.
He dosed off? Really? He took a shed load of prescription drugs? Or did he, in fact, doze off? *ing provincial news websites.
This
He shouldn’t have been * driving then should he?
And defnitely this.
A different article says the driver was 72. It’s not the court's job to stop him driving on fitness grounds that’s the doctors and DVLAs job. However as he’ll be 77 and need both a medical report and to take an extended driving test I’d suggest it’s near as damn it a life ban. A point to note about very long bans is you can ask for them to be reviewed after 5? yrs anyway so it’s the same end result.
Presumably if the CPS had evidence that this was completely predictable (like he falls asleep after dinner every night, or he’s fallen asleep behind the wheel before) they’d have pursued a trial for dangerous driving rather than accepting careless. On that basis and with the post crash sleep apnoea diagnosis it’s difficult to see anything that bizzare in the sentencing. I’m not sure what the message MoreCashThanDash is hoping to send - but if it wasn’t easily predictable that he’d fall asleep (and hence dangerous driving) then as a warning to others it’s probably pointless.
ThePinkster - a lot of people get upset about wording like this - but your wording is definitely worse. HE didn’t hit him, the car he was meant to be controlling did. The writer may have the bias you think he does - but more likely you are overly sensitive to it and anyone reading the article is clear what happened and who was at fault.
His age is relevant. We all know that drivers over the age of 70 hardly ever get the custodial sentences that the rest of is would get given.
Saw a similar article but with a far less serious outcome : https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18923153.woman-rescued-river-itchen-southampton/
Discuss?
MoreCashThanDash is hoping to send – but if it wasn’t easily predictable that he’d fall asleep (and hence dangerous driving) then as a warning to others it’s probably pointless.
I hadn't read it fully and hadn't seen the later diagnosis, so I was wrong in my original comment. If you haven't been diagnosed with something, it's a bit harsh to be locked up for it.
We all know that drivers over the age of 70 hardly ever get the custodial sentences that the rest of is would get given
Hang on, I thought no one got a custodial sentence for killing a cyclist. Have all those threads been wrong?
I’m not sure what this thread is about - older drivers being more dangerous, or sentencing not being sufficiently harsh.
Fwiw I think the undiagnosed apnoea has to play a part here, though the cynic might say maybe he’d had problems staying awake before but because it hadn’t caused a problem he had ignored it - which is indeed selfish.
It is a tragedy for all concerned esp the victims family, but I’m not sure there is much wrong here. I don’t personally feel 72 is that old - many 72 year olds are very alert and spritely. I fully intend to give up driving one day before I am forced to, but I doubt if it will be before I’m 72..
Fwiw I think the undiagnosed apnoea has to play a part here, though the cynic might say maybe he’d had problems staying awake before but because it hadn’t caused a problem he had ignored it – which is indeed selfish.
Not much cynicism needed unless he developed sleep apnea while he was driving and that was the first occurrence of falling asleep. Pretty unlikely?
HE didn’t hit him, the car he was meant to be controlling did. The writer may have the bias you think he does – but more likely you are overly sensitive
Nope the bias is there and by this logic Frank Bruno never hit anyone - his boxing gloves did. The driver of a vehicle has agency (there are very few occasions where the driver doesn’t). Therefore it is the driver that caused the collision and so hit the other person/ building/ baby robin.
There are hundreds of thousands of people driving around whilst off their tits. Either on illegal drugs or prescription ones.
If you asked any car driver "do you operate heavy machinery on a regular basis?" they will say no.
Anyone who drives a car should do so in the knowledge that it is the one thing most of us do on a regular basis that has a not insignificant potential to kill or maim others. Driving a motor vehicle is a responsibility and a privilege. Neither seem to register.
First and foremost you as a driver are responsible for your decision to drive and have to assess your ability to do so. Loads of us drive tired etc and get away with, doesn't make it right or excusable. When someone like this kills someone else they need to be made an example of, a wake up call to the rest of us to be more responsible or next time it might be us.
Undiagnosed sleep apnea is not an excuse, the symptoms will have been there before the diagnosis. A heart attack out of the blue due to an undiagnosed condition with no obvious symptoms is grounds for ignorance but not this.
Until we take driving seriously we will continue to have 1700 deaths and 150,000 casualties a year on the roads. Nearly all the reductions have been due to technological advances mitigating the severity of accidents, not changes in driver behaviour (with the exception of drink driving although that is on the rise again).
Sorry, I didn't get chance to state my reasons for the post. It was simply the fact that the driver escaped a prison sentence for killing someone through neglect. If you have a sleep problem, you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a vehicle at all, surely? His age was irrelevant (He's not that much older than me!). Plus, his sleep issue would probably have been compounded by the consumption of a large meal and maybe a glass of wine. Presumably, he (and his wife) knew what could happen and tragically for the victim, it did.