The lorry driver deserves to get run over. C*NT

Tragic. My heart goes out to the victim's family and friends. An awful way to lose someone you love.

FWIW does anyone here with legal knowledge know if there's anything we can do as a community to ask for a re-trial or does it have to come from the victim's family?

Ok so I was trolling and I listen to dangerous beans and trust what he says so perhaps was wrong to pick on this one

My question is still valid – serving 2 or 10 – what real difference does it make? What purpose does it serve.

I think it is right and good that now we see people going to jail for killing by vehicle – which did not happen a few years ago at all. However I really don't see any purpose in locking people away for decades as I can see no purpose to doing so.

However this particular case might have been the wrong one to run this troll on

In direct answer to the last post.

Sanctions after being found guilty serves 3 purposes.

Retribution –

Rehabilitation

Deterrence

So – retribution. Hardly any victims can become reconciled to the crime enough to ever be satisfied with any length of sentence for retribution. For killing by car IMO a small number of years is sufficient depending on situation. who decides – the dispassionate professionals we employ to decide this

Rehabilitation – Killing by car – either the person knows what they have done wrong and can be rehabilitated in a short time – or it will take a very long time indeed if it is ever possible So again a short o r a long jail sentence will have little difference in effect

Deterrence – I am not sure heavy sentencing for car crime / killing by car actually works at all – however if it does the prospect of a number of years in jail is as big a deterrent as we have. 2 yrs or 10 makes little difference.

It is very easy to say – "lock him up and throw away the key" Its much harder to find some purpose in doing so.

Well it would certainly keep him off the road for 10 years wouldn't it? & possibly save some other poor family from have their whole lives wrecked

I'm not going to go into specifics here TJ but IME that's utter drivel

TJ you're an idiot like most of us but admitting you're trolling about a death of a cyclist…grow up. Ok you're probably feeling a bit silly but you'll learn there is a time and place for it. Not here though!

If the facts are correct, he carried on driving with the victim holding on to the wiperblades?

I'm just shaking my head in dismay. I know someone who started a pub fight and received 18 months from a punch up (no excuse for it) but murder-2yrs?

How do complain about this and demand justice as it gives a feebl attitude to this offence.

Similarly, like others have said, I don't like commenting on this kind of thread but, it really appears to me to be an inappropriate sentence. Surely, a detour to dispose of the bike demonstrates he had full knowledge of what happened? That combined with a former conviction for perverting the course of justice clearly shows you probably couldn't trust a thing the man said, especially a claim that "I didn't see him".

My whole family was and still is, nearly 30yrs later, effected by the death of my father- killed by a drunk driver while riding his motorbike. The driver in that instance also claimed to have "not seen him". The length of sentence was 8yrs, and in terms of retribution, no it could never be enough (only one thing could be enough, but thankfully for the sake of my humanity, we live in a society where that is unacceptable), but in terms of a deterrent it is kind of getting there. Where is the deterrent in the case of Mr Spink?

When you drive a vehicle, you have a responsibility to yourself and others not to endanger life. This kind of sentencing undermines that responsibility by removing consequences.

Ultimately, bad people do bad things because they weigh up the consequences and figure they can live with them. 12mths jail time is far too lenient.

as some have said, you need the full transcript to form an opinion really (every time anything gets reported that I know about, it's wrong in important details)

Exactly

this is one of my objections to threads like this – Its speculation and voyeurism and the opportunity for people to outdo each other with vitriol.

I fully accept ( and said)that whilst not knowing the full details of this case I don't know if the sentence was too lenient or not but that perhaps it was.

You really think so in cases like this? The driver thought – "I'll only get two years so I'll just kill this cyclist?" I really don't think the length of jail time beyond a year or two makes any difference to deterrence

I apologise for any offence – but I find the posting of threads like this offensive and the "hang em high" lynch mob mentality more than a little distasteful as well.

write to the cps and complain

i did about a lenient sentence in the media and they replied

I've experienced first hand that you literally cannot believe a word the press says.

I was on the Jury for a death inquest, inmate committed suicide. We returned the suicide verdict but explicitly stated that the cause was the refusal of parol for something like the second or third time due to bad behaviour. We also explicitly stated that we felt the miscarraige of his girlfriends baby was not a factor.

The press just reported he topped himself because his girlfriend miscarried.

I never really had much respect for the press but having spent a whole week on a jury and taking it seriously (and it was quite a distressing experience) and watching the press just make up their own verdict was pretty galling…

Sorry but I'm going to have to stick up for TJ, to say he is trolling is ridiculous.

If you read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/8245144.stm

It would appear it was the perverting the cause of justice offence that was the more serious than the careless driving offence, perverting justice would normally carry a custodial sentence.

If people are unhappy that he didn't get more for the driving offence, then you have to question why he was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and only guilty of careless driving. Presumably that was on the basis of the evidence that the jury heard at the trial, rather than what was reported on Look North.

Perhaps he should have been done for causing death by dangerous driving and got an extra year or two – I don't know, I wasn't on the jury. But neither was anyone else here.

Not your best post

Again I generally agree with your points on letting the judical system run it's course and allow those who hear the evidence to make the decision then Judges pass the sentence However both the process and the sentence can lead to bad decisions. IMHO this is one of them.

EDIT: TJ It does seem strange to be arguing with you to be fair!! and I dont really want the burn em brigade as my allies

Junkyard – I accepted that on this specific case I don't know enough and might have got it wrong.

As regards trolling – I was trolling in so much as I knew it was a contentious point but I do believe in the general thrust of my position

Dangerous beans – I think that far better idea than massive jail time.

I simply don't believe that there is any deterrent value in sentencing for this sort of thing. No one goes out intending to kill someone with their vehicle and without intent there can be no deterrence.

Its not long ago that it was very rare for anyone to get jail time for killing by car. Changes in the law have made conviction more likely and serious jail time more common. This is only a good thing. I simply believe that beyond a few years jail time is of little value in this sort of case.

On reading comments from judge, are we to inferr that he actually failed to stop at all immediately after the accident?
I know people are not known to behave rationally immediately after an accident, but to show no remorse after the event takes a cold heart indeed, regardless if it was his or the cyclists fault, it doesnt appear to openly trouble the lorry driver.

No-one wins from this sort of incident. Very sad for the cyclist and his family.

@Eat the pudding;
Exactly my point. What sort of message does it send to the other motorists who view us as a hinderance and an obstacle on the road rather than legitimate road users with rights (over and above the usual human rights not to be harassed or killed while going about our business)?
If that sort of attitude is still prevalent in a substantial section of the non-cycling population (pretty much everyone who owns a vehicle, then…) it can't be that remarkable that a jury of this man's peers might also contain people with that same callous disregard for the safey of cyclists or at the very least harbouring a belief that their right to the road was secondary to that of the motorist.

If this sort of arrogant, negligent and inhumane disrespect were to be made publicly unacceptable and held up for the poulation at large to see as disgraceful and criminal, might we not stand a better chance of securing convictions in this sort of case from juries in the future?

Sorry, I was under the impression that thinking that that (to paraphrase) 'a long jail term wouldn't serve any purpose' was equivalent to not wanting to be too harsh/punitive/excessive on the driver.

My point is that, on reading the comments from the Judge, it appears that this particular mammal should be kept away from society as long as possible, and that the reasons for that should be pretty clear from the facts of the case, and the attitude of the accused.

You claim that you don't see the point.
I do.
Ahh well, ho hum, etc etc.

In this case i feel that he should be banned from the road for life and if he then drives that should face a custodial sentance as it would be a deterent.
This is a tragic set of advents right up untill this

"You must have realised you had collided with a pedal cyclist and that the cyclist must have suffered serious injury, and given the circumstances of the bike being lodged under the lorry, you must have realised that the cyclist might have been killed.

at which point he has shown total disregard for anothers life for all he knew it may have been possible to save him at that point.
I ride on the road and have had stick on here for using a helmet cam on my daily commute but in these sort of moments it would prove things with out question.

I think it's only 2 years because he was found guilty of "Causing Death by Careless Driving". Only a handful of people a year are handed a custodial sentence for that offence. It indicates how seriously the judge viewed the case. It also carries a 12mth ban.

It appears he got the maximum he could have got under that charge.

What's so sorry about it is they couldn't prove "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving". That is probably what hurts the family the most. That and the other aggravating features- Perverting the course, his unrepentant attitude in court, etc.

Very, very sad.

What Junkyard said ++

Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 you could be prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving (up to 14 years), or careless driving (and get 3-9 points, up to £2500 fine, and maybe disqualified), or causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs (also up to 14 years).

Because death by dangerous driving is much harder to prove than careless driving, there are very few prosecutions and convictions for it, and in turn a lot of convictions for careless driving as there is far greater prospect of proving it in court.

As a result of numerous cases where people were only given points/fines/disqualifications by courts (the most they could be given) after being been convicted of careless driving, despite causing a someone's death, the Road Safety Act 2006 introduced the new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving – not as hard to prove/not as easy to get acquitted – for which a sentence of 5 years and unlimited fine can be given. This has only just come into force which is why this man could not be prosecuted for it, the incident having occured in 2007.